Source? aka reliable source?sergeriver wrote:
But Clinton didn't killed 655k Iraqis
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php
aka bs
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php
aka bs
Topic check, the word Oil has not been used in the last 12 post.
Iraqi official: 150,000 civilians dead happens to be top news at the moment.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … 1109192425
O'BTWPug wrote:
Source? aka reliable source?sergeriver wrote:
But Clinton didn't killed 655k Iraqis
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php
aka bs
Iraqi official: 150,000 civilians dead happens to be top news at the moment.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … 1109192425
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-09 18:03:09)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Where?lowing wrote:
asked and answer bubbalo read it again.Bubbalo wrote:
No, I'm talking about pre-9/11, when he was not pushing it. Your theory does not pan out.lowing wrote:
What are you bitching about, all you are complaining about is Iraq actually had MORE TIME to comply, yet still chose not to. The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN.
If Bush was really as worried about the sanctions as he claimed to be, why did he wait so long to do anything?
If you chose to ignore my answer, so be it, if you chose to dismiss my answer because you don't like it, again so be it, I answered your question above. I am sorry if it didn't put you in a position to corner me.Bubbalo wrote:
Where?lowing wrote:
asked and answer bubbalo read it again.Bubbalo wrote:
No, I'm talking about pre-9/11, when he was not pushing it. Your theory does not pan out.
If Bush was really as worried about the sanctions as he claimed to be, why did he wait so long to do anything?
I see you going on and on about the UN which happened after 9/11, I'm asking about before 9/11.
read it again bubaloBubbalo wrote:
I see you going on and on about the UN which happened after 9/11, I'm asking about before 9/11.
and no, what I refer to is the time wasted with the UN before 911
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-09 18:49:20)
Well you can't have been pushing it very hard because no-one noticed. What, did you just sit in the corner mumbling about Saddam?
yeah ok whatever, now that you see that your question has BEEN answered, you wanna respond to it or just keep trying to be shitty?Bubbalo wrote:
Well you can't have been pushing it very hard because no-one noticed. What, did you just sit in the corner mumbling about Saddam?
Yeah but your claim is that we're stealing it, You guys are absolutely amazing, you have majority and your still complaining about something you have NO evidence for.IRONCHEF wrote:
Wow..another impeachable offense..by commission! lol
Taking it way out of context, all this means is that Bush wants the oil to stay with Iraqis not the terrorists. Better luck next time ser.
You guys are still missing the context. When Bush said it wasn't about oil he was responding to a question inferring we were TAKING The oil. When he says its important now he says its important that the oil is staying with Iraqis. I'm sick of hearing this lying bullshit, read a dictionary, and please tell me how Bush lied about anything. Waiting.sergeriver wrote:
Big crime. GWB lies to 300M everyday.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Yup and Clinton was the Only president in history brought before the grand jury and lied.IRONCHEF wrote:
Wow..another impeachable offense..by commission! lol
man i agree with you 100%silo1180 wrote:
Wow becasue Cafferty said it I believe it... wake up idiots. Think about what he said... "if we leave we are turning over the oil to terrorists." Sure Iraq's oil production is only a small fraction of the total produced per day, but I'm glad the price of oil is finally back down to under $2.00. I don't want it to go back up again!
Now let's set that aside and look at this... if we leave these oilfields in terrorist hands, they will sell the oil. Selling the oil = profits. Profits means the terrorists have more money to spend. More money means these organizations could acquire better weapons to combat "hostile troops" worldwide. What if instead of an IED in a parking garage this time it's a nuclear weapon? What if they pool their resources with Iran's nuclear program and purchase an ICBM to carry the warhead they are potentially making?
I know these are sort of "worst case scenarios". But I don't think the world can afford to let terrorist organizations become well funded.
finally a voice of reason in all of this BS CT crap
Amen to that, some people are still stuck on Bush Lied People Died with no evidence, and now they move on to stick to Oil Scandal with no evidence. Pretty stunning if you ask me.beerface702 wrote:
man i agree with you 100%silo1180 wrote:
Wow becasue Cafferty said it I believe it... wake up idiots. Think about what he said... "if we leave we are turning over the oil to terrorists." Sure Iraq's oil production is only a small fraction of the total produced per day, but I'm glad the price of oil is finally back down to under $2.00. I don't want it to go back up again!
Now let's set that aside and look at this... if we leave these oilfields in terrorist hands, they will sell the oil. Selling the oil = profits. Profits means the terrorists have more money to spend. More money means these organizations could acquire better weapons to combat "hostile troops" worldwide. What if instead of an IED in a parking garage this time it's a nuclear weapon? What if they pool their resources with Iran's nuclear program and purchase an ICBM to carry the warhead they are potentially making?
I know these are sort of "worst case scenarios". But I don't think the world can afford to let terrorist organizations become well funded.
finally a voice of reason in all of this BS CT crap
See the Executive Order I posted on the previous page.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
they move on to stick to Oil Scandal with no evidence. Pretty stunning if you ask me.
We have taken step to ensure it is protected for Iraq from other interest.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 22-15.html
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-10 00:02:25)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Bush didn't have the patience to wait for the UN so he went in without UN backing him up. What happened? Iraq civilians died by thousands, more soldiers killed than predicted, will now be a even better breeding ground for terrorists than it was before, more and more US citizens are loosing faith in the government, the majority think it was a bad idea to invade Iraq in US.
Yeah, great job there...Invading without really thinking it through (sorry you don't say" think it through" you say "you're doing nothing and sitting on your lazy ass for 10 years").
Do you run into a burning building trying to save the people inside? No, you call the fire department otherwise you might just kill your self in the process or making the fire men's work more complicated.
OK so its not the best comparison I can come up with....But what do you want from me?! I haven't had breakfast yet!
Yeah, great job there...Invading without really thinking it through (sorry you don't say" think it through" you say "you're doing nothing and sitting on your lazy ass for 10 years").
Do you run into a burning building trying to save the people inside? No, you call the fire department otherwise you might just kill your self in the process or making the fire men's work more complicated.
OK so its not the best comparison I can come up with....But what do you want from me?! I haven't had breakfast yet!
Pug wrote:
Source? aka reliable source?sergeriver wrote:
But Clinton didn't killed 655k Iraqis
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php
aka bs
Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000. Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.Kmarion wrote:
O'BTW
Iraqi official: 150,000 civilians dead happens to be top news at the moment.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … 1109192425
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-10 04:10:43)
Well, at least the article mentions the link I posted as well.
So the death count is likely to be somewhere between 128,000 and five times that number.
I do believe the arguments on the Iraq body count page are pervasive.
But you know what's really weird? Washington Post put that story on the internet on Oct 11. The Iraqi Body Count press release was issued on Oct 16....
So the death count is likely to be somewhere between 128,000 and five times that number.
I do believe the arguments on the Iraq body count page are pervasive.
But you know what's really weird? Washington Post put that story on the internet on Oct 11. The Iraqi Body Count press release was issued on Oct 16....
I tell you what, even if 655k is the wrong number, and the real statistics are closer to 128k, it's still a lot of people m8.Pug wrote:
Well, at least the article mentions the link I posted as well.
So the death count is likely to be somewhere between 128,000 and five times that number.
I do believe the arguments on the Iraq body count page are pervasive.
But you know what's really weird? Washington Post put that story on the internet on Oct 11. The Iraqi Body Count press release was issued on Oct 16....
Yeah, but my thoughts are that it's excessive either way. What I can't accept is an overexaggeration of the total so that our troops are home.
"Great our troops are home."
"Wait we killed 655,000 people..."
We have to live with that number. Its pushing a political agenda ahead without considering the implications of what it actually means.
"Great our troops are home."
"Wait we killed 655,000 people..."
We have to live with that number. Its pushing a political agenda ahead without considering the implications of what it actually means.
Look, the article says: A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group. Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.Pug wrote:
Yeah, but my thoughts are that it's excessive either way. What I can't accept is an overexaggeration of the total so that our troops are home.
"Great our troops are home."
"Wait we killed 655,000 people..."
We have to live with that number. Its pushing a political agenda ahead without considering the implications of what it actually means.
The World has to live with that. When 50k or 655k people died because of someone's decision, it's not about pushing political agendas anymore, it's about reality.
And although you are citing the 655k as true, have you read the press release on the Iraqi Body Count site, which discusses the flaws in the survey?
But it's not important to the point I'm trying to make.
If people are inflating a number in an attempt to get our troops home earlier, then at the end of the day the history books publish a number that is EXCESSIVELY too high. Is the responsibility for an extra 500k dead worth ending the war? Don't we have to live with that number later?
I'm not saying I think that 150k is acceptable. It's more palatable than four times that number.
On the flip side, reporting well below actual to prevent bad PR and prolong a war is a bad idea as well.
BTW Pres Bush speech = December 2005. Lancet survey = October 2006. I'm not saying that I believe Bush's number...but it was December, and ten months passed between then and the survey. Therefore, you can't say Bush said 30k and Lancet said 665k, and therefore Bush is lying for certain, because ten months have passed.
et me ask you a simple question - have you seen in the past year an article 500-1,000 deaths happened today? How is it possible that every news agency in the world has missed that? You've only see one survey, which is being rejected by many...
But it's not important to the point I'm trying to make.
If people are inflating a number in an attempt to get our troops home earlier, then at the end of the day the history books publish a number that is EXCESSIVELY too high. Is the responsibility for an extra 500k dead worth ending the war? Don't we have to live with that number later?
I'm not saying I think that 150k is acceptable. It's more palatable than four times that number.
On the flip side, reporting well below actual to prevent bad PR and prolong a war is a bad idea as well.
BTW Pres Bush speech = December 2005. Lancet survey = October 2006. I'm not saying that I believe Bush's number...but it was December, and ten months passed between then and the survey. Therefore, you can't say Bush said 30k and Lancet said 665k, and therefore Bush is lying for certain, because ten months have passed.
et me ask you a simple question - have you seen in the past year an article 500-1,000 deaths happened today? How is it possible that every news agency in the world has missed that? You've only see one survey, which is being rejected by many...
I understand your point and it's valid, but the real numbers are uncertain yet. It seems a bit high for a 1000 days war 655k, it's a 655 kills/day average.Pug wrote:
And although you are citing the 655k as true, have you read the press release on the Iraqi Body Count site, which discusses the flaws in the survey?
But it's not important to the point I'm trying to make.
If people are inflating a number in an attempt to get our troops home earlier, then at the end of the day the history books publish a number that is EXCESSIVELY too high. Is the responsibility for an extra 500k dead worth ending the war? Don't we have to live with that number later?
I'm not saying I think that 150k is acceptable. It's more palatable than four times that number.
On the flip side, reporting well below actual to prevent bad PR and prolong a war is a bad idea as well.
BTW Pres Bush speech = December 2005. Lancet survey = October 2006. I'm not saying that I believe Bush's number...but it was December, and ten months passed between then and the survey. Therefore, you can't say Bush said 30k and Lancet said 665k, and therefore Bush is lying for certain, because ten months have passed.
et me ask you a simple question - have you seen in the past year an article 500-1,000 deaths happened today? How is it possible that every news agency in the world has missed that? You've only see one survey, which is being rejected by many...
However I took a moment to search for other reliable sources:
Iraq Coalition Casualties: 2842 American Citizens
Lives Lost in Iraq: at least 133,679
Reaction to the latest estimates of conflict-related death toll in post-invasion Iraq - about 655,000 according to a study published by a joint U.S.-Iraqi team in the eminent medical journal The Lancet
An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.
Who knows?
All I know, is that someone posted 655k as the number and its BS.
So is the number more likely to be 655k or somewhere around 150k? The secondary comment, is that its that I don't believe its' "great" that the number is lower, it's just merely not as terrible.
The Reuters article explains the same kind of problems with the Lancet survey as the Iraqi Body Count website.
Believe whatever you like, but I'm not going to go with a number that has been pretty much discredited.
So is the number more likely to be 655k or somewhere around 150k? The secondary comment, is that its that I don't believe its' "great" that the number is lower, it's just merely not as terrible.
The Reuters article explains the same kind of problems with the Lancet survey as the Iraqi Body Count website.
Believe whatever you like, but I'm not going to go with a number that has been pretty much discredited.
the 655k number came from a botched survey, it has already been discussed and debunked to death both no this forum and on news services including CNN, MSNBC, and CBS. So much for that.....
I don't really know if the 655k number is right or it's only 150k. The point is those people are dead because of someone's decision. It's an irrelevant argument which the correct number is, since 150k is still a lot of people.
"Botched survey?" I"m sorry, I never once saw it disputed on a MSM or here. I also didn't see it proven and that's because it's an scientific estimate.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
the 655k number came from a botched survey, it has already been discussed and debunked to death both no this forum and on news services including CNN, MSNBC, and CBS. So much for that.....
And the number is 602,000 at the most accurate point, and a range of 4xx,000 to 7xx,000. Again, it's an estimate and it's actually very possible even though the daily average is high.
But as the poster above me said, it's not the count..it's the fact that many tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocents have died because of poor and/or deceitful decision making was done.