Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 115 of 115

Thread: George Bush's 2000th Murder Victim

  1. #101
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq in 1963. I know what you're getting at, Spex, because we discussed it in an earlier thread. I'm not convinced that the CIA helped Saddam Hussein climb to the pinnacle of power in Iraq, but what if it WERE true? That's ancient history. Times change and U.S. policies change. You'd like to hang one from 1963 on George W. Bush. Well, do the math: What was "W" doing in 1963? Sucking on vanilla wafers and a milk bottle? Oh wait a minute, I know - it was those same old conservative Republicans again. But who was President in 1963 - John F. Kennedy or Lyndon Baines Johnson? Well, it was those same old conservative Republican-like Democrats ...

    I admire President George W. Bush for being able to break with some recent foreign policy trends and initiate some new ones.

    Your stuck on ancient history like a broken record.
    What, in my post, made you think I held W to blame? We, the collective American "we" are responsible for the actions of our governement. That's why I resent the war in Iraq. It reflects poorly on me, among all the reasons against the war. As far as ancient history - learn from it, or your bound to repeat it.
    ...Just ask me...

  2. #102
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Maybe we should have invaded a real menace...

    2 al-Qaeda suspects arrested in Pakistan, sources say
    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistani security agencies have arrested two al-Qaeda suspects and are investigating whether one is a Syrian believed to be a key figure in Osama bin Laden's terror network in Europe, two intelligence officials and a senior government official said Thursday.
    ...Just ask me...

  3. #103
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,387

  4. #104
    Underemployed Genius Jacqui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Frostbite Falls, Mn.
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    7,417
    Everybody knows that Bush lied, tell us something we don't already know.

  5. #105
    Bad address email on file QDO1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacqui
    Everybody knows that Bush lied, tell us something we don't already know.
    and so did Blair (bLIAR)

  6. #106
    Bad address email on file QDO1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,961
    A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq
    2003–2005


    Click to download the dossier (pdf format)

    New analysis of civilian casualties in Iraq: Report unveils comprehensive details

    "A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005" is the first detailed account of all non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the continuing conflict. The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group, is based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005.

    Findings include:

    Who was killed?

    • 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
    • Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
    • Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.
    When did they die?

    • 30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
    • Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).
    Who did the killing?

    • US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
    • Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
    • Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
    • Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.
    What was the most lethal weaponry?

    • Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
    • Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
    • Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).
    How many were injured?

    • At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.
    • The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.
    • Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.
    • The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase.
    Who provided the information?

    • Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.
    • Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.
    • Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.
    Speaking today at the launch of the report in London, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the report's authors said: "The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. Our data show that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope that this research will help to inform decision-makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country. It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."

  7. #107
    Master OptiBoarder spartus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    CA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq in 1963.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein

    Saddām Hussein ʻAbd al-Majīd al-Tikrīti, sometimes spelled Husayn or Hussain; (Arabic صدام حسين عبد المجيد التكريتي; born April 28, 1937 1) was President of Iraq from 1979 until his removal and capture during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    ...

    Army officers, including some aligned with the Ba'ath party, came to power in Iraq in a military coup in 1963. However, torn by rife factionalism, the new government was ousted within seven to eight months. Saddam returned to Iraq, but was imprisoned in 1964 when an anti-Ba'ath group led by Abdul Rahman Arif took power. He escaped from jail in 1967 and became one of the leading members of the party. According to many biographers, Saddam never forgot the tensions within the first Ba'athist government, which prompted his measures to promote party unity as well as his ruthless resolve to maintain power and programs to ensure social stability.

    In July 1968 a second coup brought the Ba'athists back to power under General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, a Tikriti and a relative of Saddam. The Ba'ath's ruling clique named Saddam vice-chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council and vice president of Iraq.
    So what you're saying, Rinselberg, is technically true: Saddam did come "to power" in 1963, briefly. But he did not become President of Iraq until 1979. Be careful with what you present as fact when accusing others of living in fantasy worlds. :D

  8. #108
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    re: Time is of the essence
    http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=99


    Quote Originally Posted by spartus
    So what you're saying, Rinselberg, is technically true: Saddam did come "to power" in 1963, briefly. But he did not become President of Iraq until 1979. Be careful with what you present as fact when accusing others of living in fantasy worlds. :D
    That's very sage advice from spartus. A little reminder like that never hurts a true "professional" poster - as I try my best to live up to. And I'm pleased that you have taken the time to read and comprehend my posts here. As far as my posts are concerned, I would be happy for anyone to read my "1963" as "1968" or "1979": I don't see that it would change the substance or credibility of my posts, as I have tried to argue them.

    As for 1963, 1968 or 1979 -- do you think it matters as far as the sense of my posts is concerned?

    Yours truly.
    Last edited by rinselberg; 11-04-2005 at 08:22 AM.

    Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...

  9. #109
    Master OptiBoarder spartus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    CA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    552
    You kept going back to that particular well, so I pointed out the misconception. You seem to be taking offense at my correction of your factual error for reasons that are not clear to me.

  10. #110
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    re: Time is of the essence
    http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=99


    Honestly, I'm DELIGHTED when anyone takes the time to read and respond to my posts - however they would respond.

    Where did I actually make a factual error? I reviewed my posts. I never referred to Saddam Hussein as the President of Iraq. Everytime I went back to 1963, I said "when Saddam first came to power" or words to that effect. By the way, here is the article that Spexvet referenced to this topic on another recent thread: http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm
    Last edited by rinselberg; 11-04-2005 at 08:23 AM.

    Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...

  11. #111
    Master OptiBoarder spartus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    CA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    552
    Which is why I called it "technically accurate". True, but misleading. It's not a very nice tactic to use, particularly when saying things like:

    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    In "SpexWorld" there is no such dimension as time. 1963. 1990. 2003. It's all the same to Spexvet. It's like it all happens at the same time, by his logic.
    Most people would consider Saddam coming "to power" when he began to rule Iraq. To try and push that date 16 years earlier by being intentionally misleading--while remaining factually accurate--is not a firm foundation to base one's arguments on. :D

  12. #112
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    re: Time is of the essence
    http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=99


    OK Spartus, but look at the article http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm that Spexvet cited when he first brought up the possibility of a Saddam-CIA connection on the recent "London attack" thread:
    Iraqis have always suspected that the 1963 military coup that set Saddam Hussein on the road to absolute power had been masterminded by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). New evidence just published reveals that the agency not only engineered the putsch but also supplied the list of people to be eliminated once power was secured - a monstrous stratagem that led to the decimation of Iraq's professional class.
    That is the reason that I went back to 1963, because that is how I interpreted Spexvet's post on THIS thread. I think that I have toed the line fairly here in my criticism of Spexvet's ideas about Iraq. I even premised my arguments on the hypothesis that the article that Spexvet cited, under the title of How West helped Saddam gain power and decimate the Iraqi elite, should be accepted verbatim. I have no idea how to confirm or deny it. I think that readers of this thread should be aware of the SOURCE that Spexvet cited from, which is http://www.muslimedia.com/mainpage.htm

    :D :D :D
    Last edited by rinselberg; 11-04-2005 at 08:28 AM.

    Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...

  13. #113
    Master OptiBoarder spartus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    CA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    re: Time is of the essence
    http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=99


    OK Spartus, but look at the article http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm that Spexvet cited when he first brought up the possibility of a Saddam-CIA connection on the recent "London attack" thread:That is the reason that I went back to 1963, because that is how I interpreted Spexvet's post on THIS thread. I think that I have toed the line fairly here in my criticism of Spexvet's ideas about Iraq. I even premised my arguments on the hypothesis that the article that Spexvet cited, under the title of How West helped Saddam gain power and decimate the Iraqi elite, should be accepted verbatim. I have no idea how to confirm or deny it. I think that readers of this thread should be aware of the SOURCE that Spexvet cited from, which is http://www.muslimedia.com/mainpage.htm

    :D :D :D
    I dig what you're getting at, now. Your criticism of Spexie seemed unneccessarily harsh, so I wanted the point clarified.

    I was thinking about this earlier, and to word something similar would be like saying, "When Richard Nixon came to power in 1952, he blah blah blah...." But Nixon was only VP then, lost the election in '60, then didn't actually come to power until finally winning the presidency in 1968. But it would be easy enough to assume that he'd never left his position of power if you didn't know better.

    Do you see how I could easily read what you said as misleading? I wouldn't have worried about it, until you started criticizing others' details. I know when I want to pick anything apart, I make damn sure I have my ducks in a row first. :)

  14. #114
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    143
    This is a great slide show with music...if you need to, turn down your speakers now.

    http://www.forest.ws/WeSupportU.htm



  15. #115
    Bad address email on file QDO1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,961
    Although I unserstand that sometimes there must be war, what I dont understand is the embelishment of it

    Bottom line - In wars we get killed, and in proportion generally ten times more from the "other side" - It isnt pretty Those women, children, parants, grandparants - all 30000 (approx) of them that we killed so far - leave a legacy that is just broken and shattered

    the population in iraq is 26,074,906 , we have killed 30,000

    how much anguish would there be if i quoted the folowing figures:

    the population of the US is 295,734,134, the oposition killed 300,000

    we hide the reality behind thoughts of patiotisim, and phrases like "in every Genaration" (see vidio clip in previous post). We are often deluding ourselves with phrases like "serves our country"

    When we have jet planes dropping bombs, we are out of range, we are not brave, we are anhilating what ever the bomb hits. How dare we be patriotic about this?

    Yes Sadam was not a nice man, but is the legacy we leave in iraq any better... and where are the WMD? remember those - thats what we all went to war for in the first place

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Kerry~Edwards gets first Endorsement!
    By chip anderson in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-17-2004, 10:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •