It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'I am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds'

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, look who's back! The same person who accused me of being "divisive" in another recent thread.

You, TheColdDragon, are a hypocrite and a troll. Troll elsewhere, please.



I am not a hypocrite to observe that you are dodgy at accepting that those in Power are to blame for decision making, and from my experience discussing with you prior to now, you completely ignore the culpability of these men.

You were being divisive by entering into a dialogue which had been discussing Dick Cheney's response to a CNN interview and attempting to derail it into a conversation about Board Bias, yourself, and "Liberals".

This conversation, just like the other, has nothing at all to do with your views of board bias. If I can save people like Lucid Lunacy from wasting several days of posting trying to reply and rebutt someone who, for all witnessed intents and purposes, does not appear willing to place blame on the administration for things that they are responsible for... I would like to do so.

Now, if my prior experience with you is not indicative of your actual manner and approach of discussion, then I will apologize for my mistaken impression of you. However you could have commented on the subject material of my post, rather than the fact that I alluded to you, and been on topic. Instead you decided to address my presence in the topic which doesn't lend itself to the original topic at hand.

So, in considering good gamesmanship, ARE you willing to admit that Bush and Cheney are culpable for the death they have caused in Iraq?




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stumpy1
Yeah..I agree with west coast, Where in the hell did the person writing the article come up with 1million dead? I think maybe he pulled a number out of a hat, and as far as 30000 troops dead, haha i follow the deaths of our loyal troops and citizens on a weekly basis and it is nowhere near 30000, more like high 4k. That post is actually kind of funny, maybe the person was writing about a dream they had


You can ignore this, as I suppose you ignore all what is against your stoned opinions.





What Just Foreign Policy’s Iraqi Death Estimator Is and Is Not

Since researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated that 601,000 violent Iraqi deaths were attributable to the U.S.-led invasion as of July 2006, it necessarily does not include Iraqis who have been killed since then. We would like to update this number both to provide a more relevant day-to-day estimate of the Iraqi dead and to emphasize that the human tragedy mounts each day this brutal war continues.

This daily estimate is a rough estimate. It is not scientific; for that, another study must be conducted. However, absent such a study, we think this constitutes a best estimate of violent Iraqi deaths that is certainly more reliable than widely cited numbers that, often for political reasons, ignore the findings of scientifically sound demographic studies.

In September 2007, a new scientific poll of Iraqis confirmed that the number dead is likely to be over a million. The prestigious British polling firm, Opinion Research Business, estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis had been killed violently since the U.S. invasion.


www.justforeignpolicy.org...

[edit on 26-3-2008 by HoHoFoo]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by HoHoFoo
 


It seems like every story out there about casualities credits Iraqi Body Count website, which isn't the most accurate.

And isn't that survey that everyone loves to quote the one where they interviewed 1800+ households, and somehow used that, and an older census taken a few years ago, to figure out how many were killed in Iraq? Not really the best way to get an accurate number of dead.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
20,000 soldiers lost there lives in one battle of WWII. So 4000 is not even the sum total of one battle of WWII.

Oh and before you say it, YES, even one dealth is tragic.

Please get a grip on reality.......


I get really tired of this. Nobody wants to compare Iraq to WW2. Is that really the point?

The war has cost too many lives and too much money. You think comparing it to WW2 makes any difference?

You think you have a 'grip on reality' when you shrug off 4,000+ dead U.S. soldiers like it's 'not that many'?

That's not having a grip on reality. That's called being in DENIAL.

Your little signature 'Hey LIBS: ALT+F4 NOW - OBAMA SUCKS' - I mean, it's obvious you aren't concerned with getting a grip on reality. It's all political bias for you.

The same has been said for jsobecky and countless other pro-war pro-government posters.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I get really tired of this. Nobody wants to compare Iraq to WW2. Is that really the point?


Well, seems that a lot of people love to compare Iraq with Vietnam. What's the difference?

Most are just saying that during WW2, in certain battles, we took that many casualites in a day (6 June 1944 for example).

The GWOT has been going on since 2001, Iraq since 2003. I don't want to see any more dead Americans, but I know that if we leave now, without trying to fix the mess, all those guys, plus the Iraqis, just died in vain.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Most are just saying that during WW2, in certain battles, we took that many casualites in a day (6 June 1944 for example).


I think you would be hard pressed to find MANY people who felt that those who died in WW2 did not die for a RIGHTEOUS cause, defeating Hitler and the Nazi's... who, subsequently, killed MILLIONS in what we called then Genocide (Ethnic Cleansing nowadays).

I think you will find a LOT more people who feel the Iraq war is not a righteous cause, and is questionable as a beneficial one.



The GWOT has been going on since 2001, Iraq since 2003. I don't want to see any more dead Americans, but I know that if we leave now, without trying to fix the mess, all those guys, plus the Iraqis, just died in vain.


So we should keep throwing soldiers into the meat grinder until the thing breaks down or it explodes. Because THAT will make their meaningless deaths more MEANINGFUL!

What MEANING are they bringing to their deaths? You cannot spread Freedom at the point of a gun, people have to WANT to be free.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by TheColdDragon]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
granted, genocide is a much stronger reason, than going to war with someone who had never commited that crime.

also, with alot of the counts i've seen (with iraqi casualties) count the suicide bombers, or insurgents as civillians. and others count the suicide bombers violence as american lead violence. because without us being there, they have no reason to blow each other up.


But what did Saddam do for his people? Seeing as you asked, i feel it necessary to remind you, and anyone else curious or forgetful, that before the First Gulf War, Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.


as long as you werent a kurd. or iranian. or lived anywhere near a city that could be bombed by the iranians.
but i'm sure the 3 year difference between teh end of the iraq-iran war to the beginning of the first gulf war gave them plenty of time to raise to the highest standard of living.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by wenfieldsecret]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 



That's the hard part. Where do you find balance? When is a rightful sacrifice and when is it just throwing troops away? That's a decision that's made way above my paygrade. I don't have an answer for that.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by khunmoon
 


Col Venable says white phosphorus weapons are not outlawed or banned by any convention.However, a protocol to an accord on conventional weapons which took effect in 1983 forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians.

White phosphorus munitions are primarily used by the US military to make smoke screens and mark targets, but also as an incendiary weapon, the Pentagon says.

www.abc.net.au...

They were not used against civilians just terrorist so back on the subject at hand. Americans dont just kill civilians on purpose we actually take all the steps to avoid it at all cost. Stop the hate.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Then I urge you to search the questions again. Ask yourself what Iraq is doing for the United States, or what it is doing for the Middle East. Before you answer the second question, ask yourself how REALISTIC it is for the administration to expect something positive to come from the war (Regardless of how much they spew in support of it).

Conservative estimate, 40,000 Iraqi's dead. Think about your own family, and if they would ever really come to grips that some foreigner killed their son/daughter.

Ask yourself if your children would forgive the person that killed their parent. Don't dehumanize your enemy, they have rage, anguish, and blood thirst just as anyone would. It is just as easy for them to view you as a monster as it is for you to view them as "Insane Muslim Extremists".

The war is breeding a generation who may be incapable of anything except hatred for the United States. In the best case scenario, Iraq becomes it's own nation again... and most likely succumbs to a Theocracy less than a generation from now.

And that Theocracy won't be favorable to the United States due to the past history.

We can wish and hope for it all we want. Some will call me a defeatist, but I can't conceivably understand how any nation of people can appreciate a country that has brought so much misery to their homes while arguing it is for their best interests.


MBF

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

But what did Saddam do for his people? Seeing as you asked, i feel it necessary to remind you, and anyone else curious or forgetful, that before the First Gulf War, Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.


Only the elite had this standard of living, not everybody.



With education, public health services, clean drinking water, increased employment opportunities, and affordable foods.


I'm sure the Kurds enjoyed these while they were hiding in their bomb shelters while they were being gassed.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MBF
 


USA's loved ally, Turkey has destroyed Kurds for decades.




In addition to the physical destruction of 3,000 Kurdish villages, and military "incursions" into Iraqi Kurdistan augmenting Saddam Hussein's role in the destruction of 5,000 villages there, the Turkish government has sought to suppress something as simple and precious as the Kurdish language. Until 1991, it was illegal even to use this language _privately_, and the language remains officially banned for broadcasting. In practice, merely speaking Kurdish in a public place is still an invitation to intense surveillance or arrest; shops carrying any music cassettes with any identifiable words in Kurdish are likewise a routine cause for such surveillance. The word "Kurd" is not in the official Turkish encyclopedia.

Just how dangerous Kurdish national identity may seem to this Government was made clear in 1994, when Leyla Zana, Kurdish Member of Parliament, made a speech calling for reconciliation and peace between Turks and Kurds. She spoke, however, in Kurdish, bravely displaying her people's colors (red, yellow, and green) while advocating a settlement based on nonviolence and justice.

For this "offense," she was sentenced to 15 years in prison, and while in prison has been awarded the Free Thought prize of the European Parliament, the Sakharov Prize, and declared a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International. She has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.


www.kurdistan.org...



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MBF
Only the elite had this standard of living, not everybody.


It's nice to make conclusion that In USA everybody has high standart of living, indians, immigrants, people who lives on the streets.


Without doubt Saddam was tyrant, and he kept tribal and religious troubles in line with violence and harsh governance. But.... with your tradition with CIA and assasinations, why did you destroyed hole country? You bombed it to stone age.

I hope there's never need to in my country to have this kind of "American aid"





Iraq had one of the best national health-care systems in the Middle East. For example, Saudi Arabia with all her petrodollar earnings had just a fraction of that of Iraq’s.

Iraq boasted a modern social infrastructure with a first-class range of health-care facilities, and the Iraqi people enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. In 1991, there were 1,800 health-care centres in Iraq. More than a decade later, that number is almost half, and almost a third of them require major rehabilitation. Iraq had used its oil revenues, which accounted for 60% of its gross domestic product (GDP), to build a modern health-care system with large Western-style hospitals and modern technology. Iraqi medical and nursing schools attracted students from throughout the Middle East, and many Iraqi doctors were trained in Europe or the U.S.A. Primary health-care services reached about 97% of the urban population and 78% of the rural population in 1990. But the Gulf war of 1991 and more than 13 years of U.S-Britain sponsored genocidal sanctions have left the country's economy and infrastructure in ruins.

UNICEF reported on March 28, 2003 that, "The Education system in Iraq, prior to 1991, was one of the best in the region, with over 100% Gross Enrolment Rate for primary schooling and high levels of literacy, both of men and women. The Higher Education, especially the scientific and technological institutions, was of an international standard, staffed by high quality personnel". In the 1980s, a successful government program to eradicate illiteracy among Iraqi men and women was implemented.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO),

"Iraq had a modern sanitary infrastructure with an extensive network of water-purification and sewage-treatment systems. Water networks distributed clean, safe water to 95% of the urban population and to 75% of those in rural areas. In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP".

www.globalresearch.ca...

About Saddam in wikipedia:


A leading member of the revolutionary Ba'ath Party, which espoused secular pan-Arabism, economic modernization, and socialism, Saddam played a key role in the 1968 coup that brought the party to long-term power. As vice president under the ailing General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam tightly controlled conflict between the government and the armed forces—at a time when many other groups were considered capable of overthrowing the government—by creating repressive security forces. In the early 1970s, Saddam spearheaded Iraq's nationalization of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, which had long held a monopoly on the country's oil. Through the 1970s, Saddam cemented his authority over the apparatuses of government as Iraq's economy grew at a rapid pace.[6]


So Saddam was secular socialist, who nationalizated western-owned oil monopoly. Now I understand why USG destroied hole country!

OMG sosialism!!! National health care...AAAaarrrggHH! Save women and children first, cover their eyes and ears. Disgusting! Bad examples have to destroy.


[edit on 27-3-2008 by HoHoFoo]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


Article 1,2 and 3 of Protocol III of the CCWC forbids the use of incendary weapons where there is a mass concentration of civilians ; in Fallujah the so called terrorists (guerilla fighters in another war not 40 years ago) where inside buildings , where the ones to teh left and right had no combatants - the US employed `shake and bake` missions source




WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosive]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out


Artilary is not 100% accurate all the time and to be effective you fire at an area.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I get really tired of this. Nobody wants to compare Iraq to WW2. Is that really the point?

No, that is not the point. I guess it went way over your head.
Another poster, ColdDragon I think, compared the 4000 killed so far in Iraq to entire armies of 4000 soldiers of the past being killed. I just flipped the numbers and said what about the 20,000 killed in one day during WWII. So don't give me your faux outrage. I guess it's different when someone thinks differently from you.

Why don't you criticize the poster who started the numbers comparison? Oh, I see, it is because he/she thinks like you.


You think you have a 'grip on reality' when you shrug off 4,000+ dead U.S. soldiers like it's 'not that many'?

I guess this statement from you proves you really don't read posts because I stated that even one death is tragic.

Again, I am not the one who started the numbers debate, I just ended it.



Your little signature 'Hey LIBS: ALT+F4 NOW - OBAMA SUCKS' - I mean, it's obvious you aren't concerned with getting a grip on reality. It's all political bias for you.

Umm.....do you always lie and fabricate statements in a losing attempt to make a lame point?
Please show me where I have 'obama sucks'.....waiting. I guess HIS own words are forbidden to quote. Is that what you are saying?

BTW, its always political. Either you believe a certain way or you don't. Why would I want to support a democrat who is going to raise my taxes, increase government regulation and swell the size of government to smothering proportions. Sorry, I'll pass.


The same has been said for jsobecky and countless other pro-war pro-government posters.

Of course the same has been said for posters like yourself except flipped. BTW, its not pro-war & pro-government. Hell if anything its pro-military only. Your type should be labeled pro-government because you want the government to solve all problems instead of taking responsibility for one's own actions.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
but i'm sure the 3 year difference between teh end of the iraq-iran war to the beginning of the first gulf war gave them plenty of time to raise to the highest standard of living.


Im not contesting that horrible things were done under his rule. Im jusst bringing up the fact that up until the US intervension in the 80's the people of iraq were living a better life than what was protrayed by popular media.

Also, you do realize Saddam was in power for longer than just the 3 years between the iran-iraq conflict and the first gulf war right? If so, I dont understand your comment.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Bush is so far removed from "reality" because he never intended to be so. The only reality that should exist is according to him that of the fulfillment of the goals of the people that he and (other past presidents since Woodrow Wilson) have worked for.

It doesn't matter who dies in the mean time. As long as those goals are met.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
No, that is not the point. I guess it went way over your head.
Another poster, ColdDragon I think, compared the 4000 killed so far in Iraq to entire armies of 4000 soldiers of the past being killed. I just flipped the numbers and said what about the 20,000 killed in one day during WWII. So don't give me your faux outrage. I guess it's different when someone thinks differently from you.


Why did you want to play with numbers anyways? The point I was making with the "Losing an army of men" comment was that human life has lost value in comparison to 300 years ago. We value human life less now than we did 300 years ago. Stalin commented on the difference between killing a few hundred versus a few thousand... the latter being just a statistic which is hard for people to mentally comprehend.



Why don't you criticize the poster who started the numbers comparison? Oh, I see, it is because he/she thinks like you.


Why do you assume that this other person thinks like me?




Again, I am not the one who started the numbers debate, I just ended it.



I would suggest you were supplying a non-argument with a focus to create contention and numbers argument, and I was disinterested in that direction of conversation in this topic.



Umm.....do you always lie and fabricate statements in a losing attempt to make a lame point?
Please show me where I have 'obama sucks'.....waiting. I guess HIS own words are forbidden to quote. Is that what you are saying?



Must you turn this conversation towards the people talking rather than the subject discussed?



BTW, its always political. Either you believe a certain way or you don't. Why would I want to support a democrat who is going to raise my taxes, increase government regulation and swell the size of government to smothering proportions. Sorry, I'll pass.


It isn't always political. I feel for you if that has been your experience. I don't see where anyone has claimed that you must like Obama, or any other democrat for that reason. So why are you bringing that up? Because someone commented on your signature? Does your signature exist to garner comments from people who may disagree? If so, should you complain when people do?


Of course the same has been said for posters like yourself except flipped. BTW, its not pro-war & pro-government. Hell if anything its pro-military only. Your type should be labeled pro-government because you want the government to solve all problems instead of taking responsibility for one's own actions.


"Your type"? See, it is this divisive us/them mentality that really poisons any real conversation between different camps. Rather than accept we're americans and share different viewpoints, we cordon ourselves into buttressed bunkers of party and political color.

The person who commented "Posters like yourself" is just as much to blame... it is easy to want to attack someone for having different views, and it is harder to bite your tongue rather than spout off the us/them mentality on either side of the fence.

Fact of the matter is, More government isn't working. Economically we can't afford a universal health-care system in the financial straights we are in right now. We probably could have if not for the Iraq War itself.

Fact of the matter is, the Iraq war isn't helping the U.S.A. at all. It's equally as doubtful that it will help the middle east in the near, far, and distant future.

The likelihood is that Iraq will experience some turmoil if we pull out later, and regress to a theological democracy. That's if we don't plant a puppet government, which is far more likely (And has a lot of historical precedence.)

So Democrats, Healthcare isn't a possibility this go around. Blame it on the kid who stole your lunch (Bush & Cheney), they are easily proved responsible for the loss.

And Republicans, Stop supporting someone who violates what any conservative person would consider the definition of "Conservative", and try and avoid apologetics for the President and his Administration. You aren't paid PR shills for the Neo-Corporate Lobby, and people should answer for themselves.



[edit on 27-3-2008 by TheColdDragon]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
The Iraqbodycount site says there are about 90,000 DOCUMENTED Iraqi civilian deaths. Those are only the documented ones. Keep in mind that Gen. Tommy Franks said "We don't do body counts" meaning they are not keeping the numbers (and probably suppressing the real count).

If you have been reading other recent threads, you will find that these numbers are artificially underinflated. This doesn't count the UNDOCUMENTED deaths, such as the ones caused by soldiers being ordered to keep going and run over any civilian, child or adult, who gets in the way of a tank that is passing through. You think they kept track of those deaths? Not hardly.

Also, the 30,000 number isn't just dead, it's dead and WOUNDED. The U.S. tells us we've only lost 4,000 soldiers, but there are lots more that have been wounded. Furthermore, this number doesn't include the numbers that have died or been permanently disfigued, injured, etc. by depleted uranium and other nuclear-type weapons. Last count, there were almost 200,000 killed by DU - that's a govt statistic going back to the Gulf War. I just read that but can't remember where that source was posted.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Americans dont just kill civilians on purpose we actually take all the steps to avoid it at all cost. Stop the hate.


Ever heard of Haditha?

The troops don't kill women and children eh...

Or use cluster weapons in civilian area's

As for the number of deaths, the Lancet says up to 1.2 million based on a study with a margin of error of +/- 2.5%
source

The John Hopkins University researchers say over 600,000
source

IBC says approx. 90,000 documented deaths based in many cases on single source reports.
source

My opinion is that civilian area's have been and are still routinely targetted under the pretext of engaging insurgents, which is against the geneva convention, which the US is a signatory to:

Article 48: Basic Rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.
Article 49: Definition of Attacks and Scope of Application

1. "Attacks" means acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offense or in defense.
2. The provisions of this Protocol with respect to attacks apply to all attacks in whatever territory conducted, including the national territory belonging to a Party to the conflict but under the control of an adverse Party.
3. The provisions of this Section apply to any land, air or sea warfare which may affect the civilian population, individual civilians or civilian objects on land. They further apply to all attacks from the sea or from the air against objectives on land but do not otherwise affect the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict at sea or in the air.
4. The provisions of this Section are additional to the rules concerning humanitarian protection contained in the Fourth Convention, particularly in Part II thereof, and in other international agreements binding upon the High Contracting Parties, as well as to other rules of international law relating to the protection of civilians and civilian objects on land, at sea or in the air against the effects of hostilities.

Chapter II: Civilians and Civilian Population
Article 50: Definition of Civilians and Civilian Population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A 111, lIl, (31 and 161 of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.


source

So whichever way you spin it, the US has been guilty of targetting civilians.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join