Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2006-11-10 14:27:06
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

the 655k number came from a botched survey, it has already been discussed and debunked to death both no this forum and on news services including CNN, MSNBC, and CBS.  So much for that.....
"Botched survey?"  I"m sorry, I never once saw it disputed on a MSM or here.  I also didn't see it proven and that's because it's an scientific estimate.

And the number is 602,000 at the most accurate point, and a range of 4xx,000 to 7xx,000.  Again, it's an estimate and it's actually very possible even though the daily average is high.

But as the poster above me said, it's not the count..it's the fact that many tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocents have died because of poor and/or deceitful decision making was done.
2006-11-10 18:23:30
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6819

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Well you can't have been pushing it very hard because no-one noticed.  What, did you just sit in the corner mumbling about Saddam?
yeah ok whatever, now that you see that your question has BEEN answered, you wanna respond to it or just keep trying to be shitty?
Actually, your post was so convoluted and nonsensical I'm guessing that your answer was they went to the UN, and that was my response.
2006-11-10 18:30:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Well you can't have been pushing it very hard because no-one noticed.  What, did you just sit in the corner mumbling about Saddam?
yeah ok whatever, now that you see that your question has BEEN answered, you wanna respond to it or just keep trying to be shitty?
Actually, your post was so convoluted and nonsensical I'm guessing that your answer was they went to the UN, and that was my response.
"The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN."

this is what I wrote, if you can't make sense out of it ( even if you don't agree) then you are the one with the problem.
2006-11-10 19:53:39
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6819

lowing wrote:

What are you bitching about, all you are complaining about is Iraq actually had MORE TIME to comply, yet still chose not to. The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN.
That is the full, convoluted, unclear statement you made.  Proper grammar and greater attention to structure would have made it clearer and more comprehensible.  Regardless, you have my answer now.
2006-11-10 19:57:47
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

What are you bitching about, all you are complaining about is Iraq actually had MORE TIME to comply, yet still chose not to. The time spent by Bush, was WASTED, trying to get the UN to do what they kept threatening to do, after 911 it seemed even more urgent that action needed to be taken, given the percieved threat BY BUSH, CLINTON, and THE UN.
That is the full, convoluted, unclear statement you made.  Proper grammar and greater attention to structure would have made it clearer and more comprehensible.  Regardless, you have my answer now.
Whatever bubbalo, I learned long ago your tactics of debate, and I have no intention of entertaining you when you start up with it. So whatever you say.
2006-11-10 19:59:06
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6819
Fine, I'll make this easy for you:

Bubbalo wrote:

Well you can't have been pushing it very hard because no-one noticed.  What, did you just sit in the corner mumbling about Saddam?
2006-11-10 20:12:53
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

Fine, I'll make this easy for you:

Bubbalo wrote:

Well you can't have been pushing it very hard because no-one noticed.  What, did you just sit in the corner mumbling about Saddam?
yeah whatever,
2006-11-10 21:00:02
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6819
Exactly.  The US had all the political power it needed to push Iraq, and it didn't.  And there is no valid excuse.
2006-11-10 21:43:24
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6800|Texas - Bigger than France

IRONCHEF wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

the 655k number came from a botched survey, it has already been discussed and debunked to death both no this forum and on news services including CNN, MSNBC, and CBS.  So much for that.....
"Botched survey?"  I"m sorry, I never once saw it disputed on a MSM or here.  I also didn't see it proven and that's because it's an scientific estimate.
Did you even bother to look to see if it was disputed?
The last page basically discussed the report was flawed...I would think that would have at least warranted a quick search on the interweb...

Source: Iraqi Health Minister
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … 1109192425

Interestingly, the Iraqi Health Minister debunks the Lancet survey directly, he even has a quote about it in the article.  By all means, keep on quoting 655k.

http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/relief … 724942.htm

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php
2006-11-11 03:23:24
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

Pug wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

the 655k number came from a botched survey, it has already been discussed and debunked to death both no this forum and on news services including CNN, MSNBC, and CBS.  So much for that.....
"Botched survey?"  I"m sorry, I never once saw it disputed on a MSM or here.  I also didn't see it proven and that's because it's an scientific estimate.
Did you even bother to look to see if it was disputed?
The last page basically discussed the report was flawed...I would think that would have at least warranted a quick search on the interweb...

Source: Iraqi Health Minister
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … 1109192425

Interestingly, the Iraqi Health Minister debunks the Lancet survey directly, he even has a quote about it in the article.  By all means, keep on quoting 655k.

http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/relief … 724942.htm

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php
Dude the Iraqi Government is supported by US, it is not a reliable source is BS, quoting you.
2006-11-11 03:33:58
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6974
The oil isn't going to USA...Guess who's the US largest supplier of oil? Good old CANADA (Waves Canadian flag)
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-11-11 03:38:37
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

The oil isn't going to USA...Guess who's the US largest supplier of oil? Good old CANADA (Waves Canadian flag)
You are right Canada is the top provider, but Iraqi oil is going to US.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-11 03:39:27)

2006-11-11 03:39:58
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6974

sergeriver wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

The oil isn't going to USA...Guess who's the US largest supplier of oil? Good old CANADA (Waves Canadian flag)
You are right Canada is the top provider, but Iraqi oil is going to US.
Iraqi oil is going to China, so the US can keep China in check if there is a war... Very efficient.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-11-11 03:43:25
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7015|Argentina

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

The oil isn't going to USA...Guess who's the US largest supplier of oil? Good old CANADA (Waves Canadian flag)
You are right Canada is the top provider, but Iraqi oil is going to US.
Iraqi oil is going to China, so the US can keep China in check if there is a war... Very efficient.
Iraq is the 6th provider of US oil.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard