- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- WHO report on Iraq deaths
WHO report on Iraq deathsFollow
Because the moderate anti-war folks don't see the exaggerations even when they are pointed out
No, it's that they can't be [red]EQUIVOCATED[/b]. If there had been NO deaths, then you could equivocate them with WMN.
DOUCY?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
Because the moderate anti-war folks don't see the exaggerations even when they are pointed out. Some of us on this thread saw that Lancet article a year and a half ago and immediately said "Those numbers are too high to be true". We argued this. We used logic. We used reason. But the so-called "moderate" anti-war folks (I assume you include yourself in this list) absolutely refused to even entertain the notion that the 600k death toll could be wrong.
I include myself in the list of moderate anti-war folks, but not in the moderate anti-war folks who think 600k is any different than 150k. Well, not different enough to demonstrate any point. Those numbers aren't extremes, we're not comparing the civilian death toll from Grenada to WWII Germany. A lot of Iraqi civilians died, that isn't good. But the reasons are far more important than the numbers.
Quote:
That's why we hold you responsible. You talk about a "bunch of fools" in Congress, but then you do the exact same thing. Except that in this case, it should have been abundantly obvious to anyone with a handful of working brain cells that those numbers were too high, whereas the belief that an nation that had systematically hidden everything it could relating to WMDs might still have some hidden somewhere wasn't exactly an unreasonable thing. It's not like we didn't catch him hidding stuff about 3 or 4 times over the previous decade or anything...
Congress didn't write laws authorizing a withdrawal of force after Iraqi civilian deaths reached a certain number. One led to war, the other leads to what, a flawed and pointless argument? If your and Totem's point is that liberals lie too, you sort of made it. Some liberals lie, you win.
Quote:
You're right. It was reasonable to assume that Iraq probably had a significant number of WMD related materials and research hidden away, and might even have some working weapons. It was *not* reasonable to accept the 600k death toll in Iraq. See. Cause one of those things was consistent with historical information that was already present, while the other completely flew in the face of every fact, figure and number we'd collected so far.
Assume Iraq had WMD, sure. Bush wasn't touting assumptions, he was pushing it by using dubious facts, disproven theories, and rhetoric. He pulled the rope on the only entity that was finding facts rather than assumptions, the UN. There was no Soros deadline at 600k that would enable war or anything important at all. He's an idiot and a fact-fudger, so was Bush. That's the only comparison, the principle. The importance of the effect and the players are not comparable at all.
Anyone with a handful of working brain cells can recognize both and not jump the gun on either. As you say, "Maybe some of you might just want to re-examine what lies you've been told. You probably wont though..." Please take that advice yourself; it applies as much to blind conservatives as it does to blind liberals.
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
This is also quite different from Bush Iraq exaggerations and conjecture.
You're right. It was reasonable to assume that Iraq probably had a significant number of WMD related materials and research hidden away, and might even have some working weapons. It was *not* reasonable to accept the 600k death toll in Iraq. See. Cause one of those things was consistent with historical information that was already present, while the other completely flew in the face of every fact, figure and number we'd collected so far.
What is this tit for tat bullsh*t? No, it is not acceptable that we went into a gung-ho into a second front of a war on faulty intelligence and one that damaged our diplomatic relations with our allies. It isn't okay to exaggerate the dead Iraqis in a war to gain political capital. But to act like the numbers justify the faulty intelligence claims or gives pro-Bush supporters some kind of goddamned moral superiority is ridiculous. Two wrongs don't make a right. Five year old know that. Arguments like Totem's cheapen the argument of those who defend the war if nothing else b/c it makes it purely about political oneupmanship rather than about the merits of the war itself.
Edited, Jan 10th 2008 8:54pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
The Honorable Annabella wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
This is also quite different from Bush Iraq exaggerations and conjecture.
You're right. It was reasonable to assume that Iraq probably had a significant number of WMD related materials and research hidden away, and might even have some working weapons. It was *not* reasonable to accept the 600k death toll in Iraq. See. Cause one of those things was consistent with historical information that was already present, while the other completely flew in the face of every fact, figure and number we'd collected so far.
What is this tit for tat bullsh*t? No, it is not acceptable that we went into a gung-ho into a second front of a war on faulty intelligence and one that damaged our diplomatic relations with our allies. It isn't okay to exaggerate the dead Iraqis in a war to gain political capital. But to act like the numbers justify the faulty intelligence claims or gives pro-Bush supporters some kind of goddamned moral superiority is ridiculous. Two wrongs don't make a right. Five year old know that. Arguments like Totem's cheapen the argument of those who defend the war if nothing else b/c it makes it purely about political oneupmanship rather than about the merits of the war itself.
Edited, Jan 10th 2008 8:54pm by Annabella
Ronald Reagan.
"Needless to say, out of respect, I shouted racist insults at the pilot and rubbed one out." --Nobstuh
Heh, I wondered why I busted out some chill bumps all over mah hawg the other day. Must have been a symbiotic convergence of hypothetical half-truths melded into that interdimensional myagiac state known only by mystics and seers, right Pensive? Or whatever the fock you've been spouting. As for the racist insults, Nobby, as long as it included the words "bloody," "snoggalistic shagtastic," and "guv'nuh" it's all good.
Lol, bhodi, I RACK your response about Bush failing to even live up to expectations of innocent deaths. That's the kind of sly humor we need more of around here.
Totem
Heh, I wondered why I busted out some chill bumps all over mah hawg the other day. Must have been a symbiotic convergence of hypothetical half-truths melded into that interdimensional myagiac state known only by mystics and seers, right Pensive? Or whatever the fock you've been spouting. As for the racist insults, Nobby, as long as it included the words "bloody," "snoggalistic shagtastic," and "guv'nuh" it's all good.
Lol, bhodi, I RACK your response about Bush failing to even live up to expectations of innocent deaths. That's the kind of sly humor we need more of around here.
Totem
/laugh
Ok, just stop, please! Stop! You're killin' me here. All these miffed and huffy responses about how we on the Right have supposedly twisted facts, figures, and data to serve the purpose of justifying a war is just another example of how you on the Left can't accept that your side has egg on your faces.
We heard nothing but, "You lying ******* neocons bought Bush's lies wholesale and never thought to check their veracity! Shame! Shame! Shameshameshame!" But when the very thing you've accused us of occurs to you-- whaaa? Wait! Surely those numbers are skewed! Wait! 151,000 still is an obscene number of deaths! Wait! WMDs! WMDs! WMDsWMDsWMDs!"
Lol, here's the thing: Because each of you have spent months arguing and crying and belaboring the lack of informational integrity concerning the war, the onus is on your shoulders to ensure that your accusations are factually correct. You decry that there was little vetting of the facts, yet here in one of the cornerstones of your arguments on why the war is immoral, it is discovered that your facts are entirely made-up.
/laugh
See, children, in order to retain the moral high ground, there can be no instances of scandal among you, lest you be found to be just as politically craven as you seems to think the Right/neocons/Bush adminstration is. Once you base your argument on your opponent's lack of veracity it behooves you to ensure you don't fall prey to the very thing you so smugly accuse others of. Guess what? It's a little something called H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.
So, tell me, how does that crow taste?
Totem
Ok, just stop, please! Stop! You're killin' me here. All these miffed and huffy responses about how we on the Right have supposedly twisted facts, figures, and data to serve the purpose of justifying a war is just another example of how you on the Left can't accept that your side has egg on your faces.
We heard nothing but, "You lying ******* neocons bought Bush's lies wholesale and never thought to check their veracity! Shame! Shame! Shameshameshame!" But when the very thing you've accused us of occurs to you-- whaaa? Wait! Surely those numbers are skewed! Wait! 151,000 still is an obscene number of deaths! Wait! WMDs! WMDs! WMDsWMDsWMDs!"
Lol, here's the thing: Because each of you have spent months arguing and crying and belaboring the lack of informational integrity concerning the war, the onus is on your shoulders to ensure that your accusations are factually correct. You decry that there was little vetting of the facts, yet here in one of the cornerstones of your arguments on why the war is immoral, it is discovered that your facts are entirely made-up.
/laugh
See, children, in order to retain the moral high ground, there can be no instances of scandal among you, lest you be found to be just as politically craven as you seems to think the Right/neocons/Bush adminstration is. Once you base your argument on your opponent's lack of veracity it behooves you to ensure you don't fall prey to the very thing you so smugly accuse others of. Guess what? It's a little something called H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.
So, tell me, how does that crow taste?
Totem
Quote:
We heard nothing but
An amusing (and false (and meaningless)) caricature apparently. The exact number of the dead Iraqis was never really a factor to me at all, but even pretend it was for a moment; pretend for a moment, that this information strikes some sort of critical blow against the opposing side (whatever that means) and you can gloat and trumpet and yell all you wish about the hypocrisy of the left, whatever. Even if I were to grant that this story has some significance, there are differences between the respective incompetencies of the parties' fact-checking machine. At least the most obvious one is the time at which they occurred; one was in a decision to go to war at all, while the other lies in behavior during the time of war. Certainly, we could quibble about that all day, but it's fruitless anyway. Fuck, as a realist I don't see why it would even surprise you to see opposing groups manipulate facts to serve their own best interests. It's like you're being selectively cynical about the matter. Anyways, I got carried away from what I really wanted to say... damn.
Quote:
So, tell me, how does that crow taste?
Dude, it's really not this complicated.
A great deal of people experienced a great deal of pain as a result of this war. That is an undeniably bad state of affairs. The only question to which this information might be relevant is whether or not that pain is a lesser net value than the pain created by leaving Iraq the hell alone. Fortunately, we don't have to answer that question right here and now.
The only question that we need to address, is whether or not you (a supporter of the war) would change your mind concerning the answer to the previous question, based on the new information. If you can say something like, "well, 600k people was way too much, but 151k is alright" then you have something of a case. Why? You can argue that the pain caused by the deaths of 151k people does not outweigh the pain caused by leaving Saddam alone. If you, however, would have supported the war regardless of the death-toll, then it makes no difference for you at all. If a second individual would have opposed the war regardless of the death-toll, then it again, makes no difference at all, concerning the justice of the conflict. When you argue against someone who believes that a war is unjust for completely unrelated reasons, then what you have presented is irrelevant in the absolute strictest sense of the word.
Sure you could make the case that this revelation represents some institutional failure of liberals to check facts in a significant amount of cases, but good damn luck making it compelling. Even if you turned out to be correct it would serve as nothing more meaningful than fodder for the next election, and the satisfaction of a personal vendetta; those hardly seem like worthy goals for someone concerned with the just and fair and right course of action in a war...
Quote:
if nothing else b/c it makes it purely about political oneupmanship rather than about the merits of the [issue] itself.
Well that pretty much describes the state of political discourse, media coverage of politics, and (usually) discussion of politics on this forum, which is why I stopped bothering to participate in it here.
I only have one thing to add to this thread, and it's to Osarion.
You officially lose the right to comment on anything Iraq related given your claims that the war has been going on for 8 years. I hate to be the fly in your self-righteous ointment, but the festivities kicked off on 3 March 2003.
You officially lose the right to comment on anything Iraq related given your claims that the war has been going on for 8 years. I hate to be the fly in your self-righteous ointment, but the festivities kicked off on 3 March 2003.
Certain folk in this thread are posting as though Bush has won the war in Iraq.
Nothing has been won in Iraq. Nothing.
Nothing has been won in Iraq. Nothing.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
That's not true at all. I won a pretty intense game of spades over there.
RACK allenjj
Totem
Totem
So who would you believe more on this. The WHO, or the rock band the WHO?
Me? i'm going with Dr. WHO!
Me? i'm going with Dr. WHO!
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
So the death toll is the equivalent of nuking a medium sized city instead of nuking a medium-large city. Uhmmmm. Congrats?
I never really believed the 600k number anyways, but it doesn't change the fact that a f*ckton of people are dead that shouldn't be. It's not a war, it never was, it's a pointless and illegal invasion gone wrong. Do you seriously think the US military had to invade the f'n country to get Sadam out of power? I would hope they're just a little more resourceful than that. This isn't about Sadam, it's about controlling the middle east, and 151 000 people have died so that the US can have control over something they have no business controlling.
I never really believed the 600k number anyways, but it doesn't change the fact that a f*ckton of people are dead that shouldn't be. It's not a war, it never was, it's a pointless and illegal invasion gone wrong. Do you seriously think the US military had to invade the f'n country to get Sadam out of power? I would hope they're just a little more resourceful than that. This isn't about Sadam, it's about controlling the middle east, and 151 000 people have died so that the US can have control over something they have no business controlling.
Quote:
That's not true at all. I won a pretty intense game of spades over there.
What? Against Bush! Wow! /bowdown.
I didn't think he'd progressed past KerPlunk.
Edited, Jan 11th 2008 1:44pm by paulsol
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
I remember a few years ago there was this guy with whom I would play spades damn near every day, with whoever else would happen to be in the lounge at the time. I didn't know how to play til I met him, and early on I partnered with him once and accidentally reneged; he damn near jumped across the table at me. Spades is apparently serious ******* business. It was okay though since we won the next hand 12-1.
Kerplunk is a sad answer to the mother of all games involving Stix
Yodabunny wrote:
I never really believed the 600k number anyways, but it doesn't change the fact that a f*ckton of people are dead that shouldn't be.
Then you aren't the target audience for the exaggerated numbers. It doesn't matter if you believed the number or not. It doesn't matter if you don't think that 151k or 655k deaths makes a difference. Many people do form their opinions based on those numbers. And those were the people that were the target audience for this bogus report.
You don't really think that the Dems took control of Congress last year running on their economic or social platforms do you? Heck. You barely heard a peep out of them on their own platform and position. They won because they were able to demonize the war and Bush sufficiently. That was all they talked about, and that was what tipped the balance in their favor.
This report was a huge component of that process. So yeah. It's significant to now know that it was fabricated data.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It's significant to now know that it was fabricated data.
"erroneous" and "fabricated" are now synonyms
Who knew?
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Then you aren't the target audience for the exaggerated numbers.
Show there was intent or you have no standing at all.
Whenever you're ready.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 293
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (293)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- WHO report on Iraq deaths
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC