The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Sunday, August 23, 2026 21:35
VIEWED: 11894
PAGE 3 of 7
Did you catch that fumble?
Michael Moore sez
"Stop whining and Move on, you el-Grande Loser"
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
There are no insurgents... only Iraqi citizens.
They are defending thier country from an invading Nation that is forcing it's ideology onto the people. People who desire an Islamic-state.Quote:
Originally posted by lissa:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.
um, can i just say, NO DUH.
i'm aware that we're at war (wait, wasn't that supposed to be over a while ago?), but that doesn't make it ok that all of these people, not to mention the soldiers, reporters, etc., are dead. i'm sad for these people. unlike you, i can't just say "oh, but that's what war is, so it's all ok."
~lissa, spwhore
Get used to these statements Lissa, it's the sort of bullplop from a neofascist who thinks it's possible to justify 100000 dead. He is about ignoring facts and rationalizing death, suffering, and pain.
Facts like 100000 can only indicate the crime that is the American invasion of Iraq... oh I'm sorry, the invasion that's "Mission Accomplished" and not a war... oh but it's a War on Terror now... shit. Saddam would be so proud, America is well on it's way to equaling Saddams numbers during the Iran/Iraq War. Of course, the USA helped then too. And it's a little different as the 100000 dead are mostly civilians not soldiers... not that this matters to neofascists.
Neofascists are what's wrong with America - ignorance, lies, and antipathy.
The election was illegally stolen by the neofascists. Because they couldn't win the election on the merits of thier performance they have to stage a Wag the Dog event, presented with payola by the Networks, CNN, and FOX (with the glee of a Nazi propogandist), so they can continue to steal Oil and murder the citizens of Iraq without fear of prosecution.
Fascism. It's a trend.
BTW, I called Bush the "winner" a month ago. Never doubt the Ghoulman!
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
There are no insurgents... only Iraqi citizens.
They are defending thier country from an invading Nation that is forcing it's ideology onto the people. People who desire an Islamic-state.Quote:
Originally posted by lissa:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.
um, can i just say, NO DUH.
i'm aware that we're at war (wait, wasn't that supposed to be over a while ago?), but that doesn't make it ok that all of these people, not to mention the soldiers, reporters, etc., are dead. i'm sad for these people. unlike you, i can't just say "oh, but that's what war is, so it's all ok."
~lissa, spwhore
Get used to these statements Lissa, it's the sort of bullplop from a neofascist who thinks it's possible to justify 100000 dead. He is about ignoring facts and rationalizing death, suffering, and pain.
Facts like 100000 can only indicate the crime that is the American invasion of Iraq... oh I'm sorry, the invasion that's "Mission Accomplished" and not a war... oh but it's a War on Terror now... shit. Saddam would be so proud, America is well on it's way to equaling Saddams numbers during the Iran/Iraq War. Of course, the USA helped then too. And it's a little different as the 100000 dead are mostly civilians not soldiers... not that this matters to neofascists.
100000 is a number and a big fat lie used in this context. You would be very happy to let things be and rationalize your own way that it's okay for people like Saddam to kill 10x, 100x more people in a sadistic fashion. How's the Saddam underwear fitting you?
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Neofascists are what's wrong with America - ignorance, lies, and antipathy.
The election was illegally stolen by the neofascists. Because they couldn't win the election on the merits of thier performance they have to stage a Wag the Dog event, presented with payola by the Networks, CNN, and FOX (with the glee of a Nazi propogandist), so they can continue to steal Oil and murder the citizens of Iraq without fear of prosecution.
Fascism. It's a trend.
BTW, I called Bush the "winner" a month ago. Never doubt the Ghoulman!
Wow! did you see the way the Kerry puppet made that concession speech! Stunning resemblance to the real thing.
You know what, you are infinitely correct about the entire Wag the Dog thing. I'm surprised that you fell for the entire deal where they *staged* the killing of innocent civilians so that the country can be torn apart just spinnning endlessly about it.
Thanks to *you* Ghirlman, we can now feel best about ourselves knowing that not one person or kitten was harmed during this entire Iraq thing. Since it's all staged. In fact, there's no such thing as Iraq. It's just a fake country that some Republican guy inserted into the internet for our amusement.
Woohoo!
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
to win what? to win freedom for the other 24Million people who live there? No, no amount of human lives is acceptable, but if one more child (any child in the world, not just Iraqi - but especially so nevertheless) can grow up in this world knowing that one more tyrant is disposed so that he/she can no longer thoughtly torture or maim someone else.
You're such a hero. Wow, gee we are all so impressed with your commitment to the disposing of tyrants.
Considering Saddam Hussein was a tyrant propped up by the Bush Junta all through the 80s for the Iran/Iraq War (where do you think Saddam got the Sarin and Antrax gas?), any American claim to the disposing of tyrants can't be taken as anything but utter bullshit.
Besides, Saddam was left in Bagdadh after the Gulf War by the first Bush to "stabalize the region", remember?
blah blah blah blah blah.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
Then we should always do what is right - and war & killing people & destroying property should be the last resort.
Destroying property in a wild attack was the first thing America did - Operation Rolling Thunder drove right into Bagdadh, guns a blazing! The article above talks about this. Go read it!
blah blah blah blah blah.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
Vietnam, while you kosherly watched it on TV from the comfort of your living room couch with your detached sense of reality and vague academic understanding. I lived it.
You What? You were alive when the Vietnam Conflict was on? Suuuuuuure.
blah blah blah blah blah.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
But why bring that up now,
Then why the frell did ya?
blah blah blah blah blah.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
the circumstances and motivation are completely different? The Vietnamese people were clearly screwed by the French government twice within the last century and their colonistic aims.
??? Why did you even mention this?
blah blah blah blah blah.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
Vietnamese people wanted a break and they would have gone to anyone to get a better deal and they did.
The Vietnamese, who you state you know as one of your own, wanted to be free of an Empire that controled thier lives.
Iraqies feel the same thing.
blah blah blah blah blah.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
I don't agree with what happened there since the people there should have decided, but there at least 6 different Viet communist parties on the ground all being ran by the same people under different guises. But what did they really want? All vieing for the same thing. Freedom.
Oh. Well, you finally got to the point at least.
blah blah blah blah blah.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
No such thing is going on in Iraq.
The very same thing is going on in Iraq. The Empire wants Democratic Rule but the people want an Islamic State. It's just like Vietnam - they wanted a Communist State but the Empire wanted to impose Democratic Rule.
It's always that Democracy bullplop. Trust me, it's a dodge to fool the people. America never gave democracy to any nation or people and in fact has a very long record of setting up murdering tyrants across the globe while murdering anyone who interfers with American Business Interests (that's the so called "Democracy" part).
Same shit, different pile. The USA isn't doing anything original or new in Iraq... we have seen this crap from America before. In Vietnam for example.
blah blah blah blah blah.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
Don't you dare use Vietnam as your own personal byline and twist it as a side issue merely for your own gain.[/quNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- Did you read the methodology of the Lancet article? Now, if anyone knows how to estimate population mortality rates, it's gotta be doctors!
Both sites claim to be looking at the same thing:
deaths due to military action, violence and crime, lack of sanitation and so forth during the occupation- but iraqbodycount uses media reports and the Lancet medical journal used a large survey (backed up by death certificates where possible).
Aside from the fact that most media reports come directly from US military statements (General Blotz reported that ex number of insurgents were killed during a bombing raid on Zee City) and is filtered just a tad, the media in general seriously under-reports deaths in underdeveloped countries because poor people seldom take their sick or wounded (or dead) to hospital or morgue. For example, the full scope of the accident at Bhopal was not reflected by the number of people at hospital or in morgue, but by the number of coffins that were ordered... then factor in that many poor women or children were buried without coffins at all. (There was a serious under-representation of child-sized coffins in the surge of orders.) The difference between the reports (hospital admissions/ reported deaths versus 'excess' coffin orders) was a factor of 20, if I remember correctly.
All in all, I think I'd go with the Lancet estimate, based on their expertise in this sort of thing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jasonzz- if you don't have anything to say besides blah blah blah... and apparently you don't... would you mind not cluttering what might otherwise be an intelligent discussion?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Did you read the methodology of the Lancet article? Now, if anyone knows how to estimate population mortality rates, it's gotta be doctors.
Both sites claim to be looking at the same things deaths due to military action, violence and crime, lack of sanitation and so forth during the occupation- but iraqbodycount uses media reports and the Lancet medical journal used a large survey.
Aside from the fact that most media reports come directly from US military statements (General Blotz reported that ex number of insurgents were killed during a bombing raid on Zee City) and is filtered just a tad, the media in general seriously under-reports deaths in underdeveloped countries because poor people seldom take their sick or wounded (or dead) to hospital or morgue. For example, the full scope of the accident at Bhopal was not reflected by the number of people at hospital or in morgue, but by the number of coffins that were ordered... then factor in that many poor women or children were buried without coffins at all. (There was a serious under-representation of child-sized coffins in the surge of orders.) The difference between the reports (hospital admissions/ reported deaths versus 'excess' coffin orders) was a factor of 20, if I remember correctly.
All in all, I think I'd go with the Lancet estimate, based on their expertise in this sort of thing.
I find more criticism of the methodology in the Lancet study than of the Iraq Body Count.
This one from Slate is typical.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/#ContinueArticle
I also question the objectivity of the editor of the Lancet, after admittedly fast-tracking the report to come out prior to the election, and making quotes such as this:
Quote:
“The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator, and the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population. Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer,” writes Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet in a commentary accompanying the paper.
I've looked at the original Lancet article and the IBC site and I'll stick with the IBC estimate. Their database is also more useful for comparing casualties over time.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, and one other thing. Even if you accept the Lancet's figures, the characterization of 100,000 "civilian" deaths is brought into question way in the bottom of the Lancet article itself.
Quote:
Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed to US forces involved men age 15–60 years, 28 (46%) were children younger than 15 years, four (7%) were women, and one was an elderly man. It is not clear if the
greater number of male deaths was attributable to
legitimate targeting of combatants who may have been disproportionately male, or if this was because men are more often in public and more likely to be exposed to danger. For example, seven of 12 (58%) vehicle accident related
fatalities involved men between 15 and 60 years.Quote:
"Keep the Shiny side up"NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
28 children under 15
4 women
1 elderly male
-----
33 (54%) clearly civilian deaths due to US hostilties
Categorising all of the remainder as "insurgents" because they happen to be males between 15- 60 years old is an egregiously inaccurate generalization. That's like saying all USA males between 15-60 are criminals because they make up the vast majority of the criminal population. But I'm sure you understand that generalization doesn't work. It's generally thought by military insurgency experts that it only takes 15% support in a population to support an successful insurgency, so insurgent deaths may be as low as 15% of 46%, or 7% of the total.
But let's assume that you are correct in generlizing that every single male between the ages of 15-60 was an insurgent. What does that say about our popular support in Iraq??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One more comment... According to Iraq Body COunt (IBC) they tally all deaths due to American hostilites, breakdown of law and order, diseases due to lack of sanitation and so forth. But when I look at their database, they only seem to be counting deaths due hostilities (car bombs, air strikes etc.) reported in the WESTERN press, and not including things like murder/kidnapping, murder/ robbery, disease, etc. so the two aren't really comparing the same thing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I looked at the full Lancet article. Despite some objections, the statistics appear to be quite robust. For example, in the reporting period before the invasion, one person died of violence in about 7400 people, while in a (slightly longer) reporting period, 21 people died of violence in about 7800 people. This EXCLUDES Falujah, where an additional 51 people died. (Falujah was excluded because it is a statistical anomaly on shouldn't be projected onto Iraq as a whole). Now, I don't care how you cut those stats... pre-invasion violence stats may have been slightly under-reported, but you could quadruple reported pre-invasion violence deaths and still come up with a 500% increase in deaths due to violence since the invasion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME