Iraqi soldier “Caesar” killed three American soldiers as they kicked , beat a pregnant woman, page 27
Pages: <<  24    25    26    27    28  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times


reply posted on 17-1-2008 @ 09:53 AM by BlueRaja
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by v01i0


Correct on WMDs: there were none.


None found, would be a more accurate response to v01i0.


reply posted on 20-1-2008 @ 05:18 AM by v01i0
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by v01i0

You said it had been proven that Saddam did not kill innocent civilians.


Oh come on, quit placing words into my mouth. I have never said that "it had been proven that Saddam did not kill innocent civilians.". You have to draw quite far fetched conclusions to end up saying that I think so.

Originally posted by v01i0
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by v01i0


452,031 dead? What method did you use to arrive at that number?
655,000 dead, 1.2 million dead, etc... are some other wild speculations that have been asserted. Of these 3 figures, how many of these dead can be verified by hard facts versus completely subjective wild speculation?


My method? Wild speculation or intuition based on some kind of wild sythesis and somewhat a joke, could be wrong as well hehe



Heh, my prediction(452,031 dead iraqis) above wasn't that insane after all:

Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12 801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3–7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9–16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

Original Source: Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey; Burnham et al. Click here for full article.


PS.
Originally posted by BlueRaja
[...]the self sacrifice involved in defending one's country[...]


Self sacrifice my rear! When you kill people and get paid for it, there's nothing about self sacrifice there! Instead go feeding some hungry people at your own expense; or go teaching ignorant people at your own time! There's some self sacrifice. It is one very worn nonsense rhyme that your military men are there for "self sacrifice". Keep telling yourself so to keep up with sanity and you're painting white with black.

[edit: added post script]

[edit on 20-1-2008 by v01i0]


reply posted on 20-1-2008 @ 11:05 PM by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by v01i0
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by v01i0

You said it had been proven that Saddam did not kill innocent civilians.


Oh come on, quit placing words into my mouth. I have never said that "it had been proven that Saddam did not kill innocent civilians.". You have to draw quite far fetched conclusions to end up saying that I think so.


Whose placing words in mouths? I'm quoting you, read again.

Originally posted by v01i0
Above is an example of same type scenario which took place with Iraq occupation. First Saddam was blamed of having MWD's, then he was accused of harbouring terrorist, then he was accused of killing innocent civilians and when the "justifications" all came to proven wrong, there wasn't anything else left that Allied brought up liberty and freedom, but instead of that, they managed to create chaos and misery. To me, they appear as guilty as is the criminal in preceding example.


So, where did I put words in your mouth and how do I have to draw far-fetched conclusions?

You said Saddam was accused of killing innocent civilians as a justification for invasion and that all justifications were proven untrue, ("wrong" being your exact word). You typed it, not me.


reply posted on 21-1-2008 @ 10:18 PM by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by v01i0


I'm not so sure which is responsible for more civilian deaths, either.

and, to make it quite clear, I find the whole "omelette/eggs" argument to be a contemptible cop-out. I can only hope that at some point in the not-too-distant future we can look at a stable, democratic Iraq, where services work and the government serves the people and say "it cost too much to get here, but now that it's bought and paid for, let's protect and invest in it" and the Iraqi people will share the same view.

I also hope that history will shortly begin to ignore the "war on terror", "confronting terror" and neo-con posturing and begin to assign responsibility for the mess in Iraq in stark terms. I don't believe there is a reputation outside the SecState and Ass'SecState c.'03 that will survive such a process.



reply posted on 22-1-2008 @ 03:40 AM by v01i0
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


Yeah, what is done cannot be undone - You kinda made me think how pointless it is to argue about the justification of the invasion, or whether the story 'marines kicking pregnant woman', is true - Because all that matters now, when all the mistakes have been made, and when most of the cards have been played, is that the people would work together towards the Iraq that is comfortable to live in.


reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 08:25 AM by BlueRaja
reply to post by v01i0


So unless Soldiers are unpaid, you don't see them making any personal sacrifices? That's a pretty narrow definition. How about a willingness to lay down their life for someone they don't know, to protect them from harm, and so that person might have a chance at a better life?


reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 02:03 PM by v01i0
reply to post by BlueRaja


Well yeah, I accept that some of the soldiers may be there for that reason. Some. But even they are, in my opinion they are seriously mislead.


reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 02:16 PM by BlueRaja
Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by BlueRaja


Well yeah, I accept that some of the soldiers may be there for that reason. Some. But even they are, in my opinion they are seriously mislead.


You may disagree with them, but I guarantee you they believe in what they're doing. You don't put yourself in harm's way if you're ambivalent.
The type of individual that joins the military, police, fire department accepts the fact that they may have to put themselves in danger of death/dismemberment, to save a friend or stranger.



reply posted on 30-1-2008 @ 05:00 AM by v01i0
Originally posted by BlueRaja
You may disagree with them, but I guarantee you they believe in what they're doing.


Yeah, absolutely they do believe in what they are doing. Or they want to believe, and when they stop believing in it, mental disorder will emerge - I believe

Some people have this trouble: It was reported that quite a bit of the veterans have some kind of mental disorders:
Nearly a third of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who received care from Veterans Affairs between 2001 and 2005 were diagnosed with mental health or psychosocial ills, a new study concludes [...]

[...]Of the total, 32,010 (31 percent) were diagnosed with mental health and/or psychosocial problems, including 25,658 who received mental health diagnoses. More than half (56 percent) were diagnosed with two or more disorders.

Post-traumatic stress disorder was the most common disorder, with the 13,205 veterans who got the diagnosis accounting for more than half (52 percent) of mental health diagnoses.

CNN news...

My theory regarding the matter is that those who continue to believe in the system after active serving, shall continue with "healthy" mentality, and those who are there just for the kicks(sadistic people that want to kill, torture, rape or otherwise mutilate, or infant people that just want to shoot and/or pilot fancy equipment), will also preserve their mental stability, except perhaps the infant ones after they've seen the horrors of war.


reply posted on 30-1-2008 @ 08:25 AM by BlueRaja
reply to post by v01i0


The problem with your argument is that only those who disagree with your views are "believers" and "misled," (whereas sensible people would naturally agree with you?) Do you see how that could come across to someone not sharing your views? If I were to assert that I was the sole proprietor on truth and reason, and everyone else was wrong/idiots/criminals, would you think me perhaps arrogant(fill in adjective)? The horrors of war affect people differently, and it has nothing to do with their opinions, political affiliation, socio-economic status. Personally, someone that wasn't a "believer" I would think would have a much more adverse reaction, than someone that believed they were doing something worthwhile, good, or noble.


reply posted on 30-1-2008 @ 09:44 AM by BlueRaja
reply to post by v01i0


That's cool. I can respect an honest difference of opinion.


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 04:16 PM by SolPower
Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by GT100FV


www.yaqen.net...



You seem awfully anxious at the prospect that Americans may have been killed- thanks for your objectivity.


nah, waiting to see when americans learn to stop killing others


Don't you mean, when people stop killing other people? What an ignorant statement.
Pages: <<  24    25    26    27    28  >>    ^^TOP^^



Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 3 days ago with 111 member flags
Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 15 days ago with 81 member flags
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 2 days ago with 68 member flags
Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 12 days ago with 59 member flags
She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags
Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 12 days ago with 42 member flags
Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 7 days ago with 33 member flags