|
bobd1953
Jul 20, 2005, 1:23 AM
Post #1 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
From Reuthers: BAGHDAD - U.S.-led forces, insurgents and criminal gangs have killed nearly 25,000 civilians, police, and army recruits since the war began in March 2003, according to a survey by Iraq Body Count, a U.S.-British non-government group.
Nearly half the deaths in the two years surveyed to March 2005 were in Baghdad, where a fifth of Iraq's 25 million people live, according to media reports monitored by the group.
Of the total, nearly 37 percent were killed by U.S.-led forces, it said.
The U.S. military disputed the findings and said it did not target civilians.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jul 20, 2005, 5:14 AM
Post #2 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: The U.S. military disputed the findings and said it did not target civilians.
i certainly hope so.
but if they didnt target them it doesnt mean they didnt kill them...
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Jul 20, 2005, 7:04 AM
Post #3 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
i think i want to cry. :cry:
for once i'm not even joking.. that fuckin sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 20, 2005, 7:30 AM
Post #4 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: From Reuthers: BAGHDAD - U.S.-led forces, insurgents and criminal gangs have killed nearly 25,000 civilians, police, and army recruits since the war began in March 2003, according to a survey by Iraq Body Count, a U.S.-British non-government group.
Ah, Bob... why do you persist? :)
In Bosnia, the death rate has been reported as upwards of 20,000 per year... YES, PER YEAR... and yet your Golden Child, Former President Clinton, did nothing.
Nothing.
20,000 a year.
For three years.
While the USA stood by silently and did nothing.
Think on that for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 8:04 AM
Post #5 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
The fact that people were killed in bosnia and herzegovina is not related to the deaths in Iraq and does not excuse them. Similarly, the fact that the deaths in bosnia were not stopped by clinton does not excuse our continuing to kill people in iraq.
In fact I'm unclear why you mention it at all, reno.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 20, 2005, 12:09 PM
Post #7 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: The fact that people were killed in bosnia and herzegovina is not related to the deaths in Iraq and does not excuse them. Similarly, the fact that the deaths in bosnia were not stopped by clinton does not excuse our continuing to kill people in iraq. In fact I'm unclear why you mention it at all, reno.
It could be due to the fact that the Bush detractors love to get all indignant about this, primarily because it resulted from Bush's policies. It's not the "what", but the "who" that drives this outrage.
BTW Tradman. Are you still going to assert that Bush murdered over 25,000 innocent civilians even though this report puts the number of deaths caused by US-led forces at less than 10,000?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 12:14 PM
Post #8 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
So do you feel no outrage at 25,000 deaths, thorne? And would you think that 10,000 dead civilians is okay?
We started this war. These deaths would not have occurred if we hadn't. Yes, they're our fault.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 20, 2005, 12:33 PM
Post #9 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: So do you feel no outrage at 25,000 deaths, thorne? And would you think that 10,000 dead civilians is okay?
I addressed neither point. Just looking to shed some light on one of your frequent bullshit assertions. Shall we talk about Bush, the mass murderer?
To answer your questions -
- Not sure if outrage is the appropriate word. Deeply saddened is more fitting.
- No. Absolutely not!
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 12:49 PM
Post #10 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
I'm glad that you agree that the deaths are entirely unacceptable. You are very amenable today.
As for Bush being a mass murderer, I've asked several times if anyone can give me a defence against these deaths that would stand up in court. As yet, no-one has been able to do this. If you say this assertion is "bullshit", then why do you say it is "bullshit"?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 20, 2005, 12:53 PM
Post #11 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
What crimes, specifically, should he be charged of committing? By specifically, I mean which actual laws have been broken?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 1:08 PM
Post #12 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
International law states that it is unlawful for any country to wage a war of agression against any country which does not threaten it.
For Bush personally there are articles under the heading of crimes against humanity which render the leader of any country committing those acts responsible for them.
And you didn't answer my question.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 20, 2005, 1:16 PM
Post #13 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I assume you're talking about the "bullshit" assertion. I say bullshit because I don't know of any specific charges that have been filed against Bush. You throw out inflamatory phrases like "mass murderer", and I wonder where are these crimes being prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
|
uberdb
Jul 20, 2005, 1:17 PM
Post #14 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
Just a quick interjection here, I know the death toll looks horrendous (and is), but did you realize that the number of Iraqi deaths per year (including Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Turkoman - not just the Arabs) has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY since Saddam's regime was removed ? There are many, many years that his annual killings within his country far exceeded the total civilian casualties for the entire war to date. Yup, Bush is Soooo evil :wink:
- DB
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 20, 2005, 1:19 PM
Post #15 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
Keep in mind, that "civilians" takes into account the terrorist infiltrators that have died, because they are not fighting as an organized military. Also, it goes witout saying (but I'm saying it anyway) that the huge majority of casualties amongst women and children have been the direct result of torrist suicide & roadside bombings.
This was also happening long before the US & our Allies steped foot in the sandbox, and the mass graves that contain hundreds of thousands of bodies of men, women and children prove this.
One only needs to weigh the difference between the number of casualities since the onset of war, as opposed to the numbers Saddam inflicted upon his own people during "peace time"... War is an ugly business, but in situations such as Iraq, it's for the greater good to rid the world of a tyrant. I guess some could surmise that Hitler should have been left unchecked as well...................... :?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 1:23 PM
Post #16 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Actually uberdb, we've covered that already in previous threads: according to Human Rights Watch, Saddam was responsible for between 50,000 and 100,000 iraqi deaths, but that was over a period of 30 years.
The death rate is astronomically higher under the current occupation - 25,000 in just 2 years. If we stayed for 30 years, at our current rate of killing we'd slaughter 375,000 civilians.
Aside from that, as I said earlier, how does the fact that Saddam was an evil monster make it okay for Bush to kill 25,000? I don't understand your reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 20, 2005, 1:35 PM
Post #17 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
It's the Saddam supporters/terrorists that have killed the largest numbers of people, and Bush is there to kill them!
Curoiusly though, why was it okay for Clinton to send troops in during his administration, yet it's NOT okay for Bush..?
More are dying, because Bush is serious about seeing this through, unlike when either Clinton or Bush,Sr had the opportunity. I do however recall the Clinton administration "declaring war" on our own US civilians in Waco though, murdering a 13yr boy & his mother in Ruby Ridge, then finally deporting a 6yr old refugee back into the hands of an evil dictator but not w/o a full-scale tactical assault. Now, lets imagine how the headlines would read if Bush had been the President during any of these 3 incidents... :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
uberdb
Jul 20, 2005, 1:36 PM
Post #18 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
I can assure you that neither U.S. Forces, nor Bush personally, have killed 25,000 Iraqis. I'm a career soldier, and most of my friends are currently over there, or have been there, or have been there twice. I'm going in October. All the stories my friends relate to me (besides, yes, the occasional shooting of someone - always with hostile intent) also include dissidents, insurgents and foreign fighters performing executions in towns that don't support them, bombings in markets and other public places and suicide attacks all over the place ... A lot of these attacks are focused on Iraqi civilians and infrastructure. At this stage of the conflict our fires are very discriminating ... it's the non-compliant forces that are doing all of the major damage now.
Also, when an Iraqi civilian picks up an RPG and fires it at my friend, he's no longer a civilian. When his buddy runs out into the street to pick it up from his now defunct friend and tries to reload it, he's also no longer a civilian. The death toll does not account for non-uniformed combatants.
- DB
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 20, 2005, 1:36 PM
Post #19 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: I can assure you that neither U.S. Forces, nor Bush personally, have killed 25,000 Iraqis. I'm a career soldier, and most of my friends are currently over there, or have been there, or have been there twice. I'm going in October. All the stories my friends relate to me (besides, yes, the occasional shooting of someone - always with hostile intent) also include dissidents, insurgents and foreign fighters performing executions in towns that don't support them, bombings in markets and other public places and suicide attacks all over the place ... A lot of these attacks are focused on Iraqi civilians and infrastructure. At this stage of the conflict our fires are very discriminating ... it's the non-compliant forces that are doing all of the major damage now. Also, when an Iraqi civilian picks up an RPG and fires it at my friend, he's no longer a civilian. When his buddy runs out into the street to pick it up from his now defunct friend and tries to reload it, he's also no longer a civilian. The death toll does not account for non-uniformed combatants. - DB |
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 1:46 PM
Post #20 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Uberdb, I neither said that Bush personally nor US soldiers in general had killed 25,000 Iraqis. I simply said they had been killed, in the context of comparing body count.
If you have difficulty with this, read this web site. You'll find all the deaths accounted for.
Your portrayal of US forces as pure saints who never, ever commit crimes is very strange. I don't particularly want to talk about the torture, rapes and murders committed by US troops in this war since it's fundamentally off-topic and frankly disgusting, but if you insist on playing that ridiculous victim card and looking for sympathy, we can go into it as a way to debunk your claims, okay?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 20, 2005, 1:51 PM
Post #21 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Actually uberdb, we've covered that already in previous threads: according to Human Rights Watch, Saddam was responsible for between 50,000 and 100,000 iraqi deaths, but that was over a period of 30 years
Where do you get these numbers?
Here's something I found:In reply to: The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"
In reply to: The death rate is astronomically higher under the current occupation - 25,000 in just 2 years. If we stayed for 30 years, at our current rate of killing we'd slaughter 375,000 civilians.
Nice extrapolation. How about looking at the numbers for the last 6 months. I wonder how many innocent civilians were killed by our troops.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 20, 2005, 2:12 PM
Post #24 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: according to Human Rights Watch, Saddam was responsible for between 50,000 and 100,000 iraqi deaths, but that was over a period of 30 years.
The source you quote says - In reply to: Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.
You say "over a period of 30 years.
Your source says "1987-1988 campaign of terror ".
Such dishonesty is becoming more and more frequent.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 2:16 PM
Post #25 of 146
(4076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
No dishonesty intended thorne.
Saddam was in power for just over 30 years. Those deaths occurred in 2 of those years. If you know of other deaths in the 30 year period, please go ahead and include them.
It doesn't really strengthen your claim that saddam was killing so many people if you point out that he was in power for 30 years but there were only substantial deaths in 2 of those years.
If those deaths occurred in 1987-88, remind me why we invaded almost fifteen years later?
I'll ask it again: In what way do deaths under Saddam legitimise deaths under our occupation?
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 20, 2005, 2:33 PM
Post #26 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
From Truthout: U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
by Michael Dobbs
High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.
Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.
The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."
A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
Seem like we had a hand in those killing in 1987 & 1988.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 20, 2005, 2:45 PM
Post #27 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Curoiusly though, why was it okay for Clinton to send troops in during his administration, yet it's NOT okay for Bush..?
It wasn't OK with me. I felt very strongly that the EU should have handled Bosnia. Still do.
The only way to conquer and control an unwilling nation is with the iron boot. Someday we're going to understand that wars of conquest are not consistent with a democracy. Simply put, we are too nice to pull it off.
We can't save the world from itself and save the world from us at the same time.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jul 20, 2005, 2:55 PM
Post #29 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: Also, when an Iraqi civilian picks up an RPG and fires it at my friend, he's no longer a civilian. When his buddy runs out into the street to pick it up from his now defunct friend and tries to reload it, he's also no longer a civilian. The death toll does not account for non-uniformed combatants.
What was it that our eloquent commander and chief said about that...... oh yeah:
Bring 'em on!
Standing in a public marketplace trading fire with hostiles that are indistinguishable from friendlies and victims is not a good war fighting strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 20, 2005, 2:55 PM
Post #30 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Uberdb, I neither said that Bush personally nor US soldiers in general had killed 25,000 Iraqis. I simply said they had been killed, in the context of comparing body count.
You said they would not have died if Bush hadn't started the war, and thus their deaths are because of Bush. Same thing.
In reply to: Your portrayal of US forces as pure saints who never, ever commit crimes is very strange.
And your portrayal of US soldiers as torturers, cold blooded killers of women and children, and heartless automatons is about the most offensive thing I've ever read. You serve in the military? Or do you just sit and bask in the freedoms they protect and spew forth your protesting?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 20, 2005, 2:58 PM
Post #31 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000 Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm] 8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam. US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders 180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal 60,000 Shiites in 1991 50,000 misc. others executed "Human rights officials" est.: 500,000 Iraqi politicians: over a million [These don't include the million or so dead in the Iran-Iraq War.]
Here's the source. Not sure if it has a particular bias.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 3:13 PM
Post #32 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Oh dear.
The article you referenced gets its data from this report, which is a publication by Human Rights Watch, detailing point-by-point why the Iraqi invasion is a breach of Humanitarian Law and can in no way be justified as a humanitarian intervention. It also doesn't actually quote the figures it uses.
This article definitely does not support your case.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Jul 20, 2005, 3:21 PM
Post #33 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
Are there any statistics on how many suicide bombings were taking place in Iraq before the war started?
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 20, 2005, 3:38 PM
Post #35 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: In reply to: Curoiusly though, why was it okay for Clinton to send troops in during his administration, yet it's NOT okay for Bush..? It wasn't OK with me. I felt very strongly that the EU should have handled Bosnia. Still do. DMT |
|
|
|
|
macherry
Jul 20, 2005, 3:42 PM
Post #36 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
In reply to: In reply to: You serve in the military? Or do you just sit and bask in the freedoms they protect and spew forth your protesting? No, I don't. And in what way are my freedoms protected by invading a country that presented no threat to me?
as much as i stay away from such threads, i just had to wade in. Reno, that is such an old and tired argument to drag out.......... once again. I agree with trad.
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Jul 20, 2005, 3:45 PM
Post #37 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: You serve in the military? Or do you just sit and bask in the freedoms they protect and spew forth your protesting? No, I don't. And in what way are my freedoms protected by invading a country that presented no threat to me? as much as i stay away from such threads, i just had to wade in. Reno, that is such an old and tired argument to drag out.......... once again. I agree with trad.
Is but a small reason that I left military service.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 20, 2005, 4:04 PM
Post #38 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Oh dear. The article you referenced gets its data from this report, which is a publication by Human Rights Watch, detailing point-by-point why the Iraqi invasion is a breach of Humanitarian Law and can in no way be justified as a humanitarian intervention. It also doesn't actually quote the figures it uses. This article definitely does not support your case.
The only case I've been addressing here involves factual accuracy of death toll data.
You can save that red herring for future trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
seabee
Jul 20, 2005, 4:08 PM
Post #39 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 136
|
A LOT of spewing going on here from people who really have no clue as to what's going on over there...
Yep, 25,000 deaths. I believe it. When I was there, I saw death everywhere I looked. I came damn close to it myself on a few occasions. I lost some very close friends there -- two Americans, two Iraqis. And more since I've come home. Death is very much a way of life there.
What you see on the news is representative of only a small part of what's going on there. I believe it's both much worse and much better. What you don't see is the hate and anger in the eyes of the people as you drive around. You don't see the numbers of soldiers wounded every day. You don't see the corporate profiteering. You also don't see the village that has clean water for the first time ever, nor do you see the elderly couple that has a new home, or the new sewer system that keeps raw sewage off the streets. All you see is the aftermath of the attacks, a twisted car, some blood, and a man or woman grieving over their dead child or relative. And you see a number: 25,000. It means nothing, until you really understand what's going on over there.
Believe me, I'm not saying that we should be there... and I'm not saying we shouldn't. I, unfortunately, am a cog in the machine, and I do what I'm told. Regardless of whether I agree or not.
What fires me up is when someone who knows nothing about what's happening there starts pontificating about why we're there, or why we shouldn't be there. Saddam killed all those people... No blood for oil... Weapons of mass destruction... 25,000 dead... It's all bullshit, because you know nothing. I can't tell you what it's really like, and I hope you don't have to experience it. Just don't pretend to have the answers, because you don't. None of us do.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 4:17 PM
Post #40 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Seabee, do you think nobody here has ever seen a war except you?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 20, 2005, 4:18 PM
Post #41 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: which actually makes your point solidify my statement! ;)
If you say so chief. I don't even know what your point was really. I don't approve of invading other countries without provocation and direct threat. I don't care what political affiliation such leaders might hold. We shouldn't do it because our form of government won't allow the iron boot necessary to pull it off.
Whenever I hear a neocon debate the positive merits of tactical nuclear weapons I sense another nail in the coffin of democracy.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
seabee
Jul 20, 2005, 4:19 PM
Post #42 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 136
|
OK, Tradman, I'll bite. What war have you seen?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 4:27 PM
Post #43 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
I'm not trying to start a pissing contest seabee, and I wasn't just talking about myself. You'll find there are vietnam vets, gulf war vets and plenty of otheres here, some of whom share your point of view, some of whom don't. To say that we all know nothing says a lot about you and not much about us.
Me, yeah I've seen war. It's not very nice, and it's not worth talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
uberdb
Jul 20, 2005, 4:41 PM
Post #44 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
I'm not going to get into the numbers game, I'm sure everyone on both side of this argument can find someone who is publishing the sort of numbers to support their argument. The original source was qouted on this thread was a US-UK "non-governmental" agency. Being an unofficial agency, I personally would question the veracity of their claims, but in an era lacking unbiased media coverage, its up to each of us to find our own sources that we believe.
However, going back to earlier statements (about US forces torturing, murdering and raping people). These acts, on the rare (but oh so well publicized) incidents when they happen are investigated and punished accordingly. Keep in mind the sheer scale and number of people involved in operations over there. We have half a million people over there right now ! Keeping in mind that a vast majority of these servicemembers are young, away from home for long periods of time, scared, angry for fallen friends, and very aware that a percentage of the population desires nothing more than their gruesome death, and I think that while such instances are deplorable, you'd be beyond niave to think they won't happen at all. Unlike most forces though, we certainly don't sponsor such behavior and perpetrators are dealt with accordingly.
However, back here at home, there is Rape, Murder and Torture (spousal and child abuse), as there is anywhere else. I'm sure if someone were to go through the statistics and compare US forces to any other segment of anyone's population, I'm sure you'd find our rape/torture statistics to be incredibly low. The media blows the few incidents out of proportion to the scale of the effort underway. As to the murder claim, it's a debatable definition during a time a war. Premeditated, right ? "Hey, if he picks up that AK, you pop him." Premeditated and yet fully legal. Of course US forces aren't saints, they are just people. Trained, disciplined, motivated but still just people, there are going to be a few bad ones.
Speaking of bad ones, I'd have to say that while the stuff that was going down at Abu Ghraib was unjustifiable and uncalled for, I'd certainly much rather be stripped, led around like a dog and photographed naked then being beaten continiously for days and then be beheaded with a dull knife on video ... (I've seen the whole thing .... THAT will make you sick to your stomach)
But, to the point of "does that justify the war ?". No, none of that does. What does justify the war is that we are rebuilding their country with civil and infrastructure projects and allowing them (including those that NEVER had a voice in their government) to move toward self rule. I understand the concept of sanctity of life, how it is a precious gift and apparently you do to ... Their former regime and indeed, a certain part of the lifestyle over does not (while not having been to Iraq, I have been to the middle east). On another thread, there's a discussion over park rangers / Camp 4 climbers ... under Saddam's regime, he would have beatten/tortured/shot them, wiped his hands and said "next?". There are so many well-meaning service members over there struggling to make a positive difference in the lives of average Iraqis, and actually succeding. The desired endstate, at this point, is to allow the Iraqis, all Iraqis, to lead happier, healthier, more productive lives freed from political and religious oppression and constant threat of violence and death. I think that's a worthy goal.
DB
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 20, 2005, 4:43 PM
Post #45 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Just don't pretend to have the answers, because you don't. None of us do.
You hit the nail on the head.
Our leaders invaded Iraq, putting thousands of Americans lives in harm way without a plan or anwsers. Pretty sad.
I quess that a good reason why 48 per-cent of Americans don't trust Bush!
|
|
|
|
|
seabee
Jul 20, 2005, 4:47 PM
Post #46 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 136
|
War sucks. I think that's something that we can all agree on.
And I'm not saying that I'm the only one here that knows anything about it. But how much can you say you know, if your only source is the news media?
That's like making a judgment on a climb based only on the topo. Go climb it, and then tell me what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Jul 20, 2005, 5:03 PM
Post #48 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Hey Tradman, ever think about a job at the New York Times? You'd fit in well.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 20, 2005, 5:07 PM
Post #49 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Seabee- Take a few hits in the head with a hammer and tell me if hurts or not.
I don't think you need to be there to know that this war was wrong from the start!
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Jul 20, 2005, 5:09 PM
Post #50 of 146
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
In reply to: Me, yeah I've seen war. It's not very nice, and it's not worth talking about. |
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 5:09 PM
Post #51 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
:?:
I don't understand, I'm afraid I'm not american. Why would I fit in at the new york times?
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Jul 20, 2005, 5:10 PM
Post #52 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
In reply to: In reply to: And I'm not saying that I'm the only one here that knows anything about it. But how much can you say you know, if your only source is the news media? Ha ha ha! No, I've actually seen the "street dogs eating dead bodies out of open sewers" show, endless re-runs of "families locked in their houses and burnt alive" and even managed to catch a late showing of "10-year old children tortured with electrical wire", all live all the time. Know what i think? I think you don't have to be able to smell it to know that it's wrong.
Ah yes…tradman…the quintessential living room quarter back… To judge an event accurately, you have to have all of the facts…not stats…not interpretations of events…but firsthand experience
The fact is, you don’t know shit…but you’ll continue to spray your opinion as though it’s gospel regardless...
You’re a crack up
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 5:16 PM
Post #53 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Yes hangerless, I do have firsthand experience thank you very much. I was in ethopia in 1986 during the border war with somalia, amongst other incidents - oh yeah and you might remember there was a big famine on at the time too.
Believe me, I've got plenty of first fucking hand experience. I wish I had been sitting in my living room, just like you probably are right now, but I wasn't, I was up to my fucking eyeballs in it.
|
|
|
|
|
seabee
Jul 20, 2005, 5:24 PM
Post #54 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: I don't think you need to be there to know that this war was wrong from the start!
But you do need to be there to know what's really going on. And opinions from those who haven't mean a lot less than from those who have.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 20, 2005, 6:02 PM
Post #55 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Weapons of mass destruction... 25,000 dead... It's all bullshit, because you know nothing. I can't tell you what it's really like, and I hope you don't have to experience it. Just don't pretend to have the answers, because you don't. None of us do.
Seabee- you posted this before. Now your telling us you have to be there.
|
|
|
|
|
newbierockstar
Jul 20, 2005, 7:57 PM
Post #56 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2004
Posts: 1010
|
you tell 'em, dookie!! :righton:
|
|
|
|
|
vawwyakr
Jul 20, 2005, 8:02 PM
Post #57 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 90
|
In reply to: The U.S. military disputed the findings and said it did not target civilians.
Well of course we're not! We're targeting thier hats. So if you see various civilians (civilians can be combatants too....especially when you're invading someone's country) you shoot at their hats....and if some random automatic weapons fire....or stray missles, or artillery rounds happen to hit the people wearing those hats well sorry I guess that's the price of being on the recieveing end of a US invasion.....it's just we hate those damn damn hats.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 20, 2005, 10:27 PM
Post #58 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: You serve in the military? Or do you just sit and bask in the freedoms they protect and spew forth your protesting? No, I don't.
Didn't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 20, 2005, 10:32 PM
Post #59 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: as much as i stay away from such threads, i just had to wade in. Reno, that is such an old and tired argument to drag out.......... once again. I agree with trad.
OK, so you don't buy the concept of having to walk a mile in someone's shoes before you understand them?
So I could, in theory, say the following, and it's all OK according to your logic, cause I don't have to actually experience it to question it, right?
"Getting an abortion is no big deal."
"Post partum depression is a myth."
"So is PMS."
"What's so hard about being pregnant, anyway?"
"Sexual harassment against women is alright."
"Title IX is a joke."
Want me to continue, Macherry? Or should I keep my mouth shut, cause I don't understand, cause I've never been there?
Waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 20, 2005, 10:51 PM
Post #60 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Want me to continue, Macherry? Or should I keep my mouth shut, cause I don't understand, cause I've never been there? Waiting.
I'll anwser that...yes. :D
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Jul 21, 2005, 4:08 AM
Post #61 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
Sadam started a war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, killed an estimated half million of his own countrymen. He's right up there with Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Pol Pot for lethality. One of the primary problems with reconstruction is that no one had any idea how deeply he had traumatized and destroyed the psyche of an entire nation. Iraq truely is a nation that is only slowly recovering from national "post traumatic stress disorder". It wasn't inflicted by us! The claim that things are worse now is absurid on its face. Most of central Africa has a far higher violent death rate as do Detroit and D.C. than Iraq.
The "insurgents" in reality invaders, followers of the homicidal cult of Wahabisim. In reality there are no "insurgents" only invaders and Bathist criminal gangs.
break down of homocide bombers as follows.
Saudis-42%
Syrians-12%
Kuwatis-11%
Other N. African and Asian Sunis the remainder or unidentifiable. (not much left after the bomb vest goes of).
Only a handfull have been known Iraqi including a 14 year old with Downs syndrome his Suni neighbors straped a bomb to, etc. The Iraqi Suni criminal gangs, (tribes , same thing) are also involved in this futile effort to thwart a representative democratic republic. The Mafia didn't give up without a bloody fight for Sicily either. They are mostly the financiers though and show little interest in blowing themselves up for the glory of Alah. They are also vastly out numbered and increasingly unpopular. Any that are interested in a civilized sharing of political power are summarily dispatched by their own bretheren. Two Shia leaders that were involved in writing the new constitution were exicuted by Al Queda yesterday.
The thing I've found incredible is given the level of weapons available, (every household has at least one AK47) and that the old Suni overlords are only 20% of the population, that the Kurds and Shia haven't extracted their revenge for 30 years of slaughter and torture. That fact alone holds great promise for Iraqs future.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Jul 21, 2005, 4:37 AM
Post #62 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: The thing I've found incredible is given the level of weapons available, (every household has at least one AK47) and that the old Suni overlords are only 20% of the population, that the Kurds and Shia haven't extracted their revenge for 30 years of slaughter and torture. That fact alone holds great promise for Iraqs future.
so, they have not used the weapons against saddam, yet they are using them against us army, what does it say to you?
although you also think
In reply to: In reality there are no "insurgents" only invaders and Bathist criminal gangs.
ignorance is bliss
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 21, 2005, 12:27 PM
Post #63 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Melekzek,
Perhaps you could shed some light on the nationalities of the insurgent (more aptly labelled terrorists), who regularly ambush our troups and murder innocent Iraqis. How about we look at the last six months of violence.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 21, 2005, 2:44 PM
Post #64 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: In reply to: Just don't pretend to have the answers, because you don't. None of us do.You hit the nail on the head. Our leaders invaded Iraq, putting thousands of Americans lives in harm way without a plan or anwsers. Pretty sad. I quess that a good reason why 48 per-cent of Americans don't trust Bush!
Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia & Texas... just to name a few!
You must be so proud to be a member of that political party. :?
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Jul 21, 2005, 2:52 PM
Post #65 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
In reply to: Yet ironically, the previous Democrat led administration had US troops invading & occupying more countries due to seperate non-related skirmishes, than any prior administration in US history. Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia & Texas... just to name a few!
But why were they there and did that administration lie about it?
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 21, 2005, 3:26 PM
Post #66 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
CIA intel under BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS said there were WMD's in Iraq, and if you'll all remember, Clinton publicly supported Bush's efforts!
As the to rationale behind Clintons invasion of the other countries, I don't believe that anybody really knows, other than "humanitarianism"... :?
Being that the US seems to be so universally hated, I believe that we should lock down our borders, deport everyone w/ a Green card, cancel all Visas, expell the UN and all dignitaries, relinquish all foreign aid, recall 100% of our military forces, halt international air traffic into the US and our territories, and let the rest of the world fend for themselves.... Something tells me that this would not be very popular w/ the rest of the world! 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Jul 21, 2005, 3:50 PM
Post #68 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
Because all children need a father figure for guidance
Hey Traddie..."Who's your daddy"
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 21, 2005, 3:59 PM
Post #69 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Not a weiner like you, hangerless. What, are you here to "call bullshit" on my life again are you? Tell us hangerless, what were you doing for africa in the 80s? Watching Live Aid on your television and demanding that something be done about this terrible situation? Or were you actually there running medical supplies and aid documents around the country with me and mine? Did you go to your fridge and get a nice cold drink after you pledged your $1 by phone, or were you with me packing up to move schoolchildren before the next wave of shelling came down?
Maybe you were there. Maybe you do know what it smells like. I fucking doubt it. But I don't accuse you of being a liar and an armchair quarterback you spineless little shit.
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Jul 21, 2005, 4:08 PM
Post #70 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
In reply to: but if you insist on playing that ridiculous victim card and looking for sympathy...
In reply to: Tell us hangerless, what were you doing for africa in the 80s? Watching Live Aid on your television and demanding that something be done about this terrible situation? Or were you actually there running medical supplies and aid documents around the country with me and mine? Did you go to your fridge and get a nice cold drink after you pledged your $1 by phone, or were you with me packing up to move schoolchildren before the next wave of shelling came down?
good lord. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Contrary to what you make it look like here, Dave, you are not the only person who has ever seen a war, or places beyond what us lucky folks experience in our daily lives. So don't even try to pretend that because you were in Africa in the 80's you know exactly what's going on and what it's like to be in Iraq today.
And knowing what I do about Hangerless's experiences in the US Marine Corps for which he very honorably served, again I say shut the fuck up and stop making yourself look so goddamn stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Jul 21, 2005, 4:15 PM
Post #71 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
hahahahahahahaha!!!!
rollingonthefloorlaughingmyfuckingassoff!!
You haven't the slightest clue who you're talking to... do you?!?
USMC '91-'95...take a look at what was going on in the middle east at the time...dumbass...I have the ability to split domes from 500 yards sans scope...with real people throwing real rounds down range in my direction with my demise in mind...so don't try telling me shit about your sob story from the 80's boy
The fact is, the only thing I dog you on is the "preaching" in your posts. Breaking out the soapbox like you know what is best for the world and what it takes to get there.
So fuck you and the white horse you road in on
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 21, 2005, 4:15 PM
Post #72 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
I'm looking for sympathy - it's not relevant and changes nothing. I'm not the slightest bit interested what you think about my past. Hangerless called me an armchair quarterback and said I had no firsthand experience of war, and he was completely wrong, and entirely disrespectful.
Now is he going to defend himself or is he going to get you to do it? He may have won ten congressional medals and spent 100 years in the marines for all I know, he was still wrong about me, wrong about my experience and what he said was out of order.
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Jul 21, 2005, 4:22 PM
Post #74 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
In reply to: what he said was out of order.
waaaaa waaaaa waaaaaa
You pulled that shit on someone who served, saying that stating what they had seen was pulling the victim card you ass, then you do it but it's not the same when the finger points at you is it??? :lol:
Just trying to point out your blatent lack of respect when you so obviously expect it outright from others. I don't expect you to kiss hangers or anyone elses ass dave. I expect you to GIVE the respect you EXPECT FROM OTHERS. If you're too blind to see it your worse of a person than I ever thought.
What he said about you was out of order, but you can't admit that you were wrong about him, too, and what he's seen and done.
Take a look in the fucking mirror for once you retard.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 21, 2005, 4:25 PM
Post #75 of 146
(3684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
I give exactly as much respect as I recieve.
Read the thread - I was prefectly civil to both hanger and seabee until they started up with their armchair quarterback shit.
Am I being disrespectful now? Damn right. I don't treat people with respect if they don't extend it to me. If hangerless doesn't respect my experience, then why should I respect his?
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Jul 21, 2005, 4:29 PM
Post #76 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
In reply to: I give exactly as much respect as I recieve. Read the thread - I was prefectly civil to both hanger and seabee until they started up with their armchair quarterback s---.
Crock-o-shit.
I've read the thread dave, and you were a dick to seabee the second he said he'd been over there. Calling you on the fact that you HAVEN'T been there so you might want to listen to some folks who have. He wasn't being disrespectful to you, yet you served it to him in armloads.
I might not give you the respect you say you give (laughable) but I'll give you some pity. Most definately needed. And deserved.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 21, 2005, 4:31 PM
Post #77 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Good job you're here to defend these big tough guys, or they'd have to defend themselves, huh?
Well thanks for the sympathy anyway, it's very sweet of you.
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Jul 21, 2005, 4:31 PM
Post #78 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
In reply to: In reply to: You haven't the slightest clue who you're talking to... do you?!? Nope. I don't actually care either. You're possibly expecting me to be intimidated by your use of military jargon, or perhaps like dookie expect me to kiss your ass just because you were in the army. You're out of luck on both counts, and you were wrong about me, and wrong about what I've seen.
No ass kissing expected or requested for that matter.
I'm not going to continue engaging in a witless flamewar with you sweetheart...well, not at the moment at any rate
Catch ya on the flipside brutha
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 21, 2005, 4:34 PM
Post #79 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Yup, see you after.
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Jul 21, 2005, 5:08 PM
Post #80 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
In reply to: Good job you're here to defend these big tough guys, or they'd have to defend themselves, huh?
Nope, I just call your bullshit when I smell it. Or see it. Or hear it.
These big boys can take care of themselves, I'm not defending them per se, but rathering calling you out because from time to time, it needs to be done Dave. Your hyprocracy is disgusting.
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Jul 21, 2005, 5:20 PM
Post #81 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
Women who defend me are hott.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 21, 2005, 5:33 PM
Post #82 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Hangerless wrote:
In reply to: Because all children need a father figure for guidance Hey Traddie... "Who's your daddy"
To which tradman replied:
In reply to: Not a weiner like you, hangerless. What, are you here to "call s---" on my life again are you? Tell us hangerless, what were you doing for africa in the 80s? Watching Live Aid on your television and demanding that something be done about this terrible situation? Or were you actually there running medical supplies and aid documents around the country with me and mine? Did you go to your fridge and get a nice cold drink after you pledged your $1 by phone, or were you with me packing up to move schoolchildren before the next wave of shelling came down? Maybe you were there. Maybe you do know what it smells like. I f---ing doubt it. But I don't accuse you of being a liar and an armchair quarterback you spineless little s---.
Definitely NOT a good example of Newton's Third Law of Motion.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 22, 2005, 2:47 AM
Post #83 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: Definitely NOT a good example of Newton's Third Law of Motion.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I'll have to remember that one!
|
|
|
|
|
cracknut
Jul 22, 2005, 3:20 PM
Post #84 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2005
Posts: 47
|
In reply to: I have the ability to split domes from 500 yards sans scope
Your mother must be proud
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 22, 2005, 3:52 PM
Post #85 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Women who defend me are hott.
Up on Cripple Creek
She sends me
If I spring a leak
She mends me
I don't have to speak
She defends me
A drunkard's dream
If I ever did see one...
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Jul 22, 2005, 3:57 PM
Post #86 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
In reply to: In reply to: I have the ability to split domes from 500 yards sans scope Your mother must be proud
She never knew
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Jul 22, 2005, 6:41 PM
Post #87 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: Being that the US seems to be so universally hated, I believe that we should lock down our borders, deport everyone w/ a Green card, cancel all Visas, expell the UN and all dignitaries, relinquish all foreign aid, recall 100% of our military forces, halt international air traffic into the US and our territories, and let the rest of the world fend for themselves.... Something tells me that this would not be very popular w/ the rest of the world! 8^)
Isolationism would work very well for an economy that imports more than it exports, and is dependent on foreign oil. Do you really think our economy would be fine if we became an "island"?
|
|
|
|
|
dondiego
Jul 25, 2005, 2:10 AM
Post #88 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2001
Posts: 1367
|
Wow, this thread has really gotten out of hand and off topic. Back to the basics:
Yes, we have been responsible for civilian deaths. I don't think anybody in the current administration or the military would dispute that.
No, we don't target innocent civilians, also something that would not be disputed by those two groups (especially the military ones)
Statistics all come from someone somewhere and most have an agenda to push (not unlike many people on this site) and if you don't believe that, you really are an idiot. Not to mention that given enough time, one can find stats supporting even the most absurd arguement on the wonderful world of internet.
The previous regime killed a lot of innocent people, we have killed less. The previous regime killed very few bad people (and in fact were bad people) and we have killed more.
While the WMD debate will continue forever (he had plenty of time to give a lot of stuff away as well as bury it) the fact that they had used NBC in events in the past as well as every intel source that we relay on saying that he was developing it again seemed to be the right thing to do at the time. Presidents are just men and are not perfect. They rely on advice from advisors.
Clinton lied to the nation and so has every president since Washington. Newsflash, Presidents lie! Most Americans not only don't want the truth about what it takes to secure a free and democratic nation, they can't handle it. We spill a lot of blood that nobody ever knows about to prevent things from happening on our soil.
American soldiers, sailors, arimen, and marines are also human. During armed conflict, things happen that aren't right. During this particular conflict, a very small fraction of crimes/attrocities/violations/mistakes/whatever... have been committed in relation to all former wars/conflicts. We are doing pretty good considering who we are facing and that nobody reports the good, only the bad.
Yes, my statements are simple and not backed up with stupid websites that probably aren't right anyway, but that doesn't make them any less true than what has been kicked out already on this thread. Oh, and I do respect people who have lived and served through past traumatic times, but the WWII vet didn't understand what the Vietnam vet felt and experienced anymore than anyone understands what the current US Soldier experiences and feels. Yes, you do have to have been there if only to get a perspective on the good that is being accomplished versus the bad that is also happening.
-DD-
|
|
|
|
|
newbierockstar
Jul 25, 2005, 2:38 AM
Post #89 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2004
Posts: 1010
|
Very well put, Don... :righton: ...I think your post was one of the most insightful I've ever read on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
bmxer
Jul 25, 2005, 8:55 AM
Post #90 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: 220
|
Saddam was a bad guy and its' good hes' gone, but that's not "why" Bush invaded, it was corporate/political/economic interests that are benefecial not for the American people, but for the corporations that profit from such business. Oil, contracts, changing politics around world. Pissing "terrorists" off so that Bush and Blair have more excuses for militirizng the police and taking away normal rights like not having your phone line tapped for no reason, or the CIA seeing what you borrow at the library (think "patriot" act) {good philosophy question; If you're against the patriot act, are you no longer patriotic?}
Basically giving more power to the gov't which in turn enriches those who want to get richer. Makes the people think there aren't more important problems in the world. The dam Egypt bombing has been on CNN for 4 days in a row now, and they say the same exact thing, over and over and over again. I want to see better news, like what this congressman said to that congressman. I want an entire hour of avg people being interviewed on the streets. I want to see Arnold in his office telling us what he plans on doing tomarrow.
But the point is we're in Iraq now, because saddam was a threat to us isnt' exactly why Bush invaded, but it's a dam good excuse. Pretty much all that's left is to see how this is going to end.
The American Army aren't bad guys, their good, young men. Sure there's a cruel person thrown in there every onceinawhile. but their in the army and their following orders.
What's happening is the world is globalizing and certain powerful figures are playing their cards right so they end up on top. "The people" are expendeble in their eyes. Just like in Rome, keep it on down low so people don't outright get pissed and riot. Or else, feed them crumbs to keep them pacified while we do whatever we want.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 25, 2005, 12:38 PM
Post #91 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Saddam was a bad guy and its' good hes' gone, but that's not "why" Bush invaded, it was corporate/political/economic interests that are benefecial not for the American people, but for the corporations that profit from such business. Oil, contracts, changing politics around world. Pissing "terrorists" off so that Bush and Blair have more excuses for militirizng the police and taking away normal rights like not having your phone line tapped for no reason, or the CIA seeing what you borrow at the library (think "patriot" act) {good philosophy question; If you're against the patriot act, are you no longer patriotic?}
Let me guess... you're pursuing a double major - English and Political Science.
|
|
|
|
|
taualum23
Jul 25, 2005, 12:54 PM
Post #92 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 2370
|
In reply to: In reply to: Saddam was a bad guy and its' good hes' gone, but that's not "why" Bush invaded, it was corporate/political/economic interests that are benefecial not for the American people, but for the corporations that profit from such business. Oil, contracts, changing politics around world. Pissing "terrorists" off so that Bush and Blair have more excuses for militirizng the police and taking away normal rights like not having your phone line tapped for no reason, or the CIA seeing what you borrow at the library (think "patriot" act) {good philosophy question; If you're against the patriot act, are you no longer patriotic?} Let me guess... you're pursuing a double major - English and Political Science.
Just because I agree with a lot of what the kid says doens't make that any less funny, Thorne. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
bmxer
Jul 25, 2005, 6:57 PM
Post #93 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: 220
|
No psychology; thanx for considering my views.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 25, 2005, 7:32 PM
Post #94 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Please tell me more about... In reply to: CIA seeing what you borrow at the library (think "patriot" act) |
|
|
|
|
uberdb
Jul 25, 2005, 9:04 PM
Post #95 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
I love that somehow the "oil" thing always comes up. We are (corporations, as well as individuals) buying our oil from the same places as before the war at even higher prices - It's not like we started pulling tankers up to the pipeline and started filling them. What oil are we getting out of this ?
- DB
|
|
|
|
|
dondiego
Jul 26, 2005, 2:28 AM
Post #96 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2001
Posts: 1367
|
The oil thing is probably one of the worst arguements anyone can try to make. The day we start getting any of the money back that we have spent making that country free, I will eat my freaking hat. I had to argue with Iraqis that we weren't trying to take their oil, and then after coming home, I have to argue with Americans that we aren't trying to take the Iraqi oil. There could be a million reasons that we went to Iraq that I am not privy to, but oil isn't one of them. Seen the gas prices lately? As was so elegently put by the honorable gentleman from TN, we aren't pulling tankers up to the pipeline and filling them up. Trying to secure the pipelines to prevent the "innocent" insurgents from blowing them up has proven to be one of the more dangerous tasks that soldiers and contractors are assigned to do.
Oh, and in reality, if the corporations are making money off of this, it does in turn help out the economy. Those same corporations hire folks to work those contracts and someone somewhere is spending all of that money that they are pulling in. Sounds ok to me. Heck, a lot of small businesses should be happy about this, Wal-Mart has yet to set up a store there and they are the root of all evil if you ask a lot of people on this site :lol:
-DD-
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jul 26, 2005, 7:13 AM
Post #97 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
In reply to: I love that somehow the "oil" thing always comes up. We are (corporations, as well as individuals) buying our oil from the same places as before the war at even higher prices - It's not like we started pulling tankers up to the pipeline and started filling them. What oil are we getting out of this ? - DB
The point isn't to just steal oil now, it's more complicated than that.
The biggest reason the US economy can borrow hundreds of billions every year is because world oil sales are almost exclusively denominated in US dollars. It's complicated, but if the world switched to buying oil with Euros, our economy would go down hard in flames. Saddam was threatening to sell oil for Euros. Every other country that has tended that way has also been threatened with intervention. Invading Iraq made the point about the price of rebellion.
Dollar economics primer:
http://www.museletter.com/archive/149.html
Sometime it's even in our interest to let the oil prices rise. It keep developing nations from buying too much and hasten it's depletion, and the more the world spends on oil, the more dollars they need to do it.
Oil is about to peak and get more expensive. The US wants to be sitting on the second largest reserves when oil gets tight. We want to make sure that Iraq oil will head to the US. Right now places like Iran are making deals with China for oil supply.
Last but not least, due to the inevitability of ever higher and higher oil prices, Iraq is destined to be one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world. They were no immediate threat. The war was based on lies, but someday, some superpower was going to make Iraq it's bitch, and we wanted it to be the US. Alternately, Iraq would be destined to be a little too powerful for our comfort zone.
Soldiers can certainly add a perspective from having been there, but soldiers are taught to obey, not to critiically analyze the politics and economics of the situation. Folks say "support our troops" to indicate that we should support the war, but the soldiers don't get to decide when they come home, and rotting in a quagmire year after year away from their families is hardly being supported.
Peace
and, oh yeah
YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF ASSHOLES!!!!!!
not really, that was a pre-emptive flame. If I keep posting on this thread, and I don't expect to, I might get flamed, but at least I got off the first shot. I'm counting on a quick withdrawal from posting on this thread after being greeted with flowers and cheers.
;-)
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 26, 2005, 12:21 PM
Post #98 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Karl,
You should be ashamed of yourself... offering up all this nonsense in a way that young impressionable minds will accept as gospel truth. Then sometime in the near future, they'll be called on this silliness.
Their defense - "This guy in a climbing forum said so. Nooooo. You don't understand. He knows what he's talking about."
"Sure thing kid. :roll:"
Talk about embarassing. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jul 26, 2005, 2:45 PM
Post #99 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
In reply to: Karl, You should be ashamed of yourself... offering up all this nonsense in a way that young impressionable minds will accept as gospel truth. Then sometime in the near future, they'll be called on this silliness. Their defense - "This guy in a climbing forum said so. Nooooo. You don't understand. He knows what he's talking about." "Sure thing kid. :roll:" Talk about embarassing. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
I'm sure that would be WAY more embarassing than if those impressionable minds were to go around saying "We went in to stop the immediate threat of an attack with Weopons of Mass Destruction. I saw the president himself on TV say "We found em'" He knows what he is talking about."
But still, it looks like you debunked all my points with your post. :roll: For folks who want to read more on oil and economics, and that doesn't entirely agree wiith what I've posted above, can check out
http://www.ocnus.net/...archive=70&num=18372
FYI My post above was only meant to cover the oil aspects of the Iraq invasion. There are plenty of other reasons but you can bet that if Iraq didn't have oil we probably wouldn't have invaded, and even if we did, we wouldn't still be there.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 26, 2005, 3:01 PM
Post #100 of 146
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: But still, it looks like you debunked all my points with your post. :roll:
Your post had a whole lot of conjecture about future, that is currently just as defensable as it is unprovable.
As far as looking at the present, this little nugget gave me a chuckle: In reply to: It's complicated, but if the world switched to buying oil with Euros, our economy would go down hard in flames. Saddam was threatening to sell oil for Euros. Every other country that has tended that way has also been threatened with intervention. Invading Iraq made the point about the price of rebellion.
Are you familiar with arbitrage?
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 26, 2005, 3:27 PM
Post #101 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: Oil is about to peak and get more expensive. The US wants to be sitting on the second largest reserves when oil gets tight. We want to make sure that Iraq oil will head to the US. Right now places like Iran are making deals with China for oil supply. Karl
As for sitting on reserves, we already are. It's just that the libs seem to have a problem with us wanting to drill for our own oil up in Alaska, or in the Gulf, or in Texas... It would appear that we're "evil incarnant" if we drill our own, and/or if we buy it from the Middle East. Last time I checked, tankers weren't being flown in from Uranus!
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 26, 2005, 3:32 PM
Post #102 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Which is it, is it going to peak OR get more expensive..?
He's talking about production peak.
If I were you, I'd delete that last post asap.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 26, 2005, 3:47 PM
Post #103 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: In reply to: Which is it, is it going to peak OR get more expensive..? He's talking about production peak. If I were you, I'd delete that last post asap. |
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 26, 2005, 4:00 PM
Post #104 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Tim,
Please explain why NY Crude (which was $10.35/barrel in late '98) has recently been as high as $62.50/barrel.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 26, 2005, 4:14 PM
Post #105 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: Tim, Please explain why NY Crude (which was $10.35/barrel in late '98) has recently been as high as $62.50/barrel.
The issue at hand is one of supply & demand... Those with the supply, can demand!
Our own oil fields can produce the quantities that we need, and OPEC knows this, but since we've just begun the 10 year process of speculating/drilling/piping/etc, OPEC knows that they have to make hay while the sun is still shinning!
In reality, as much as we all hate paying the premiums, it's quite possibly the best thing that could happen because all of a sudden, those that were blocking US oil speculation are beginning to ease up a bit. It's harder to bitch and moan, when doing so becomes much more costly.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 26, 2005, 4:41 PM
Post #106 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: there is easily enough oil to last centuries.
This is a new one to me. The consensus opinion in the energies industry is the peak is near (if it hasn't already happened) and consumption will continue to grow, thereby escalating the pace at which remaining supplies are used up.
How about a link to a reputable source in support of your view. :wink:
BTW I'm well aware of untapped resources out in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico. While huge, they have little significance in the long term, big picture.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jul 26, 2005, 4:56 PM
Post #107 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
In reply to: In reply to: Tim, Please explain why NY Crude (which was $10.35/barrel in late '98) has recently been as high as $62.50/barrel. I can't, nor can anyone other than those that control the tap........... It isn't however about production peaks, because there is easily enough oil to last centuries. The issue at hand is one of supply & demand... Those with the supply, can demand! Our own oil fields can produce the quantities that we need, and OPEC knows this, but since we've just begun the 10 year process of speculating/drilling/piping/etc, OPEC knows that they have to make hay while the sun is still shinning! In reality, as much as we all hate paying the premiums, it's quite possibly the best thing that could happen because all of a sudden, those that were blocking US oil speculation are beginning to ease up a bit. It's harder to b---- and moan, when doing so becomes much more costly.
This is all BS and nobody remotely familiar with the situation believes it. Even the big oil companies deny it openly. Exxon themselves has predicted a peaking of non-opec oil production within 5 years!! Chevron has just started a multi-million ad campaign on the subject and put up a related website. http://www.willyoujoinus.com/
The end of cheap oil is at hand. Get used to it. US oil production peaked in 1970 and it wasnt' because wacky environmentalist lefties closed off the pumps. The oil men themselves like Hubbard predicted it.
Yes my post speculated about the future. That's what governments do when they make their stategic plans. Oil is about to run behind demand. If your read the news, India, China, Japan, and everybody with industry and money is positioning themselves to assure a supply when it becomes hard to get. It's not rocket science, when the oil companies are themselves calling the end of cheap oil to be here, to see how Iraq would be destined to be rich.
Fight facts with facts if you can
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jul 26, 2005, 5:03 PM
Post #108 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
In reply to: In reply to: But still, it looks like you debunked all my points with your post. :roll: Your post had a whole lot of conjecture about future, that is currently just as defensable as it is unprovable. As far as looking at the present, this little nugget gave me a chuckle: In reply to: It's complicated, but if the world switched to buying oil with Euros, our economy would go down hard in flames. Saddam was threatening to sell oil for Euros. Every other country that has tended that way has also been threatened with intervention. Invading Iraq made the point about the price of rebellion. Are you familiar with arbitrage?
I'm not familiar with how arbitrage changes the fact that the US sells it's treasury debt in dollars, and that the central banks in other countries need dollars to buy oil. If oil were sold in Euros, our fiat money printing scam would be damaged. I could be wrong but I'd love an explanation. Read, or at least, examine the last half, of my first link for clarity
PEace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 26, 2005, 5:25 PM
Post #109 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
I can neither agree nor disagree with anything that has been stated.
If you look at why a loaf of bread costs upwards of $2.00 today, as opposed to .89 in 1999 or even .51 in 1980... Then examine how and my CRP can be allowed to exist (let alone be a gov program), we'll quickly realize that not only is there plenty of wheat, there is too much. There is also too much corn and beans, yet starvation and poverty are on the rise. What really sucks though, is when natural disasters which cannot be predicted, completely screw up the supply & demand ratios that drive the CRP programs in the first place. As soon as the crop reserves are tapped, the prices skyrocket and the entire cost of creating that loaf of bread goes up.
Don't be so jaded as to only look within the petrochemical industries, because this same issue is much broader than one is led to believe, and it's happening on a global scale with the international trade agreements.
Growing up in small farm communities, I've seen too many families being wiped out because of this, time and time again...
Next time you buy a loaf of bread, ask yourselves why farmers are being paid to not plant their fields, then apply this logic to other concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 26, 2005, 6:01 PM
Post #110 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Tim,
Comparing a renewable resource to a finite resource is a bad analogy
Karl,
Tell me more about the Euro. From what I hear, it continues to lose favor among member countries.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 26, 2005, 6:11 PM
Post #111 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: Tim, Comparing a renewable resource to a finite resource is a bad analogy. |
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 26, 2005, 6:25 PM
Post #112 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I get your point. It's one that's not applicable to the long range oil situation.
You're talking about manipulating intermediate term cycles. Karl and I are talking about the era of petroleum consumption running its course.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 26, 2005, 6:58 PM
Post #113 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
That's just it, it won't run it's course!!! There's a hell of a lot of oil out there that's yet to be tapped, and at the same time, we're exploring new fuel sources.
In addition to deisel, cruise ships run on garbage, yes GARBAGE! They waste nothing, use everything, and are actually much more efficient in doing so.
We have Hydrogen cells being tested in just about every possible manner, and some have actually made it to the market... This is just the beginning.
Sure, we're a bit slower than we should be, but again, politiKs and payoff schemes are more to blame than anything else. For example, we know that Ethanol is a cleaner more viable alternative to gasoline, yet the automakers don't like the fact that engines will last longer with them, which decreases sales of parts as well as new vehicles.
Soybeans, hemp & corn are just a few of the "here and now" viable alternative fuel sources, but there are billions of dollars being paid out to keep them from becoming a reality... As with just about everything else, you simply need to follow the $$$ trail. :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 26, 2005, 7:12 PM
Post #114 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: That's just it, it won't run it's course!!! There's a hell of a lot of oil out there that's yet to be tapped, and at the same time, we're exploring new fuel sources.
Just cuz' you say so doesn't make it true. Show me a report from a major oil company or energy group that says we're not running out of oil resources.
Talking about alternative sources is just a distraction. But if you're going to talk about alternative sources, do so in real world terms... such as:
- What would it take to produce enough ethanol to handle the annual gasoline consumption in the US? Acres planted? Distillation?
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 26, 2005, 7:24 PM
Post #115 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
With farmers being paid NOT to plant these crops, I think the answer is probably closewr than one might think!
If you want absolutes (and I know you do), try contacting either Purdue University, Indiana University, Illiniois University, Iowa State University or Ohio State University... They all have world reknowed Ag Research Centers that are devoted to this very thing, and would be a great source of information.
I grew up just off Purdue campus, and know that this research has been a priority for 30+ years!
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 26, 2005, 7:27 PM
Post #116 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
No comment on the endless supply of oil reserves???
|
|
|
|
|
bmxer
Jul 27, 2005, 11:01 AM
Post #117 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: 220
|
Here in Armenia I saw something I had never seen or heard of before in my life. When they say I'm gonna get gas, they literally mean gas (not petrol/gasoline). My dad said it's "natural gas" but he could'nt think of the English word for it. Maybe it is Ehtenol. But it's half the price of gasoline.
Taxis use it to save money. So do alot of people and buses and stuff for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Jul 27, 2005, 1:39 PM
Post #118 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
In reply to: Show me a report from a major oil company or energy group that says we're not running out of oil resources. |
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 27, 2005, 11:14 PM
Post #119 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: Here in Armenia I saw something I had never seen or heard of before in my life. When they say I'm gonna get gas, they literally mean gas (not petrol/gasoline). My dad said it's "natural gas" but he could'nt think of the English word for it. Maybe it is Ehtenol. But it's half the price of gasoline. Taxis use it to save money. So do alot of people and buses and stuff for the same reason.
:shock: :shock: :shock:
You mean you guys in the states haven't even heard of natural gas-powered vehicles? Wow. :? So what do you do with the gas that comes off your oil wells? Just flare it off?
Natural gas is just that - a gaseous mixture (mostly methane and ethane, I believe) that exists in enormous quantities above most oil wells. It used to be that this was simply flared off as waste. These days (at least in less short-sighted countries) it is collected, liquefied and used as a very clean (low sulphur and low particulate generation) fuel. Here in Brisbane all the buses, and many cars run on it. Cars converted over to LPG cost a little over half as much to run, albeit with somewhat less grunt than on petrol.
|
|
|
|
|
bill
Jul 27, 2005, 11:36 PM
Post #120 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 1061
|
In reply to: :shock: :shock: :shock: You mean you guys in the states haven't even heard of natural gas-powered vehicles? Wow. :? So what do you do with the gas that comes off your oil wells? Just flare it off? Natural gas is just that - a gaseous mixture (mostly methane and ethane, I believe) that exists in enormous quantities above most oil wells. It used to be that this was simply flared off as waste. These days (at least in less short-sighted countries) it is collected, liquefied and used as a very clean (low sulphur and low particulate generation) fuel. Here in Brisbane all the buses, and many cars run on it. Cars converted over to LPG cost a little over half as much to run, albeit with somewhat less grunt than on petrol.
We have natural gas buses and private vehicles in the US.
Perhaps were not as "short sighted" as you believe. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
newbierockstar
Jul 27, 2005, 11:58 PM
Post #121 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2004
Posts: 1010
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Here in Armenia I saw something..... You mean you guys in the states haven't even heard of natural gas-powered vehicles? Perhaps were not as "short sighted" as you believe. :roll:
Or perhaps he just needs glasses.... :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 28, 2005, 12:43 AM
Post #123 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: In reply to: Last time I checked, tankers weren't being flown in from Uranus! Well they certainly aren`t being flown in from my anus. :shock: :wink: :lol: |
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 28, 2005, 12:47 AM
Post #124 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: One only needs to weigh the difference between the number of casualities since the onset of war, as opposed to the numbers Saddam inflicted upon his own people during "peace time"... War is an ugly business, but in situations such as Iraq, it's for the greater good to rid the world of a tyrant. I guess some could surmise that Hitler should have been left unchecked as well...................... Confused
Phil- one only need to know that the US embraced Saddam back in the mid-80s and sold him weapons to boot.
We knew about the killings back then and did little to nothing about it.
This war was started by US on the premise of WMD. There are no weapons.
So my question to you is: Why now and for what reasons?
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 28, 2005, 1:07 AM
Post #125 of 146
(3560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Here in Armenia I saw something..... You mean you guys in the states haven't even heard of natural gas-powered vehicles? Perhaps were not as "short sighted" as you believe. :roll: Or perhaps he just needs glasses.... :lol:
:oops:
Too early in the morning, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jul 28, 2005, 1:23 AM
Post #126 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: Phil- one only Blah blah blah So my question to you is: Why now and for what reasons?
Bob, I`m not here to participate in the debate, my post was like a drive by shooting, all in jest mate.
Mind you I`ve been highly entertained with all the argey bargey chest thumping point making and sometimes unusually long diatribes. Keep it up fellas.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jul 28, 2005, 1:44 AM
Post #127 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
In reply to: With farmers being paid NOT to plant these crops, I think the answer is probably closewr than one might think! If you want absolutes ( and I know you do), try contacting either Purdue University, Indiana University, Illiniois University, Iowa State University or Ohio State University... They all have world reknowed Ag Research Centers that are devoted to this very thing, and would be a great source of information. I grew up just off Purdue campus, and know that this research has been a priority for 30+ years!
Ethanol is subsidized in nearly every country that it's used in, and has a low or negative ROEI (Return on Energy Invested) In other words, it takes more energy to make it that you get from it.
And remember the world burns 80 million barrels a day of oil. That's mind boggling. BioDiesel has a better ROEI could be part of the piecemeal solution but isn't scalable to solve the whole problem either.
Countries have figured out that oil is going to be pinched and are jockeying for position.
The dollars has lost 30 percent of it's value against some currencies in recent years but has strengthened against the Euro lately as several European countries failed to ratify the Euro constitution. The market hates uncertainty, which is one reason the Oil Depletion issue has been downplayed.
But don't buy hearsay that oil depletion is a myth. Look into it. Reputable and serious sources have come around to admitting it lately. It's going to be a very intense issue for your kids if not you. Wishful thinking and faith in technology won't change geologic limits or create a technologic solution that scalable to the problem. Do some research on both sides of the question and openly analyze what makes sense.
Natural Gas is predicted to peak about 10 years after oil peaks. Just about all reputable sources that are willing to talk predict a oil peak between now and 20 years from now.
That's not much time when it takes 10 years just to build a nuclear plant, not to mention 3-5 billion dollars. It would take 10,000 of those plants to replace the energy we burn in oil every day. As oil gets shorter, those building costs can even increase, and we're still stuck with radioactive waste for thousands of years.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 28, 2005, 2:06 AM
Post #128 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Bob, I`m not here to participate in the debate, my post was like a drive by shooting, all in jest mate.
Phil-just my way of trying to suck you in. I quess it didn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 28, 2005, 2:52 AM
Post #129 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Phil- one only need to know that the US embraced Saddam back in the mid-80s and sold him weapons to boot.
Bob:
No, that's not all one needs to know.
This simplifies things greatly, and that's a mistake (simplifying things is a mistake I've made in the past, and you've rightly pointed it out.)
If you consider me to be your friend, and in my time of need, you offer me shelter in your home, and I later abuse that friendship by stealing all your good china and silverware, who is to blame? You, for showing me friendship, or me for abusing that friendship?
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Jul 28, 2005, 3:38 AM
Post #130 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Great thread with many good points on both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 28, 2005, 5:06 PM
Post #131 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: If you consider me to be your friend, and in my time of need, you offer me shelter in your home, and I later abuse that friendship by stealing all your good china and silverware, who is to blame? You, for showing me friendship, or me for abusing that friendship?
Would you consider a mass-murderer your friend?
We knew back then what he was doing (killing) and still gave him weapons.
That just makes us part of the crime...you think???
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 28, 2005, 5:17 PM
Post #132 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Would you consider a mass-murderer your friend? We knew back then what he was doing (killing) and still gave him weapons. That just makes us part of the crime...you think???
Again, you're over simplifying and using poor analogies:
The lable one is given depends greatly on the person giving that label. An accomplished hunter, who takes a lot of game (pick: Deer, elk, etc.) to provide food to the poor and hungry of a town: Mass killer of innocent wildlife, or Modern Day Robin Hood providing for the needy?
The person who euthanizes stray, injured, ill dogs: Killer or Angel of Mercy?
BACK THEN, as you so eloquently put it, "our" collective view of what Sadaam was doing was, AT THE TIME, GIVEN THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME, was "acceptable" in light of the situation... that is, we viewed him as the enemy of our enemy (Iran,) and thus we could -- with a stretch -- view things such that we wanted his country to win. Ergo, we tolerate some distasteful things.
LOOKING BACK, some 20+ years later, was it the right move? Hard to say, but it doesn't appear so. Then too, what if Iraq had not ever managed to slow down Iran? Would we be better off? Don't know, can't call it.
But again... the basic premise is this: You're blaming the US for the things that Sadaam did. Doesn't that strike you as poor judgement?
Hell, by your logic, we created the Holocaust too, because at one point, the US and Germany were allies, and thus Hitler simply MUST be our fault.
Get over it. Move on.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 28, 2005, 5:48 PM
Post #133 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: BACK THEN, as you so eloquently put it, "our" collective view of what Sadaam was doing was, AT THE TIME, GIVEN THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME, was "acceptable" in light of the situation... that is, we viewed him as the enemy of our enemy (Iran,) and thus we could -- with a stretch -- view things such that we wanted his country to win. Ergo, we tolerate some distasteful things.
It is never "acceptable" to kill innocent people!!!!
So killing others for no reasons what-so-ever is just distasteful in your mind?
I have moved on Reno. Unlike you who accepted whatever the US has done as ok...just because it's the US.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 28, 2005, 5:50 PM
Post #134 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Again, you're over simplifying and using poor analogies:
It's what he does. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Jul 28, 2005, 5:52 PM
Post #135 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
In reply to: Hell, by your logic, we created the Holocaust too, because at one point, the US and Germany were allies, and thus Hitler simply MUST be our fault. Get over it. Move on.
Come on Reno, don't accuse him of over simplifing things and making bad comparisions if you are going to do it too.
One simple question... did the US give weapons to Hitler? How would things have been different if we had?
Ther's a slight difference, I hope you can see it.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 28, 2005, 5:54 PM
Post #136 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Again, you're over simplifying and using poor analogies:
Reno-go back and read your analogies. Best friends, dogs, deer... WTF.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 28, 2005, 6:00 PM
Post #137 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: One simple question... did the US give weapons to Hitler? How would things have been different if we had?
Bush's granddaddy had no problem handing over money to him (Hilter).
Maybe he thought he was going to do some good with it... like feed the poor or put down sick dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 28, 2005, 7:24 PM
Post #138 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: So killing others for no reasons what-so-ever is just distasteful in your mind?
Here again, you're reaching for something that just ain't there, Bob. What I'm saying is that sometimes (hell, frequently) countries must overlook certain acts to accomplish things that are for a longer greater good.
If it was just about ignoring unjustified killing, then I want to see you post that you abhor and denounce William Jefferson Clinton because he ignored the killings in Kosovo, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and a host of other places.
Can you do that? Can you call it both ways? Or are your rants simply politics, as I suspect?
Thought so.
In reply to: I have moved on Reno. Unlike you who accepted whatever the US has done as ok...just because it's the US.
Yeah, sure. You've moved on. It was so obvious, I missed it.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 28, 2005, 8:26 PM
Post #139 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: In reply to: Last time I checked, tankers weren't being flown in from Uranus! Well they certainly aren`t being flown in from my anus. :shock: :wink: :lol: |
|
|
|
|
organic
Jul 28, 2005, 8:27 PM
Post #140 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
I keep climbing also!
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jul 28, 2005, 9:49 PM
Post #141 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Last time I checked, tankers weren't being flown in from Uranus! Well they certainly aren`t being flown in from my anus. :shock: :wink: :lol: Once the setup is in place, one can always count on Phil to make the delivery! :mrgreen:
Rimshot!!!!!
Actually, I`m not altogether sure what a rimshot is but I keep seeing it in posts, help me out here bro.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 28, 2005, 10:03 PM
Post #142 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
It varies depending upon the thread topic... and the poster! 8^)
In this instance, it's tame... In the "other thread" it's more along the lines of salad tossing! :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 28, 2005, 11:38 PM
Post #143 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: If it was just about ignoring unjustified killing, then I want to see you post that you abhor and denounce William Jefferson Clinton because he ignored the killings in Kosovo, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and a host of other places. Can you do that? Can you call it both ways? Or are your rants simply politics, as I suspect? Thought so.
Reno- maybe the air was too thin in the Santa Fe area and you lost a few more brain cells. :D
I didn't agree with a number of issues during the Clinton years so don't go there.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 29, 2005, 12:00 AM
Post #144 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: One simple question... did the US give weapons to Hitler? How would things have been different if we had? Bush's granddaddy had no problem handing over money to him (Hilter).
psssst. yo, Bob, you got it exactly backwards. :wink:
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
uberdb
Jul 29, 2005, 10:50 AM
Post #145 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
And IBM had no problems designing "census taking" and "population sorting" machines for Hitler either ...
|
|
|
|
|
bmxer
Jul 29, 2005, 6:07 PM
Post #146 of 146
(3418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: 220
|
yep that's actually true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
