600,000 Dead Civilians, financed by me and you

josevolution

jeffbr wrote:

Plenty of others dispute the study. Don't kid yourself. You've built a reputation of doom and gloom. I know it helps you get through the day having something to feel shitty about.

I've never been a proponent of the war, I hate that we're there, and I wish we'd get the hell out tomorrow. But 655,000 since the invasion doesn't equal 655,000 because of the invasion.

ok so maybe the #s are not 600,000 does 400,000 sound better to you ?....

my2hands

jeffbr wrote:

Plenty of others dispute the study. Don't kid yourself. You've built a reputation of doom and gloom. I know it helps you get through the day having something to feel shitty about.

um, i am about as optimistic and happy go lucky as it gets, but that doesnt mean i live in denial.

I've never been a proponent of the war, I hate that we're there, and I wish we'd get the hell out tomorrow. But 655,000 since the invasion doesn't equal 655,000 because of the invasion.

so what were they caused by, tornadoes?

gue_barium

my2hands wrote:

um, i am about as optimistic and happy go lucky as it gets, but that doesnt mean i live in denial.



so what were they caused by, tornadoes?

Sand spiders.

chromiam

my2hands wrote:

so what were they caused by, tornadoes?

global warming

chromiam

my2hands wrote:

this study takes into account deaths that have resulted because of the invasion.


i find it funny that after we invade, destroy the fucking place, and slaughter everything in sight (see "shock and awe") we start to blame others for the mess and death toll. nice try chrom, it doesnt fly with me.

so you're saying that US soldiers killed 600,000 Iraqi civilians???? sorry but that's not what your pretty little article is saying...

Wookiee_Blaylock

In my opinion, going into Iraq was never a mistake nor an accident... the Administration and co. had every intention on going in there to kick some ass. What they weren't anticipating was the amount of time it has ended up taking thus far... that and the *small* amount of scrutiny they've now received.

(Just to clarify: to me it shouldn't have happened.)

soulsinging

my2hands wrote:

until it is someone you know i assume? it is easy to dismiss death if it doesnt affect you personaly.

no, even when it is people i know. several of them. grandparents, uncles, friend's mothers, close friends who hung themselves. tragedy is a part of human existence and death is the natural and inevitable result of life. im not running out to meet it, but shit happens and im not going to dwell on a past i cannot change.

soulsinging

josevolution wrote:

at least you acknowledege the fact that it was perhaps one of the worst decisions to have been made by any president in our history ,do you think BUSH will ever fess up to his mistakes ??

no, he wont. he's one of the worst presidents we've ever had and the iraq war was a disaster from day one. but this sort of guilt trip nonsense is helping nothing.

my2hands

chromiam wrote:

so you're saying that US soldiers killed 600,000 Iraqi civilians???? sorry but that's not what your pretty little article is saying...

no need to be condescending chrom...

and no, i am not saying US soldiers are persoanly responsible for all iraqi casualties... what i am saying is that the invasion has been responsible for the casualties. the death toll takes into account all deaths that have been a result of the war that would not have happened if not for the invasion and occupation.

jeffbr

my2hands wrote:

um, i am about as optimistic and happy go lucky as it gets, but that doesnt mean i live in denial.

Glad to hear it.

my2hands wrote:

so what were they caused by, tornadoes?

[/quote]

This may be where the denial comes in. Are you suggesting that Iraq was a peaceful place until we arrived? Are you denying the 100s of thousands of deaths that occurred under Saddam prior to our arrival?

my2hands

soulsinging wrote:

but shit happens and im not going to dwell on a past i cannot change.

how about the present and future you can change?

my2hands

jeffbr wrote:

This may be where the denial comes in. Are you suggesting that Iraq was a peaceful place until we arrived? Are you denying the 100s of thousands of deaths that occurred under Saddam prior to our arrival?

i can state with certainty that Saddam is not responsible for the 600,000 deaths post invasion.


the old "saddam was a bad guy" thing has lost its luster and is a pathetic argument for justifying this war and the resulting destruction and death. just remember we didnt invade bc saddam was a bad guy, we all know why we are there.

my2hands

jeffbr wrote:

Glad to hear it.

This may be where the denial comes in. Are you suggesting that Iraq was a peaceful place until we arrived? Are you denying the 100s of thousands of deaths that occurred under Saddam prior to our arrival?[/quote]

i see you didnt answer my question?

if the war is not the reason for the 600,000 dead, then what is?

chromiam

my2hands wrote:

no need to be condescending chrom...

and no, i am not saying US soldiers are persoanly responsible for all iraqi casualties... what i am saying is that the invasion has been responsible for the casualties. the death toll takes into account all deaths that have been a result of the war that would not have happened if not for the invasion and occupation.

not being condescending.... just find it hard to believe that researchers can be so sure of their numbers when we still don't know how many Iraqi civilians and others were murdered during Sadaam's reign... hence how would we know how many civilians would have died without war?? How do they know that there wouldn't have been an incident in the Middle East which would have led to civilian casualties?? Just too many variables for me....

soulsinging

my2hands wrote:

how about the present and future you can change?

i dont need to be manipulated by the past to make an effort in the present and future. and that's what you're doing. your tactics are as pointless and reprehensible as the ultrasound before abortion law discussed in another thread. a way to try to rub someone's face in something and say "see! isnt what you're doing sick? now do it my way!" it's a sick and juvenile tactic and ensures the people who disagree with you wont even listen to your reasons which prevents you from changing anyone's mind. it's emotional blackmail and when people feel they're being manipulated, they resist on principle.

Wookiee_Blaylock

Yes, Saddam was a douche bag. But fact remains, more violence has taken place in that country over the past four years, than the four years prior to that, and for that reason alone, maaaaaaaaaaaybe the invasion shouldn't have taken place, no? I mean, for us to sit in the comfort of our homes or workplaces and comment on this is one thing, but, to ask a citizen of Iraq, who was previously under the rule of Hussein, would they rather have their parents and their children back alive, but still be under the rule of Saddam, how do you think they would respond?

soulsinging

my2hands wrote:

i can state with certainty that Saddam is not responsible for the 600,000 deaths post invasion.


the old "saddam was a bad guy" thing has lost its luster and is a pathetic argument for justifying this war and the resulting destruction and death. just remember we didnt invade bc saddam was a bad guy, we all know why we are there.

actually, i have no idea why we are there. it's why i've never supported the war. i was never able to figure out what purpose it was supposed to serve and im not a big fan of killing people for no apparent reason.

my2hands

chromiam wrote:

not being condescending.... just find it hard to believe that researchers can be so sure of their numbers when we still don't know how many Iraqi civilians and others were murdered during Sadaam's reign...

has nothing to do with the studies post invasion figures

hence how would we know how many civilians would have died without war??

certainly wouldnt be 600,000, and it wouldnt be blood i helped spill through my taxes

How do they know that there wouldn't have been an incident in the Middle East which would have led to civilian casualties?? Just too many variables for me....

well, we know for sure that WE invaded, destroyed the fucking country, and the end result SO FAR is 600,000 dead mothers, fathers, and siblings. no disputing that.


my question is why are people so quick to dismiss these numbers and this study?

is it bc the truth hurts? do we see a # like 600,000 and think that is impossible bc we have not seen 1 body on CNN? do we just not want to believe it?

we sure dont doubt the 3,000 dead US soldiers

Wookiee_Blaylock

chromiam wrote:

How do they know that there wouldn't have been an incident in the Middle East which would have led to civilian casualties?? Just too many variables for me....

Wow.

Of COURSE there'd still be incidents in the middle east... but how does that make the mass killings that HAVE been going on, and ARE going on any less real?

my2hands

soulsinging wrote:

i dont need to be manipulated by the past to make an effort in the present and future. and that's what you're doing. your tactics are as pointless and reprehensible as the ultrasound before abortion law discussed in another thread. a way to try to rub someone's face in something and say "see! isnt what you're doing sick? now do it my way!" it's a sick and juvenile tactic and ensures the people who disagree with you wont even listen to your reasons which prevents you from changing anyone's mind. it's emotional blackmail and when people feel they're being manipulated, they resist on principle.

i never said do anything my way. just posting a study that shows the deaths that have been caused in iraq, financed by MY tax dollars. i am as much to blame as a pro-war supporter.

i guess its "sick and juvenile" to discuss reality? and i guess posting this study is "emotional blackmail" :rolleyes:

nice try dude, the study is not my opinion, it is FACT. and it is not my opinion that i have helped finance this slaughter, it is FACT.