i'm guessing cnn or fox news didn't think this was newsworthy http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm
Don't know about that. Bush's reaction to this has gotten some coverage. I'm not sure what to think of it. I'm pretty sure that the US' numbers are just too low. That article stated the problems with their method: the area is just to unstable to allow a proper body count. However, these researcher's method is a little shaky too. I think what they did was do a survey for the families in certain areas. They found out how many of their relatives had died for a pretty big sample and then extrapolated it for the rest of the country. The problem is that the violence has been concentrated in a few locations. So you have to expect these numbers to be somewhat inflated. In reality, it's probably somewhere in between, IMO closer to this paper's results.
<div class="quote_poster">Umair15 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">655,000 Stupid Bush!!</div> It pisses me off when people criticize Bush for going into Iraq. Have you heard the testimonies of some of the victims at Saddam's trial. Do you know what they were doing to people in Iraq? Nukes or no nukes, somebody has to protect the people of those countries.
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It pisses me off when people criticize Bush for going into Iraq. Have you heard the testimonies of some of the victims at Saddam's trial. Do you know what they were doing to people in Iraq? Nukes or no nukes, somebody has to protect the people of those countries.</div> Since when did the American people vote to become a nation-builder? It shouldn't piss you off when people criticize Bush going into Iraq, because there's lots of problems with it. Why'd he lie to get in there? And why'd he choose Iraq, which at least had a stable government in place? If the US is supposed to be this defender of democracy and freedom, why don't they pay any attention to the numerous atrocities that go on in many African nations every day? Don't be naive.
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Since when did the American people vote to become a nation-builder? It shouldn't piss you off when people criticize Bush going into Iraq, because there's lots of problems with it. Why'd he lie to get in there? And why'd he choose Iraq, which at least had a stable government in place? If the US is supposed to be this defender of democracy and freedom, why don't they pay any attention to the numerous atrocities that go on in many African nations every day? Don't be naive.</div> What's you idea of a stable government? One that tortures and rapes women and children and buries whole villages alive? So maybe Bush lied to get into Iraq, it was just a matter of time before that crazy b*stard Saddam developed a nuclear program. And it may be "immoral" to choose to build this nation instead of the war-ravaged ones in Africa, but it is for the good of the American people. Iraq has oil, and it is in all our best interests to develop them as a trading partner.
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What's you idea of a stable government? One that tortures and rapes women and children and buries whole villages alive? So maybe Bush lied to get into Iraq, it was just a matter of time before that crazy b*stard Saddam developed a nuclear program. And it may be "immoral" to choose to build this nation instead of the war-ravaged ones in Africa, but it is for the good of the American people. Iraq has oil, and it is in all our best interests to develop them as a trading partner.</div> I know it's hard to look at such a horrible government in these ways, but you have to try and look at it relatively. I'm not justifying Saddam's actions. But the government in Iraq was relatively stable. Not good. But stable. There wasn't much military action and the laws, while horrible, were consistent. Not compare that to African countries that don't have any sense of authority. That are ruled by dictatorial military leaders or feuding warlords. Which one is in more need of American intervention? You're just showing blind faith now. You act as if America, a country with a written constitution and democratic procedure, can allow lies if they are for the greater good. But they can't. It compromises the electoral results (people voted for a candidate to act a certain way). It compromises America's own democracy (that process he skipped around is the foundation of your country). And he compromised America's foreign policy (how can the US spread democracy, when they violate it at home?). And it's for the good of the American people? What the hell is that? Seriously man, that part really bugged me. So all that stuff about helping the people of Iraq escape torture and injustice was pointless. The real reason the Bush administration lied and invaded Iraq was for the oil and "the good of the American people." Africa is allowed to suffer, because it can't benefit the US in any way. Can you really expect people to accept that? Don't understand why you'd get pissed.
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What's you idea of a stable government? One that tortures and rapes women and children and buries whole villages alive? So maybe Bush lied to get into Iraq, it was just a matter of time before that crazy b*stard Saddam developed a nuclear program. And it may be "immoral" to choose to build this nation instead of the war-ravaged ones in Africa, but it is for the good of the American people. Iraq has oil, and it is in all our best interests to develop them as a trading partner.</div> international relations 101- what u just described above occurs everywhere except western democracies. if u believe it was an altruistic war- they should have started somewhere more urgent like zimbabwe, burma, north korea, sudan..... oil is a finite resources, depletion within the next 30 years is forecasted, so it makes little economic sense to invade and incur the 300 billion war tab. control of oil is far more political than economic; to that end, poli scientists refer to controlling oil resources as the "veto power", coined by trumans secretary of state. in lay man terms- control of oil is a political lynchpin.
The group who did this number gave a broad range and the 665K fell in the middle. Bush said the total is around 30K, but what's sad is the fact you can say it's just 30K and not even flinch. 30,000 is about the size of a basketball arena. I wouldn't be surprised if the death toll exceeded 655,000 people and it's unbelievable how politicians argue about the number instead of working on a solution to save lives.
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It pisses me off when people criticize Bush for going into Iraq. Have you heard the testimonies of some of the victims at Saddam's trial. Do you know what they were doing to people in Iraq? Nukes or no nukes, somebody has to protect the people of those countries.</div> Wow, I never knew there still existed people who defend the War in Iraq. There's a number of reasons why America invaded Iraq.... but saving the Iraqis from a tyrant and instituting a democractic gov't were the last things on that list.
I love how everybody comments on this and Bush's plan of action, but honestly, you guys don't know anything. Stop pretending to be smart about the situation. Where you in the conferences and meetings? I don't think so. If you were, I'd love to have you removed from your position if you can find time to post on a message board. Where you confronted by Bush? Did you talk to Bush? Did you talk to Colin Powell? Did you talk to D Rumsfield? For example, dunksworth, do you really think Bush went into Iraq with minimal intentions of making life better for the victims of Saddam's sadistic tortue methods? Saving little kids from brutal rapes? You don't think Bush wanted to stop that? You think he put oil infront of everything? I think you're wrong, but I don't know the truth. Oil prices are still pretty damn high, but you don't hear about the kids being raped every day there. I do agree with you people saying why didn't Bush act on Africa's situation? That's a horrible situation over there 100x worse than Iraq. Kids are being gang-raped and murdered for the hell of it. People are dying for the hell of it. I may be wrong and you guys may know everything about the situation in Iraq. Everyone has their opinions and beliefs, but nobody knows why for sure Bush went into Iraq. Nobody knows for sure what Saddam had brewing up. Nobody knows for sure what would've happened if Bush left Iraq a lone.
<div class="quote_poster">TheBlackMamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">For example, dunksworth, do you really think Bush went into Iraq with minimal intentions of making life better for the victims of Saddam's sadistic tortue methods? Saving little kids from brutal rapes? You don't think Bush wanted to stop that? You think he put oil infront of everything? I think you're wrong, but I don't know the truth. Oil prices are still pretty damn high, but you don't hear about the kids being raped every day there.</div> You just have to use common sense in situations like this. Why did Bush and Co. want to invade Iraq so badly? Can't be because of the human rights abuses because we all know there are situations in Africa that are much worse. Can't be because of the WMD because Kim Jong Il was pretty much showing off his bombs the whole time.... Bottom Line: If there's nothing to gain from invading Iraq, then Bush wouldn't even bother going there. I do believe that oil is a huge, and probably the most obvious, reason for the War in Iraq, but there's always more reasons than just the obvious. Ever heard of the industrial-military complex? Well that's another reason. We don't know all the reasons why they invaded Iraq, but one things for certain though, which is that freeing the Iraqi people wasn't up on that list. It's extremely naive to assume a country would gladly spend their time, lives, and billions of dollars to help "save" citizens from another country without expecting some big in return. Anyways, just for fun, I figured I'd throw in this nifty pic:
i love dunksworth, chutney and shape, not because they agree with me but because it sounds like they have read something other than slam magazine.
<div class="quote_poster">TheBlackMamba:</div><div class="quote_post">I love how everybody comments on this and Bush's plan of action, but honestly, you guys don't know anything. Stop pretending to be smart about the situation. Where you in the conferences and meetings? I don't think so. If you were, I'd love to have you removed from your position if you can find time to post on a message board. Where you confronted by Bush? Did you talk to Bush? Did you talk to Colin Powell? Did you talk to D Rumsfield? </div> I don't think anybody pretends to know the answers to everything. But, it's a lot like basketball. Nobody has access to the GM's meetings or anything, but if you watch and follow a team enough you can reasonably comment on it. Same thing here. I don't know exactly what the Bush administration's motives are, but, from watching the the situation and seeing the way they've continued to switch stances, I know what they aren't. They weren't motivated by security, because Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists and they didn't have WMD's. They weren't motivated by charity, because there are plenty of worse situations out there. The options that are left can tell you a lot. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i love dunksworth, chutney and shape, not because they agree with me but because it sounds like they have read something other than slam magazine.</div> I'll stay out of this one and let you guys have your threesome.
<div class="quote_poster">TheBlackMamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I love how everybody comments on this and Bush's plan of action, but honestly, you guys don't know anything. Stop pretending to be smart about the situation. Where you in the conferences and meetings? I don't think so. If you were, I'd love to have you removed from your position if you can find time to post on a message board. Where you confronted by Bush? Did you talk to Bush? Did you talk to Colin Powell? Did you talk to D Rumsfield? For example, dunksworth, do you really think Bush went into Iraq with minimal intentions of making life better for the victims of Saddam's sadistic tortue methods? Saving little kids from brutal rapes? You don't think Bush wanted to stop that? You think he put oil infront of everything? I think you're wrong, but I don't know the truth. Oil prices are still pretty damn high, but you don't hear about the kids being raped every day there. I do agree with you people saying why didn't Bush act on Africa's situation? That's a horrible situation over there 100x worse than Iraq. Kids are being gang-raped and murdered for the hell of it. People are dying for the hell of it. I may be wrong and you guys may know everything about the situation in Iraq. Everyone has their opinions and beliefs, but nobody knows why for sure Bush went into Iraq. Nobody knows for sure what Saddam had brewing up. Nobody knows for sure what would've happened if Bush left Iraq a lone.</div> This is exactly what pisses people off about the current administration. They aren't honest with the citizens of this country. The fact we don't know what's really going on and the fact they don't want people to ask questions is absolutely frustrating. It's terrible for the kids being gang raped and people being tortured, but those things take place in the USA everyday aswell. The US needs to take care of problems at home before they start policing the rest of the world. We should be setting the example by improving the quality of living in the US first. I just don't understand the concept of spending billions of dollars to fund military and provide a means to kill, when you can take the same billions and invest it on your own citizens. Start by making college education free and making health care more affordable. You start with those two areas and the quality of life in the USA improves immediately. It makes it more accessible for poor families to get an education and not worry about health. It makes it more affordable for middle class families to provide a better life for their children and themselves. It also keeps people who graduate from college out of enormous debt from student loans or maxed out credit cards. Next they can improve on the infrastructure of major cities so people don't have to use a car to get around. Build more efficient public transportation, running on hybrid engines. If you can get just 1/3 less people driving on freeways, that's 1/3 less dependence on oil, 1/3 less people causing traffic, which all equates to less road rage, less wear and tear on the roads, less pollution all helps improve quality of living.
ok, when Bush knows that Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons? Why doesnt he send his troops there to stop them? Why did he send them to Iraq for that?
I wonder why they can't just kill the leader directly (sniper rifle at a public speech for example), instead of marching in with a big army and killing more innocent civilians than bad guys...
<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">This is exactly what pisses people off about the current administration. They aren't honest with the citizens of this country. The fact we don't know what's really going on and the fact they don't want people to ask questions is absolutely frustrating. It's terrible for the kids being gang raped and people being tortured, but those things take place in the USA everyday aswell. The US needs to take care of problems at home before they start policing the rest of the world. We should be setting the example by improving the quality of living in the US first. I just don't understand the concept of spending billions of dollars to fund military and provide a means to kill, when you can take the same billions and invest it on your own citizens. Start by making college education free and making health care more affordable. You start with those two areas and the quality of life in the USA improves immediately. It makes it more accessible for poor families to get an education and not worry about health. It makes it more affordable for middle class families to provide a better life for their children and themselves. It also keeps people who graduate from college out of enormous debt from student loans or maxed out credit cards. Next they can improve on the infrastructure of major cities so people don't have to use a car to get around. Build more efficient public transportation, running on hybrid engines. If you can get just 1/3 less people driving on freeways, that's 1/3 less dependence on oil, 1/3 less people causing traffic, which all equates to less road rage, less wear and tear on the roads, less pollution all helps improve quality of living.</div> Amen. Everything you said is exactly my stance on the War/Bush in general. Regardless how bad of a guy Saddam is, if there is no imminent threat from him towards us (which there wasn't) then there is no reason why we should cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars on a War to help people in another country out. I don't care if it's a nice thing to do, it's not smart. People (Republicans mainly) need to stop thinking that because of their hefty paychecks and high class status that the rest of the United States is fine and dandy. We definitely have a lot to do here before we go and start massive bloody wars with random third world countries.
<div class="quote_poster">SkiptoMyLue11 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">650 thousand is a huge number. Is there good evidence to support such a number?</div> First, this is a very dubious survey that people from Left to Right think is inaccurate. But even if one is to accept the death toll at face value, about 450,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by other Iraqis, it's not all due to us. We've mishandled this war but if we left now, there would be more chaos.
