I've seen those Rumsfeld type pictures posted over the years, as if it somehow made him or Reagan, or whoever else, evil. Shoe's on the other foot.
Your post tells me you have no idea what constitutes a genocide. But, then again, we all know you post for effect, so your posts aren't to be taken seriously.
Your attempt to divert the thread to the subject of genocide was well-done, Maxiep. Not too hard to do, but you succeeded in the distraction, so, a hearty well-done to you. The thread had 3 stages: pictures and contra-pictures, Iraq War, and genocide. I gave little attention to the third stage because I was into the other two stages. Iraq's death count ranks high among conflicts of the last hundred years. It is no minor death count as its advocates pretend. Your diversionary issue of whether to classify it as genocide is irrelevant to that fact and does not reduce its truth.
Sweetcheeks, you're just too precious! You want it both ways. You want to troll and then to be taken seriously. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Also, you may wish to look up "genocide". It has a specific meaning. BTW, genocide was actually tried in Iraq...in the 80s against the Kurds by Saddam Hussein. Thanks for playing though, and you keep reaching for that rainbow!
Still trying to get it back to genocide, eh? Trying to get the reader to forget the death estimates of 600,000 to 1 million, which you know I just hate to keep repeating. Keep trying while you ogle my high, sexy cheekbones! ...then you can look up at my face!
Wait... did they die, or were they massacred? I thought you claimed they were massacred by the US? Ed O.
Denny I laugh when you call yourself a libertarian when you are defending the Iraq War. You seem like the 4th (or 5th) most hardcore republican on this board after the obvious 3.
Do you even need to ask? This needs a poll. EDIT: Okay done. Here is the poll: http://sportstwo.com/threads/179851-Who-Are-The-S2-OT-Section-Big-Three-(Conservatives)
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6799754&page=2 Nondisclosure Cited in Iraq Casualties Study Controversial Survey Author Rebuked for Failing to Disclose Details of His Work Burnham is not a member of AAPOR, a 2,200-member professional organization of public opinion and other survey researchers in the United States. It last levied a charge of ethics violation for non-disclosure 12 years ago against public opinion researcher Frank Luntz. Both Iraq casualty studies were widely debated at the time of their release, shortly before U.S. elections. The 2004 report was released Oct. 29, just before that year's presidential election; an Associated Press report at the time said the lead author, Les Roberts, had described himself as anti-war and said he'd insisted the study be released in advance of the election to prompt debate on the subject. The 2006 lead author, Burnham, said he had no political motivations: "We do this from science." Questions about the studies have included the sampling approach, the estimate of baseline deaths (necessary to compute an "excess" figure) and the sheer level of deaths reported – in 2006, the equivalent of more than 500 a day for more than three years, far outstripping other estimates. In AAPOR's statement, its president, Richard A. Kulka, said: "When researchers draw important conclusions and make public statements and arguments based on survey research, then subsequently refuse to answer even basic questions about how their research was conducted, this violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues, and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research." The inquiry by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School was disclosed in an e-mail from Tim Parsons, the school's public affairs director, as follows: "The level of civilian mortality in Iraq is a controversial subject. Questions have been raised regarding the findings and methodology of the 2006 Iraq mortality study conducted by Dr. Gilbert Burnham and published in The Lancet.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a921401057&fulltext=713240928 ETHICAL AND DATA-INTEGRITY PROBLEMS IN THE SECOND LANCET SURVEY OF MORTALITY IN IRAQ Abstract This paper considers the second Lancet survey of mortality in Iraq published in October 2006. It presents some evidence suggesting ethical violations to the survey's respondents including endangerment, privacy breaches and violations in obtaining informed consent. Breaches of minimal disclosure standards examined include non-disclosure of the survey's questionnaire, data-entry form, data matching anonymised interviewer identifications with households and sample design. The paper also presents some evidence relating to data fabrication and falsification, which falls into nine broad categories. This evidence suggests that this survey cannot be considered a reliable or valid contribution towards knowledge about the extent of mortality in Iraq since 2003.
BTW, I wanted Saddam taken out, and voted for Michael Badnarik for president - he promised to bring the troops home. Bush was "stay the course" and Kerry was "add more brigades." My view is we propped up Saddam, we had to take him out. Especially since GHW Bush encouraged the Iraqis to rebel and provided no support, leading to a slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in retaliation by Saddam. As far as nation building goes, I felt we should have left and let the Iraqis sort it out. As a Libertarian, we have to undo serious damages like foisting Saddam on his people before we bring all of the troops back home, or those people would hate us forever.
My point was that if I'm one of the "obvious 3" republicans, shouldn't I be registered as one? Perhaps it's not so obvious after all.
Two problems with that point of view. First, if we broke it, we bought it. We had a duty to those people to help them rebuild. We should have taken some serious oil from them to do it, but we needed to help. Second, if we would have left, it would have created a vacuum that Iran would have filled. And choosing between the two, I choose Saddam.
