<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Iraq deaths put at 655,000 By Patricia Reaney LONDON (Reuters) - American and Iraqi public health experts have calculated that about 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent violence, far above previous estimates. Researchers used household interviews rather than body counts to estimate how many more Iraqis had died because of the war than used to die annually in peacetime."We estimate that as a consequence of the coalition invasion of March 18, 2003, about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation," said Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States.That means 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population have died because of the invasion and ensuing strife, he said. President Bush dismissed the report as not credible. "The methodology is pretty well discredited," he said at a White House news conference.But Bush added: "I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me, and it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence."...</div>655,000 Iraqis dead in about three years - not from direct Military casualities - but as a result of the U.S. Invasion of Iraq. Saddam killed about 2,000,000 people...total...from July 16, 1979 to April 9, 2003...that is 24 years of Presidency...So let's see - have we done more bad than good...655,000 deaths in 3 years compared to 2,000,000 in 24 years...at the rate we are going we will reach 2,000,000 deaths in only 9 years! We need to get out of there...and not to mention that the U.S. Military just announced that they are planning to stay in Iraq till at least 2010. On the other hand, we got crazy North Korea threatening the world with Nuclear weapons - Here is what they're saying: "If the U.S. keeps pestering us and increases pressure, we will regard it as a declaration of war and will take a series of physical corresponding measures,"... "The issue of future nuclear tests is linked to U.S. policy toward our country,"Yeah...scary.
Hmm... this research brings up a lot of questions.Somehow I doubt they interviewed every house in Iraq. Does every person know that said person is dead, or are they just assuming? I'm not saying it's complete BS, but it seems like it'd be kinda flaky.
I wouldn't accept those results as facts. like the president said, their methoodology is suspect. as for North Korea, we should be preparing ourselfs for war with them. they pretty much want war, and are to loony to understand the consequences. I think the Bush Administration thought of Iraq the same way, thats why the invaded.
Preparing ourselves for war with North Korea? How and the hell do you think thats going to happen? We don't have the people/resources for it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Oct 11 2006, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Preparing ourselves for war with North Korea? How and the hell do you think thats going to happen? We don't have the people/resources for it.</div> If we weren't in our current situation with Iraq, I know for a fact that George Bush wouldn't even think about not invading N. Korea...He would strike so pre-emptively that the first Kim Jung Il's dad would've felt it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Oct 11 2006, 07:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If we weren't in our current situation with Iraq, I know for a fact that George Bush wouldn't even think about not invading N. Korea...He would strike so pre-emptively that the first Kim Jung Il's dad would've felt it.</div> I'm not so sure, they have nuclear weapons, thats a completely different ballgame. Invading Afghanistan or Iraq, thats pretty easy.
We have the resources for it, we have the third largest population on the planet, our defense budget is about three to four times that of the rest of the world. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't nothing compared to the full war capacity of this nation. if NK were to use Nuclear weapons on the US, we could and would invade them.
Yeah, I don't see us invading in any sense. We wouldn't be attacking just NK, we'd be attacking China. That's a big no-no. Sorry.Edit: Furthermore, they really aren't a threat to us right now.
The only way we would invade is if they did a pre-emptive strike and attacked us first, and I don't see China supporting them if they did that. infact China would probably aid the US in the invasion so that Communist China could take over the land and not have a unified Korea. China has said recently that they don't support what NK is doing right now, probably out of concerns for their own peoples safty. China and North Korea are only allies because they are both communist, its not like China really need NK for anything.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Oct 11 2006, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not so sure, they have nuclear weapons, thats a completely different ballgame. Invading Afghanistan or Iraq, thats pretty easy.</div>No they have ONE crappy nuke on a half-assed missile. USA has close to 10,000 nukes. A preemptive strike by the US would COMPLETELY wipe out North Korea's resources to launch a counter offensive. If a scuffle with NK has to happen, that's the way to do it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Oct 11 2006, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't accept those results as facts. like the president said, their methoodology is suspect. as for North Korea, we should be preparing ourselfs for war with them. they pretty much want war, and are to loony to understand the consequences. I think the Bush Administration thought of Iraq the same way, thats why the invaded.</div>YOU CAN'T TRUST THE PRESIDENT. He just can't accept the fact that he isn't a good president. we need other solutions than war in this world and they need to be good ones because we can't afford to be involved in 3 wars at once.
Sometimes war is the only solution to these problems. there was no way to prevent Hitler other than fighting. War is humanity and war is civilization. they are intertwined(sp?). We could afford to be involved in three wars at once, but I don't think we want to be. thats why we aren't at war with North Korea right now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Oct 12 2006, 07:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>War with North Korea wouldn't be that difficult, we wouldn't even have to put troops on the ground.</div>Uh...yeah! We could just nuke them! :no3:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Oct 12 2006, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Uh...yeah! We could just nuke them! :no3:</div>That's not even necessary. All we'd have to do is gain air superiority over North Korea and we'll be able to take out all their military installations that way. Throw in some off shore cover from the Navy and a few Los Angeles and Ohio class submarines hanging out in the Sea of Japan and booyah, war's over in a week.
Valid point. that would most likely be the route the US would go if they did attack. since a lot of the US troop deployment is in the middle east, and since the air forces(including Naval and Marine fighters) aren't needed as much in the wars over there.
Yup, that's the beauty of Power Projection. That strategy is basically taking a page out of Hitler's blitzkrieg, only without the tanks of course.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Oct 12 2006, 11:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Valid point. that would most likely be the route the US would go if they did attack. since a lot of the US troop deployment is in the middle east, and since the air forces(including Naval and Marine fighters) aren't needed as much in the wars over there.</div>Trust me, it's easier said than done.
