Est. 300,000+ Innocent Iraqi's Killed, page 2
Don't argue with the hyper liberal leftist. They do not care about the war, or the children, just getting back in power. 300,000 is inflated.. your first statement of 650,000 was off by 350,000 from what you say now! .. WHAT DOES THAT SAY? .. no credibility what so ever.
Also to say sanctions where.... unfounded.. I do believe Saddam invaded Kuwait? Sounds worthy for sanctions if you ask me.
Of course, we invaded another country to... but what can you do about it? Put sanctions on us?
Privilege of Power.
By the way there was a rather large debate on ATS a while ago about this crap, one study ... just one.. came out and said it was around 300k dead civilians based on a unscientific research system - going door to door asking people how many people they know who had died then multiplied that by the Iraqi population or something stupid like that, completely unfounded. The ACTUAL estimates are roughly 70-120 thousand dead.
[edit on 2/23/2007 by Rockpuck]
posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:50 PM
You have voted rich1974 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.
Brilliant! Excellent way to make your point.
You dont give people WATS for that...
His fictional story is flawed.
I highly doubt that Americans would suicide bomb a group of Russian and Chinese forces while they give gifts to little American children, killing them all. That happened in Iraq. Also Americans would not suicide bomb their own people, like they do in Iraq. Major differences. Iraqi's are not afraid of death, that is why they are dieing so much.
We Americans are not extremists, we will not kill people because they are on our land. If that was so, America would be one major civil war. We won't fight because of false ideas that they are trying to force a religion on us. Also we will not fight unless we have a reason too, meaning, the war wouldn't start in the first place.
The reason so many people are dieing in Iraq, is because the lawless ones are shooting at the US Forces. If they don't shoot, US forces wont shoot back. Its so damn simple. Yet they don't get it.
[edit on 23-2-2007 by Connected]
US Air Force commanders considered crashing fighter jets into hijacked planes on 11 September because of a lack of armed planes, a BBC investigation reveals.
It was very possible that they [US pilots] would have been asked to give their lives themselves
posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:10 PM
lol.. suicide jets.. why would the jets be unarmed anyways? .. doesn't make sense to me. The planes that intercepted Bush's plane WHERE ARMED .. they came from Indiana, they flew over my house causing a sonic boom. Even if the story held some truth, there is nothing wrong with commiting suicide to save other peoples lives. There is something wrong with blowing your self up to kill and maim and for that purpose only. Liberals.... where do you guys get half the BS you come up with? I see a Republican victory coming in 08 if you guys keep talk like this up.
posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:18 PM
1: They would give their life to save another, in this case, the President Of The United States. They would not give their life just for a couple more kills.
2: You are talking US SOLDIERS. They are, by law, to follow any orders with no questions asked. In Iraq however, most of the resistance is civilian, or just some gang or group of uncontrolled fighters with no legal ramifications for not following direct orders.
Your missing the entire point. This is my last post on this subject so go ahead and have the last word. I just wanted you to put yourselves in a similar situation, of an army in the streets of america. Do you have children? What if a goverment dropped a bomb on your house for "liberation" and killed one of your kids? So have the last word after this because you are arguing pollitics and I for one don't want to get into a pollitical discord. I was just making a point that killing for "liberation" is kinda of an oxymoron. After all the name of this operation is/was "operation Iraq freedom"
So you can call me "liberal" if you want. I could call you a neo-con. It still doesn't change the point I was making.
I wasn't aware that you had the authority to determine what people could or could not give WATS for - not that it is ANY business of yours anyway. Are you jealous?
I gave the WATS because it was a brilliant way to illustrate a point - by your above post you obviously missed it.
posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:58 PM
Your below point is flawed....
Considering we have never been invaded, you pretty much are talking out of your backside here. If we were invaded by a foreign force and I was fighting that foreign occupation, I would most definately fire upon Americans giving aid to the enemy - much as what is happening in Iraq. It isn't a matter of right and wrong, it simply is. Your above post is incredibly ignorant: "Iraqi's are not afraid of death, that is why they are dying so much" - that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
What the hell does that even mean? There are many Americans that have extremist views - one need not look any further than this website to see evidence of that. I can GUARANTEE that if a foreign power invaded us for ANY reason, we would most definately be fighting them and we would most definately have a reason. You dont thing Iraqi's have a reason to fight?
Well, that seems simple enough, except that they dont want us there! Whos law are we referring to? We are an invading force in another persons country. Yes some are insurgents, but many are Iraqis that want us the hell out. If we didn't invade in the first place, we wouldn't need to shoot back when people fire on us. Its so damn simple, yet you and the other war supporters dont get it.
Est. 300,000+ Innocent Iraqi's Killed, page 2
Don't argue with the hyper liberal leftist. They do not care about the war, or the children, just getting back in power. 300,000 is inflated.. your first statement of 650,000 was off by 350,000 from what you say now! .. WHAT DOES THAT SAY? .. no credibility what so ever.
Also to say sanctions where.... unfounded.. I do believe Saddam invaded Kuwait? Sounds worthy for sanctions if you ask me.
Of course, we invaded another country to... but what can you do about it? Put sanctions on us?
Privilege of Power.
By the way there was a rather large debate on ATS a while ago about this crap, one study ... just one.. came out and said it was around 300k dead civilians based on a unscientific research system - going door to door asking people how many people they know who had died then multiplied that by the Iraqi population or something stupid like that, completely unfounded. The ACTUAL estimates are roughly 70-120 thousand dead.
[edit on 2/23/2007 by Rockpuck]
posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:50 PM
You have voted rich1974 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.
Brilliant! Excellent way to make your point.
You dont give people WATS for that...
His fictional story is flawed.
I highly doubt that Americans would suicide bomb a group of Russian and Chinese forces while they give gifts to little American children, killing them all. That happened in Iraq. Also Americans would not suicide bomb their own people, like they do in Iraq. Major differences. Iraqi's are not afraid of death, that is why they are dieing so much.
We Americans are not extremists, we will not kill people because they are on our land. If that was so, America would be one major civil war. We won't fight because of false ideas that they are trying to force a religion on us. Also we will not fight unless we have a reason too, meaning, the war wouldn't start in the first place.
The reason so many people are dieing in Iraq, is because the lawless ones are shooting at the US Forces. If they don't shoot, US forces wont shoot back. Its so damn simple. Yet they don't get it.
[edit on 23-2-2007 by Connected]
US Air Force commanders considered crashing fighter jets into hijacked planes on 11 September because of a lack of armed planes, a BBC investigation reveals.
It was very possible that they [US pilots] would have been asked to give their lives themselves
posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:10 PM
lol.. suicide jets.. why would the jets be unarmed anyways? .. doesn't make sense to me. The planes that intercepted Bush's plane WHERE ARMED .. they came from Indiana, they flew over my house causing a sonic boom. Even if the story held some truth, there is nothing wrong with commiting suicide to save other peoples lives. There is something wrong with blowing your self up to kill and maim and for that purpose only. Libera
ls.... where do you guys get half the BS you come up with? I see a Republican victory coming in 08 if you guys keep talk like this up.
posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:18 PM
1: They would give their life to save another, in this case, the President Of The United States. They would not give their life just for a couple more kills.
2: You are talking US SOLDIERS. They are, by law, to follow any orders with no questions asked. In Iraq however, most of the resistance is civilian, or just some gang or group of uncontrolled fighters with no legal ramifications for not following direct orders.
Your missing the entire point. This is my last post on this subject so go ahead and have the last word. I just wanted you to put yourselves in a similar situation, of an army in the streets of america. Do you have children? What if a goverment dropped a bomb on your house for "liberation" and killed one of your kids? So have the last word after this because you are arguing pollitics and I for one don't want to get into a pollitical discord. I was just making a point that killing for "liberation" is kinda of an oxymoron. After all the name of this operation is/was "operation Iraq freedom"
So you can call me "liberal" if you want. I could call you a neo-con. It still doesn't change the point I was making.
I wasn't aware that you had the authority to determine what people could or could not give WATS for - not that it is ANY business of yours anyway. Are you jealous?
I gave the WATS because it was a brilliant way to illustrate a point - by your above post you obviously missed it.
posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:58 PM
Your below point is flawed....
Considering we have never been invaded, you pretty much are talking out of your backside here. If we were invaded by a foreign force and I was fighting that foreign occupation, I would most definately fire upon Americans giving aid to the enemy - much as what is happening in Iraq. It isn't a matter of right and wrong, it simply is. Your above post is incredibly ignorant: "Iraqi's are not afraid of death, that is why they are dying so much" - that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
What the hell does that even mean? There are many Americans that have extremist views - one need not look any further than this website to see evidence of that. I can GUARANTEE that if a foreign power invaded us for ANY reason, we would most definately be fighting them and we would most definately have a reason. You dont thing Iraqi's have a reason to fight?
Well, that seems simple enough, except that they dont want us there! Whos law are we referring to? We are an invading force in another persons country. Yes some are insurgents, but many are Iraqis that want us the hell out. If we didn't invade in the first place, we wouldn't need to shoot back when people fire on us. Its so damn simple, yet you and the other war supporters dont get it.