View Poll Results: is the iraq war over ??

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    10 58.82%
  • no

    7 41.18%
Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 161

Thread: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

  1. #41
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Risky Thicket View Post
    The war was over before we got there. We had no reason to be there, no mission, no definable national will. It was a bull**** war for bull**** reasons.
    Your opinion.

    The Iraqi people did not ask the U.S. to invade them
    Wrong

    destroy their infrastructure
    War is a bitch.

    commandeer their national resources
    Wrong, we didn't take one drop.

    slay hundreds of thousands of their people
    Interesting choice of words you have there RT. "slay" does that mean you think our troops are guilty of murder?

    There are no parallels between the establishment of the United States and cluster**** that we have given Iraq. Any idea that there are numerous and incredible similarities is an exercise in dumbassery.
    Straw argument....means nothing.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #42
    Sewer Rat
    Risky Thicket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,820

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Your opinion.
    You disagree but can offer nothing.

    Wrong
    Bring me up to speed on that. Tell me how the Iraq people asked for our invasion of their nation.

    War is a bitch.
    Been there, done that. It is especially a bitch when you didn't ask for it and your country is destroyed. Your response isn't germane.

    Wrong, we didn't take one drop.
    Don't kid yourself j-mac. Or then again, you can kid yourself if you want to. Don't kid me.

    1. It was indeed the intent of the U.S. to take Iraqi oil resources. Tell me how that wasn't the intent.

    2. Exxon has a service contract to develop oil fields in the south.

    Interesting choice of words you have there RT. "slay" does that mean you think our troops are guilty of murder?
    OK, if you want to play semantics. Let me rephrase it by saying "accidentally kill hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians".

    Straw argument....means nothing.
    I completely agree.

    Did you by chance read the posts above or did you just show up? I was responding to apst's comparison of the establishment of the U.S. and Iraq.










    "When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf

    When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that person is crazy. ~Dave Barry



  3. #43
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,701
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Wow. Who could have predicted in 2003 that pre-emptively invading a country that had no ability to harm us would lead to a shiit-sunni civil war, Al Qaeda would flood through unprotected borders in the chaos, Baathists would be murdered on sight, the Kurds would get frisky in the north, and Turkey would turn against us as the Kurdish threat to their own country intensifies?

    Who could have predicted all that? Anyone with two sparking brain cells and a passing knowledge of world affairs, that's who. The last time we had a president who wasn't an empty head or an empty suit, I wore a size 4 and got wolf whistles at the mall. That's a long time ago, peeps. A very long time.

  4. #44
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    I voted no to the war being over...but I hope OUR war in iraq is over...

  5. #45
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Risky Thicket View Post
    You disagree but can offer nothing.
    You have your opinion I think it is wrong....What would you like? Surely you are not saying that reason, and discussion could sway you from your opinion are you? because that would be a first.

    Bring me up to speed on that. Tell me how the Iraq people asked for our invasion of their nation.
    They begged us to stay and finish the job when we left after gulf I, and instead we turned our backs as Saddam gassed, and murdered whole villages as we took off. Are you really saying that Iraqi's were happy under the murderous thumb of Saddam?

    1. It was indeed the intent of the U.S. to take Iraqi oil resources. Tell me how that wasn't the intent.
    One of the thoughts was to take Iraqi oil to help defray the cost of the war, and liberation from Saddam, however that never happened. The US doesn't pillage.

    2. Exxon has a service contract to develop oil fields in the south.
    For the Iraqi's.

    OK, if you want to play semantics. Let me rephrase it by saying "accidentally kill hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians".
    Official numbers put civilian deaths at just over 100,000..."hundreds" no.

    I completely agree.

    Did you by chance read the posts above or did you just show up? I was responding to apst's comparison of the establishment of the U.S. and Iraq
    I think you distort adpst's words.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    02-10-12 @ 03:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    845

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    What aging infrastructure?

    Protetstor? Oh, uou must mean the protestors that trash out public parks and demand more government handouts because they too stupid, or lazy to find a job.

    While you're whining about government spending, you might want to get your boy in check, lest you appear the hypocirite. Solyndra ring a bell?

    The average American understands that 4,000 casualties are better than 400,000.
    I'm not whining about government spending in general, that's your shtick. I'm well aware that lots of tax dollars are spent profligately, but I'm at least assuaged by the thought that they are spent domestically where it percolates through the local economy. My gripe is that Iraq caused our money to be frittered away abroad, stimulating someone else's economy while wasting soldiers' lives to delay the inevitable with no net benefit for our investment.

    I've got no problem at all risking money on local industries attempting to develop alternative energy technologies. I honestly believe that if oil lobbyists were driven out of Washington and we spent Iraq war levels of money on similar risks, we could be mostly off oil within a decade.



    I find your poorly spelled accusations of hypocrisy amusing.

  7. #47
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    [my bold]
    Quote Originally Posted by Risky Thicket View Post
    The Iraqi people did not ask the U.S. to invade them and destroy their infrastructure, commandeer their national resources or slay hundreds of thousands of their people.
    It always bugs me when people throw around HUGE numbers of civilian casualties. I've heard people claiming millions of Iraqis dead, but this wasn't RT. Still, I wanted to give a better number than "hundreds of thousands." This comes from NIC, a group of peace activists keeping tally.
    Iraq Body Count
    Total civilian deaths: 104,308 – 113,962 (so just over 100,000 NOT "hundreds of thousands." - singular not plural). Now lets look at civilian deaths during the invasion in 2003.

    Just in the invasion alone we get this from Wiki:[my bold]
    An October 20, 2003, study[68][69] by the Project on Defense Alternatives at Commonwealth Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, stated that for March 19, 2003, to April 30, 2003, "Based on the analysis that follows we estimate that the 2003 Iraq war produced between 7,600 and 10,800 Iraqi combatant fatalities."

    The study also stated: "Our analysis of the evidence leads to the conclusion that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants – that is: civilians who did not take up arms."
    So as many 4300 civilians were killed during the invasion.

    While Coalition forces were responsible for more civilian deaths in the coming years, the lion's share of the killing was committed by domestic and foreign insurgents (gee thanks Iran) and domestic criminal activity (Iraqis killing Iraqis). At least the US can claim it was trying to get insurgents when civilians were accidentally killed. Insurgents were targeting civilians to foment violence between Sunnis and Shiites. Unfortunately it worked. Iraqis have only themselves to blame for accepting this obvious bait.

    While this is not meant to belittle the civilian deaths. Any civilian death is a tragedy. The record should be set straight.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  8. #48
    Global Moderator
    May the force be with you
    Serenity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,947

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    The NIC get their numbers from media reports, hospital, morgue and NGO figures. When you take into account the Islamic requirement that bodies be buried within 24 hours of death, i doubt that we will ever know how many died.
    Why do we fall?
    So we can learn to pick ourselves up.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Troop withdrawal by December 31 of this year was a bilateral agreement signed in 2008. The war is over due to that agreement, not to an Obama fiat.

    Of course, if Iraq remains peaceful, then the Republicans will point to that fact as an indication that it was a Republican CIC who brought a successful end to that conflict, while the Democrats will claim it was all Obama. If, on the other hand, Iran invades or the Taliban takes over, then the Republicans will blame Obama, while the Democrats point to the withdrawal agreement of 2008.

    But, come what may, the fact is that the withdrawal was already agreed to before Obama became CIC.
    This is an interesting new twist in modern warfare. Signing an agreement that a war will only continue to a predetermined date and then one side, the side of the Democracies, will withdraw.

    The strategy behind this is political, not military, and by doing so the American government consigned some of their best people to die in a useless cause.

    Iraq will now go the way of Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iran. Nixon was absolutely right about the Vietnam syndrome and what it would mean to American respect around the world. Now the Americans, like all their Allies, want to fight a war where no one gets hurt and a withdrawal date is decided upon well in advance.

    While it may be a spat between the Democrats and Republicans domestically, and the American people will argue back and forth about that, it means a hell of a lot internationally. It really doesnt matter what the Americans think anymore in fact, as its all blather. They have become European and will suffer the similar consequences.
    Last edited by Grant; 12-24-11 at 09:51 AM.

  10. #50
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    The NIC get their numbers from media reports, hospital, morgue and NGO figures. When you take into account the Islamic requirement that bodies be buried within 24 hours of death, i doubt that we will ever know how many died.

    Lancet will forever be bogus no matter how many anti war proponents during those years want it to be true. The bottom line is that most people that get out there and use language like 'hundreds of thousands', or troops 'slaying' civilians are IMHO just over the top mouth foamers that can't bring themselves to discuss Iraq reasonably largely because of their blind hate toward George W. Bush.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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