[quote]lixy wrote:
I propose the following experiment: Get the hell out of their land, and see if bombs still explode in markets.[/quote]
Stupid idea unless you want a war between shia and sunni.
-we’re not in Lebanon. Bombs are still killing Presidents there.
-We’re not in India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, England, Argentina, Nigeria, Tanzania, Thailand, Yemen, or Algeria (to name a few) either.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Gasoline has fallen about 20 cents a gallon here over the last week and expected to keep falling until May.
May you say…it’s still February on my calendar.[/quote]
Gas prices are still lower here than they have been in some time, and expected to keep falling. But that is the future, so I guess anything can happen.
[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…It is just that you claim that they are attacking civilians, which is just that, an unproven claim.
…
All those dead bodies are not enough for you?
Excuse me, have you both not be up and in arms, because I think that the fact that the US is not intentionally killing civilians is not so important if Americas military actions lead to hundreds of thousands dying preventable deaths.
Or are the rules for our opponents different?
Sounds like moral relativism to me.
Sounds like you are wasting my time. I have no intention of straitening out facts for you. Islamic insurgence have killed far more innocent civilians than did the actions of the coalition. These are facts, there is nothing relative about them. Don’t believe me then look it up your self.
[/quote]
First of all that would mean trusting official US numbers. I have a hard time doing that.
Then, you killed a lot more with the sanctions, deliberate destruction of infrastructure and things of that nature.
If I cut your medical supplies, your access to clean water and cheap food I do not have to come to your house to kill your diabetic uncle, your wife having dysentery and your starving children I do not have to come to your house to put a bullet in their heads.
If I furthermore turn your country into an anarchic wasteland were religious and political groups are fighting it out on the streets I have a certain responsibility too.
"…The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole…"
Excerpt from the Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal relating to “Count Two”, the Crime of Aggression, as brought against Goering, Ribbentrop, and 14 other defendants
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…It is just that you claim that they are attacking civilians, which is just that, an unproven claim.
…
All those dead bodies are not enough for you?
Excuse me, have you both not be up and in arms, because I think that the fact that the US is not intentionally killing civilians is not so important if Americas military actions lead to hundreds of thousands dying preventable deaths.
Or are the rules for our opponents different?
Sounds like moral relativism to me.
WTF are you rambling about?
If I recall correctly the latest statistic I saw was the terrorists have (intentionally) killed 6 times as many civilians as the Coalition troops (accidentally) killed.
That is about 85.7% killed by the bad guys.
I don’t know how you can stand yourself.[/quote]
And your copy:
First of all that would mean trusting official US numbers. I have a hard time doing that.
Then, you killed a lot more with the sanctions, deliberate destruction of infrastructure and things of that nature.
If I cut your medical supplies, your access to clean water and cheap food I do not have to come to your house to kill your diabetic uncle, your wife having dysentery and your starving children I do not have to come to your house to put a bullet in their heads.
If I furthermore turn your country into an anarchic wasteland were religious and political groups are fighting it out on the streets I have a certain responsibility too.
"…The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole…"
Excerpt from the Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal relating to “Count Two”, the Crime of Aggression, as brought against Goering, Ribbentrop, and 14 other defendants
How the West values civilian lives in Iraq
Comment by Lily Hamourtziadou
12 November 2007
The American military has expressed regret �??that civilians are hurt or killed while coalition forces search to rid Iraq of terrorism,�?? after the 11 October killing of 15 women (one pregnant) and children in an air raid near lake Thar Thar.1 The civilian death toll by US fire was 96 in October, with 23 children among them, while in September US forces and contractors killed 108 Iraqi civilians, including 7 children. In August US troops killed 103 civilians, 16 of them children, and in July they killed 196. In fact, during the last five months US forces in Iraq have killed over 600 Iraqi civilians. Regrettably, as always.
It is the �??price to pay�??, the �??sacrifice�?? that has to be made as we fight terrorism, the �??cost�?? of this war against evil forces. That is what we say to justify these killings. But those of us who speak of this price to be paid, this sacrifice to be made, do not pay this price, do not make this sacrifice. Our own country is not being destroyed, attacked, occupied. Our own children are not being blown up, our civilians are not becoming homeless by the millions. Those who speak of the necessity of this sacrifice, would they be prepared to pay such a price? In their own country? With the blood of their own families?
How much easier it is to sacrifice others, to let others pay with their lives. The value of those lives is hardly high enough to trouble us. It is nothing our military cannot afford. Here is an example:
�??A fisherman was fishing in the Tigris river in the early morning, when a Coalition Forces (CF) helicopter flew over and shone a spotlight on him. The fisherman began to shout in English, �??Fish! Fish!�?? while pointing to his catch. A patrol of Humvees arrived, and as the deceased bent down to turn off the boat�??s motor, CF shot and killed him. CF did not secure the boat, which drifted off and was never retrieved.�?? Compensation for death denied due to combat exemption; compensation for boat granted: $3,500 US.2
The US Army paid $7,500 to two children whose mother they killed inside a taxi that ran a checkpoint �?? both children were also in the taxi, and were shot and injured; they also paid $6,000 for killing a child looking out of the window, while a raid was on-going in the house across the street.3 4 They refused, as they do in the majority of cases, to compensate the child whose father they killed as he drove home, but agreed to make a �??condolence payment�?? of $1,500.5 More recently, the US military is reported to have paid $2,500 to each family of the three men they killed near Abu Lukah, as they guarded their village.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/the-price-of-loss/
[quote]orion wrote:
…
Then, you killed a lot more with the sanctions, deliberate destruction of infrastructure and things of that nature.
…
[/quote]
Fuck that. Saddam, Russia and the Europeans killed with their scheming to get around the oil for food programs.
That was outright theft from the people that needed it most.
You have no shame.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
So what? Who cares?[/quote]
About 6 billion people.
Be a good sport. Orion’s post beat the crap out of your (and Zap’s) reply.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
So what? Who cares?
About 6 billion people.
Be a good sport. Orion’s post beat the crap out of your (and Zap’s) reply.[/quote]
Hardly 6 billion. I’m sure the Chinese, the Indians, the Koreans, the African Subcontinent, and most of South America etc. are losing very little sleep over propaganda spewed by an admittedly anti-US website.
It’s mainly the limp-wristed Euros, and supporters of terror (like you) who seem to be so upset.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
So what? Who cares?
About 6 billion people.
Be a good sport. Orion’s post beat the crap out of your (and Zap’s) reply.[/quote]
Orion’s post was based on the fiction that there is some equivalency to the terrorists targeting and hiding behind civilians and American soldiers accidentally killing civilians.
Since it is all based on blatant nonsense it is not worth a shit except to idiots such as yourself.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Orion’s post was based on the fiction that there is some equivalency to the terrorists targeting and hiding behind civilians and American soldiers accidentally killing civilians. [/quote]
“Terrorists” weren’t targeting civilians in Iraq before you put your troops on their ground.
As for your soldiers “accidentally killing civilians”, it’s not like those civilians broke into a military compound and gather in the target practice field. The Americans went to Iraq, not the other way around.
Fscker!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Orion’s post was based on the fiction that there is some equivalency to the terrorists targeting and hiding behind civilians and American soldiers accidentally killing civilians.
“Terrorists” weren’t targeting civilians in Iraq before you put your troops on their ground.
As for your soldiers “accidentally killing civilians”, it’s not like those civilians broke into a military compound and gather in the target practice field. The Americans went to Iraq, not the other way around.
Fscker![/quote]
Sure they were but the terrorists used WMD’s and wore uniforms. Saddam ruled through terror.
Saddam murdered countless Iraqis. Islamic terrorists murder countless Iraqis. The only group that tries to stop it and tries not to kill Iraqis is America and its allies.
Fuck off.
[quote]lixy wrote:
“Terrorists” weren’t targeting civilians in Iraq before you put your troops on their ground.[/quote]
No - their “president” was killing civilians, and funding the murders of innocents in other countries.
[quote]As for your soldiers “accidentally killing civilians”, it’s not like those civilians broke into a military compound and gather in the target practice field. The Americans went to Iraq, not the other way around.
Fscker![/quote]
Tough shit. There is such a thing as collateral damage. The US is not targeting civilians, but they do die. That’s part of war. IF you don’t like us being in Iraq, then do something about it. Your whining and crying not withstanding, you have to be one of the biggest little crybaby pussies I have ever seen.
Guess what? We ain’t leaving Iraq until we leave.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sure they were but the terrorists used WMD’s and wore uniforms. Saddam ruled through terror.
Saddam murdered countless Iraqis. Islamic terrorists murder countless Iraqis. The only group that tries to stop it and tries not to kill Iraqis is America and its allies.
Fuck off. [/quote]
I think you mean fsck off, Zap - because, you are also ten years old, right?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sure they were but the terrorists used WMD’s and wore uniforms. Saddam ruled through terror.
Saddam murdered countless Iraqis. Islamic terrorists murder countless Iraqis. The only group that tries to stop it and tries not to kill Iraqis is America and its allies.
Fuck off.
I think you mean fsck off, Zap - because, you are also ten years old, right?
[/quote]
My mommy would wash my mouth out with soap if I said fsck.
[quote]orion wrote:
How the West values civilian lives in Iraq
Comment by Lily Hamourtziadou
12 November 2007
The American military has expressed regret �??that civilians are hurt or killed while coalition forces search to rid Iraq of terrorism,�?? after the 11 October killing of 15 women (one pregnant) and children in an air raid near lake Thar Thar.1 The civilian death toll by US fire was 96 in October, with 23 children among them, while in September US forces and contractors killed 108 Iraqi civilians, including 7 children. In August US troops killed 103 civilians, 16 of them children, and in July they killed 196. In fact, during the last five months US forces in Iraq have killed over 600 Iraqi civilians. Regrettably, as always.
It is the �??price to pay�??, the �??sacrifice�?? that has to be made as we fight terrorism, the �??cost�?? of this war against evil forces. That is what we say to justify these killings. But those of us who speak of this price to be paid, this sacrifice to be made, do not pay this price, do not make this sacrifice. Our own country is not being destroyed, attacked, occupied. Our own children are not being blown up, our civilians are not becoming homeless by the millions. Those who speak of the necessity of this sacrifice, would they be prepared to pay such a price? In their own country? With the blood of their own families?
How much easier it is to sacrifice others, to let others pay with their lives. The value of those lives is hardly high enough to trouble us. It is nothing our military cannot afford. Here is an example:
�??A fisherman was fishing in the Tigris river in the early morning, when a Coalition Forces (CF) helicopter flew over and shone a spotlight on him. The fisherman began to shout in English, �??Fish! Fish!�?? while pointing to his catch. A patrol of Humvees arrived, and as the deceased bent down to turn off the boat�??s motor, CF shot and killed him. CF did not secure the boat, which drifted off and was never retrieved.�?? Compensation for death denied due to combat exemption; compensation for boat granted: $3,500 US.2
The US Army paid $7,500 to two children whose mother they killed inside a taxi that ran a checkpoint �?? both children were also in the taxi, and were shot and injured; they also paid $6,000 for killing a child looking out of the window, while a raid was on-going in the house across the street.3 4 They refused, as they do in the majority of cases, to compensate the child whose father they killed as he drove home, but agreed to make a �??condolence payment�?? of $1,500.5 More recently, the US military is reported to have paid $2,500 to each family of the three men they killed near Abu Lukah, as they guarded their village.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/the-price-of-loss/[/quote]
That website makes my exact point. The number of people killed by islamic insurgents greatly out numbers the amount killed by the coalition. Further more, the islamic terrorists, target and use other civilians to target civilians. The coalition not only doesn’t target civilians they avoid civilian casualties if at all possible. We are still there because we are trying to avoid casualties. If we weren’t concerned about killing innocents, we could have laid waste to the place with nary a coalition casualty.
Thanks for posting that link. Every tenth line or so mentions a coalition induced casualty. The rest are by their own islamic brothers and sisters.
Nimrod.
[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
How the West values civilian lives in Iraq
Comment by Lily Hamourtziadou
12 November 2007
The American military has expressed regret �??that civilians are hurt or killed while coalition forces search to rid Iraq of terrorism,�?? after the 11 October killing of 15 women (one pregnant) and children in an air raid near lake Thar Thar.1 The civilian death toll by US fire was 96 in October, with 23 children among them, while in September US forces and contractors killed 108 Iraqi civilians, including 7 children. In August US troops killed 103 civilians, 16 of them children, and in July they killed 196. In fact, during the last five months US forces in Iraq have killed over 600 Iraqi civilians. Regrettably, as always.
It is the �??price to pay�??, the �??sacrifice�?? that has to be made as we fight terrorism, the �??cost�?? of this war against evil forces. That is what we say to justify these killings. But those of us who speak of this price to be paid, this sacrifice to be made, do not pay this price, do not make this sacrifice. Our own country is not being destroyed, attacked, occupied. Our own children are not being blown up, our civilians are not becoming homeless by the millions. Those who speak of the necessity of this sacrifice, would they be prepared to pay such a price? In their own country? With the blood of their own families?
How much easier it is to sacrifice others, to let others pay with their lives. The value of those lives is hardly high enough to trouble us. It is nothing our military cannot afford. Here is an example:
�??A fisherman was fishing in the Tigris river in the early morning, when a Coalition Forces (CF) helicopter flew over and shone a spotlight on him. The fisherman began to shout in English, �??Fish! Fish!�?? while pointing to his catch. A patrol of Humvees arrived, and as the deceased bent down to turn off the boat�??s motor, CF shot and killed him. CF did not secure the boat, which drifted off and was never retrieved.�?? Compensation for death denied due to combat exemption; compensation for boat granted: $3,500 US.2
The US Army paid $7,500 to two children whose mother they killed inside a taxi that ran a checkpoint �?? both children were also in the taxi, and were shot and injured; they also paid $6,000 for killing a child looking out of the window, while a raid was on-going in the house across the street.3 4 They refused, as they do in the majority of cases, to compensate the child whose father they killed as he drove home, but agreed to make a �??condolence payment�?? of $1,500.5 More recently, the US military is reported to have paid $2,500 to each family of the three men they killed near Abu Lukah, as they guarded their village.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/the-price-of-loss/
That website makes my exact point. The number of people killed by islamic insurgents greatly out numbers the amount killed by the coalition. Further more, the islamic terrorists, target and use other civilians to target civilians. The coalition not only doesn’t target civilians they avoid civilian casualties if at all possible. We are still there because we are trying to avoid casualties. If we weren’t concerned about killing innocents, we could have laid waste to the place with nary a coalition casualty.
Thanks for posting that link. Every tenth line or so mentions a coalition induced casualty. The rest are by their own islamic brothers and sisters.
Nimrod.[/quote]
That website is pretty good, yes.
It also has a far better critique of the Lancet study than anyone doubting the Lancet study had on this.
Maybe becuase they are more into facts than cheerleading and giving in to the desire to be the good guys.
Note however that they only count documented, civilian, non-combatant violent deaths.
That means that their number is but a fraction of the overall Iraqi deaths caused by the US.
[quote]orion wrote:
That means that their number is but a fraction of the overall Iraqi deaths caused by the US. [/quote]
To their credit, they acknowledge that: “We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording”.