Discussion in 'World Events' started by Porfiry, Oct 29, 2004.
Really? You have some evidence for these claims?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
In case someone wants to read the original paper:
Your conclusion is partially correct by the natural limitations of personal experience, but I think you fail to take into account the other roles that the military plays. Intelligence gathering, humanitarian aid, and a security network are all run by the military forces, not the news media here at home.
I think you fail to take into account how irrelevant that last part of your argument really is. Do you think a reservist cares/knows/understand those things that you just mentioned. The military bureaucracy not the soldiers themselves do that. So again no I do not care or trust the opinion of a American solider in Iraq. They are not holistic enough to garner my respect. Again about the street they patrolled surely, but on Iraq. No way...
As for the comment about 'liberating' Iraqis, that was surely an arbitrary goal invented after the invasion.
Our goal was to destroy the political system, capture its elements, and disarm the WMDs. For the record, WMDs were being manufactured by Iraq in
Syria, but not on actual Iraqi soil.
Yes a source would be nice...a reputable source please.
They were perhaps part of a broader plan to attack Israel with help from Iran (of all allies). The Ba'ath party did have direct contact with Al-Quida operatives after the invasion, but it is yet unknown whether Al-Zarqawi was affiliated with the regime, considering his opposition to Saddam.
Oh yes the conspiracy theory that has no substanciation. Again all talk no substance...alas lies.
"the problem here is none know what would have happend if north Korea had won, it is all down to spekulation and ideas based on what we think we know today. Predicting the future is just as hard as predicting "what if's" in the past", Kunax
Oh please. It obvious that if the North had control of the South, communism would continue. The nation would collapse like the North did after the fall of the Soviet Union and its support. If a storm cloud is ahead, I can't be sure it will rain, but it would be REALLY unlikely if it did not.....
I would agree it is horrific. However, I do not think one can disregard the fact that these same women and children see the terrorist in the streets of Fallujha aiming their mortars toward our forces. Not all, in fact not even most, can be seen as truely innocent. Since they celebrated 9/11 and the beheadings of truely innocent people trying to help them in a bad situtation.
I don't disagree that going into Iraq was not only poorly timed but illegally justified. I personally believe that Bushy had a personal vendeta against Sadaam for hiring a hit on his father. And because of that we now have over 1,000 of our own soldiers dead, plus these Iraqi lives lost.
I voted Kerry. Not that I really thought he was great but the lesser of two evils.
One more time to prove this is wrong, here is a part of an article from this website, about Dr Les Roberts work, the man who led the Iraq study.
"Les Roberts, an epidemiologist at the agency, led a team that randomly surveyed 2,600 households in seven areas in eastern Congo with a population of 1.5 million according to government statistics from 1996. The researchers compared the mortality rate today with the mortality rate before the war, in 1998. They determined how many deaths — deaths of people who could no longer get treatment for malaria, deaths of malnourished children, violent deaths — were caused by the war. The researchers then extrapolated the findings onto all of eastern Congo, a region with 20 million people.
"Extrapolating from 1.5 million to 20 million, it's shoddy, but it's the best we can do right now," Mr. Roberts said. "People correctly criticized us for that."
If the mans work in Africa by his own confession is shoddy with a larger study, what are we to make of his study in Iraq? The man said that the casualities were "mostly woman and children", a ridiculous claim. Its simply not true.
Christ, this is still going? I thought it would be obvious by now that the statistics used for this estimate were flawed on every level. That it is such a persistent talking point with the antiwar crowd makes me seriously question the depths of their stupidity.
there you have it...Iraq is an extension of Africa...the dark continent!!...lets pull out the boys...and let them get on with it...mean while lets implement those sanctions again...and divert there oil to me!!....i see no point in spending millions...and wasting lives...trying to turn around a country that firstly dosnt want democracy...all they seem hellbent in doing is trying to keep this locked land...in a locked time...by barbaric barbarians...that dont even have balls to fight fairly...not really that sporting are they.
there you have it...iraq will not work with us there...they hate the west and everything we stand for...let the chips fall where they may...let them decide there own fate...and lets now go and see what we can do about north korea!!!
Even if 100 000 was an accurate number for civilian deaths it would still indicate that the coalition has been making a concerted effort to not kill civilians.
Which is damn kind of them, I've never heard of such a friendly war machine in all of history.
Yeah good on them, the Americans decide to invade a soviergn nation "and" there doing the best cough"bullshit"cough to protect the civilians, God bless these democratic heros! cough"villians"cough
Separate names with a comma.