true, but since 2003 over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq, many (not all) due to coalition forces...so it's not a million miles off...Turquoise wrote:
Gassing over a hundred thousand Kurds is another ball game altogether.Chou wrote:
Sure, Saddam did stuff wrong but so did Bush & Blair, we don't see them getting hanged in Iraq anytime soon for all the lies, murders and destroying a country under false conditions, do we?
keep paying your taxes.
Source for the second part, please.ruisleipa wrote:
true, but since 2003 over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq, many (not all) due to coalition forces...so it's not a million miles off...Turquoise wrote:
Gassing over a hundred thousand Kurds is another ball game altogether.Chou wrote:
Sure, Saddam did stuff wrong but so did Bush & Blair, we don't see them getting hanged in Iraq anytime soon for all the lies, murders and destroying a country under false conditions, do we?
keep paying your taxes.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Source for all of it. And a link from Al-Jazeera doesn't count.Spark wrote:
Source for the second part, please.ruisleipa wrote:
true, but since 2003 over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq, many (not all) due to coalition forces...so it's not a million miles off...Turquoise wrote:
Gassing over a hundred thousand Kurds is another ball game altogether.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Associated PressJohnG@lt wrote:
Source for all of it. And a link from Al-Jazeera doesn't count.Spark wrote:
Source for the second part, please.ruisleipa wrote:
true, but since 2003 over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq, many (not all) due to coalition forces...so it's not a million miles off...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/Wir … id=7411522Iraq's government has recorded 87,215 of its citizens killed since 2005 in violence ranging from catastrophic bombings to execution-style slayings, according to government statistics obtained by The Associated Press that break open one of the most closely guarded secrets of the war.
Combined with tallies based on hospital sources and media reports since the beginning of the war and an in-depth review of available evidence by The Associated Press, the figures show that more than 110,600 Iraqis have died in violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
The number is a minimum count of violent deaths. The official who provided the data to the AP, on condition of anonymity because of its sensitivity, estimated the actual number of deaths at 10 to 20 percent higher because of thousands who are still missing and civilians who were buried in the chaos of war without official records.
They put the figure at over 100,000 civilians. They are not Al-Jazeera.
Still looking for the link that says the majority of those were caused directly by coalition forces (i.e. collateral)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
He said "many (not all) due to coalition forces".
Many could mean anything so we'll leave him to qualify that figure.
Many could mean anything so we'll leave him to qualify that figure.
I said 'many' or can't you read?Spark wrote:
Still looking for the link that says the majority of those were caused directly by coalition forces (i.e. collateral)
Go here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2009/
then scroll down to 'Civilian deaths caused by Coalition and Iraqi state forces' and you can see a nice graph in pretty colours just for your benefit. IN fact if this works you don't have to even do that. Graph shows Civilian deaths per half-year caused by state forces, green = Iraqi, yellow=Iraqi & Coalition, red=coalition:
Fuckin happy now?????
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-01-06 22:43:59)
Well, considering they aren't fighting a recognized military and all enemy combatants are considered civilians... that skews your numbers too. Regardless, I don't see more than 200 deaths per six months attributed to coalition forces. Hell, we have more casualties among our own troops than the civilians suffer. Considering thats a war zone I'd say that's a very tiny number (especially if you're including enemy 'combatants' in with the civilian category).ruisleipa wrote:
I said 'many' or can't you read?Spark wrote:
Still looking for the link that says the majority of those were caused directly by coalition forces (i.e. collateral)
Go here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2009/
then scroll down to 'Civilian deaths caused by Coalition and Iraqi state forces' and you can see a nice graph in pretty colours just for your benefit. IN fact if this works you don't have to even do that. Graph shows Civilian deaths per half-year caused by state forces, red = Iraqi, yellow=Iraqi & Coalition, red=coalition:
[url]http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2009/multigraph.php?res=half&sy=2005&ey=2009&type=mk&w=400&h=240&loc[]=0&wea[]=0&for[]=1&siz[]=0&loc[]=0&wea[]=0&for[]=4&siz[]=0&loc[]=0&wea[]=0&for[]=5&siz[]=0&style=st[/url]
Fuckin happy now?????
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
wtf galt?
For a start can't you read graphs - the RED BITS are COALITION FORCES i.e. MAINLY FUCKIN AMERICAN and in 2007 there were OVER 500 EACH HALF YEAR - you SEE that????
"Iraq Body Count is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s largest public database of violent civilian deaths during and since the 2003 invasion. The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion. "
NON-COMBATANTS. Did you read that. Like, NON FUCKIN COMBATANTS - CIVILIANS!!!! FAMILIES, CHILDREN, BLOWN TO SHIT BY YOUR FUCKIN ARMY AND YOU'RE SPLITTING HAIRS SAYING 'OOOH ITS A TINY NUMBER' WELL FUCK YOU MAN THOSE ARE REAL PEOPLE.
YOU FUCKIN SHOULD HAVE MORE CASUALTIES AMONGST YOUR OWN TROOPS BECASUE THEY'RE FUCKIN ARMED AND AT WAR AND CHOSE TO BE THERE.
Godfuckindam bullshit. I left capslock on but fuck it you get my point.
For a start can't you read graphs - the RED BITS are COALITION FORCES i.e. MAINLY FUCKIN AMERICAN and in 2007 there were OVER 500 EACH HALF YEAR - you SEE that????
"Iraq Body Count is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s largest public database of violent civilian deaths during and since the 2003 invasion. The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion. "
NON-COMBATANTS. Did you read that. Like, NON FUCKIN COMBATANTS - CIVILIANS!!!! FAMILIES, CHILDREN, BLOWN TO SHIT BY YOUR FUCKIN ARMY AND YOU'RE SPLITTING HAIRS SAYING 'OOOH ITS A TINY NUMBER' WELL FUCK YOU MAN THOSE ARE REAL PEOPLE.
YOU FUCKIN SHOULD HAVE MORE CASUALTIES AMONGST YOUR OWN TROOPS BECASUE THEY'RE FUCKIN ARMED AND AT WAR AND CHOSE TO BE THERE.
Godfuckindam bullshit. I left capslock on but fuck it you get my point.
oh and the ONLY reason the WHOLE COUNTRY is a fuckin WAR ZONE is because YOU FUCKIN AMERICANS FUCKIN INVADED IT.
Yes. Saddam in charge was so much better than the current republican government they are enjoying.ruisleipa wrote:
oh and the ONLY reason the WHOLE COUNTRY is a fuckin WAR ZONE is because YOU FUCKIN AMERICANS FUCKIN INVADED IT.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That statement doesn't really help the anti-war stance.ruisleipa wrote:
YOU FUCKIN SHOULD HAVE MORE CASUALTIES AMONGST YOUR OWN TROOPS BECASUE THEY'RE FUCKIN ARMED AND AT WAR AND CHOSE TO BE THERE.
well... yes, yes it was.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. Saddam in charge was so much better than the current republican government they are enjoying.ruisleipa wrote:
oh and the ONLY reason the WHOLE COUNTRY is a fuckin WAR ZONE is because YOU FUCKIN AMERICANS FUCKIN INVADED IT.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
ruisleipa wrote:
wtf galt?
For a start can't you read graphs - the RED BITS are COALITION FORCES i.e. MAINLY FUCKIN AMERICAN and in 2007 there were OVER 500 EACH HALF YEAR - you SEE that????
"Iraq Body Count is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s largest public database of violent civilian deaths during and since the 2003 invasion. The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion. "
NON-COMBATANTS. Did you read that. Like, NON FUCKIN COMBATANTS - CIVILIANS!!!! FAMILIES, CHILDREN, BLOWN TO SHIT BY YOUR FUCKIN ARMY AND YOU'RE SPLITTING HAIRS SAYING 'OOOH ITS A TINY NUMBER' WELL FUCK YOU MAN THOSE ARE REAL PEOPLE.
YOU FUCKIN SHOULD HAVE MORE CASUALTIES AMONGST YOUR OWN TROOPS BECASUE THEY'RE FUCKIN ARMED AND AT WAR AND CHOSE TO BE THERE.
Godfuckindam bullshit. I left capslock on but fuck it you get my point.
Is it my fault you can't label a graph correctly? I assumed the green were the coalition since you labeled the Iraqi's as red first.red = Iraqi, yellow=Iraqi & Coalition, red=coalition
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah, he just sounds like a bitter fruitcake.M.O.A.B wrote:
That statement doesn't really help the anti-war stance.ruisleipa wrote:
YOU FUCKIN SHOULD HAVE MORE CASUALTIES AMONGST YOUR OWN TROOPS BECASUE THEY'RE FUCKIN ARMED AND AT WAR AND CHOSE TO BE THERE.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique wrote:
well... yes, yes it was.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes. Saddam in charge was so much better than the current republican government they are enjoying.ruisleipa wrote:
oh and the ONLY reason the WHOLE COUNTRY is a fuckin WAR ZONE is because YOU FUCKIN AMERICANS FUCKIN INVADED IT.
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htmlKill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.
Two million deaths attributed to Saddam's enlightened rule.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
oh jeez that's a whack figure. how many deaths can you attribute to america's 'enlightened' liberation-movement over the years? a lot more than saddam, that's for sure. iraq was more stable with saddam in power, now it's a fucked-up tribal partisan shithole. you guys won't be leaving iraq or afghanistan for a long time and the true human and fiscal cost of these wars is far from properly revealed. leave saddam alone, he was a good guy.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
What-the-fuck-ever I never said Saddam was better in fact I never even MENTIONED Saddam just read the facts and accept your fuckin almighty US Army has killed thousands of innocent people. That's the fuckin facts. And you wonder why everyone hates them.
But since you bring it up:
Angus Reid global monitor poll "Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein" http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282
Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.
The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein's regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,000 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 22,500 troops have been wounded in action.
There has been no official inquiry on the actual number of Iraqi casualties. A volunteer group of British and U.S. academics and researchers—known as Iraq Body Count (IBC)—estimates that more than 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the military intervention. [note these figures do not include data after 2007]
The survey was conducted in November 2006, before the publication of the Iraq Study Group's findings in the United States, and Hussein's execution for crimes against humanity. Late last month, Al-Maliki called on the "followers of the ousted regime" to "reconsider their stance as the door is still open to anyone who has no innocent blood on his hands to help in rebuilding Iraq."
Polling Data
Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?
Better today 5%
Better before 90%
Not sure 5%
Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.
OR this from the BBC
Not quite so fuckin cut and dried is it?????
Now I RECOGNIZE these are old polls and there may be newer ones and certainly are ones with different results but where the fuck do you get off justifying the killing of thousands of civilians by a blithe comment like 'oh it was worse under Saddam'. How the fuck do YOU know? Bull-shite, frankly.
But since you bring it up:
Angus Reid global monitor poll "Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein" http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282
Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.
The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein's regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,000 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 22,500 troops have been wounded in action.
There has been no official inquiry on the actual number of Iraqi casualties. A volunteer group of British and U.S. academics and researchers—known as Iraq Body Count (IBC)—estimates that more than 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the military intervention. [note these figures do not include data after 2007]
The survey was conducted in November 2006, before the publication of the Iraq Study Group's findings in the United States, and Hussein's execution for crimes against humanity. Late last month, Al-Maliki called on the "followers of the ousted regime" to "reconsider their stance as the door is still open to anyone who has no innocent blood on his hands to help in rebuilding Iraq."
Polling Data
Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?
Better today 5%
Better before 90%
Not sure 5%
Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.
OR this from the BBC
Not quite so fuckin cut and dried is it?????
Now I RECOGNIZE these are old polls and there may be newer ones and certainly are ones with different results but where the fuck do you get off justifying the killing of thousands of civilians by a blithe comment like 'oh it was worse under Saddam'. How the fuck do YOU know? Bull-shite, frankly.
People die in war. It's what happens. Would it be nice to live in a world where there was no war and no militaries? Sure. Is it realistic? No. You can either get butthurt and cry over it or go on about your daily life and let other people worry about their own problems.ruisleipa wrote:
What-the-fuck-ever I never said Saddam was better in fact I never even MENTIONED Saddam just read the facts and accept your fuckin almighty US Army has killed thousands of innocent people. That's the fuckin facts. And you wonder why everyone hates them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Saddam was a jolly fellow I've heard.
oh ffs I'm not representing 'the anti'war stance' am I? I'm talking from my personal point of view. Never mind if it helps anyone try arguing against the statement if you can be bothered.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, he just sounds like a bitter fruitcake.M.O.A.B wrote:
That statement doesn't really help the anti-war stance.ruisleipa wrote:
YOU FUCKIN SHOULD HAVE MORE CASUALTIES AMONGST YOUR OWN TROOPS BECASUE THEY'RE FUCKIN ARMED AND AT WAR AND CHOSE TO BE THERE.
As for the colours, well excuse me for the typo but now you know what the fuckin colours mean you gonna admit you're talkin bullshit?
Couldn't give a fuck if you think I'm 'a bitter fruitcake'. I prefer to think of myself as someone who cares about civilians getting killed by 'our' amazing Western allies.
But you fuckin started it - war isn't about killing civilians FFS! What the fuck is your problem?JohnG@lt wrote:
People die in war. It's what happens. Would it be nice to live in a world where there was no war and no militaries? Sure. Is it realistic? No. You can either get butthurt and cry over it or go on about your daily life and let other people worry about their own problems.ruisleipa wrote:
What-the-fuck-ever I never said Saddam was better in fact I never even MENTIONED Saddam just read the facts and accept your fuckin almighty US Army has killed thousands of innocent people. That's the fuckin facts. And you wonder why everyone hates them.
So it's ok if they die under Saddam's rule and none of your business but as soon as they start dying as collateral damage in an effort to remove him it's a big deal?ruisleipa wrote:
oh ffs I'm not representing 'the anti'war stance' am I? I'm talking from my personal point of view. Never mind if it helps anyone try arguing against the statement if you can be bothered.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, he just sounds like a bitter fruitcake.M.O.A.B wrote:
That statement doesn't really help the anti-war stance.
As for the colours, well excuse me for the typo but now you know what the fuckin colours mean you gonna admit you're talkin bullshit?
Couldn't give a fuck if you think I'm 'a bitter fruitcake'. I prefer to think of myself as someone who cares about civilians getting killed by 'our' amazing Western allies.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yet you show zero compassion for soldiers killed and would rather more die.ruisleipa wrote:
oh ffs I'm not representing 'the anti'war stance' am I? I'm talking from my personal point of view. Never mind if it helps anyone try arguing against the statement if you can be bothered.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, he just sounds like a bitter fruitcake.M.O.A.B wrote:
That statement doesn't really help the anti-war stance.
As for the colours, well excuse me for the typo but now you know what the fuckin colours mean you gonna admit you're talkin bullshit?
Couldn't give a fuck if you think I'm 'a bitter fruitcake'. I prefer to think of myself as someone who cares about civilians getting killed by 'our' amazing Western allies.
It was a continuation of the Gulf War which was started by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Is this difficult to understand? We didn't go in there unprovoked.ruisleipa wrote:
But you fuckin started it - war isn't about killing civilians FFS! What the fuck is your problem?JohnG@lt wrote:
People die in war. It's what happens. Would it be nice to live in a world where there was no war and no militaries? Sure. Is it realistic? No. You can either get butthurt and cry over it or go on about your daily life and let other people worry about their own problems.ruisleipa wrote:
What-the-fuck-ever I never said Saddam was better in fact I never even MENTIONED Saddam just read the facts and accept your fuckin almighty US Army has killed thousands of innocent people. That's the fuckin facts. And you wonder why everyone hates them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat