iraq body count

[superkool]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[Mike S]

What is this and how are we supposed to trust its authenticity?

MS

[HexRei]

The site explains a lot about their sources and methodology. They look legit and their numbers (so far) comply with what I've seen in the press, basically ~200 people.
I think this site is a great idea. Now we just need someone to sit down and build a comprehensive list of all the Iraqis Saddam has slaughtered since seizing power. Somehow, I think it's a lot more than ~200.

[Carley]

Originally posted by HexRei
Now we just need someone to sit down and build a comprehensive list of all the Iraqis Saddam has slaughtered since seizing power. Somehow, I think it's a lot more than ~200.

No kidding.

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by Carley


No kidding. Since when did you hop on the "US is the world police" bandwagon?? :confused:

[HexRei]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
Since when did you hop on the "US is the world police" bandwagon?? :confused:

When did hop on the "obfuscating the actions of tyrannical dictators is good" bandwagon? :confused:
Why in the mighty fuck would you be against someone keeping track of all the Iraqis that Saddam has killed? Doesn't the world deserve to know how awfully Saddam treats his people?
Do you hate the Iraqi people, or something?

[Carley]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
Since when did you hop on the "US is the world police" bandwagon?? :confused:

Bandwagon? Thanks Nathan. That is so me.

Saddam is an insane dictator who has made peoples lives miserable (<~UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE CENTURY). I have NEVER turned my blinders on to anything, regardless of my political views. And yes, I realize that Iraq (& the world) is a big huge mess outside of Saddam ~ sanctions, poverty, hunger, conflict, oppression, ethnic cleansing <~& hey! Some of those atrocities happened here & in Europe too! That still doesn't make them "ok" to me, & it doesn’t give me a reason to blame everything on US action.

Saddam is a piece of shit that never deserved to have peoples. And yes, I realize that there are many pieces of shit in the world. I don’t ignore them either, but that wasn’t the topic here. I wish the Iraqis had the chance to take care of this mess themselves (the Iraqi people are as sophisticated & capable as anyone else [“patriots”]). But too bad, I didn’t get my way (surprise) & here we are at war. Time for me to move on.

My views of Bushy et al & their piss poor excuses for diplomacy & propaganda have little to do with my views on human rights. Now that the war has already STARTED & my "hope" of it ending any time soon is slim to none, I just pray it ends quickly so my family can come home & the world can keep moving ~ I have focused my attention to the spins on “reconstruction” & “post-occupation,” and these fancy "budget cuts" & all the other places the "anti-war" ISN'T looking because they are too busy getting ARRESTED. Because THAT is what I think is going to make/break this shit. NOT “just” this war that already is.

People are dying ~ people die in war. People were dying BEFORE this war. So excuse me if instead of building puppets I pray for the world, Iraq, & my friends & family & keep a careful eye on what is going to affect their future.

The “anti-war movement,” is not going in my direction. I hear “no blood for oil” shouted at me every day by kids who are ditching school & wearing gap hoodies with PURCHASED anarchist patches; frankly it’s (it = the so called “anti-war movement” that the Socialists have so kindly taken over for us) has lost my interest ~ not that it had much of my devotion to begin with. Their (lack of) focus & tactics have diverted strongly from anything that I ever considered effective, and the manner in which they’ve lumped together “different-but-like” causes makes me seriously ill. Way to shove would-be supporters out of the ideological rational. So in other words, I have chosen what suits ME. NOT what suits the “anti-war” & ALL of their Hangers On. Doesn’t sound like I’m the one with a bandwagon problem here. But "thanks" for your concern.

~Carley

/edit

For clarity: I am not opposed to the "anti-war" movement. In fact I think for other countries, seeing American opposition is a "good thing." It is not, however, how I want to spend my time, or who I want to be affiliated with (meaning politically, not personally). I have several friends involved with the "movement," I just don't see them going anywhere. Hence my CHOICE not to join them.

Danke.

[Cedwyn]

it may be just around 200, but this conflict isn't over yet

here are some more (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=390926)

rawkus didn't say anything about being against an iraqi death toll due to saddam.

but again, until we start going after every brutal dictatorship ( mugabe, anyone? (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=390826) ), carrying on about all the tortures inflicted by saddam is hollow.

[Carley]

Originally posted by Cedwyn


but again, until we start going after every brutal dictatorship ( mugabe, anyone? (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=390826) ) carrying on about all the tortures inflicted by saddam is hollow.

Now THAT is humanitarian. Way to be a cause man.

[ijji]

I have come to the conclusion that:


You fuckin' rock.



ps. you suck too. ;)

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Carley

I have several friends involved with the "movement," I just don't see them going anywhere. Hence my CHOICE not to join them.


And your right to "CHOOSE" should always be respected...However one should do something or Not do something because that is where their heart leads them, not because they see no forward action in the movement.

Most germans thought that Hitler was crazy from the word go, but they went along with his idea because it seemed the "Thing to do" By the time they realized he was a madman in total control it was too late.

I don't think that you are "Jumping on the popular bandwagon" I have never seen you as that kind of person. But maybe a combination of the idiocy of some protestors coupled with the overwhelming push by the right to suggest that any questions asked is Un-American is finally taking it's toll.

Can a person be a loyal friend to say a service member and still follow their heart as to what is right and what is wrong. The jury is out...

Scott!!

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Cedwyn

but again, until we start going after every brutal dictatorship... carrying on about all the tortures inflicted by saddam is hollow.

Especially since I have not heard ANYONE try to defend him. His atocious actions towards the Iraqi people are common knowledge to everyone in the world.

No one argues that he shouldn't be stopped, the seperation exists in the methods.

[Carley]

Originally posted by Effendi


And your right to "CHOOSE" should always be respected...However one should do something or Not do something because that is where their heart leads them, not because they see no forward action in the movement.

Most germans thought that Hitler was crazy from the word go, but they went along with his idea because it seemed the "Thing to do" By the time they realized he was a madman in total control it was too late.

I don't think that you are "Jumping on the popular bandwagon" I have never seen you as that kind of person. But maybe a combination of the idiocy of some protestors coupled with the overwhelming push by the right to suggest that any questions asked is Un-American is finally taking it's toll.

Can a person be a loyal friend to say a service member and still follow their heart as to what is right and what is wrong. The jury is out...

Scott!!


Heh, thanks Scott :) (sincerely, not sarcastically ). & “for the record” I still think Bush is a madman. I still ask questions; but I ask questions in ALL directions, not just of “the big bad right.”

Especially since I have not heard ANYONE try to defend him. His atocious actions towards the Iraqi people are common knowledge to everyone in the world. No one argues that he shouldn't be stopped, the seperation exists in the methods.

Absolutely. But that does NOT mean that “carrying on” about his, or ANY dictators/persons/animals/plants (!?!) atrocities is “hollow.” ESPECIALLY considering HE *IS* the one the Bush Administration is after. Regardless of the hundreds of thousands of other people who ALSO deserve to rot in hell.

*sucks on her stick* :D

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
it may be just around 200, but this conflict isn't over yet

here are some more (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=390926)

rawkus didn't say anything about being against an iraqi death toll due to saddam.

but again, until we start going after every brutal dictatorship ( mugabe, anyone? (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=390826) ) carrying on about all the tortures inflicted by saddam is hollow.

Well Cedwyn I guess we'd have to start somewhere.. why not saddam.. but then again if it weren't saddam and it were mugabe.. you'd be asking why we aren't going after saddam.
MS

[Cedwyn]

mike and carley:

my point is mainly that i am appalled by the administration's use of "liberating the iraqi people" as a raison d' etre for this invasion. i'm rather sick of hearing about all the atrocities saddam commits on his people, when our government made little to no mention of it until all the other excuses for war had played themselves out.

now, as with the taliban, all of a sudden it's all about liberating the <insert oppressed peoples here>; "liberating" being colloquial for "bomb the nukloooor crap out of." And if we're such great humanitarians, why do we not give a rat's ass about countless brutal regimes around the world? brutal regimes who, by weapons inventories, pose a *much* greater immediate threat than whatever the fuck saddam is scraping together out of mre's....

ok...so, we're invading iraq because saddam poses too great a threat, yes? oh, no...wait....we're invading because we don't want to wait until he's a serious threat, like obtaining, oh, say...nukes....wasn't that the story? anyhoo...by the "nip it in the bud" school of thought, we should by all means be focusing on these lesser regimes; reaching out to them before they get to be monsters, right? show them another way, verse them in the joys of democracy!

truth be known, i'm only being halfway sarcastic; i do believe that opening communication is imperative, but that's probably a little too pro-active for our boys in washington. i do believe saddam to be a sadistic fuck, i believe something needs to be done, and i do believe that heading something off at the pass is wise. i just don't believe war was the only option left to us.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
i do believe saddam to be a sadistic fuck, i believe something needs to be done, and i do believe that heading something off at the pass is wise. i just don't believe war was the only option left to us.

Should a madman like Saddam have WMD? I say no, and that's just a difference many of us differ with you on national security issues. Many of us who support the policy do so to protect America and confront threats head on, while you oppose doing that becuase you don't like war. You see for me, 9/11 will be nothing compared to a small attack by terrorists with WMD. I'm not willing to raise my children in a country who has fallen from grace becuase some Americans without backbone failed to protect America by confronting these threats posed to this great nation head on. 9/11 was not provoked, but is a great example of what happens when America doesn't confront these threats head on.

Take care,
-Jason

[Tecknowledgy]

And here's a list of people murdered by U.S. Funded Israeli Defense.
(One year's numbers)

http://www.lawsociety.org/Intifada2000/deaths.htm

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
mike and carley:

my point is mainly that i am appalled by the administration's use of "liberating the iraqi people" as a raison d' etre for this invasion. i'm rather sick of hearing about all the atrocities saddam commits on his people, when our government made little to no mention of it until all the other excuses for war had played themselves out.

now, as with the taliban, all of a sudden it's all about liberating the <insert oppressed peoples here>; "liberating" being colloquial for "bomb the nukloooor crap out of." And if we're such great humanitarians, why do we not give a rat's ass about countless brutal regimes around the world? brutal regimes who, by weapons inventories, pose a *much* greater immediate threat than whatever the fuck saddam is scraping together out of mre's....

ok...so, we're invading iraq because saddam poses too great a threat, yes? oh, no...wait....we're invading because we don't want to wait until he's a serious threat, like obtaining, oh, say...nukes....wasn't that the story? anyhoo...by the "nip it in the bud" school of thought, we should by all means be focusing on these lesser regimes; reaching out to them before they get to be monsters, right? show them another way, verse them in the joys of democracy!

truth be known, i'm only being halfway sarcastic; i do believe that opening communication is imperative, but that's probably a little too pro-active for our boys in washington. i do believe saddam to be a sadistic fuck, i believe something needs to be done, and i do believe that heading something off at the pass is wise. i just don't believe war was the only option left to us.

Well Cedwyn the most important reason was having to do with our own national security. The disposal of WMD, the liberation of the Iraqi people and changing the social conditions in the middle east are part of that. I, for one, never separated any of those. You, and others, who have an ideologically driven dislike for Bush choose to pick at these issues and separate them. Cynacism.
As far as opening lines of communication.. I think you fail to see where the communication break down occurred.. Baghdad...
this is also due to you ideology IMHO..


MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mike S


Well Cedwyn the most important reason was having to do with our own national security. The disposal of WMD, the liberation of the Iraqi people and changing the social conditions in the middle east are part of that. I, for one, never separated any of those. You, and others, who have an ideologically driven dislike for Bush choose to pick at these issues and separate them. Cynacism.
As far as opening lines of communication.. I think you fail to see where the communication break down occurred.. Baghdad...
this is also due to you ideology IMHO..


MS

I was going to address his willing to pick and choose at will too but I decided to focus on national security. Looks like you addressed it.

-Jason

[Cedwyn]

zupan, you witless fuck...for the umpteenth times:

a) i am not a guy

b) learn to read

your entire post to me is irrelevant, since i already addressed its point here:

i believe something needs to be done

[Mirko]

Originally posted by Mike S

...
the liberation of the Iraqi people
...


George Bush has declared that "we have no fight with the Iraqi people." What could he have cited as supporting evidence?

a. U.S. maintenance of 12 years of crippling sanctions that strengthened Saddam Hussein while contributing to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

b. The fact that "coalition" forces have indicated that they will use cluster bombs in Iraq, despite warnings from human rights groups that "The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will endanger civilians for years to come."

c. By pointing to the analogy of Afghanistan, which the U.S. pledged not to forget about when the war was over, and for which the current Bush administration foreign aid budget request included not one cent in aid.

d. All of the above.

5. d (a) For background, see Anthony Arnove, ed., Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, Cambridge: South End Press, updated ed. 2003. (b) Paul Waugh, "Labour MPs Attack Hoon After He Reveals That British Forces Will Use Cluster Bombs," Independent, 3/21/03, p. 4; Human Rights Watch, Press Release, 3/18/03: "Persian
Gulf: U.S. Cluster Bomb Duds A Threat; Warning Against Use of Cluster Bombs in Iraq." (c) Zvi Bar'el, "Flaws in the Afghan Model," Ha'aretz, 3/14/03,
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=272884.

(from Iraq War Quiz by Stephen R. Shalom)

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
a) i am not a guy


I apoligize about that..

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
rawkus didn't say anything about being against an iraqi death toll due to saddam.


No, but Carley simply agreed with my sentiment that there should be one, and Rawkus accused her of "jumping on the bandwagon"... but whatever *shrug* that bit has even less to do with you thank it does with me.


but again, until we start going after every brutal dictatorship ( mugabe, anyone? (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=390826) ) carrying on about all the tortures inflicted by saddam is hollow.

You're suggesting we attempt to deal with every tyrannical dictatorin the world simultaneously? :rolleyes: oooook....
We're limited by feasibility (we cant easily engage a nuclear power like North Korea) and immediacy of threat. Thus Iraq is at the top of the list.

[Cedwyn]

no, i'm not saying that at all. nothing in "until we start going after every brutal dictatorship ( mugabe, anyone? ), carrying on about all the tortures inflicted by saddam is hollow" suggests immediate action.

all it does is point out that, as even mike admitted, the liberation of the iraqi people is but a happy side effect of our main agenda, but is now touted as a driving priority. which just sickens me, because i'd bet good money that when iraq is over, we'll hear nary a peep out of the administration (or the hawks on this board) about how we need to take action against <insert brutal dictator here>.

we only care about human rights atrocities in places where we have additional priorities and i am just *sick* of hearing this administration natter on about liberating the iraqis. especially since U.N sanctions, driven largely by the U.S., are directly responsible for much of the iraqi people's suffering and for inculcating hatred in new generations of terrorists.

they say that every great empire has a life span of roughly 300 years...do you know where your centennial is?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
no, i'm not saying that at all. nothing in "until we start going after every brutal dictatorship ( mugabe, anyone? ), carrying on about all the tortures inflicted by saddam is hollow" suggests immediate action.

all it does is point out that, as even mike admitted, the liberation of the iraqi people is but a happy side effect of our main agenda, but is now touted as a driving priority. which just sickens me, because i'd bet good money that when iraq is over, we'll hear nary a peep out of the administration (or the hawks on this board) about how we need to take action against <insert brutal dictator here>.

we only care about human rights atrocities in places where we have additional priorities and i am just *sick* of hearing this administration natter on about liberating the iraqis. especially since U.N sanctions, driven largely by the U.S., are directly responsible for much of the iraqi people's suffering and for inculcating hatred in new generations of terrorists.

they say that every great empire has a life span of roughly 300 years...do you know where your centennial is?

Blah Blah Blah america sucks, america sucks. I know..

This thread rocks!

haha

[HexRei]

all it does is point out that, as even mike admitted, the liberation of the iraqi people is but a happy side effect of our main agenda, but is now touted as a driving priority. which just sickens me,

It "sickens you"? Ah yes, it's so terrible that we can strike a blow for world security AND liberate some people as a "happy side effect". Awful, really.

[Cedwyn]

thanks for the apology, zupe. sorry if i came off as extra harsh. blah blah blah

: p

hex - of course i'm all for a free iraq and an end to saddam's tortures. i just think our government is wagging the dog a bit, given how lately in the game it embraced the issue as a cause.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
thanks for the apology, zupe. sorry if i came off as extra harsh. blah blah blah

[offers handshake]

nah, no need to be sorry..

I understand your frustrated with current events becuase of your position and all. Shit I'm frustrated, were all frustrated that's what conflict does to us all. I'm just a little tweaked when fellow Americans lash out at their own country while troops are spilling blood for the very freedom to be able to lash out at the government back home in the first place. Injustices exist all over the globe, and I find it slightly dishonest to lay all the blame on America for everything while ignoring the rest of the world who obviously have a lot of injustices to correct themselves I'd say. Were not perfect but I believe we try to do right then wrong.

Take care,
Jason