and your flippant attitude towards dealing with terrorist nations who want nothing but to harm the US, makes me sick. Deal with it. Soldiers arent less than human, where did I say that?
my flippant attitude...ha, now your making things up...typical :rolleyes:
as for saying Soldiers are less that human, perhaps if you read your post, perhaps you'd see my point, but I doubt it...let's revisited it...
Some of us don't cringe at the number of US casualties, because we know thats a soldiers job. Soldiers arent peace keepers. Their job is to kill, and/or die, doing the JOB they get paid to do.
you don't cringe...to me that means "you don't care"...if I'm wrong, please correct me...but in reading the above quote, I don't see any other way of interpreting your intent...
my flippant attitude...ha, now your making things up...typical :rolleyes:
as for saying Soldiers are less that human, perhaps if you read your post, perhaps you'd see my point, but I doubt it...let's revisited it...
you don't cringe...to me that means "you don't care"...if I'm wrong, please correct me...but in reading the above quote, I don't see any other way of interpreting your intent...
cringe is one word
care is a totally different word.
If english is your second language, I forgive you.
If not, maybe you're simply no better than me,
and simply haven't learned that yet.
cringe is one word
care is a totally different word.
If english is your second language, I forgive you.
If not, maybe you're simply no better than me,
and simply haven't learned that yet.
A soldiers job is to fight and die.. just as a firefighter's job is to fight and die...
So you don't cringe when a firefighter runs into a dangerous situation to save someone and dies...
and the president set the entire nation of Iraq on fire necessitating all the volunteer firefighters to leave their homes and put the fire out causing the deahts of 2800 fireman, but hey - thats no tragedy - afterall they volunteered to be fireman - and its their job to die.
A soldiers job is to fight and die.. just as a firefighter's job is to fight and die...
So you don't cringe when a firefighter runs into a dangerous situation to save someone and dies...
and the president set the entire nation of Iraq on fire necessitating all the volunteer firefighters to leave their homes and put the fire out causing the deahts of 2800 fireman, but hey - thats no tragedy - afterall they volunteered to be fireman - and its their job to die.
They're just cannon fodder, Abu. I don't know why you get yourself all worked up. It's almost like you think they're real people or something.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
So wait... You're suggesting soldiers are forced to volunteer?
fuck no. what makes u think that? they are well aware war is a possiblity when they join the army or marines or special forces. they are trained for combat.
when they are called up to go to war, are they thinking, fuck i didnt join the army for this.
fuck no. what makes u think that? they are well aware war is a possiblity when they join the army or marines or special forces. they are trained for combat.
when they are called up to go to war, are they thinking, fuck i didnt join the army for this.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
fuck no. what makes u think that? they are well aware war is a possiblity when they join the army or marines or special forces. they are trained for combat.
when they are called up to go to war, are they thinking, fuck i didnt join the army for this.
I think American soldiers are coming to the realization that they are dying for a pack of lies. What do Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc give a fuck about lying for ? - its not THEIR lives that are going to be sacrificed. Thats what the letter from Pat Tillman's brother was all about - lies. Thats what these 200 + American GI's are talking about - lies. Iraq was a lie. When they went to the recruitment offices and signed up, they should have been told: "hey, by the way, you might have to fight and die for totally bogus reasons. You OK with that ?"
I think American soldiers are coming to the realization that they are dying for a pack of lies. What do Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc give a fuck about lying for ? - its not THEIR lives that are going to be sacrificed. Thats what the letter from Pat Tillman's brother was all about - lies. Thats what these 200 + American GI's are talking about - lies. Iraq was a lie. When they went to the recruitment offices and signed up, they should have been told: "hey, by the way, you might have to fight and die for totally bogus reasons. You OK with that ?"
Is that what you think? Is 200 > 140,000?
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
I think American soldiers are coming to the realization that they are dying for a pack of lies. What do Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc give a fuck about lying for ? - its not THEIR lives that are going to be sacrificed. Thats what the letter from Pat Tillman's brother was all about - lies. Thats what these 200 + American GI's are talking about - lies. Iraq was a lie. When they went to the recruitment offices and signed up, they should have been told: "hey, by the way, you might have to fight and die for totally bogus reasons. You OK with that ?"
just because you believe its all totally bogus reasons, doesnt mean the military does. yes there were no WMDs but you cant cut and run because that happened. el qeda moved in, country deterierated into civil war, we couldnt leave. i believe after 5 years, we have given iraq enough time to begin setting goals and sticking to them and have a gradual pullout.
many soliders think they are doing the greater good in Iraq. some soliders tell stories of iraqis thanking them, and the success stories of building schools and hospitals. the news reports alot of bad things, close to no good news even though it happens.
find one other "respected person" who will agree with that number. All of them say its greatly exaggerated. the report itself says its not based on a body count. I guess they just assumed alot more are dead.
no other report puts the estimated dead at over 50-60 thousand.
does that make it right? fuck no. see my previous post for an example on why.
"The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets," said John Zogby, whose Utica, N.Y.-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began. "It is what people in the statistics business do...The value of" the Johns Hopkins survey, Zogby said, "is that it was nationwide, in places out of the view where the media and most observers are."
BBC Newsnight interviewed Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Oxford, who described the study as "statistically reliable".
Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, told the Washington Post the survey method was "tried and true." He said that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."
Frank Harrell Jr., chairman of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, told the Associated Press the study incorporated "rigorous, well-justified analysis of the data."
"The mortality numbers that have been out there -- that, we know, is inaccurate and incomplete," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director for Middle East and North Africa program at Human Rights Watch. She said doing research in Iraq has become so dangerous that Human Rights Watch had to pull its full-time researcher out of Iraq in July.
Paul Bolton, a public-health researcher at Boston University who has reviewed the study, called the methodology "excellent" and said it was standard procedure in a wide range of studies he has worked on. "You can't be sure of the exact number, but you can be quite sure that you are in the right ballpark," he said.
Richard Brennan, head of health programmes at the New York-Based International Rescue Committee, told Associated Press,"This is the most practical and appropriate methodology for sampling that we have in humanitarian conflict zones." Brennan's group has conducted similar projects in Kosovo, Uganda and Congo. He added:"While the results of this survey may startle people, it's hard to argue with the methodology at this point."
Professor Mike Toole of the Centre for International Health, Melbourne, said:
"The methodology used is consistent with survey methodology that has long been standard practice in estimating mortality in populations affected by war. For example, the Burnet Institute and International Rescue Committee (IRC) used the same methods to estimate mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The findings of this study received widespread media attention and were accepted without reservation by the US and British governments. The Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health's Centre for International Health endorses this study."
Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council said:"They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results."
__
Backed by the respected persons at one of our most respected medical centers, published by respected persons at one of our most respected medical journals, considered reliable by respected persons who are experts in the field, but shrugged off by culpable politicians and defense officials with whom you've laid your respect, here is the study:
and your flippant attitude towards dealing with terrorist nations who want nothing but to harm the US, makes me sick. Deal with it. Soldiers arent less than human, where did I say that?
Can you please define for me what a 'terrorist nation' is. And can you please explain how the U.S and Israel, for example, do not constitute 'terrorist nation's'? I'm just curious. Thanks.
But then we'd just have to hear your crap about civilian deaths, as if we weren't anyway.
Now I'm going to have to hear about how I don't care about civilians
These two statements contradict each other.
As an aside, I wonder how you would feel if your country were nuked and everyone you knew was killed. I wonder if you'd still have the same gung-ho attitude? But then, I've found that as a rule, most Americans have some difficulty in ever seeing the world from someone else's perspective. This is strange. I wonder if it's becuase of your having to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning at school like the Hitler youth, or whether it's down to your effective propaganda machine which bombards you with one-eyed, skewered, half-truths and lies day and night? It is scary. It's not very different from how 1930's germany was.
I do harbor a deep disdain for the pledge of allegiance. And that isn't to say that I don't deeply appreciate what this country has given me. But, the pledge of allegiance contradicts everything the US should stand for. It's like the flag burning initiative that keeps coming up every so often. The way to inspire loyalty is to create the illusion of choice. The pledge of allegiance and laws against flag burning destroy that illusion.
And I can see the correllation between the US and nazi germany in that the media is feeding us hatred for muslims in spite of trying to create the illusion that our goal is only to eliminate islamic extremism. CNN the other day portrayed one of the most biased historical perspectives on middle eastern history I could've imagined.
But, as I understand it, there is something in the works that would require british law enforcement to give muslim clerics forewarning before conducting raids on households in muslims neighborhoods located in britain?
So, where do you draw the line? I think it gets to the point when things can be too PC. Don't you guys ever take into consideration your own safety?
Can you please define for me what a 'terrorist nation' is. And can you please explain how the U.S and Israel, for example, do not constitute 'terrorist nation's'? I'm just curious. Thanks.
Goal and intent. Has alot to do with it.
If your country's military draws up plans centered around civilian casualties as its goal, you may be a terrorist nation
If your country's leaders call upon all citizens to wage war and kill civilians, you may be a terrorist nation.
If your country's leaders call for any nation and its people to be wiped off the map, you may be a terrorist nation.
If your country's leaders literally starve their own people in an effort to aquire nukes, you may be a terrorist nation.
But, as I understand it, there is something in the works that would require british law enforcement to give muslim clerics forewarning before conducting raids on households in muslims neighborhoods located in britain?
So, where do you draw the line? I think it gets to the point when things can be too PC. Don't you guys ever take into consideration your own safety?
I admit that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. However, my attitude is that we created this mess by fucking with these people all these years, and continuing to fuck with them with our unconditional support for Israel and by our ongoing economic warfare. You reap what you sow.
Comments
my flippant attitude...ha, now your making things up...typical :rolleyes:
as for saying Soldiers are less that human, perhaps if you read your post, perhaps you'd see my point, but I doubt it...let's revisited it...
you don't cringe...to me that means "you don't care"...if I'm wrong, please correct me...but in reading the above quote, I don't see any other way of interpreting your intent...
cringe is one word
care is a totally different word.
If english is your second language, I forgive you.
If not, maybe you're simply no better than me,
and simply haven't learned that yet.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
A soldiers job is to fight and die.. just as a firefighter's job is to fight and die...
So you don't cringe when a firefighter runs into a dangerous situation to save someone and dies...
and the president set the entire nation of Iraq on fire necessitating all the volunteer firefighters to leave their homes and put the fire out causing the deahts of 2800 fireman, but hey - thats no tragedy - afterall they volunteered to be fireman - and its their job to die.
But sometimes his posts give just the opposite impression ... He attributes no personal responsibility to anyone in this conflict except Americans.
Ok, I admit.. Iraq was not prepared bombed like that and are not taking it very well.
So wait... You're suggesting soldiers are forced to volunteer?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
fuck no. what makes u think that? they are well aware war is a possiblity when they join the army or marines or special forces. they are trained for combat.
when they are called up to go to war, are they thinking, fuck i didnt join the army for this.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I think American soldiers are coming to the realization that they are dying for a pack of lies. What do Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc give a fuck about lying for ? - its not THEIR lives that are going to be sacrificed. Thats what the letter from Pat Tillman's brother was all about - lies. Thats what these 200 + American GI's are talking about - lies. Iraq was a lie. When they went to the recruitment offices and signed up, they should have been told: "hey, by the way, you might have to fight and die for totally bogus reasons. You OK with that ?"
Is that what you think? Is 200 > 140,000?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
just because you believe its all totally bogus reasons, doesnt mean the military does. yes there were no WMDs but you cant cut and run because that happened. el qeda moved in, country deterierated into civil war, we couldnt leave. i believe after 5 years, we have given iraq enough time to begin setting goals and sticking to them and have a gradual pullout.
many soliders think they are doing the greater good in Iraq. some soliders tell stories of iraqis thanking them, and the success stories of building schools and hospitals. the news reports alot of bad things, close to no good news even though it happens.
We'll never know because we nuked'em.
Any thoughts about that itelligence and the pre-emptive actions taken?
Just think, we could've nuked Iraq and saved 3,000 American soldiers lives...
But then we'd just have to hear your crap about civilian deaths, as if we weren't anyway.
Arguing with liberals is like arguing with candy corn.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
im not explaining it again. go read my posts about it
We'll never know because we nuked'em.
Any thoughts about that itelligence and the pre-emptive actions taken?
Just think, we could've nuked Iraq and saved 3,000 American soldiers lives...
But then we'd just have to hear your crap about civilian deaths, as if we weren't anyway.
Arguing with liberals is like arguing with candy corn.....
Now I'm going to have to hear about how I don't care about civilians... Spin the wheels kiddos.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Or how about leave them the fuck alone
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Oh brilliant. A perfect example of why candy corn couldn't have said it better.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
candy corn. thats funny. my tummy hurts from that. i ate alot of that at work today.
For some reason, and I'm not sure why, I always eat candy corn if it's accessible.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
i know, only at the end of october. the more i eat it the more i hate it.
"The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets," said John Zogby, whose Utica, N.Y.-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began. "It is what people in the statistics business do...The value of" the Johns Hopkins survey, Zogby said, "is that it was nationwide, in places out of the view where the media and most observers are."
BBC Newsnight interviewed Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Oxford, who described the study as "statistically reliable".
Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, told the Washington Post the survey method was "tried and true." He said that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."
Frank Harrell Jr., chairman of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, told the Associated Press the study incorporated "rigorous, well-justified analysis of the data."
"The mortality numbers that have been out there -- that, we know, is inaccurate and incomplete," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director for Middle East and North Africa program at Human Rights Watch. She said doing research in Iraq has become so dangerous that Human Rights Watch had to pull its full-time researcher out of Iraq in July.
Paul Bolton, a public-health researcher at Boston University who has reviewed the study, called the methodology "excellent" and said it was standard procedure in a wide range of studies he has worked on. "You can't be sure of the exact number, but you can be quite sure that you are in the right ballpark," he said.
Richard Brennan, head of health programmes at the New York-Based International Rescue Committee, told Associated Press,"This is the most practical and appropriate methodology for sampling that we have in humanitarian conflict zones." Brennan's group has conducted similar projects in Kosovo, Uganda and Congo. He added:"While the results of this survey may startle people, it's hard to argue with the methodology at this point."
Professor Mike Toole of the Centre for International Health, Melbourne, said:
"The methodology used is consistent with survey methodology that has long been standard practice in estimating mortality in populations affected by war. For example, the Burnet Institute and International Rescue Committee (IRC) used the same methods to estimate mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The findings of this study received widespread media attention and were accepted without reservation by the US and British governments. The Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health's Centre for International Health endorses this study."
Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council said:"They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results."
__
Backed by the respected persons at one of our most respected medical centers, published by respected persons at one of our most respected medical journals, considered reliable by respected persons who are experts in the field, but shrugged off by culpable politicians and defense officials with whom you've laid your respect, here is the study:
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Can you please define for me what a 'terrorist nation' is. And can you please explain how the U.S and Israel, for example, do not constitute 'terrorist nation's'? I'm just curious. Thanks.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
These two statements contradict each other.
As an aside, I wonder how you would feel if your country were nuked and everyone you knew was killed. I wonder if you'd still have the same gung-ho attitude? But then, I've found that as a rule, most Americans have some difficulty in ever seeing the world from someone else's perspective. This is strange. I wonder if it's becuase of your having to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning at school like the Hitler youth, or whether it's down to your effective propaganda machine which bombards you with one-eyed, skewered, half-truths and lies day and night? It is scary. It's not very different from how 1930's germany was.
And I can see the correllation between the US and nazi germany in that the media is feeding us hatred for muslims in spite of trying to create the illusion that our goal is only to eliminate islamic extremism. CNN the other day portrayed one of the most biased historical perspectives on middle eastern history I could've imagined.
But, as I understand it, there is something in the works that would require british law enforcement to give muslim clerics forewarning before conducting raids on households in muslims neighborhoods located in britain?
So, where do you draw the line? I think it gets to the point when things can be too PC. Don't you guys ever take into consideration your own safety?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Goal and intent. Has alot to do with it.
If your country's military draws up plans centered around civilian casualties as its goal, you may be a terrorist nation
If your country's leaders call upon all citizens to wage war and kill civilians, you may be a terrorist nation.
If your country's leaders call for any nation and its people to be wiped off the map, you may be a terrorist nation.
If your country's leaders literally starve their own people in an effort to aquire nukes, you may be a terrorist nation.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I admit that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. However, my attitude is that we created this mess by fucking with these people all these years, and continuing to fuck with them with our unconditional support for Israel and by our ongoing economic warfare. You reap what you sow.