thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra.

thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

wankerforuse -> thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/3/2007 11:49:13 PM)
And it's about time as their has been so much senseless killing in Iraq in my opinion,i can't wait for all of the soilders to return home to their families and loved ones.As also in my opinion we never should of invaded Iraq in the first place,as it has got alot worse the situation in that country since Saddam was removed from his high office and eventually executed.

cyberdude611 -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/3/2007 11:56:30 PM)
And after the US pulls out there is going to be killing and slaughter in that nation the likes of which we havn't seen in decades.

CuriousLord -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 12:39:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wankerforuse their has been so much senseless killing in Iraq Deaths due to car wrecks (in the US only, 2004: 365 days): 42,636 Deaths per day: ~116.8 Coalition deaths in Iraq (all members, full duration: 1628 days): 4,038 Deaths per day: ~2.5 If preventing deaths is your cause, don't you feel that there may be more practical ways of going about this? PS- I just often question exactly how politically motivated such calls are. Bush can not, in good conscience, allow Iraq to slip into anarchy. Every death, every mistake that occurs, though, will be pinned on him. Damn you politicians.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 2:38:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: wankerforuse their has been so much senseless killing in Iraq Deaths due to car wrecks (in the US only, 2004: 365 days): 42,636 Deaths per day: ~116.8 Coalition deaths in Iraq (all members, full duration: 1628 days): 4,038 Deaths per day: ~2.5 If preventing deaths is your cause, don't you feel that there may be more practical ways of going about this? PS- I just often question exactly how politically motivated such calls are. Bush can not, in good conscience, allow Iraq to slip into anarchy. Every death, every mistake that occurs, though, will be pinned on him. Damn you politicians. You do realize you are comparing total deaths by car wrecks for a population of 300 million, versus total deaths in a population in Iraq measured in the 100's of thousands. Not to mention you are counting the victims of the driver in your death total, but not including Iraqi deaths in your total victims of US soldiers. It really is applies and oranges, I thought you were the math genius, you must know that comparison is total "bullocks" (did I use that right, hehe, seen the english posters use it).

Satyr6406 -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 3:09:46 AM)
Let's be very clear about something: If you discount all the lies that the current administration told and you completely ignore all the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, two, absolute FACTS remain. 1) We helped Saddam rise to power in Iraq because we knew that he would help us by prosecuting a war with Iran (The enemy of my enemy is my friend.). We chose him because he wasn't a "Muslim extremist" which benefitted from this two fold: He wouldn't "hate" westernization and the fact that Iran was a theocracy would not sway him in his "mission" to "make them pay" for what they had recently (at that time) done to us. While Saddam suited our needs, at one time, he had become an unstable force in that region and was a "loose cannon", just looking for an excuse to "go of". 2) We KNOW, for a fact that Saddam HAD WoMDs because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM. Whether we knew or not if he still had them, on the day we invaded is a matter for conjecture but we knew that he HAD been in possession of them. Since we didn't know where they were; we could not account for them (after years of U.N. inspections by Hans Blix, a man who couldn't find a drunk at a St. Patrick's Day Parade), we needed to go in and lay hands on them or account for their where-abouts. It's really that simple. Now, in case you couldn't tell, I supported the invasion, initially (along with such conservative "war mongers" as Sen. Kerry and Sen. Clinton) but, I have said for quite some time that once we captured Saddam and spent a reasonable amount of time searching for WoMDs that were not going to be found, we needed to extricate ourselves instead of trying to inflict our imperialistic vision upon a people who wanted no part of it. If you remember, initially, the populace of Iraq seemed to be (at least) okay with the fact that were were there, trying to oust Saddam. It wasn't until we started spewing bullshit about "helping Iraq to realize a democratic society" that the common gentry started resisting our presence there. Had the Bush administration done, simply, what they said they wanted to do, initially, gotten the job done and gotten out, I would have been proud of the situation. Unfortunately, since they didn't do that I know hold the Bush administration responsible for EVERY DEATH that has occurred since about 2 months after Saddam was de-throned. Peace and comfort, Michael

CuriousLord -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 4:34:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou You do realize you are comparing total deaths by car wrecks for a population of 300 million, versus total deaths in a population in Iraq measured in the 100's of thousands. I was comparing relative sources of death, not suggesting that driving a car is as dangerous as soldiering. The point was that there are fare more preventable deaths here. This point is made. quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Not to mention you are counting the victims of the driver in your death total, but not including Iraqi deaths in your total victims of US soldiers. Preventing wrecks will also prevent the deaths due to wrecks. Withdrawing soldiers will not prevent deaths due to in-fighting in Iraq. This decision was appropriate. (Also, you said "US soldiers". Those figures included all soldiers from every country in the coalition.) In good faith, I must admit I failed to consider a major aspect. But you won't like it. Bush's claim that withdrawing police forces would allow for more violence. Like the man or not, his claim is more than just a little likely. Often, I hear, "But screw the Iraqis. American lives are being lost. Let them fight it out." These numbers also aptly answer such an argument. quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou It really is applies and oranges, I thought you were the math genius, you must know that comparison is total "bullocks" (did I use that right, hehe, seen the english posters use it). You spoke too soon. Too much politics. I feel you're attacking this just because it happens to be in Bush's favor. I don't give a damn which way it leans. If it helps or hurts anyone's political agenda. This is the truth.

Politesub53 -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 5:27:56 AM)
If Bush decided to stay a day, a week a year or several years, when the coalition leave the same thing will happen. The Sunnis and Shia will start vying for power as will the Kurds in the North. The situation in Basra is different to Baghdad as the population in Basra is mostly Shia.

mnottertail -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 6:23:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 And after the US pulls out there is going to be killing and slaughter in that nation the likes of which we havn't seen in decades. Yes, the like of which has not been seen since before the administration of Saddam Hussein. and the after the us pulls out, today, tomorrow, or a thousand years hence, your statement will hold true....we might have to up the decades thingie a little but that can be forgiven in the fullness of time. Ron

mnottertail -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 6:27:34 AM)
2) We KNOW, for a fact that Saddam HAD WoMDs because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM. Whether we knew or not if he still had them, on the day we invaded is a matter for conjecture but we knew that he HAD been in possession of them. Since we didn't know where they were; we could not account for them (after years of U.N. inspections by Hans Blix, a man who couldn't find a drunk at a St. Patrick's Day Parade), we needed to go in and lay hands on them or account for their where-abouts. It's really that simple. (Uhhhhh that is taking WMDs too far) but even with this, we KNOW he hadn't any left because we knew what was expended in the Iran Iraq war, knew what he was begging for, knew what was expended in kuwait, and knew that he didnt have shit. Not that it matters, it just corrects an otherwise small disturbance in the force. Ron

NeedToUseYou -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 6:55:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou You do realize you are comparing total deaths by car wrecks for a population of 300 million, versus total deaths in a population in Iraq measured in the 100's of thousands. I was comparing relative sources of death, not suggesting that driving a car is as dangerous as soldiering. The point was that there are fare more preventable deaths here. This point is made. quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Not to mention you are counting the victims of the driver in your death total, but not including Iraqi deaths in your total victims of US soldiers. Preventing wrecks will also prevent the deaths due to wrecks. Withdrawing soldiers will not prevent deaths due to in-fighting in Iraq. This decision was appropriate. (Also, you said "US soldiers". Those figures included all soldiers from every country in the coalition.) In good faith, I must admit I failed to consider a major aspect. But you won't like it. Bush's claim that withdrawing police forces would allow for more violence. Like the man or not, his claim is more than just a little likely. Often, I hear, "But screw the Iraqis. American lives are being lost. Let them fight it out." These numbers also aptly answer such an argument. quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou It really is applies and oranges, I thought you were the math genius, you must know that comparison is total "bullocks" (did I use that right, hehe, seen the english posters use it). You spoke too soon. Too much politics. I feel you're attacking this just because it happens to be in Bush's favor. I don't give a damn which way it leans. If it helps or hurts anyone's political agenda. This is the truth. To much politics? I didn't involve politics at all in my post. Yours is full of political stances and views, virtually beginning to end. Could you point were politics were involved in my post. I was pointing out your intellectual dishonesty, not your politics. Political differences I can handle. I was pointing out how comparing 300 million people versus a group of a few hundred thousand without equalizing the population numbers involved is not a basis for any comparison at all. Like zero percent relevance, if you like. It just confuses the issue it doesn't clarify it. More people die in bathroom accidents world wide than Iraq, is that relevant. Not in the least because you would be comparing a pool of 6 billion versus a few hundred thousand. Exact identical mentality, you have used in your post. So, I guess we should be having a war on bathrooms? Or rather worry about improving bathroom policies and regulation, and not worry about Iraqi induced deaths so much.According to your logic, it would put it in proper context. [sarcasm alert] Just brilliant. I mean 10000(made up bathroom death number) people died in the bathroom, of course that's a bigger problem. Look it says so in the numbers only 4000ish died in Iraq. [sarcasm alert end] This has nothing to do with politics or you personally, either, I'd of pointed that out regardless of the topic. To take your point as being relevant, am I supposed to accept the premise that any two populations can be compared without equalizing the size of the population against each other and if a unrelated problem exists in one of the two populations it somehow is relevant. Well, that is really convenient. [sarcasm] So, since we have a healthcare crisis, that in 100 percent probability causes more deaths than the Iraq war will in a decade per year, we shouldn't even worry about it or at least not get all upset over it, I mean, we have other problems to be prevented. Seriously, why not just save lives fixing healthcare, and then we can use those saved lives against those lost in Iraq, and we'd be at a net gain in life. Thus buying our conscience. [sarcasm end] BRILLIANT.

CuriousLord -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 4:25:36 PM)
I'm glad you're not easily offended. ;) But, yes, I'm more concerned with how many people actually die than what percentage of a particular population is happens to be. And, yeah. Bathroom accidents would be a bigger issue than Iraq if it was killing more people. You could pick something even sillier. We would have to try to stop people from painting their toe nails pink if we turned up with 50,000 dead bodies per year due to it. Trying to be cute and sarcastic doesn't change the fact that scalar death rates are the primary concern.

SleepyBeast -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 4:37:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou You do realize you are comparing total deaths by car wrecks for a population of 300 million, versus total deaths in a population in Iraq measured in the 100's of thousands. I was pointing out how comparing 300 million people versus a group of a few hundred thousand without equalizing the population numbers involved is not a basis for any comparison at all. Like zero percent relevance, if you like. It just confuses the issue it doesn't clarify it. You keep saying the population of Iraq is either a few hundred thousand or measured in the 100's of thousands, their population is almost 30 million, not just a few hundred thousand.

thornhappy -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 4:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm glad you're not easily offended. ;) But, yes, I'm more concerned with how many people actually die than what percentage of a particular population is happens to be. And, yeah. Bathroom accidents would be a bigger issue than Iraq if it was killing more people. You could pick something even sillier. We would have to try to stop people from painting their toe nails pink if we turned up with 50,000 dead bodies per year due to it. Trying to be cute and sarcastic doesn't change the fact that scalar death rates are the primary concern. There are a few issues here causing some of the reaction to your numbers: First, you are not using numbers normalized for population size. For instance, the death rate due to auto accidents (US) for 2003 is 15.3 per 100,000. The second problem is that you are not including Iraqi casualties due to coalition action. And a more subtle issue is that maybe you should be comparing a coalition death rate to the population of people in the US who are in dangerous professions like police work and firefighting. thornhappy

CuriousLord -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 5:14:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy There are a few issues here causing some of the reaction to your numbers: First, you are not using numbers normalized for population size. For instance, the death rate due to auto accidents (US) for 2003 is 15.3 per 100,000. The second problem is that you are not including Iraqi casualties due to coalition action. If you'd read up to Post #6, it'll have reasons for these decisions. Basically, why normalize? I'm comparing how many people die, and the potential to save lives- not if it's more dangerous to be in a car or in the war. For the second, I'm not including Iraqi casualties as, A: I couldn't find the statistics (I'm beginning doubt any reliable ones exist at this time), though I somehow doubt that thte coalition is killing more than the 50,000 civilians necessary to begin to make a difference in the conclusion and B: Iraqi in-fighting will continue, despite coalition withdraws. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy And a more subtle issue is that maybe you should be comparing a coalition death rate to the population of people in the US who are in dangerous professions like police work and firefighting. I believe you misunderstand the point I'm trying to make with these numbers. If I compared them on a per-capita basis, or in just, say, firefighters, it's talking about the relative risk for people in those positions. I'm trying to point out how many people die, total. A situation in which 100% of a population of 1 person dies a year is nothing next to a situation in which 1% of a population of a million people die a year. Basically, because the 1% is 10,000 times more people dying. Now, if you had to pick which group you'd want to belong do, one way, you get a 100% chance of dying, yet, the other way, you get a 1% chance of dying. Which is what a per-capita comparison would yield.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 5:25:41 PM)
http://icasualties.org/oif/ That's a pretty reliable link for the total casualties in Iraq along with statistics. I was for the initial invasion of Iraq too, but the continuous fuck ups that have been perpetrated by our government is inexcusable. It was absolutely idiotic to fire the entire existing Iraqi Army and police forces. Honestly, what did we expect ex-military and Baathists to do when we took their sole livelihood away? Baghdad is about the same size as Los Angeles. Can you imagine what would happen if the federal government went into Southern California and fired every single police officer and civil administrator, then to top it off failed to secure all the weapons storage facilities in the area from public plunder? It was just plain stupid what happened directly following the invasion, and it is inexcusable.

Owner59 -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 8:13:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 And after the US pulls out there is going to be killing and slaughter in that nation the likes of which we havn't seen in decades. Thanks`s george bush,thanks neo-cons,thanks republicans...... Thank you for getting us into this mess. Thanks for burning a trillion dollars,and charging it to our kids.(the kids thank you too) Thanks for putting three thousand,seven hundred and forty men and women to death,for not reason.Thanks for destroying their families,and their future children that won`t be born. Thanks for the twenty seven thousand,one hundred and eighty six injured and maimed.Thank you for more than five hundred amputees. Thanks for over a half million Iraqi dead.Thanks for the civil war there,that will kill who knows how many innocent people. Thanks for everything.We`ll never forget you for it,now run along and fuck off...

Owner59 -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 8:40:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 Let's be very clear about something: If you discount all the lies that the current administration told and you completely ignore all the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, two, absolute FACTS remain. 1) We helped Saddam rise to power in Iraq because we knew that he would help us by prosecuting a war with Iran (The enemy of my enemy is my friend.). We chose him because he wasn't a "Muslim extremist" which benefitted from this two fold: He wouldn't "hate" westernization and the fact that Iran was a theocracy would not sway him in his "mission" to "make them pay" for what they had recently (at that time) done to us. While Saddam suited our needs, at one time, he had become an unstable force in that region and was a "loose cannon", just looking for an excuse to "go of". 2) We KNOW, for a fact that Saddam HAD WoMDs because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM. Whether we knew or not if he still had them, on the day we invaded is a matter for conjecture but we knew that he HAD been in possession of them. Since we didn't know where they were; we could not account for them (after years of U.N. inspections by Hans Blix, a man who couldn't find a drunk at a St. Patrick's Day Parade), we needed to go in and lay hands on them or account for their where-abouts. It's really that simple. Now, in case you couldn't tell, I supported the invasion, initially (along with such conservative "war mongers" as Sen. Kerry and Sen. Clinton) but, I have said for quite some time that once we captured Saddam and spent a reasonable amount of time searching for WoMDs that were not going to be found, we needed to extricate ourselves instead of trying to inflict our imperialistic vision upon a people who wanted no part of it. If you remember, initially, the populace of Iraq seemed to be (at least) okay with the fact that were were there, trying to oust Saddam. It wasn't until we started spewing bullshit about "helping Iraq to realize a democratic society" that the common gentry started resisting our presence there. Had the Bush administration done, simply, what they said they wanted to do, initially, gotten the job done and gotten out, I would have been proud of the situation. Unfortunately, since they didn't do that I know hold the Bush administration responsible for EVERY DEATH that has occurred since about 2 months after Saddam was de-throned. Peace and comfort, Michael 2) We KNOW, for a fact that Saddam HAD WoMDs because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM. Whether we knew or not if he still had them, on the day we invaded is a matter for conjecture but we knew that he HAD been in possession of them. Since we didn't know where they were; we could not account for them (after years of U.N. inspections by Hans Blix, a man who couldn't find a drunk at a St. Patrick's Day Parade), we needed to go in and lay hands on them or account for their where-abouts. It's really that simple. And Scott Ritter,systematically destroyed them.Over the YEARS he was doing this,he kept very good records of what they destroyed and the quantities.They did the math,and it didn`t add up,and Ritter said as much,before the invasion. This is why he was made to look like a buffoon.He had real knowledge and credibility,and the neo-cons couldn`t let him spoil their plans,so they assassinated his character. Conservative republican,and US Marine Scott Ritter is a good and honest man.bush and anyone still carrying his water,is the polar opposite. We also know that bush was bull shitting everyone w/ bogus stories like "African yellow cake"(see Plamegate),aluminum tubes for centrifuges,and mobile weapons labs. Haven`t you figured out Michael,that you were taken for a sucker,and still are? There was no emergency here.bush had all this planned wayyyyyy before the war.The destruction of the Iraqi nation and institutions.The infrastructure and economic system they had, all wiped away,on purpose.There was always a plan to impose our systems and values on them.at the point of a gun. He also was bullshitting Kerry and Clinton.You can`t blame them,for the sins of bush.(though you`ll try).They were working with fabricated evidence and made up intelligence. This is all on bush. This is why we,America,...don`t have any faith in bush,or his minions.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 8:58:05 PM)
quote: There was no emergency here.bush had all this planned wayyyyyy before the war.The destruction of the Iraqi nation and institutions.The infrastructure and economic system they had, all wiped away,on purpose.There was always a plan to impose our systems and values on them.at the point of a gun. He also was bullshitting Kerry and Clinton.You can`t blame them,for the sins of bush.(though you`ll try).They were working with fabricated evidence and made up intelligence. This is all on bush. As much as I dislike the G.W. Bush administration; Clinton, Kerry, and Congress were not mislead. Clinton's own administration had information about WMD programs in Iraq, and they had seriously discussed an invasion. All of that occurred long before Bush was even considering running for the Presidency. Clinton is the one responsible for the embargo throughout the 90's which caused thousands and thousands of deaths. Several foreign intelligence services had suspicions about WMD programs in the works there as well. I don't fault Bush for ordering the invasion. I fault him and his advisors for their stubborn refusal to do what needed to be done to secure the country after invasion. Bush had a opportunity to remove Saddam and leave the country in decent shape. But because of the arrogance of his advisors, the necessary steps needed to take control were bungled. The Iraqi Army should have been kept intact for the most part. The Iraqi police should have been kept intact. The people running the infrastructure should have been kept in place. The numerous arms caches around the country should have been secured and guarded.

caitlyn -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 9:02:24 PM)
Lets not forget how many on the left voted for this war also.

Owner59 -> RE: thank god and a huge hurrah/hurrah as our British troops have pulled out of Basra. (9/4/2007 9:08:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: There was no emergency here.bush had all this planned wayyyyyy before the war.The destruction of the Iraqi nation and institutions.The infrastructure and economic system they had, all wiped away,on purpose.There was always a plan to impose our systems and values on them.at the point of a gun. He also was bullshitting Kerry and Clinton.You can`t blame them,for the sins of bush.(though you`ll try).They were working with fabricated evidence and made up intelligence. This is all on bush. As much as I dislike the G.W. Bush administration; Clinton, Kerry, and Congress were not mislead. Clinton's own administration had information about WMD programs in Iraq, and they had seriously discussed an invasion. All of that occurred long before Bush was even considering running for the Presidency. Clinton is the one responsible for the embargo throughout the 90's which caused thousands and thousands of deaths. Several foreign intelligence services had suspicions about WMD programs in the works there as well. I don't fault Bush for ordering the invasion. I fault him and his advisors for their stubborn refusal to do what needed to be done to secure the country after invasion. Bush had a opportunity to remove Saddam and leave the country in decent shape. But because of the arrogance of his advisors, the necessary steps needed to take control were bungled. The Iraqi Army should have been kept intact for the most part. The Iraqi police should have been kept intact. The people running the infrastructure should have been kept in place. The numerous arms caches around the country should have been secured and guarded. Clinton's own administration had information about WMD programs in Iraq, and they had seriously discussed an invasion. Can you prove this? Everything bush said was debatable,very debatable. You don`t invade,unless there`s no debate.What we have right now,is the best example of this truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6U22X838f8 Seeing this vid,there is no excusing bush/chaney,for their devel`s work.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875