Alliedassault

Alliedassault (alliedassault.us/index.php)
-   Politics, Current Events & History (alliedassault.us/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   US death toll in Iraq hits 2,000 (alliedassault.us/showthread.php?t=49178)

ninty 10-25-2005 08:21 AM

US death toll in Iraq hits 2,000
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051025/ts ... &printer=1

Was it worth it?

Sgt>Stackem 10-25-2005 08:28 AM

YES

Akuma 10-25-2005 08:42 AM

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":39c20]even after 1 death it wasn't[/quote:39c20]

Sgt>Stackem 10-25-2005 08:49 AM

[quote=Akuma]
Quote:

Originally Posted by "Sgt>Stackem":9c70d
even after 1 death it wasn't

[/quote:9c70d]


thanks for putting words in my mouth

Akuma 10-25-2005 08:53 AM

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":97c7f][quote=Akuma]
Quote:

Originally Posted by "Sgt>Stackem":97c7f
even after 1 death it wasn't

[/quote:97c7f]


thanks for putting words in my mouth[/quote:97c7f]
np

Coleman 10-25-2005 09:31 AM

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":c97ba]YES[/quote:c97ba]

Ferich 10-25-2005 09:50 AM

So it takes 2,000 dead Americans to put Saddam on trial for murdering 150? Doesn't seem worth it in that regard. But what can you do? Give up?

The only redeeming value I can think of is a democratic government for the Iraqi people which seems to be spiraling towards failure at times anyways.

Sgt>Stackem 10-25-2005 10:21 AM

he has murdered many more than 150

Ferich 10-25-2005 10:38 AM

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":b742f]he has murdered many more than 150[/quote:b742f]

Obviously, but for now he's only on trial for mudering 150(Dujail) which could most likely end up being his only trial.

[quote:b742f]Amin later read the charges against Saddam and his co-defendants, advising them they face possible execution if convicted in a 1982 massacre of nearly 150 Shiites in Dujail, Iraq, after a failed attempt on the former dictator’s life.

( page 2 bottom)

Prosecutors are preparing other cases to bring to trial against Saddam and his officials — including for the Anfal Operation, a military crackdown on the Kurds in the late 1980s that killed some 180,000 people; the suppression of Kurdish and Shiite revolts in 1991; and the deaths of 5,000 Kurds in a 1988 poison gas attack on the village of Halabja.

If a death sentence is issued in the Dujail case, it is unclear whether it would be carried out regardless of whether Saddam is involved in other trials. He can appeal a Dujail verdict, but if a conviction and sentence are upheld, the sentence must be carried out within 30 days. A stay could be granted to allow other trials to proceed. [/quote:b742f]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9652810/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9652810/[/url]

You're more or less right Sgt, but I know I'll feel better when he's charged with the more extreme crimes.

Sgt>Stackem 10-25-2005 11:36 AM

if he gets death (which he will) it does not matter how many times he is found guilty

TGB! 10-25-2005 12:18 PM

"More or less right" - he is right. This is about more than how many people Saddam killed, or how many American's have died. Opponents of the war desperately wish to reframe the argument around numbers because numbers can be "proved" and "disputed" - the wont discuss the long-term ramifications of our efforts in the Middle East because to do so would force them to critically look at the positives of removing Saddam/Taliban from power.

No - all they can do is parrot at the top of their lungs "2000 dead - 200 dead" as if the number of dead invalidates a movement.

How many slaves died? How many American's died in the revolutionary war (a war - by the anti-war crowds standards should NEVER have happened and that France should never have been involved in)? How many blacks died in South Africa? By this spurious stupid logic - none of those struggles was "worth it".

For a group that prides itself on "progressive thinking" and looking outside the box to find solutions to the problems of the world - they seem incredibly narrow-minded and limited in their analysis of this conflict.

ninty 10-25-2005 04:06 PM

Please enlighten me as to the positive outcomes for the future of the middle east.

Also, you really think you can compare slavery and what's going on in Iraq? You try to use big words to make yourself sound smarter and more superior to everone else, yet in comparing totally non related subjects you manage to do just the opposite.

The 2,000 mark is a milestone. Nothing more. It doesn;t matter what you compare it to. You would argue that by sacrificing these 2000 people that the middle east will become more stable in the future and thus there will be less attacks within and outside the US. No one can see the future. Will there be less attacks? Or will this enrage people further? I guess you just have to hope you made the right choice.

Short Hand 10-25-2005 04:32 PM

only tiime will tell......

Johnj 10-25-2005 05:27 PM

[quote="Short Hand":5d747]only tuime will tell......[/quote:5d747]

How the hell is Karakalpak jewelry going to tell? Or were you just destroying the English language again.

Short Hand 10-26-2005 03:26 PM

[quote=Johnj]
Quote:

Originally Posted by "Short Hand":618e6
only tuime will tell......

How the hell is Karakalpak jewelry going to tell? Or were you just destroying the English language again.[/quote:618e6]


Locating

C:\GF1.com\funny.exe...


File Not Found. hake:

KTOG 10-28-2005 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
Please enlighten me as to the positive outcomes for the future of the middle east.

To quote Fox News ... "Woman in Saudi Arabia MIGHT be able to legally drive" happy:

mR.cLeAn 11-10-2005 10:13 AM

The reason was not because Saddam killed well over 150 people, mostly woman and children but because several Middle-Easter countries seem to harbor Terrorist that attacked the US well before BUSH wash in office. The layer of the cake was added with the whole 9/11 … but apparently it doesn’t matter.

Jimmy Paterson 11-11-2005 12:57 PM

you know whats interesting, there were more deaths on US roads last year, then in the entire war in Iraq

Stammer 11-11-2005 03:10 PM

[quote="Jimmy Paterson":775d7]you know whats interesting, there were more deaths on US roads last year, then in the entire war in Iraq[/quote:775d7]

Are you saying that 2,000 dead isn't a big deal? Are your seriously trying to make it seem like 2,000 dead US soldiers isn't a big deal?

TGB! 11-11-2005 05:49 PM

[quote=Stammer]
Quote:

Originally Posted by "Jimmy Paterson":58db6
you know whats interesting, there were more deaths on US roads last year, then in the entire war in Iraq

Are you saying that 2,000 dead isn't a big deal? Are your seriously trying to make it seem like 2,000 dead US soldiers isn't a big deal?

Your a fucking idiot.[/quote:58db6]

And you're overemotionalizing the situation, appealing to emotional rhetoric instead of logic to push your case. 1600 SOLDIERS (those guys who enlist in the military with the assumption that at anytime they can be called into combat - yanno THOSE guys) have died over nearly THREE YEARS, the majority of which comes from suicide/roadside bombs. Now, the media would absolutely LOVE you to think this is indicitive of a faulty war-plan. It doesnt take much for indeginous people to get close enough and detonate themselves. No amount of training can give someone ESP.

But by all means - cling to this number as sweet justification of your "rightness".

And NINTY - you can HONESTLY ask what good a changed Middle East will bring. Please - go ask RAWA or the women newscasters in Afghanistan what opportunities a middle-east free of theological tyranny can bring about. Women are back on the tubes, and are at MINIMUM represented in congress by 1 to 4. Yea - no progress there. Empty rhetoric that. Returning the middle east back into the hands of the people is something that will benefit the entire world - but most especially arabs themselves.

Please son dont confuse your inability to "get it" with a perceived ignorance on the part of your betters.

ninty 11-11-2005 05:56 PM

And in the process destabilizing the entire region and killing thousands upon thousands of civilians. Sounds like an even trade to me.

TGB! 11-11-2005 06:09 PM

And again it seems the only people assigning a point-value to the dead. . .are anti-Bushites. Its amazing how that works. . .

Thank goodness none of you were around during WW2 or the Revolutionary War. We'd have never fought either of them.

ninty 11-11-2005 06:20 PM

Yeah, because those who are pro bush pro war like to ignore the amount of people being killed and say it's for the betterment of the region.

And FYI, i'm currently serving my country and have been for the past 3 years.

TGB! 11-11-2005 06:27 PM

Ignore - no no dear boy. We know how many people have died, the media cant help but slap it up there everytime the numbers shift by 10 dead or so to justify their bitter need for "revenge" against the Bush Admin. We just dont use it to try and argue one way or another for a cause. Your argument is full of holes. At its most basic you presume to think that the number of dead in a conflict validates/invalidates the conflict itself. By your reasoning, WW2, Revolutionary War, Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, etc. etc. were all pointless wars/conflicts that shouldnt have been fought since the number of dead FAR EXCEDDED what we have in IRAQ.

Takes a man to admit when theyre wrong. Accordingly, i dont expect any such concession from you.

ninty 11-11-2005 06:43 PM

1) I haven't compared the war in Iraq to any other war.

2) There are many more arguments as to why the war is wrong and or illegal which I have stated numerous times.

3) Have a nice day. beer:

mR.cLeAn 11-16-2005 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty
And in the process destabilizing the entire region and killing thousands upon thousands of civilians. Sounds like an even trade to me.

Oh I though that was allready going on before Bush joined in the fun.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.