WHO report on Iraq deathsFollow

i liked the WHO better when they wrote about pinball

Who?

People like shadowrelm, Jophiel. And paulsol, Frenchy-dude-who's-name-I-can't-remember, and all the rest of those who cried themselves to sleep bemoaning the travisty of needless Iraqi civilian deaths. There's a number of individuals here who attempted to assail the justifiable reasons for going to war on the basis of overuse of cold-hearted American power and weaponry in the supposedly roughshod prosecution of rooting Saddam Hussein from power.

Pfft, you expect me to name each and every one of them? This board is crawling with bleeding hearts. You can't swing a stick without hitting someone who feels personally violated by Bush & Cheney and their "blood for oil recklessness." The frickin' namesake of this board likely is a member of this group-think.

Totem

'Zactly. He's the paragon of crazy lefty thinking on this board-- the posterboy for uncritical examination of statistics and flighty emotional responses to power projection. Frankly, I am surprised you guys pile on him like you do. Eat your young much, Libbies?

Totem

Ohhhh ****, another one...

Frick, what do you expect? It's a war. People get killed in wars. That's a basic premise of combat. With the exception of GW1, wars kill lots of people, frequently your own.

Just don't preach about how we had no business going and prosecuting this latest war, because no excuse/reason/explanation justifies Hussein violating the terms of the unconditional surrender. WMDs really have no bearing on our invasion beyond being the trigger for causing it. The groundwork was laid every time Hussein shot anti-aircraft missles at our jets, etc, etc, etc.

He had it coming to him.

Let that be a lesson to every other two-bit dictator who yanks our tail. The adage, "You mess with the bull, sometimes you get the horns," rings absolutely true. We may not invade every time, in fact, we prolly won't invade or bomb you for the 1,000th time you do something to **** us off, but eventually it'll cost you-- either in civilian lives, petty dictator's lives, monetarily, diplomatically, whatever.

It's not an issue of fairness or comparable force. It's a matter of abiding by the rules. Yeah, those rules. The ones we make because we can. Deal with it.

Totem

Well, tell that to the people who died in our Revolutionary War, Civil War, and every other war that was started due to intractible issues solved only by violence. Oh wait! That's right! We could have talked our way out of those situations!

/slaps his forehead

How silly of our predecessors to give in to the base instinct to kill other people and sacrifice their lives for something they believed strongly in-- the fools!

Listen to this piece of timeless wisdom: War is a necessary evil. The thinking that we can avoid war is akin to wishing the rain from falling on your head. It makes a good sentiment, but doesn't keep you from getting wet.

Good luck with your naivete', Pensive. Just remember to look both ways before you cross the street, because although you may have the right-of-way, it won't prevent that Mack truck from running your over.

Totem

WOW, where to begin? Only 151,000, what a joke! More civilian death!
Seriously, if you think that number makes all of this ok, you have something very wrong with you.

Seriously? You dare accuse others of group-think? Do you even know what it means? Here's a hint... millions of people mindlessly following an illegal war (if you can even CALL it a war [see Vietnam]), by a president who has consistently lied about the reasons to invade, lied about Iraq being the main threat, lied to his citizens about how seriously at risk we are, lied about and SUPPORTED torturing detainees, violated the constitution I don't even know how many times...and NOT EVEN QUESTION WHAT HE IS DOING.

Seriously reconsider who you're accusing that of...



So I guess by your reasoning here, the German Jews were at fault for letting Hitler rise to power?



Yes, he absolutely did. Then, we should have gotten the FUCK out of there. Save for a small'ish group to help the Iraqi's establish a real government. Oh wait, we've been trying that for years and are both failing miserably and not wanted there.


You're a ******* for comparing something like the lives lost in the revolutionary war to innocent, non military civilians. And a damned ignorant one to boot.


You say this while going off at the same time that Hussein was a dictator? What in the hell do you think you're making yourself sound like?


QF F'ing T


Totem, it's people like you that make up a major part of the reason american democracy is in shambles. And also, guess what? the educated majority of America has spoken. Mindless, bloodthirsty cowboys like yourself are becoming a thing of the past and the voters in the US damn well reflect that. Clarity my ***...

Hello, Osarion, welcome to the club. Your little glass of purple Kool-Aid is right over there on that table. No hesitation now! Inclusion into the liberal groupthink of Blame America First requires you obliterate any independent thinking, thus the need for a little drinky-poo to make sure that happens. Don't worry though, any proper thought process will be carried out by your intellectual superiors on the Left. You will be instructed how to rant and cry and whine like the puppet you so obviously are.

Drink, son, drink.

Totem

Hey, when I'm right, I'm right. Your Pollyanna-ish view of the world leads you to believe that you can make omelets without breaking a few eggs. Maybe, but it sure wouldn't look or taste like an omelet, sport. I, on the other hand, am a realist. I intuitively understand the human condition that demands that we place upon ourselves and others a value system, lest they place theirs on us. Sadly, wishing it weren't so don't make it true.

Given that truism, taking Saddam Hussein out of power meets our needs and at the same time meets the needs of the Iraqi people and crushes the wrongful aspirations of the minority (the Sunnis) who wouldn't otherwise budge an inch to give political expression and freedom to the majority (the Shi'a). Indeed, the number Saddam killed, imprisoned, and tortured far outstrip the relatively paltry numbers of 151,000 people.

Like I said, you don't have people pining away for the dictator they lost. If that's not proof of a righteous war, then what is?

In the meantime, put some ice on those bruised hurt feelings, bub. The swelling from my a$$kicking will go down in a few days.

Totem

Edited, Jan 10th 2008 2:30am by Totem

Oh, my intellectual superior! I bow down to your wit.


Here, have this flux capacitor. You'll need it to get out of the past you seem to be living in, where everything is justified by ousting Saddam. Set it to about 8 years in the future. 7 for the years since his capture (aka taking him out of power), and at LEAST one other for the laughable state he was in while in hiding all that time. Oh, and one other thing. Pull your head out of your rear, nobody is debating the fact that Saddam had to be removed from power.

Now that you're back in 2008, let's take a look at what's happened since.

There is no peace in Iraq
There is no real government in Iraq
There is more sectarian violence and killing (hey, you should be all for this one!).
The citizens of Iraq hate the US
The citizens of the US are starting to do so as well
The world is laughing at us

3,904 Americans have died as of today in the middle east. And seriously, I want you to tell me and the rest of the people here...what for? And btw you are banned from using Saddam as a reason (cop out).

I suppose you think we should invade Iran too eh? Gotta get those WMDs!!!! Oh, wait...





Edited, Jan 9th 2008 11:46pm by Osarion

Again with the ad hominem. Don't worry, once you reach and hopefully don't flunk out of high school, you'll learn what this means and why it's a totally ignorant way to debate. But yeah, at least YOU think you're cool. Trust me, you're the only one.

I'm sad but not at all surprised you ignored my challenge by the way. Good going there, son, keep up the good work.

Afghanistan also has one. Know what Hamid Karzai mostly does? Cowers and hides for his life. A useless government is the same as no government.


Markedly is a very poor choice of words here. And the little progress we've made, if you can call it that, thus far, has come after HOW LONG?

Hey look everyone! We've been failing in Iraq not only for the 8 years since Saddam fell, but LONG before that, we're about to hit the 1.2 TRILLION dollar mark in just the surge alone, early 80 people Iraqis and coalition troops are dying per day, but look! A few refugees are returning!

Hell, maybe after another 20,000 US lives, 15 years, and 10 trillion dollars, Iraq MIGHT have peace! Woot!


Hey Totem, remember the video of President Bush landing on that aircraft carrier with that huge banner that read "Mission Accomplished"? I bet you had a tear in your eye, while holding your American (possibly confederate) flag, didn't you.... c'mon, admit it.

You still back down from my question. Unless this pitiful response was all you could come up with.

Let's tally up the score, shall we? You concede there actually is a government in Iraq, perhaps while quivering and shaking in their boots, but all the same, there is a standing government.

Let's see, that's one for me. 1-0 in favor of Totem.

Then you acknowledge violence has gone down, rather than the steady state or increasing level of violence you initially claimed.

Hmmm, that makes two points for me. Looking like a rout at this point. 2-0 in favor of Totem.

Then you mumble a bunch of specious statistics and throw down your trump card: Bush declaring victory on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln! And I respond, so what? To each and every person on that ship, the war was indeed over, at least to the standard of what "normal" combat operations looked like to the military back then. I suppose you could make the logical extension to your argument that Truman was a fool for declaring victory even though there were plenty of mop-up operations going on in all the islands which had been cut off from Japan. The entire combined arms manual was about to be re-written
due to a lack of regular troop experience with counter-insurgency operations. Guess what? It happens. Not only does it happen, but the old saw we always fight today's war with yesterday's tactics still rings true. It just is.

You can argue that his speech was for public consumption and you'd be correct, but that doesn't negate that more directly, it was aimed at the US military. And guess what? To that end, the mission was accomplished. Normal combat operations had ceased by that point and he was giving the troops an Atta-boy. Just because you view it with the hindsight of the insurgency now doesn't diminish what he was saying to his immediate target audience.

I call that one a draw due to different perspectives. I'd say this was a pretty convincing win with me going 2-0-1 at the final count.

Thanks for playing though.

Totem