NationStates Jolt Archive

The New York Times has put up a somber new feature (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20061228_3000FACES_TAB1.html) on their website. In commemoration of the dead in Iraq, they have taken the photos and basic biographic information of the first 3000 troops to die there, and organized them into a searchable database.

The pictures are presented as grayscale mosaics, painted onto a grid of small squares, each of which represents a life lost. It's disquieting to see all those pale, ghostly faces, each one in turn made up of many, many more faces, all lost forever to such a foolish mistake...

A foolish war......
Thousands of dead soliders for no good reason....:(

I have a lump in my throat...

well that’s depressing....

wow funke is a second name (the keyhole man)

:( sums this thread up nicely.
Depressing.

The New York Times has put up a somber new feature (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20061228_3000FACES_TAB1.html) on their website. In commemoration of the dead in Iraq, they have taken the photos and basic biographic information of the first 3000 troops to die there, and organized them into a searchable database.

The pictures are presented as grayscale mosaics, painted onto a grid of small squares, each of which represents a life lost. It's disquieting to see all those pale, ghostly faces, each one in turn made up of many, many more faces, all lost forever to such a foolish mistake...

Faces of the Dead!

http://www.guerrillapop.com/images/zombies.jpg

my cousin (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20061228_3000FACES_TAB1.html)

Faces of the Dead!

http://www.guerrillapop.com/images/zombies.jpg
lol
my cousin (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20061228_3000FACES_TAB1.html)
Copying the link doesn't work, unless your cousin is William C. Koprince Jr.

His name was Robert Dusang. He perferred the nickname Robbie to us.

Thanks for the propaganda NYTimes. These guys faught to free Iraq, they are heroes.

my cousin (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20061228_3000FACES_TAB1.html)

My condolences.


I have to ask. How many died as of 01/02/2007? & How many more?

Thanks for the propaganda NYTimes. These guys faught to free Iraq, they are heroes.

how, exactly, is this propaganda? Is it untrue, is it exaggerated? Is it made up or faked?

I think it helps to demonstrate exactly what was going on, to show how each and every one of those tiny squares is a human life.

Thanks for the propaganda NYTimes. These guys faught to free Iraq, they are heroes.

Robbie thought what he was doing what was right, however, I feel that he would want him and his brothers in arms to be recognized. I would like to think that this is to respect the fallen, rather than shock the living.

I have to ask. How many died as of 01/02/2007? & How many more?
I believe the current count is 3004.

This graphic becomes even more striking when you realize that it doesn't include the tens of thousands of wounded. Limbs maimed, eyes blinded, faces scarred, even psyches broken. Not to mention the countless civilian casualties...

At some point, it all turns into cold, unfeeling numbers. I'm glad this graphic helps put at least a little of it into a human perspective, though.

how, exactly, is this propaganda? Is it untrue, is it exaggerated? Is it made up or faked?

I think it helps to demonstrate exactly what was going on, to show how each and every one of those tiny squares is a human life.


Propaganda doesn't always have to be untrue.


information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Thanks for the propaganda NYTimes. These guys faught to free Iraq, they are heroes.
Dead heroes. Dead heroes the Bush administration had a hand in killing.

I assure you, if the New York Times wanted to print propaganda they could come up with something far more poignant than this, but then, the printing of facts and paying respects to the troops is propaganda to you people isn't it? That's why your leaders don't show pictures of the coffins being brought back from Iraq.

Out of sight, out of mind. As long as you don’t have to see the dead you don’t care, and you extend this not only to the people who happen to live in the places you want to bomb, but to our own soldiers.

Dead heroes. Dead heroes the Bush administration had a hand in killing.

I assure you, if the New York Times wanted to print propaganda they could come up with something far more poignant than this, but then, the printing of facts and paying respects to the troops is propaganda to you people isn't it? That's why your leaders don't show pictures of the coffins being brought back from Iraq.

Out of sight, out of mind. As long as you don’t have to see the dead you don’t care, and you extend this not only to the people who happen to live in the places you want to bomb, but to our own soldiers.

I don't need pictures to know people are dead thank you very much! Why hate Bush when you can hate the terrorists that killed them trying to destroy any attempt Iraq has at democracy and peace!

information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Who is it attempting to help or harm?

Why hate Bush when you can hate the terrorists that killed them trying to destroy any attempt Iraq has at democracy and peace!

Why should I be incapable of hating both?

My condolences.


I have to ask. How many died as of 01/02/2007? & How many more?

though the loss of any human life is terrible, we must look at this from various perspectives. at this time in vietnam over 10,000 soldiers had died, with 18,000 more to come. Though iraq is bad, it could be worse by an almost unimaginable margin.

However you feel on this war, you must realize that the soldiers are infact volunteer's. The government didnt force them to join the armed forces, and didnt force a single soul to fight this war. These people are heroes, and instead of feeling sad, we should be proud to know that even though we may loathe the reason they are there, they still fight, and will continue fighting.

Propaganda doesn't always have to be untrue.

Who is being helped or harmed here? As Rhaomi said, it's good that they're putting some human perspective on statistics.

I believe the current count is 3004.

This graphic becomes even more striking when you realize that it doesn't include the tens of thousands of wounded. Limbs maimed, eyes blinded, faces scarred, even psyches broken. Not to mention the countless civilian casualties...

At some point, it all turns into cold, unfeeling numbers. I'm glad this graphic helps put at least a little of it into a human perspective, though.

I think if they brought back the draft and the dead started to get into the 10-20,000 mark I think more people would care and start telling politians to end this war. I cant imagine what would happen if we passed the Vietnam conflict's 58,000 dead.

Snip

It will come to that if they have there way to fight Iran or N Korea. BTW 58,000 Americans died in the Vietnam War.

we should be proud to know that even though we may loathe the reason they are there, they still fight, and will continue fighting.

no, they won't.

They're not fighting, they won't continue to fight. Take a look at some of those pictures, look at their faces.

Those men won't fight, they won't continue to fight, not this war or any other. They're dead.

Every single one of them is dead. And every day the situation in Iraq gets worse and worse. Not only are they dead, but their death helped nothing.

Why the hell should I be proud of that?

Who is being helped or harmed here? As Rhaomi said, it's good that they're putting some human perspective on statistics.

It drums up anti-war sentiment...That is their agenda.

It drums up anti-war sentiment...That is their agenda.

I believe the agenda of a newspaper is to report the truth. Do you contest any of that information or claim any of it is untrue?

Isn't it the job of a paper to report the truth? Wouldn't failing to report the truth be a failure of them to do their job?

Why should I be incapable of hating both?


?


Hate both? Youhate freedom fighters and terrorists? I find it unfair to put both our military and islamic terrorists in the same group.

It drums up anti-war sentiment...That is their agenda.
So, the pro-war agenda is to turn the thousands of dead into just another number? Is that respecting their sacrifice?

I believe the agenda of a newspaper is to report the truth. Do you contest any of that information or claim any of it is untrue?

Isn't it the job of a paper to report the truth? Wouldn't failing to report the truth be a failure of them to do their job?


:headbang:


I said it was propaganda to drum up anti-war sentiment..Did I say it was untrue? NO!

It drums up anti-war sentiment...That is their agenda.

How so? Looks to me like it's honouring the dead. I don't see how any of it could be taken as pro-war or anti-war.

So, the pro-war agenda is to turn the thousands of dead into just another number? Is that respecting their sacrifice?

Way to twist my words into something I never said..Good Job, have a cookie.

Way to twist my words into something I never said..Good Job, have a cookie.
Well, if showing all the dead in a human perspective -- each with a face, a name, and a home -- is anti-war, then what is pro-war?

So far, the pro-war right has shown their stance to be glossing over the dead, almost acting as if they do not exist. Why else would Bush try to suppress the publication of photos of soldiers' coffins?

How so? Looks to me like it's honouring the dead. I don't see how any of it could be taken as pro-war or anti-war.


People are affected by this..and not in a good way. Just pay attention on how people respond to it. Showing the faces of the dead makes people uneasy and sad as shown here.

Well, if showing all the dead in a human perspective -- each with a face, a name, and a home -- is anti-war, then what is pro-war?


Trying to prove to people way what we are doing is right and what we have to gain by winning and to loose by not. But can you show me where NYtimes has done that?

?


Hate both? Youhate freedom fighters and terrorists? I find it unfair to put both our military and islamic terrorists in the same group.
He didn't say he hates the US military, he said he hates Bush.

People are affected by this..and not in a good way. Just pay attention on how people respond to it. Showing the faces of the dead makes people uneasy and sad as shown here.
They were affected by a simple statement of fact. Should we repress the truth, conceal the facts, and turn this ongoing human loss into a numbing statistic? Would that be the patriotic thing to do?

And don't say I'm putting words in your mouth until you offer me an alternative. You say publishing photos of the dead is against the war effort and unpatriotic. What is the alternative?

People are affected by this..and not in a good way. Just pay attention on how people respond to it. Showing the faces of the dead makes people uneasy and sad as shown here.

once again you try to push this off as propaganda without understanding the difference between result and intent.

If it has the RESULT of stirring up anti war sentiment, that's perfectly understandable. But to be propaganda it has to be more than result, NYT actually has to INTEND to do that. And you have absolutly no way of verifying that, do you? To me it seems that a legitimate news agency posts legitimate news, I think their intent is to do their fucking job, and if showing the truth has the result of stirring up anti war sentiment, well maybe it's a good thing. If the truth does that then maybe it's for good reason.

But without intent it's not propaganda, it's just an anti war result. Unless you presume to say that a news agency should refrain from posting anything that may, intentionally or not, cause mistrust in the current administration, then to suggest such a thing, that a paper disregard their duty in order to prop up GWB, then that's frankly a far more destructive thing to the ideals of this country then showing the picture of 3000 dead servicemen.

People are affected by this..and not in a good way. Just pay attention on how people respond to it. Showing the faces of the dead makes people uneasy and sad as shown here.

Some people could look at this and feel angry at the Bush admin for sending these people to die in an unjust war. Or they could feel proud that these soldiers gave their lives to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam.

I don't see what's anti-war about that.

Trying to prove to people way what we are doing is right and what we have to gain by winning and to loose by not. But can you show me where NYtimes has done that?

it's not the job of the times to do that. It is not the job of a paper to try to argue how it is "right" or "wrong". It is not the job of a news agency to argue ANYTHING, EVER.

It is the job of the news agency to present the fact. All the facts. That is news.

The rest is editorializing.

Trying to prove to people way what we are doing is right and what we have to gain by winning and to loose by not. But can you show me where NYtimes has done that?

So you think the NYT should print pro-war propaganda?

Dead heroes. Dead heroes the Bush administration had a hand in killing.

People should not automatically think that Bush is the reason for these peoples death. I myself have several family memebers and many friends in Iraq, none thankfully have died. I know that if they did, they chose to serve their country and that they knew that there was an oppertuntiy to die when they decided to enter into the military. they purposely put themselves into a position which could potentially kill them.

I believe the agenda of a newspaper is to report the truth. Do you contest any of that information or claim any of it is untrue?

Isn't it the job of a paper to report the truth? Wouldn't failing to report the truth be a failure of them to do their job?

It is well known that almost all news papers and news media tilts to the left. Thus we can conclude that they will most always certainly tell the news in a such a way that favors their views. Since most of them are liberal and anti-war, then they are going to tell the news in such a way. And the New York Times is one of the most liberal news papers on earth.

Trying to prove to people way what we are doing is right and what we have to gain by winning and to loose by not. But can you show me where NYtimes has done that?
It is not the job of the New York Times to be Bush's personal cheerleader (he has Fox News for that). They don't have to publish arguments supporting the war. They publish the truth. They publish facts. And if that truth, those facts, motivate people against the war, than perhaps the war is not such a good idea, after all. And it does not speak well of the pro-war group if they feel the need to suppress such truth, whatever the reason.

They were affected by a simple statement of fact. Should we repress the truth, conceal the facts, and turn this ongoing human loss into a numbing statistic? Would that be the patriotic thing to do?


Honor them combined with a reminder of what they died for....Is that propaganda? yes...But I don't really care.:sniper:

And don't say I'm putting words in your mouth until you offer me an alternative. You say publishing photos of the dead is against the war effort and unpatriotic. What is the alternative?


Where did I say unpatriotic? I never said that, I said it was propaganda and one way or another it was. It was designed to garner an anti-war feeling. Please don't twist mt words around.

I don't need pictures to know people are dead thank you very much! Why hate Bush when you can hate the terrorists that killed them trying to destroy any attempt Iraq has at democracy and peace!
I don’t hate anyone, and I resent your implication. As for the terrorists, some of them are fighting because our armies destroyed the peace, some are fighting to bring about some form of radical Islam, though I hardly understand why as “democracy” will do that for them.
though the loss of any human life is terrible, we must look at this from various perspectives. at this time in vietnam over 10,000 soldiers had died, with 18,000 more to come. Though iraq is bad, it could be worse by an almost unimaginable margin.
Congratulations, you’ve just dismissed the significance of the deaths of over three thousand American soldiers. You are quite the patriot, aren’t you?[/QUOTE]
People are affected by this..and not in a good way. Just pay attention on how people respond to it. Showing the faces of the dead makes people uneasy and sad as shown here.
Heaven forbid people use their consistence or think without first consulting the government.

It was designed to garner an anti-war feeling.

Prove it.

People should not automatically think that Bush is the reason for these peoples death. I myself have several family memebers and many friends in Iraq, none thankfully have died. I know that if they did, they chose to serve their country and that they knew that there was an oppertuntiy to die when they decided to enter into the military. they purposely put themselves into a position which could potentially kill them.
But Bush is ultimately responsible for the army, as the commander in chief. If people die they do so carrying out his orders.



It is well known that almost all news papers and news media tilts to the left. Thus we can conclude that they will most always certainly tell the news in a such a way that favors their views. Since most of them are liberal and anti-war, then they are going to tell the news in such a way. And the New York Times is one of the most liberal news papers on earth.
Lol, liberal media conspiracy once again rears its head.
It is not the job of the New York Times to be Bush's personal cheerleader (he has Fox News for that).
Zing

Prove it.

Can you read? DO IT! Read peoples response. Case proven.

People should not automatically think that Bush is the reason for these peoples death. I myself have several family memebers and many friends in Iraq, none thankfully have died. I know that if they did, they chose to serve their country and that they knew that there was an oppertuntiy to die when they decided to enter into the military. they purposely put themselves into a position which could potentially kill them.

But they would not have died if Bush had not decided to invade unnecessarily. This is Bush's war, he started it, he has chosen to continue it. Thus, all the deaths are ultimately his responsibility.

Lol, liberal media conspiracy once again rears its head.




You say its untrue then? Prove it.

People should not automatically think that Bush is the reason for these peoples death. I myself have several family memebers and many friends in Iraq, none thankfully have died. I know that if they did, they chose to serve their country and that they knew that there was an oppertuntiy to die when they decided to enter into the military. they purposely put themselves into a position which could potentially kill them.
Yes, but who put us in the war in the first place?
And the New York Times is one of the most liberal news papers on earth.
0_o

People should not automatically think that Bush is the reason for these peoples death. I myself have several family memebers and many friends in Iraq, none thankfully have died. I know that if they did, they chose to serve their country and that they knew that there was an oppertuntiy to die when they decided to enter into the military. they purposely put themselves into a position which could potentially kill them.

But they would not have died if Bush had not decided to invade unnecessarily. This is Bush's war, he started it, he has chosen to continue it. Thus, all the deaths are ultimately his responsibility.



And not the terrorists that killed them?

You say its untrue then? Prove it.
The burden of proof is on the one making the outrageous claim, champ

Can you read? DO IT! Read peoples response. Case proven.

Once again, I suggest you get a dictionary and look up the difference between result and intent. You didn't say it had the result of generating that, you said

It was designed to garner an anti-war feeling.

You said it was the INTENT of the times to create that feeling, not that it is the result.

So since you're arguing that this was the INTENT, that they INTENDED to do it...prove it.

So you think the NYT should print pro-war propaganda?

Nobody is saying that they should print pro-war stories but they definitely shouldnt be printing things they know will be harming the war effort. I think people need to realize the OUR troops are over there right now, and whether or not u like they are still there, I also think as they are there, you should support them and our government seeing as is they are the only people who can bring them back. Newspapers shouldn't be trying to divide the country by making everybody turn on the elected officials, remember we as a country elected these people so you say its Bush's fault, you better be prepared to share that blame right along with him.

Yes, but who put us in the war in the first place?

0_o


The nytimes is not the most liberal paper on earth...maybe america..But not earth.

Honor them combined with a reminder of what they died for....Is that propaganda? yes...But I don't really care.:sniper:
So you admit that you have no problem with propaganda, as long as it's pro-war propaganda?

Where did I say unpatriotic? I never said that, I said it was propaganda and one way or another it was. It was designed to garner an anti-war feeling. Please don't twist mt words around.
You work at NYT? You know the person/people who designed this? No? Then you don't know it was designed. You have an opinion, but no knowledge. Much like the rest of us.

The nytimes is not the most liberal paper on earth...maybe america..But not earth.

Not even close.

Faces of the Dead!

http://www.guerrillapop.com/images/zombies.jpg

ridiculously inappropriate

So you admit that you have no problem with propaganda, as long as it's pro-war propaganda?



I have no problem with propaganda that goes along with what I agree with. Like most people on earth.:D

And not the terrorists that killed them?
Iraqi insurgents would not be killing our soldiers if our soldiers were not in Iraq in the first place. Furthermore, there would not be an insurgency if we had not invaded at all.

Not even close.

Than name ONE paper farther left then or don;t say its untrue.

You say its untrue then? Prove it.
Sorry, you can't just throw the burden of proof round like that.
And not the terrorists that killed them?Which they wouldn't have a chance to do if Bush hadn't ordered an invasion of Iraq.

Nobody is saying that they should print pro-war stories but they definitely shouldnt be printing things they know will be harming the war effort.

It is not the job of a news agency to support the war effort. it is not the job of a news agency to help the administration.

It is the job of a news agency to report the fact. And if those facts have the result of harming the war effort, then too fucking bad. It is the job of a news agency to tell the TRUTH, regardless of what the truth may be, or what result it may have.

Newspapers shouldn't be trying to divide the country by making everybody turn on the elected officials

Newspapers should report the truth, period, regardless of the effect.

remember we as a country elected these people so you say its Bush's fault, you better be prepared to share that blame right along with him.

Why? I didn't vote for him.

Iraqi insurgents would not be killing our soldiers if our soldiers were not in Iraq in the first place. Furthermore, there would not be an insurgency if we had not invaded at all.


Without the war Saddam would be in power and the people of Iraq would have died instead of american troops...Either way people die....I really don't care either way.

Than name ONE paper farther left then or don;t say its untrue.

*cough* (http://www.socialistaction.org/paper.htm)

Sorry, you can't just throw the burden of proof round like that


:rolleyes: Liberals. You use burden of proof line all the time and when your own line is used against you , you say.oH sorry, doesn't work like that! Well it does. Prove it.

Without the war Saddam would be in power and the people of Iraq would have died instead of american troops...Either way people die....I really don't care either way.

I think it's pretty safe to say that more Iraqi's have died in the last 3 years than in any 3 year period in recent history, save perhaps for the first gulf war.

Without the war Saddam would be in power and the people of Iraq would have died instead of american troops...Either way people die....I really don't care either way.
Far more Iraqi civilians have died in this war than would have ever been killed at Saddam's hand. Read the accounts of people there. Almost all attest that life was far better before the war than after. Before it was a somewhat livable dictatorship. Now, it is almost complete chaos. Hundreds are dying or fleeing every month.

I have no problem with propaganda that goes along with what I agree with. Like most people on earth.:D
I'd prefer to think that most people on eart are opposed to propaganda in all its forms and would rather have everyone know the truth. Unfortunately reality is a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling and there's probably many people like you with questionable morality who are all to happy to have people decieved to further their agenda.
Than name ONE paper farther left then or don;t say its untrue.
Again, burden of proof doesn't just go wherever you want it to.

*cough* (http://www.socialistaction.org/paper.htm)

And HOW whould I know about that paper?

And HOW whould I know about that paper?

once again I suggest doing your research before running your mouth. Especially when you make claims like "most", which can be discounted with 5 seconds and a passing familiarity with google.

And HOW whould I know about that paper?
Conservatives really have no clue about anything do they? I mean, for God’s sake, they think Hillary Clinton is a liberal.

But Bush is ultimately responsible for the army, as the commander in chief. If people die they do so carrying out his orders.

Tell me, did he hold a gun to each of these persons head and tell them to join the army, marines, navy, airforce or any of the other services. He may be in charge of where they go but Congress says if they stay or if the go back. Congrees also gives him the money to conduct the war. The way are government was designed was so that nobody has absolute power, others are responsible as well, not just bush.

Iraqi insurgents would not be killing our soldiers if our soldiers were not in Iraq in the first place. Furthermore, there would not be an insurgency if we had not invaded at all.

Yeah thats wrong too. Insurgents will always exist whether or not we had entered Iraq in the first place. Do you remember the marines' barrack bombing in Lebenon? I do believe that they were insurgents.

once again I suggest doing your research before running your mouth. Especially when you make claims like "most", which can be discounted with 5 seconds and a passing familiarity with google.

Funny how you missed where I said MAYBE america. :rolleyes:

I'd prefer to think that most people on eart are opposed to propaganda in all its forms and would rather have everyone know the truth. Unfortunately reality is a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling and there's probably many people like you with questionable morality who are all to happy to have people decieved to further their agenda.

You make that sound bad? Of course I am megalomaniac.

Again, burden of proof doesn't just go wherever you want it to.


Pardon me, I didn't know only YOU were allowed to use that line.

Why? I didn't vote for him.

Sorry but it dosen't work that way, when you vote here in america you tend to vote as a whole, it dosen't matter if you specifically didn't vote for him, the point is that your stuck with him whether you like it or not.

It is not the job of a news agency to support the war effort. it is not the job of a news agency to help the administration.

It is the job of a news agency to report the fact. And if those facts have the result of harming the war effort, then too fucking bad. It is the job of a news agency to tell the TRUTH, regardless of what the truth may be, or what result it may have.

so your saying that if the newspapers printed something that caused mass suicides and homicides, then they should report it anyways (exageration, I know but to prove a point)

No. Fuck you. You made the claim. Either back it the fuck up, or stop speaking.

otherwise you just look like a dumbass who can't substantiate his diarreah like running of the mouth.

come on man, surely u can hold back the language even just a little as this should be a "friendly" enough debate where everyone gets to explain their side without having to resort to such negative language. I think it u must use this kinda language plz in the best interest of everyone, privately message each other or something.

I think it's pretty safe to say that more Iraqi's have died in the last 3 years than in any 3 year period in recent history, save perhaps for the first gulf war.

Maybe you need to do more research. Try the Halabja poison gas attack and try the Iraq-Iran war, Reprisal Against Dujail, Anfal Campaign...

?


Hate both? Youhate freedom fighters and terrorists? I find it unfair to put both our military and islamic terrorists in the same group.

I thought you asked about Bush, not the military? There is a huge difference between hating Bush, the yellow bellied coward whom used his daddy to duck out of the service, and between the men and women in uniform.

Infact, one can hate the military institution for how it works, however still not hate the soldiers fighting. Really, you asked "Why hate Bush when you can hate the terrorists", not "Why hate the soldiers when you can hate the terrorists."

That being said, we are not even fighting terrorists over there anymore. It is a full blown civil war that is localized in the country itself, not people whom wish to attack us.

Maybe you need to do more research. Try the Halabja poison gas attack and try the Iraq-Iran war, Reprisal Against Dujail, Anfal Campaign...

Halabja resulted in probably about 4,000 deaths. Over 100,000 iraqi's have died as a result of the war in the last 3 years. Care to provide death statistics for Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war.

Maybe you need to do a little more reading comprehension.

I thought you asked about Bush, not the military? There is a huge difference between hating Bush, the yellow bellied coward whom used his daddy to duck out of the service, and between the men and women in uniform.

thats unfair to say that. You try to make it seem as if Bush is the only person to ever do that. lest we not forget Clinton and the other draft dodgers. ANd at least he was in the service.

Sorry but it dosen't work that way, when you vote here in america you tend to vote as a whole, it dosen't matter if you specifically didn't vote for him, the point is that your stuck with him whether you like it or not.

Stuck with him, yes. At fault for being stuck with him, no.


so your saying that if the newspapers printed something that caused mass suicides and homicides, then they should report it anyways (exageration, I know but to prove a point)

In an extreme example I suppose it might be permissable not to report, however you'd have to give me hypotheticals.


come on man, surely u can hold back the language even just a little as this should be a "friendly" enough debate where everyone gets to explain their side without having to resort to such negative language. I think it u must use this kinda language plz in the best interest of everyone, privately message each other or something.

personally I find "fuck" to be far less grating than "plz"

*cough* (http://www.socialistaction.org/paper.htm)

That's no were as far left as this paper (http://www.rwor.org/). I have friends who are members of the RCP. I don't agree with them but they have a right to thier ideas.




Don't start me on those chikenhawks. I could rant for hours about it.

I think the NYTimes should be applauded for it's efforts to humanize a war that most people forget about. If more people knew what was happening the war would have ended months ago.

Halabja resulted in probably about 4,000 deaths. Over 100,000 iraqi's have died as a result of the war in the last 3 years. Care to provide death statistics for Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war.

Maybe you need to do a little more reading comprehension.



:rolleyes:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_campaign#Genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War


Maybe YOU need to do more reseach. And care to source your death claim?

Maybe you need to do more research. Try the Halabja poison gas attack and try the Iraq-Iran war, Reprisal Against Dujail, Anfal Campaign...

In Halabja, 5000 people died.

Well, in the Iran-Iraq war, an 8 year period, only 375,000 Soldiers/militiamen/civilians/etc Iraqis were killed.

Dujail had 150 men killed.

The Anfal Campaign has a high of 182,000 dead, low of 50,000. To entertain you, we'll go with 182,000.

Let's add these up:

In total, throughout all these, about 562,000 dead.

Recent estimates reveal that 600,000 have died as a direct result of the war.

In three years we have accumulated more deaths as a result of the war than in an entire ten year period.

But hey, specifics only destroy arguments.

In Halabja, 5000 people died.

Well, in the Iran-Iraq war, an 8 year period, only 375,000 Soldiers/militiamen/civilians/etc Iraqis were killed.

Dujail had 150 men killed.

The Anfal Campaign has a high of 182,000 dead, low of 50,000. To entertain you, we'll go with 182,000.

Let's add these up:

In total, throughout all these, about 562,000 dead.

Recent estimates reveal that 600,000 have died as a direct result of the war.

In three years we have accumulated more deaths as a result of the war than in an entire ten year period.

But hey, specifics only destroy arguments.



If you read the numbers it was closer to 1.7 million during the Iraq Iran war.

:rolleyes:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_campaign#Genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War


Maybe YOU need to do more reseach. And care to source your death claim?


It's funny you bring that up dude. Guess who was a big supporter of Saddam back in the 80's----Yes the Republicans!!!!!!! Who gave him the chemical and conventional weapons to fight the Iranians----The Republicans!

Donald Rumsfield meeting Saddam:
http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/1/11/Donald_saddam.jpg

Tell me, did he hold a gun to each of these persons head and tell them to join the army, marines, navy, airforce or any of the other services. He may be in charge of where they go but Congress says if they stay or if the go back. Congrees also gives him the money to conduct the war. The way are government was designed was so that nobody has absolute power, others are responsible as well, not just bush.

There was this really nice editorial about the war that I read which addressed this, but of course I can't find it so I'll have to summarize.

It basically said that soldiers join to fight for justice and to protect our freedom. They may put their lives on the line, but ask us that we order them to do so only when it is absolutely necessary -- "when our cause it is just". The war in Iraq was not just. We betrayed their trust in our government's ethics and leadership. And yes, I do blame Congress for blindly following the President's lead.

Yeah thats wrong too. Insurgents will always exist whether or not we had entered Iraq in the first place. Do you remember the marines' barrack bombing in Lebenon? I do believe that they were insurgents.
Sure, all nations have insurgents, but none on the scale that we have seen in Iraq. That hotbed of violence was directly caused by our destabilization of the existing government.

Iran-Iraq War, armed conflict that began when Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 and ended in August 1988 after both sides accepted a cease-fire sponsored by the United Nations (UN). The war was one of the longest and most destructive of the 20th century, with likely more than one million casualties. Despite the conflict's length and cost, neither Iran nor Iraq made significant territorial or political gains, and the fundamental issues dividing the countries remained unresolved at the end of the war.

This is from MSN Encarta

:rolleyes:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_campaign#Genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War


Maybe YOU need to do more reseach. And care to source your death claim?

your first link says 50,000-100,000. Iraqi deaths broke 100,000 back in 2004:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm

So again that's more.

As for the Iran Iraq war, it once again doesn't show any deaths listed. Casualties yes, not deaths.

It's funny you bring that up dude. Guess who was a big supporter of Saddam back in the 80's----Yes the Republicans!!!!!!! Who gave him the chemical and conventional weapons----The Republicans!

Don Rumsfield meeting Saddam:
http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/1/11/Donald_saddam.jpg



So did the current president of France...and guess what? He got those weapons from others besides us.

The New York Times has put up a somber new feature (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20061228_3000FACES_TAB1.html) on their website. In commemoration of the dead in Iraq, they have taken the photos and basic biographic information of the first 3000 troops to die there, and organized them into a searchable database.

The pictures are presented as grayscale mosaics, painted onto a grid of small squares, each of which represents a life lost. It's disquieting to see all those pale, ghostly faces, each one in turn made up of many, many more faces, all lost forever to such a foolish mistake...

That's pretty good. I think I'll take a look at that, thanks for posting it.

personally I find "fuck" to be far less grating than "plz"
Agreed.

Iran-Iraq War, armed conflict that began when Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 and ended in August 1988 after both sides accepted a cease-fire sponsored by the United Nations (UN). The war was one of the longest and most destructive of the 20th century, with likely more than one million casualties. Despite the conflict's length and cost, neither Iran nor Iraq made significant territorial or political gains, and the fundamental issues dividing the countries remained unresolved at the end of the war.

This is from MSN Encarta

1) Those are casualties, not deaths.

2) It lists total, Iraqi and Iranian.

I want IRAQI DEATHS. Not the combined CASUALTIES of Iraq and Iran during the war.

If you read the numbers it was closer to 1.7 million during the Iraq Iran war.

I'm reading the numbers just fine. 875,000 is as high as I can figure. Care to tell me where the 1.7 million is from?

Also, you are taking into account that the casualty lists include soldiers/militia, which are strategic war targets. To do such would be similar to us considering every militant we kill as a civilian, and people saying we are guilty of killing innocent civilians.

But hey, specifics.

your first link says 50,000-100,000. Iraqi deaths broke 100,000 back in 2004:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm

So again that's more.

As for the Iran Iraq war, it once again doesn't show any deaths listed. Casualties yes, not deaths.

d) HRW estimates that between 50,000 and 100,000 people were killed [7]. Some Kurdish sources put the number higher, estimating 182,000 Kurds were killed. (Also see [8])


50 to 182k.

I'm reading the numbers just fine. 875,000 is as high as I can figure. Care to tell me where the 1.7 million is from?

Also, you are taking into account that the casualty lists include soldiers/militia, which are strategic war targets. To do such would be similar to us considering every militant we kill as a civilian, and people saying we are guilty of killing innocent civilians.

But hey, specifics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Iran_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Iran_War

I see nothing stating anywhere near the 1.7 million you claim.

Casualties:

Iran-500,000 Soldiers/Militia/Civilian
Iraq-350,000 Soldiers/Militia/Civilian

There is a missing 900,000 that seems to be popping out of nowhere, here.

I see nothing stating anywhere near the 1.7 million you claim.

Casualties:

Iraq-350,000 Soldiers/Militia/Civilian



And again, those are casualties, not deaths.

And again, those are casualties, not deaths.

Indeed, which includes both killed and wounded. And does not state how many were killed/wounded by Iranian soldiers.

[QUOTE]There was this really nice editorial about the war that I read which addressed this, but of course I can't find it so I'll have to summarize.

It basically said that soldiers join to fight for justice and to protect our freedom. They may put their lives on the line, but ask us that we order them to do so only when it is absolutely necessary -- "when our cause it is just". The war in Iraq was not just. We betrayed their trust in our government's ethics and leadership. And yes, I do blame Congress for blindly following the President's lead.[/QUOTE

Well then as you already know, Congress deemed this war as "necessary". whether it is or not, it dosen't matter now cuz are friends and familly are still there, and as long as they deem it "necessary", i will stand by the only people who can bring them back, our government. I may not trust them fully but i don't really have a choice now do i.

Indeed, which includes both killed and wounded. And does not state how many were killed/wounded by Iranian soldiers.

technically a casualty is anyone killed, wounded, or captured.

I see nothing stating anywhere near the 1.7 million you claim.

Casualties:

Iran-500,000 Soldiers/Militia/Civilian
Iraq-350,000 Soldiers/Militia/Civilian

There is a missing 900,000 that seems to be popping out of nowhere, here.

The war was disastrous for both countries, stalling economic development and disrupting oil exports. It cost Iran an estimated 1 million casualties,[60] and $350 billion.[61] Iraq was left with serious debts to its former Arab backers, including US$14 billion loaned by Kuwait, a debt which contributed to Saddam's 1990 decision to invade.


Your Iran numbers are off by about 500k people.

Your Iran numbers are off by about 500k people.

Well then, so are yours. Check under "casualties" in the wiki you provided.


And still, you have 1.35 million, including Iraqis, with that number. Still a far cry from 1.7 million.

So did the current president of France...and guess what? He got those weapons from others besides us.

He got the majority of them from us plus tons of $$$$. French-bashing aside, the current President of France is just as right-wing as Bush. The only diffrence is that the French are more open about it. Intresting that you have to bash a nation that is hated by the Repub Kool-Aid drinkers.

Remember in Neo-con America:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

http://www.unn13.com/images/bigbrotherbush.jpg
Learn to Love Big Brother.

Your Iran numbers are off by about 500k people.

which is absolutly irrelevant as we're talking about Iraqi deaths not iranian.

Well then, so are yours. Check under "casualties" in the wiki you provided.


And still, you have 1.35 million, including Iraqis, with that number. Still a far cry from 1.7 million.

War conclusion
The bloody eight-year war ended in a stalemate. There were hundreds of thousands of casualties, perhaps upwards of 1.7 million died on both sides. Both economies, previously healthy and expanding, were left in ruins.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein#The_Iran-Iraq_War_.281980.E2.80.931988.29


Sorry, Looking at the wrong wiki page.:(

It's funny you bring that up dude. Guess who was a big supporter of Saddam back in the 80's----Yes the Republicans!!!!!!! Who gave him the chemical and conventional weapons to fight the Iranians----The Republicans!

It dosent matter if Republicans or Democrats gave them the weapons, none of us told him to use them on innocent civilians. Had the Democrats gave them the weapons i would not be blaming them for his atrocities. Blaming the Republicans is like trying to blame the guy who sold a killer the knife that he used. Yeah he sold it to him but that dosen't mean that he is responsible for the crime.

It dosent matter if Republicans or Democrats gave them the weapons, none of us told him to use them on innocent civilians. Had the Democrats gave them the weapons i would not be blaming them for his atrocities. Blaming the Republicans is like trying to blame the guy who sold a killer the knife that he used. Yeah he sold it to him but that dosen't mean that he is responsible for the crime.

Military armaments/technology
Iraq's army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviet Union, France,[26] as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany[27] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain (Explosivos Alaveses), Canada, Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities (see below).

The sources of Iraqi arms purchases between 1970 and 1990 (10% of the world market during this period) are estimated to be:

Suppliers in Billions (1985 $US) % of total
Soviet Union 19.2 61
France 5.5 18
People's Republic of China 1.7 5
Brazil 1.1 4
Egypt 1.1 4
Other countries 2.9 6
Total 31.5 98.0


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...2.80.931988.29

yep it even says

"The bloody eight-year war ended in a stalemate. There were hundreds of thousands of casualties, perhaps upwards of 1.7 million died on both sides."

which would probably, combined with the other wars and genocides caaused by Sadam at the total to over 600,000

yep it even says

"The bloody eight-year war ended in a stalemate. There were hundreds of thousands of casualties, perhaps upwards of 1.7 million died on both sides."

which would probably, combined with the other wars and genocides caaused by Sadam at the total to over 600,000
All this Iran-Iraq stuff is not really relevant to the issue at hand. The point is that Iraq was at peace, and now it is at war, because of us and us alone. We destabilized a relatively stable nation, and now have hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths on our hands.

All this is really not relevant to the issue at hand. The point is that Iraq was at peace, and now it is at war, because of us and us alone. We destabilized a relatively stable nation, and now have hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths on our hands.


Are you forgetting those people were under the control of a RUTHLESS DICTATOR that made multiple campaigns of mass murder against them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein#The_Iran-Iraq_War_.281980.E2.80.931988.29


Sorry, Looking at the wrong wiki page.:(

Uh, even that one says "perhaps", which is not exactly the strongest statement one can make. The number is likely a bit lower.

Uh, even that one says "perhaps", which is not exactly the strongest statement one can make. The number is likely a bit lower.


Most numbers are estimates. I support between 1.2 and 1.5 million.

Are you forgetting those people were under the control of a RUTHLESS DICTATOR that made multiple campaigns of mass murder against them?
Again, life in Iraq under Saddam was much more stable and livable than it is now. Hussein was a dictator and a strongman, but he was no Stalin or Mao. Just read accounts from Iraqis themselves. Before the invasion they had water, electricity, stable families. Now they have war, murder, kidnapping, and chaos.

Fondness for Saddam

The promise of a new Iraq, something many Iraqis yearned for but never expected to see delivered by a U.S. occupation force, has morphed into selective, sometimes fond remembrances of Iraq under Saddam.

Life before the invasion was restricted and policed by the regime and by U.N. sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War. But it also was predictable and, for the vast majority of Iraqis, the way things had been for as long as most could remember — since Saddam took control in 1979. A police state without surprises, Iraq a year ago was a place where people knew what to expect. They did what they were told and in exchange had stability, jobs and few expectations.

"We had one Saddam yesterday, and now we have 25 Saddams," Hassiba Ahmed Saleh, 53, a mother of seven, says as she leaves Baghdad's Yarmouk Hospital, where she had a long wait for a medical exam. Her complaint is a common refrain.

Among those who wonder what comes next is Saad Hadi, 28. He lives on Street Number 5 in the Kadhimiya district, across the road from the former Republican Guard military headquarters and Saddam's main palace.Hadi watched U.S. bombs strike those targets three times in the past 12 years. He and his family left their home on the morning of March 19, just before the bombs began to fall for a fourth time.

While the government buildings were reduced to rubble, his house was not badly damaged. But Hadi, a Sunni Muslim like Saddam, was unnerved when he returned home and found U.S. soldiers in tanks on his street. They kept turning their turrets at him. It made him wonder whether they had any idea of what to do with their victory.

"It was a bad impression," Hadi says. "You heard about plans for the war, but the plans for the future you don't hear. And I think it was because they could not plan. This is where we have lived our lives for three decades, so offer us something tangible. I don't see anything positive."

From USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-17-iraq-usat_x.htm).

:rolleyes: Liberals. You use burden of proof line all the time and when your own line is used against you , you say.oH sorry, doesn't work like that! Well it does. Prove it.

You cannot make a claim and then ask someone to prove it false. You made the claim, you must prove it true.

Otherwise, I claim you to be a semi-sentient pumpkin and demand you prove it false.

All this Iran-Iraq stuff is not really relevant to the issue at hand. The point is that Iraq was at peace, and now it is at war, because of us and us alone. We destabilized a relatively stable nation, and now have hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths on our hands.

Iraq was never at peace. Have you forgotten about the Kurds you lived with fear in their lives on a daily basis, having to worry about if Saddam was going to kill them or not. Not even only the Kurds, anyone who disagreed with him was more then likely killed. One of my best friends was from Baghdad, why do you think he was here, it wasn't simply because of our education system. They to lived in fear of what might happen to them because of Saddam

Yeah thats wrong too. Insurgents will always exist whether or not we had entered Iraq in the first place. Do you remember the marines' barrack bombing in Lebenon? I do believe that they were insurgents.

You fail at geography. Lebanon is not in Iraq or of Iraq. And the claim was that they would not be dying in Iraq were they not there at the behest of the Bush administration.

You cannot make a claim and then ask someone to prove it false. You made the claim, you must prove it true.

Otherwise, I claim you to be a semi-sentient pumpkin and demand you prove it false.



Lol, liberal media conspiracy once again rears its head.


I never made a claim, Ifreann did and I asked him to back it up.

You fail at geography. Lebanon is not in Iraq or of Iraq. And the claim was that they would not be dying in Iraq were they not there at the behest of the Bush administration.

Yeah i know, its above Israel. I was simply pointing out that insurgents exist everywhere and just because they weren't in Iraq when all this started, it dosen't mean that they weren't out there to begin with. they have all just migrated to iraq.

I never made a claim, Ifreann did and I asked him to back it up.

Ifreanns statement was in response to a claim that most media holds left wing views, a common complaint by conservatives and neo-conservatives when the media reports something that puts them and their viewpoints in unfavorable light.

Thereby, the burden of proof should be on the claim of left wing media conspiracy, not on Ifreann, who scorns such a notion.

Yeah i know, its above Israel. I was simply pointing out that insurgents exist everywhere and just because they weren't in Iraq when all this started, it dosen't mean that they weren't out there to begin with. they have all just migrated to iraq.

You seem to think that an insurgent is something akin to an ethnic group. That is incorrect. People turn to insurgency when the governing situation around them is unbearable. They do not spring from one particular country or another and decide to emigrate at their leisure.

Furthermore, your claim of Lebanese insurgents migrating to Iraq is foolish at the least.

Prove your claims or drop it.

So did the current president of France...and guess what? He got those weapons from others besides us.

And that makes the US better how?

If I bomb a school, does it make me better than someone who bombed another school? I should think not.

You seem to think that an insurgent is something akin to an ethnic group. That is incorrect. People turn to insurgency when the governing situation around them is unbearable. They do not spring from one particular country or another and decide to emigrate at their leisure.

Furthermore, your claim of Lebanese insurgents migrating to Iraq is foolish at the least.

Prove your claims or drop it.

Please tell me where i made any such claim as to insurgents being part of any particular ethnic group.

i said insurgents were IN lebenon as they are in just about every other counry. As i also said the they tend to migrate to were ever their current "services" are needed.

Here is one of many examples
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/8898175/the_insurgents_tale/
notice hes from yemen
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1116-23.htm
This even shows that there are foreign insurgents that have travelled into Iraq. if u do a little of your own research im sure you could find even more examples urself

Are you forgetting those people were under the control of a RUTHLESS DICTATOR that made multiple campaigns of mass murder against them?

The nature of the leadership is irrelevant. The consequences of the actions taken are.

According to your source, of which the neutrality is disputed, the combined dead of the Iran-Iraq war over a period of 8 years was 1.7 million. This does not specify the percentage of that dead which were of the Iraqi civilian population.

To be fair, let us say that casualties were split down the middle both ways, between Iraq and Iran and military and civilian deaths. That means 1.7/4 which would be 425,000 civilian dead.

Current estimates of Iraqi civilian dead from 2003 to now are at 100,000 to 150,000 according to the Iraqi Health Ministry. It should be pointed out that various estimates wildly vary and that the reporting conditions of civilian dead are sketchy at best.

Based on the increasing levels of violence occurring in Iraq, that number is likely to climb higher and faster in the remaining 5 years to eclipse that of the Iraq-Iran war.

In conclusion, the war waged by the Bush administration has not brought democracy or freedom to the average Iraqi, but at best, wartime conditions and significant threat to life and limb that a current war poses.

This added note is conjecture on my part, but I would imagine that the average American, like you, doesn't really care anything at all about the Iraqi dead beyond the fact that it is staining American reputation.

Please tell me where i made any such claim as to insurgents being part of any particular ethnic group.

The key word, if you paid attention to my post, was AKIN. Which meant like. Given that you seemed to indicate that they could be found exclusively in Lebanon except where they emigrated.


i said insurgents were IN lebenon as they are in just about every other counry. As i also said the they tend to migrate to were ever their current "services" are needed.

Oh please. An insurgent by his/her very designation is part of an armed rebellion against the current administration that governs them. Saying that one can find insurgents in every other country is nothing more than the words of a fool.

And yes, there are insurgents who travel to other countries to conduct their war, but they are no longer insurgents, but foreign agents.

Furthermore, your statements seem to indicate that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are of foreign origin. Either you clarify that it is not what you indicated or you must back it up.

Which will you choose?

Iraq was never at peace. Have you forgotten about the Kurds you lived with fear in their lives on a daily basis, having to worry about if Saddam was going to kill them or not. Not even only the Kurds, anyone who disagreed with him was more then likely killed. One of my best friends was from Baghdad, why do you think he was here, it wasn't simply because of our education system. They to lived in fear of what might happen to them because of Saddam

Life under Saddam, according to Iraqi sentiment that was so kindly shown by that article Rhaomi posted, was harsh, yes. But it was stable, and predictable. Obey, keep your head down, and you'd live.

Life under American puppet government is harsh, unstable, and unpredictable. You never know when that trash can or guy with sling bag has a bundle of explosives with your name on it.

Which would you live under? One dictator or 30 wannabe dictators who would happily kill you simply for being there or part of an ethnic group?

Once again, reality shows its stark liberal bias. Thank God for Fox News.

And that makes the US better how?

If I bomb a school, does it make me better than someone who bombed another school? I should think not.

The point is its unfair to put 100% blame on the US when Saddam clearly got his weapons from other places as well, in some cases most of his weapons were from other places. How much heat does Russia get for propping him up? And France? And China?

The point is its unfair to put 100% blame on the US when Saddam clearly got his weapons from other places as well, in some cases most of his weapons were from other places. How much heat does Russia get for propping him up? And France? And China?

Perhaps it may be unfair, but when a whole bunch of Americans simply wave their hands around and rave about how evil Saddam was and the support he got from other nations, they have a tendency to forget that their hands are just as blood soaked.

At that point of time, there's nothing like rubbing their faces in the mud to realize just exactly how stained they are.

I'm no saint, never will be, but nothing annoys me more than self righteous hypocrites. It smacks of them lacking the guts to face down just exactly who they really are.

Perhaps it may be unfair, but when a whole bunch of Americans simply wave their hands around and rave about how evil Saddam was and the support he got from other nations, they have a tendency to forget that their hands are just as blood soaked.

At that point of time, there's nothing like rubbing their faces in the mud to realize just exactly how stained they are.

I'm no saint, never will be, but nothing annoys me more than self righteous hypocrites. It smacks of them lacking the guts to face down just exactly who they really are.

This is so true, especially when the U.S. persuaded Saddam's opponents to try and kill him promising support. They rose, the support from the U.S. never came and Saddam killed them all. Now he dangles from the gallows and we claim he's evil!!!!

This is so true, especially when the U.S. persuaded Saddam's opponents to try and kill him promising support. They rose, the support from the U.S. never came and Saddam killed them all. Now he dangles from the gallows and we claim he's evil!!!!


He is evil chingie. :rolleyes:

This is so true, especially when the U.S. persuaded Saddam's opponents to try and kill him promising support. They rose, the support from the U.S. never came and Saddam killed them all. Now he dangles from the gallows and we claim he's evil!!!!

Quite so. We [the US, Europe and Russia] used him as a puppet to deal with the Iranians, using weapons we'd sold him to fiight a dirty war while we kept our hands clean. Then we watched while he massacred the Kurds and oppressed the Shia. It was only when the Kuwait oil fields were under threat that anyone over here got interested. As you say, we tried to use his enemies in Iraq as fifth columnists, left them to die, restored the oil supply, and forgot about him for a few more years.

Now he's dead. Good riddance, of course, but now the Iraqis have to pick up the pieces.

I wish somebody had put up the same effort into counting and profiling the innocent Iraqi dead as well but I guess that's not the army's policy nor would they be in favour if the Red Cross or Red Crecent had done it.

This is so true, especially when the U.S. persuaded Saddam's opponents to try and kill him promising support. They rose, the support from the U.S. never came and Saddam killed them all. Now he dangles from the gallows and we claim he's evil!!!!


Meh, the US has alot more blood on it's hands. That very same thing happened in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs.

However, anyone else find it odd that we are fighting a war on "terror" when one of our most used tactics is to pay terrorist organizations(Such as the Contras in Latin America) to terrorize the governments of countries we get pissed at?

Seems oddly contradictory.

I wish somebody had put up the same effort into counting and profiling the innocent Iraqi dead as well but I guess that's not the army's policy nor would they be in favour if the Red Cross or Red Crecent had done it.

actually I believe someone has done that. not pictures and such, but there is a count and memorial site I've visited. I think it was only at 16000 when I went there. I haven't been back. after a certain point you just accept it's reached rock bottom and the growing number can't really make it any worse or more deplorable.

Meh, the US has alot more blood on it's hands. That very same thing happened in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs.

However, anyone else find it odd that we are fighting a war on "terror" when one of our most used tactics is to pay terrorist organizations(Such as the Contras in Latin America) to terrorize the governments of countries we get pissed at?

Seems oddly contradictory.

Mmmm, the U.S. supported the IRA with guns and money for decades to terrorise mainland Britain.

Well then as you already know, Congress deemed this war as "necessary". whether it is or not, it dosen't matter now cuz are friends and familly are still there, and as long as they deem it "necessary", i will stand by the only people who can bring them back, our government. I may not trust them fully but i don't really have a choice now do i.

I find this mentality rather disturbing. If you don’t trust the government then don’t follow them – it’s that simple.

You know, if more Americans stood up for what they believed instead of displaying this lemming-like we-must-be-patriotic-and-follow-our-leader mentality, then things might not have gotten so much out of hand…

Btw., sorry for quoting your post here Byzantium. This is not an attack on you personally, but rather upon this strange idea that seems to have gripped America – if you are a true American, then you must follow Dear Leader. What happened to critical thinking? What happened to freedom of speech?

Mmmm, the U.S. supported the IRA with guns and money for decades to terrorise mainland Britain.

If this is true, the irony is disturbing.

Source by chance? Never actually heard this one before.

You know, if more Americans stood up for what they believed instead of displaying this lemming-like we-must-be-patriotic-and-follow-our-leader mentality, then things might not have gotten so much out of hand…

.............this strange idea that seems to have gripped America – if you are a true American, then you must follow Dear Leader. What happened to critical thinking? What happened to freedom of speech?

I find this rather interesting. On my last trip to the U.S. I found it a very hostile place to be, it almost reminded me of 'The body snatchers'.

It seems the freedom of speech is only for demonising non Americans, anybody questioning the U.S.'s actions or policies is evil or a support of terrorism.

Can you not question those in power anymore?

I did hear that while Saddam's army lost the Gulf War I, and as they returned back to Iraq, America has convinced Iraqi Shiites (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0uZ6BO1laoc&mode=related&search=) and Iraqi Kurds to uprise and take advantage against the weak Iraqi army. America later abandoned the Shiites to be slaughtered by Saddam's army because they realized if the Shiites have won, they might have allied themselves with Iran (or Iran would have played more influence to Iraq). If the Kurds have won, they would have also helped other Kurdish independence movements throughout the Middle East. Saddam was foolish to attack Kuwait and challenge UN orders to leave. America tried to instigate the Iraqi people along the sectarian line before and they’re doing it again, they want a civil war. To say, they weren’t aware of the insurgency was ridiculous, to finally recognize that there is a Sunni and Shiite tension is bogus; they knew there was a tension. America’s total aim is for the Middle East to rot, a payback for allying with the Soviet Union and not accepting the state of Israel. Hmm, trying to instill fear and feeling of hopelessness into the Arabs I see, will it work though or will it backfire?

If this is true, the irony is disturbing.

Source by chance? Never actually heard this one before.

This is a well documented fact, I'd google it for you but I'd hope you'd look for yourself.


QUOTE
"While Libya's donation of arms to the IRA in the 1980s has been the most public sign of where the republican movement has previously turned for support, the reality is that North America has been the most important link of all.

Following the emergence of the modern republican movement in 1969, the Provisional IRA quickly turned to its Irish-American supporters for funds and guns.

More than 30 years later, those support networks still exist, although the nature of the relationship has changed during the long road of the peace process."
END QUOTE


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Britain has the IRA on its list of terrorist groups but the United States does not.

The United States doesn't treat all terrorist groups alike - especially when domestic politics come into play.
There are "many similarities" between the kinds of violence used by the IRA and Palestinian groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. But even at its bloodiest, the IRA was tolerated, even openly supported, by many in the United States.

He is evil chingie. :rolleyes:

And the CIA groomed him to become the ruler of Iraq. That, you can't deny.

Once your done with your tools, you can't expect to dispose them and pretend there was no crime.

What happened to critical thinking?

Critical thinking fled after it survived a public stoning by the ignorant masses in the name of patriotism.


What happened to freedom of speech?

It was arrested under the patriot act as being deemed a threat to national security as it could provide material comfort to the enemies of America. It has never been seen again since.

I don't need pictures to know people are dead thank you very much! Why hate Bush when you can hate the terrorists that killed them trying to destroy any attempt Iraq has at democracy and peace!
Earlier you spoke of propaganda, and yet that is exactly what your post is. You would like us to believe that all those US soldiers were killed by "terrorists". Some were killed in accidents, either by mechanical failure, human error, or "friendly fire". However, I would say that the vast majority were killed by Iraqis defending their homeland.

IMHO none of these soldiers should have died in Iraq, and yeah it is very easy to blame Bush.

Earlier you spoke of propaganda, and yet that is exactly what your post is. You would like us to believe that all those US soldiers were killed by "terrorists". Some were killed in accidents, either by mechanical failure, human error, or "friendly fire". However, I would say that the vast majority were killed by Iraqis defending their homeland.

IMHO none of these soldiers should have died in Iraq, and yeah it is very easy to blame Bush.


Defending their homeland? LOL. Thats pretty funny, you almost made me think you were serious for a second.

Defend it from what? Nobody is attacking it. You mean those terrorists that want america out and to put in a theocracy? WE are defending it, not them. The iraqis that are defending their homeland fight with america, not against it.

Critical thinking fled after it survived a public stoning by the ignorant masses in the name of patriotism.

It was arrested under the patriot act as being deemed a threat to national security as it could provide material comfort to the enemies of America. It has never been seen again since.

* Cries a bit... *


Defending their homeland? LOL. Thats pretty funny, you almost made me think you were serious for a second.

Defend it from what? Nobody is attacking it. You mean those terrorists that want america out and to put in a theocracy? WE are defending it, not them. The iraqis that are defending their homeland fight with america, not against it.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the Iraqis want a theocracy?

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the Iraqis want a theocracy?


Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps they don't?

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps they don't?

Yes, it has. But I don’t interfere with other countries internal affairs.

If they want a theocracy – let the mullahs take charge. If they want a democracy – let the people vote. Either way, neither you, nor me, should decide for them.

Yes, it has. But I don’t interfere with other countries internal affairs.

If they want a theocracy – let the mullahs take charge. If they want a democracy – let the people vote. Either way, neither you, nor me, should decide for them.


Your train of thought is dangerous. Do you know who the mullahs are and their views on Israel and the US? Its been obvious they are ok with democracy as millions went out to vote..if they didn't want one why vote? Why not make america look stupid and stay home and make the election a huge failure? And do you think for 5 seconds a theocracy would allow votes even if they wanted it or just a fake demcracy like Saddam gave them. face it dictators don't allow true elections so the will of the people are ignored..atleast now they have a voice.


And FYI, you can't allow regimes that treaten to nuke other nations and promote terror, racism and anti-semitism to exist...IE Iran....For the sake of world peace those leaders MUST be removed.

Defending their homeland? LOL. Thats pretty funny, you almost made me think you were serious for a second.

Defend it from what? Nobody is attacking it.

Let's be honest. Until America rolled in, Iraq was a sovereign nation ruled by an Iraqi. A brutal dictator no doubt, but an Iraqi nevertheless.

Now America has stopped attacking Iraq (technically), because it currently occupies it. Despite the new local government (American puppet), it is still a nation under occupation. As a result, it is not a stretch to say that a significant portion of the strife generated in Iraq is by homegrown Iraqis who want the US out. Ergo, defending their homeland against the occupiers.

If you think otherwise, perhaps you would be happier back in 2003 when some people thought there would be flowers and cheers and a liberators welcome.

Reality is not so cheery.

Defending their homeland? LOL. Thats pretty funny, you almost made me think you were serious for a second.
Damn serious sport.

Defend it from what? Nobody is attacking it. You mean those terrorists that want america out and to put in a theocracy? WE are defending it, not them. The iraqis that are defending their homeland fight with america, not against it.
The vast majority of insurgents are Sunni Arabs. The last thing they want is a Shia theocracy. Since the new Iraqi Constitution is based on Islamic laws, you cannot see where the secular Sunnis would rather have it the way it was before the US invasion?

The insurgents are defending their homeland and culture. The terrorists are mostly from other countries and ventured to Iraq to fight US forces. There is a difference.

And FYI, you can't allow regimes that treaten to nuke other nations

America so far is the only one to have made good on that threat.


and promote terror,

Iran contra scandal. Again, America is at fault.


racism and anti-semitism to exist


Racism and anti-semitism exists aplenty in the United States. In some places, racism and attacks based on religion are actually used in politics and applauded. First it was against blacks. Then it was against those of Japanese descent. Now of course, it's against Muslims.


...IE Iran....For the sake of world peace those leaders MUST be removed.

How curious, for the sake of world peace you say? But in regards to world peace, who exactly has contributed the most strife to the world to date?

Oh, Iran certainly has had a hand in things, what with their material support for various terror groups, but at the same time, America is doing just exactly that. And on a much grander scale I imagine, what with their larger resource base.

World peace would be much better achieved if anyone caught moving weapons or armies outside their borders were vaporized on discovery.

Your train of thought is dangerous. Do you know who the mullahs are and their views on Israel and the US? Its been obvious they are ok with democracy as millions went out to vote..if they didn't want one why vote? Why not make america look stupid and stay home and make the election a huge failure? And do you think for 5 seconds a theocracy would allow votes even if they wanted it or just a fake demcracy like Saddam gave them. face it dictators don't allow true elections so the will of the people are ignored..atleast now they have a voice.
The vote was ordered by the US government. The government was elected on a US timetable and the Constitution was mandated by the US. The biggest reason that Iraqis went to the polls was due to them being told to do so by their religious leaders, especially Sistani. Sistani's thoughts were that the sooner the Iraqis took over government, the sooner that Iraq could ask americans to leave.

And FYI, you can't allow regimes that treaten to nuke other nations and promote terror, racism and anti-semitism to exist...IE Iran....For the sake of world peace those leaders MUST be removed.
Do you hear what you are saying? Democracy is ok, only if sanctioned by the USA. Read some history about Iran and perhaps you might understand why the gulf between the west and Iran is so large.

Your train of thought is dangerous. Do you know who the mullahs are and their views on Israel and the US?

[snip]

And FYI, you can't allow regimes that treaten to nuke other nations and promote terror, racism and anti-semitism to exist...IE Iran....For the sake of world peace those leaders MUST be removed.

And your thoughts are no less dangerous. Who’s sitting on one of the worlds biggest stockpiles of WMDs? Who’s talking about God and how he protects his country? Who’s ordered the invasion of two countries?

Should he be removed?


I’ll agree with you so far as that some leaders should be removed – but I don’t believe in removing them just because they might be a threat. That is a very dangerous way of thinking that short-circuits all the checks that we have build into our western democracy.

Saddam was a nasty character – no doubt about it. But he was like a pitbull without teeth. He might have looked mean, but he had no bite.

If you really believe in removing dangerous leaders, then why not attack North Korea? They have not only talked about getting a nuke – they actually have one! And why not attack Israel (and you might as well take Palestine while you’re there) - those countries are major destabilising factors in the Middle East.



Its been obvious they are ok with democracy as millions went out to vote..if they didn't want one why vote? Why not make america look stupid and stay home and make the election a huge failure? And do you think for 5 seconds a theocracy would allow votes even if they wanted it or just a fake demcracy like Saddam gave them. face it dictators don't allow true elections so the will of the people are ignored..atleast now they have a voice.


So they want democracy? Ok, fine by me – let them have it! But what is the US still doing in Iraq then?

And what will the U.S. do when Iraq democratically elects someone they don't like, someone that wants to destroy Israel and its supporters?

Is it ok to invade countries and kill civilians because you don't like their leader or is that just another part of democracy held in reserve?

I believe the current count is 3004.

This graphic becomes even more striking when you realize that it doesn't include the tens of thousands of wounded. Limbs maimed, eyes blinded, faces scarred, even psyches broken. Not to mention the countless civilian casualties...

At some point, it all turns into cold, unfeeling numbers. I'm glad this graphic helps put at least a little of it into a human perspective, though.

As it doesnt include the real victims - the people of Iraq - no, I don't think it really does.

how, exactly, is this propaganda? Is it untrue, is it exaggerated? Is it made up or faked?

I think it helps to demonstrate exactly what was going on, to show how each and every one of those tiny squares is a human life.
I thought a basic command of the English language was needed to converse here.

Propaganda isn't always lying. Look it up. Or read this...
"the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"

Now to the topic at hand. It's a shame that three thousand Americans have had to die, in order to keep Iraqis from killing each other. A great number more will undoubtedly die as a tribute to the arrogance in us that causes us to believe we can bring a backward society into a present day world.

"We don't do body counts."

And what will the U.S. do when Iraq democratically elects someone they don't like, someone that wants to destroy Israel and its supporters?

Is it ok to invade countries and kill civilians because you don't like their leader or is that just another part of democracy held in reserve?

The recent wall-to-wall coverage of Gerald Ford made me remember that it was his administration that really put the clamps on regime change. That was when the CIA was no longer allowed to meddle in the assassination business. It would have been much cleaner to have killed just Sadam and then replaced him with a more benevolent ruler.

It would have been much cleaner to have killed just Sadam and then replaced him with a more benevolent ruler.

Possibly cleaner, but also illegal, unless I am very much mistaken.

Possibly cleaner, but also illegal, unless I am very much mistaken.

Yes, I'm sure it is. Assassination also has the disadvantage of payback, too. It's a lot friendlier place when world leaders don't go around killing each other.

A great number more will undoubtedly die as a tribute to the arrogance in us that causes us to believe we can bring a backward society into a present day world.

Ahh yes, "white man's burden" isn't it?

"We're not raping and pillaging their people. That's what other people do. We call our raping and pillaging 'bringing the light of civilization to the barbarians'. It's so much better sounding"

Yes, I'm sure it is. Assassination also has the disadvantage of payback, too. It's a lot friendlier place when world leaders don't go around killing each other.

Hah! I bet the only reason why national leaders refrain from assassinations is because they might get it themselves. But if it's their armies their sending to die, hey, no skin of their noses.

The New York Times has put up a somber new feature (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20061228_3000FACES_TAB1.html) on their website. In commemoration of the dead in Iraq, they have taken the photos and basic biographic information of the first 3000 troops to die there, and organized them into a searchable database.

The pictures are presented as grayscale mosaics, painted onto a grid of small squares, each of which represents a life lost. It's disquieting to see all those pale, ghostly faces, each one in turn made up of many, many more faces, all lost forever to such a foolish mistake...

have they done the same for the tens of thousands of iraqis who have lost their lives as well?

I thought a basic command of the English language was needed to converse here.

Propaganda isn't always lying. Look it up. Or read this...
"the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"

Now to the topic at hand. It's a shame that three thousand Americans have had to die, in order to keep Iraqis from killing each other. A great number more will undoubtedly die as a tribute to the arrogance in us that causes us to believe we can bring a backward society into a present day world.

*pssst*

Try reading the rest of the thread fucktard, then talk about reading comprehension.

have they done the same for the tens of thousands of iraqis who have lost their lives as well?

how would they be able to? No real records exists, no pictures can be found, people can't even decide how many are dead, let alone who they are.