If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............
In article >,
DTJ > wrote: > On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 07:39:19 -0700, Howard Brazee > > wrote: > > >As bad as Saddam was, there are other dictators who are worse. > > So we do nothing about problem a until all problems b are solved. You > must be friends with pelosi and dickle. Well, George Bush senior didn't appear to think it necessary to remove him, did he? That struck many of us as very curious at the time. William Clark |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............
In article >,
DTJ > wrote: > >I have listened to our troops. A local group invites any returning >troops from the area to speak at forums. Every single one has talked >about how happy the Iraqi people are for what we have done. Not one >has ever complained about an Iraqi doing something that harmed an >American, unless the Iraqi was a former Bath party member. Why? >Because the Iraqis WANT US THERE. Several decades of oppression has given the Iraqis a keen appreciation for the benefits of telling one's rulers what they want to hear. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............
In article >,
Pooh Bear > wrote: > >There figure of "up to 100,000 deaths" NOT 100's of thousands please - >don't exaggerate - as a *consequence* of direct and indirect effects of the >war came from an independent report published over a year ago now. Yes, a study with error bars nearly as big as the data and with systemic data collection problems. It was advocacy disguised as a study, put forth for no reason other than to get that 100,000 figure out there. Obviously, it succeeded. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............
Pooh Bear wrote: > DTJ wrote: > > > On 6 Dec 2005 02:48:35 -0800, > > wrote: > > > > >Nobody has to take my word for that of course, but I'll take the word > > >of our troops when they get back. > > > > I have listened to our troops. A local group invites any returning > > troops from the area to speak at forums. Every single one has talked > > about how happy the Iraqi people are for what we have done. Not one > > has ever complained about an Iraqi doing something that harmed an > > American, unless the Iraqi was a former Bath party member. Why? > > Because the Iraqis WANT US THERE. They appreciate what we are doing. > > They look forward to when we leave, only because that will be a time > > when the proud nation of Iraq will have regained the ability to defend > > itself from the terrorists that are present. > > Considered taking off those rose coloured glasses ? > > I can't even begin to imagine how you've obtained such a distorted view of > what's going on there but I hardly expect that US troops are a very good > source of info. > He just told you how he obtained that view, as did I. > The sad truth is that Iraq is in a total mess. > The OP was making the point that post-Saddam Iraq is just as bad as pre-Saddam Iraq. I beg to differ on account of conversations with Iraqi's that I've personally had. How can someone think an Iraqi is wrong about what his daily life is like while someone in another country watching the nightly news on television is somehow better informed? There's no point in arguing this any further really in this thread, but please, please speak to Iraqi citizens or US/coalition troops or others that have had intimate contact with them before forming a final opinion on whether life in Iraq was better with Saddam than without him. It doesn't matter what I say about Iraq, I'm just your average American Joe. I've never been in the service, much less Iraq. An Iraqi's opinion should be valued far above my own on any such matter, shouldn't it? I'm sitting safe and sound thousands of miles away on my PC, with no dictator ought to slaughter me for dissent, thank goodness :-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............
wrote: > Pooh Bear wrote: > > DTJ wrote: > > > > > On 6 Dec 2005 02:48:35 -0800, > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Nobody has to take my word for that of course, but I'll take the word > > > >of our troops when they get back. > > > > > > I have listened to our troops. A local group invites any returning > > > troops from the area to speak at forums. Every single one has talked > > > about how happy the Iraqi people are for what we have done. Not one > > > has ever complained about an Iraqi doing something that harmed an > > > American, unless the Iraqi was a former Bath party member. Why? > > > Because the Iraqis WANT US THERE. They appreciate what we are doing. > > > They look forward to when we leave, only because that will be a time > > > when the proud nation of Iraq will have regained the ability to defend > > > itself from the terrorists that are present. > > > > Considered taking off those rose coloured glasses ? > > > > I can't even begin to imagine how you've obtained such a distorted view of > > what's going on there but I hardly expect that US troops are a very good > > source of info. > > > > He just told you how he obtained that view, as did I. > > > The sad truth is that Iraq is in a total mess. > > > > The OP was making the point that post-Saddam Iraq is just as bad as > pre-Saddam Iraq. I beg to differ on account of conversations with > Iraqi's that I've personally had. How can someone think an Iraqi is > wrong about what his daily life is like while someone in another > country watching the nightly news on television is somehow better > informed? Well, that's a good point and I'd like to say that although I haven't the benefit of knowing any Iraqis personally I've seen some excellent reportage here in the UK where 'everday Iraqis' have been interviewed by reporters who have put their lives on the line who I consider totally reliable. I'm sorry to say that your experience doesn't mirror what i've seen. I'm also sorry to say that US reporting seems to be influenced by the idea that criticism of the war is unpatriotic. That's a very serious handicap to US reports and has to invalidate much of them. Here's a link to a brief overview of a programme I recently saw which showed that US forces in Baghdad have effectively 'subcontracted' security to local 'warlords' and clans. http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...the_reckoning/ In it the reporter was regularly approached by persons who were too afraid even to be properly interviewed who clearly stated that the country is in the hands of a few cliques ( dispensing Islamic justice ). Another programme I saw recently showed the new and widesread trade in prescription drugs that are now available over the counter that are in heavy demand to treat depression, anxiety and symptoms of fear. Notably valium and one I'd never previously heard of called Parkinsol which is used to treat nervous trembling !!!!!!! http://www.iraq-today.com/article.ph...ing=§ion=6 > There's no point in arguing this any further really in this thread, but > please, please speak to Iraqi citizens or US/coalition troops or others > that have had intimate contact with them before forming a final > opinion on whether life in Iraq was better with Saddam than without > him. It doesn't matter what I say about Iraq, I'm just your average > American Joe. I've never been in the service, much less Iraq. An > Iraqi's opinion should be valued far above my own on any such matter, > shouldn't it? I'm sitting safe and sound thousands of miles away on my > PC, with no dictator ought to slaughter me for dissent, thank goodness > :-) Well, I respect your view but I fear you're simply getting a pre-prepared pretty picture for domestic consumption. I especially note the unwillingness of the US media to show seriously critical reportage for example, kind of on pain of being seen as 'unpatriotic'. Heck, it was only a week or so ago that Rumsfeld or Cheney or whoever said it was OK to be crtical of the war ! Excuse me ! He didn't think any previous criticism was even *acceptable*. That is so blinkered it begs belief. I'm really sorry that the situation in Iraq has become so bad. I can see why politcians would seek to pretend it isn't as bad as it is though. In the end it will be the truth that comes through and it ain't pretty. Graham |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............
Matthew Russotto wrote: > In article >, > Pooh Bear > wrote: > > > >There figure of "up to 100,000 deaths" NOT 100's of thousands please - > >don't exaggerate - as a *consequence* of direct and indirect effects of the > >war came from an independent report published over a year ago now. > > Yes, a study with error bars nearly as big as the data and with > systemic data collection problems. It was advocacy disguised as a > study, put forth for no reason other than to get that 100,000 figure > out there. Obviously, it succeeded. There are just as many critiques stating that the information gathering was entirely valid. e.g. " The fact that the survey uses an extrapolation technique does not automatically mean that it is less likely to be accurate than a body count. In fact, it is more likely to be accurate than existing attempts at body counts of Iraqi civilians. This is because in Iraq, where there are so many no-go areas, it would be impossible to count every casualty. " http://www.casi.org.uk/briefing/041101lancetpmos.html " The Chronicle article recounts in detail the methdology used for the study's 8000 interviews, in which 30 homes in each of 33 neighborhoods all over Iraq were visited. And other statisticins confirm the validity of the Lancet study's methdology: "Scientists say the size of the survey was adequate for extrapolation to the entire country. 'That's a classical sample size,' says Michael J. Toole, head of the Center for International Health at the Burnet Institute, an Australian research organization. Researchers typically conduct surveys in 30 neighborhoods, so the Iraq study's total of 33 strengthens its conclusions. 'I just don't see any evidence of significant exaggeration,' he says. " http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0127-23.htm I can see very easily OTOH why 'the powers that be' would want to discredit the report though. Funny really since I've noticed that Americans are normally quite critical of pro-goverment 'propaganda'. Graham |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............
Howard Brazee wrote: > On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:46:40 GMT, 223rem > wrote: > > >2. The reason given for the war had nothing to do with Saddam being > >an oppressor of the nice brown natives of Mesopotamia. I doubt it that > >anyone in America would have agreed to sacrifice one American soldier > >for such a worthy cause. Does anyone with a brain really believe that Likdunik NeoCons > >such as Wolfowitz and Pearle couldnt sleep nights because the precious Iraqi > >Arabs they loved so much were slaughtered by Saddam? > > As bad as Saddam was, there are other dictators who are worse. Look at Zimbabwe for example. Mugabe is effectively a dictator and is sytematically and methodically effectively starving much of the ( anti-Mugabe ) population to death. Of course if you're 'on-side' you get to eat. Graham |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............
William Clark wrote: > In article >, > DTJ > wrote: > > > On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 07:39:19 -0700, Howard Brazee > > > wrote: > > > > >As bad as Saddam was, there are other dictators who are worse. > > > > So we do nothing about problem a until all problems b are solved. You > > must be friends with pelosi and dickle. > > Well, George Bush senior didn't appear to think it necessary to remove > him, did he? That struck many of us as very curious at the time. He had respect for the law. The UN hadn't sanctioned the removal of Saddam nor the larger invasion of Iraq ( only the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait ) and the military had to be reined in. A lost opportunity for sure if ever there was one. I'll bet that the outcome back then would have been very different to the mess that now exists. Graham |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............
Alex Rodriguez wrote: > In article .com>, > says... > > >Yet these "caring liberuls" think Saddam should have been left alone. I > >wonder what these hypocrites would think if they were residents of Iraq > >under his rule? > > If you wanted to send in the troops to get Sadam, then say so. Don't be > such a chicken **** and make up a lame excuse like WMD. I kinda agree. Using a false pretext to attack Saddam ended up making the whole adventure look rather stoopid when the WMD were found not to exist ( like the UN weapons inspectors said btw ). If you want to topple a dictator why not be proud to do it ? Graham |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
We Needed A Big Gas Tax | [email protected] | Ford Mustang | 421 | December 23rd 05 04:44 AM |
If Aunt Judy Were an Engineer... | Scott en Aztlán | Driving | 12 | December 6th 05 05:25 AM |
turbonator | muffster | Ford Mustang | 140 | August 8th 05 11:37 PM |
Not All LLBs Are Like Aunt Judy | Scott en Aztlán | Driving | 5 | May 6th 05 02:56 AM |
Was This You, Aunt Judy? | John Harlow | Driving | 7 | March 14th 05 06:27 PM |