FREEDOM'S ON THE MARCH!!!

Waterbaby said:
It would be rather amazing for 100,000 extra people being murdered in Iraq on a per capita basis to not exceed the US per capita murder rate, being that 100,000 people are not murdered per a year in the United States.
Click to expand...

You really have a reading comprehension issue. I said murder/rape/assault... you know... victims of violent crimes. It is a combination of the three waterbaby.... not just murder.
 
Superfreak said:
You really have a reading comprehension issue. I said murder/rape/assault... you know... victims of violent crimes. It is a combination of the three waterbaby.... not just murder.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. There was a report going out a while back that said that DC's homicide rate was higher than Badhdad's, however, that's not the whole goddamned US. The murder rate of the US is like several times lower than DC's.
 
Superfreak said:
Again, another idiotic comment. Did you even bother to notice the part where I stated that murder rates weren't published by Saddam? So just how could you possibly know what the murder rates were prior to the war? You see it is ignorant comments like yours that make me continue to ask the same question over and over again, yet not one of you has been able to answer it.

You also continue to ignore the fact that per capita MORE people are murdered in the US, more are raped, more are victims of assault. It would take a total of over 100k in Iraq per year to even come close to the rate in the US.

AGAIN, this is not to suggest that it is ok to murder people.... but for the love of god put this shit into perspective and quit acting as though it is "1/10 the rate it would have been". You are just pulling ignorant shit like that out of your ass.
Click to expand...

I knew you were a war apologist. This shit has got to stop. The people being killed in the article are women who did not wear their head scarves.

That shit did NOT HAPPEN under Hussein's directives.. It IS happening now because there is a power vacuum that is caused by our overthrowing, conquering, and hanging of their leader.

This shit was not happening before the war. Other shit was, but this was not. Jesus man, get a hold of yourself.
 
Waterbaby said:
That's ridiculous. There was a report going out a while back that said that DC's homicide rate was higher than Badhdad's, however, that's not the whole goddamned US. The murder rate of the US is like several times lower than DC's.
Click to expand...

Wow. How the hell did you spin that into being something about DC. Again water... I said violent crime rates for the US as a whole would mean that violent crimes in Iraq would have to equal over 100k.
 
Beefy said:
I knew you were a war apologist. This shit has got to stop. The people being killed in the article are women who did not wear their head scarves.

That shit did NOT HAPPEN under Hussein's directives.. It IS happening now because there is a power vacuum that is caused by our overthrowing, conquering, and hanging of their leader.

This shit was not happening before the war. Other shit was, but this was not. Jesus man, get a hold of yourself.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable.... AGAIN... show me an instance where any murders were disclosed by Iraq prior to the war. You are making this shit up. do you really expect us to believe you that no women were killed for not following the rules under Saddam? or his boys? Give me a break.

Yes, these women may not have been killed for the same reason that others were killed under Saddam. Do you really think it matters to the women? That they were killed because they didn't follow certain rules set forth by religious nuts vs. being killed because Saddam or his cronies felt like it?

Funny how you and others continue to equate this to apologizing for the war. I am doing no such thing.

This has more to do with your incessant need to blame everything bad that happens on the war.
 
No, it does not come from a "need" to blame everything bad on the war anymore than you claim that the war hasn't caused any harm.

There's some simple facts. When you invade a country and remove its power structure, chaos ensues. When a country is wartorn, violence escalates. When a country's infrastructure is damaged to a significant degree, people resort to violence. When there is no more clear law and order, this shit happens.

I will say that I believe, by the fact that there are over 2 million refugees, well over a hundred thousand dead, and that we've used more artillery than we did in all of WWII, that Iraq is a bigger pigfuck than it was before we went in.

Keep cheerleading.
 
Beefy said:
No, it does not come from a "need" to blame everything bad on the war anymore than you claim that the war hasn't caused any harm.

There's some simple facts. When you invade a country and remove its power structure, chaos ensues. When a country is wartorn, violence escalates. When a country's infrastructure is damaged to a significant degree, people resort to violence. When there is no more clear law and order, this shit happens.

I will say that I believe, by the fact that there are over 2 million refugees, well over a hundred thousand dead, and that we've used more artillery than we did in all of WWII, that Iraq is a bigger pigfuck than it was before we went in.

Keep cheerleading.
Click to expand...


Where did I state that the war hasn't caused any harm? To the contrary... you started this thread with "YAY FOR WAR AND DEATH!!!" associating murders to the war. As if murders wouldn't happen without the war.

And I would also say to you, that is exactly why we shouldn't be trying to pull our troops out. AS your article stated, it was after the British troops left that the violence escalated.

No question the removal of the Iraqi army was a critical mistake in the war. But let me guess, when you discuss the numbers of refugees and victims now as opposed to prior to the war, we are going to ignore the refugees that fled Saddam, we are going to ignore the millions that were starving to death prior to the war, we are going to ignore the hundreds of thousands Saddam had killed. yeah, because it would be too damn inconvenient to discuss those. We shall thus just focus on those that we actually get reporting on now... right. Prior to the war we didn't have to worry about the victims, because Saddam didn't really care to much to have any media covering the victims. Now of course the press is free to cover such stories. But lets just ignore that little fact as well.

Yes, there is a lot that is still wrong in Iraq that needs to be fixed. A lot that is broken during the war. But again, lets stop acting as though a lot of bad fucking shit wasn't going down prior to the war as well.
 
Superfreak said:
Where did I state that the war hasn't caused any harm? To the contrary... you started this thread with "YAY FOR WAR AND DEATH!!!" associating murders to the war. As if murders wouldn't happen without the war.

And I would also say to you, that is exactly why we shouldn't be trying to pull our troops out. AS your article stated, it was after the British troops left that the violence escalated.

No question the removal of the Iraqi army was a critical mistake in the war. But let me guess, when you discuss the numbers of refugees and victims now as opposed to prior to the war, we are going to ignore the refugees that fled Saddam, we are going to ignore the millions that were starving to death prior to the war, we are going to ignore the hundreds of thousands Saddam had killed. yeah, because it would be too damn inconvenient to discuss those. We shall thus just focus on those that we actually get reporting on now... right. Prior to the war we didn't have to worry about the victims, because Saddam didn't really care to much to have any media covering the victims. Now of course the press is free to cover such stories. But lets just ignore that little fact as well.

Yes, there is a lot that is still wrong in Iraq that needs to be fixed. A lot that is broken during the war. But again, lets stop acting as though a lot of bad fucking shit wasn't going down prior to the war as well.
Click to expand...

This has been a monumental foreign policy blunder for many years.

I suppose you won't recognize the fact that sanctions imposed on Iraq by foreign nations was the main reasons for the starvation and death, the necessity to move from ones home in Iraq?

Hussein was a dictator with no heart, and his eyes only on power, and guess what? Our sanctions only hurt the innocent, and our war finally got him, but at an even greater cost than sanctions.

Let me ask you this. You have said before that the war in Iraq was "inevitable" and "Justifiable". Do you think that Iraq would have caused 4000 American dead, 30,000+ Amercian wounded, and the complete chaos of the middle east if we HADN'T taken out Hussein?
 
Beefy said:
This has been a monumental foreign policy blunder for many years.

I suppose you won't recognize the fact that sanctions imposed on Iraq by foreign nations was the main reasons for the starvation and death, the necessity to move from ones home in Iraq?

Hussein was a dictator with no heart, and his eyes only on power, and guess what? Our sanctions only hurt the innocent, and our war finally got him, but at an even greater cost than sanctions.

Let me ask you this. You have said before that the war in Iraq was "inevitable" and "Justifiable". Do you think that Iraq would have caused 4000 American dead, 30,000+ Amercian wounded, and the complete chaos of the middle east if we HADN'T taken out Hussein?
Click to expand...

yes, Bush has blundered through this for many years. not arguing his ineptitude.

Yes, the sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people. I have stated that many times in the past. The sanctions helped Saddam and hurt the Iraqi people. Why? Because the ineptitude of the UN for 12 years to either get Saddam to comply or to at the very least monitor the oil for food program to make sure the food was, I don't know, actually getting to the Iraqi people????

without question... No. The American dead and wounded would probably be under 100 or so.... mainly through training accidents and the like. As for the chaos... that has been there since the west arbitrarily broke up the Ottoman empire. I would say that our media (meaning the west) has certainly paid more attention to it since the wars began. But the decade long battles in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in the 80's. The constant tension between Palestine/Israel, India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq has been there for decades.
 
Superfreak said:
yes, Bush has blundered through this for many years. not arguing his ineptitude.

Yes, the sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people. I have stated that many times in the past. The sanctions helped Saddam and hurt the Iraqi people. Why? Because the ineptitude of the UN for 12 years to either get Saddam to comply or to at the very least monitor the oil for food program to make sure the food was, I don't know, actually getting to the Iraqi people????

without question... No. The American dead and wounded would probably be under 100 or so.... mainly through training accidents and the like. As for the chaos... that has been there since the west arbitrarily broke up the Ottoman empire. I would say that our media (meaning the west) has certainly paid more attention to it since the wars began. But the decade long battles in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in the 80's. The constant tension between Palestine/Israel, India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq has been there for decades.
Click to expand...


The sanctions didn't fail because Saddam refused to abide by them, they failed because they were faulty by design. There was no way that these sanctions were going to be a historical first and work.

Starving out a population, then bombing them, creates problems. Even if it is "inevitable" and "justifiable".
 
My precinct and I voted 6-4-2 for Ron Paul today in the WA GOP legislative caucuses. I also bought a shirt off of a kid from Texas who was campaigning for Dr. Paul, and I parked next to 5 cars that all have Paul bumperstickers (I figured I was in the right area...). I also voted for him in the primary.

The WA GOP will split its delegates nearly in half for the primary and caucus winners. A lot of douchebag Romney supporters went and caucused for Obama...
 
Threedee said:
My precinct and I voted 6-4-2 for Ron Paul today in the WA GOP legislative caucuses. I also bought a shirt off of a kid from Texas who was campaigning for Dr. Paul, and I parked next to 5 cars that all have Paul bumperstickers (I figured I was in the right area...). I also voted for him in the primary.

The WA GOP will split its delegates nearly in half for the primary and caucus winners. A lot of douchebag Romney supporters went and caucused for Obama...
Click to expand...
LOL. Yeah, I heard the Romney guys were going to do that in many places.
 
Beefy said:
The sanctions didn't fail because Saddam refused to abide by them, they failed because they were faulty by design. There was no way that these sanctions were going to be a historical first and work.

Starving out a population, then bombing them, creates problems. Even if it is "inevitable" and "justifiable".
Click to expand...

The sanctions failed because of two reasons.... Saddam did not abide by them and the UN did not do its job enforcing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top