I'm glad to see you've got it all figured out. You should go win the war for us.Canidae wrote:Yeah but every time a close associate of Zarqawi does get killed , of course , he gets replaced.R00k wrote:Or "Top aide" of Zarqawi, or "right hand" or "second in command" or whatever else can be dreamed up to make someone sound important.
So what is the problem with many close associates getting killed?
It's like several Hamas leaders getting assassinated and replaced and assassinated every year.
The only reason they don't call the Israelis liars is because it doesn't feed an active US government 9/11 conspiracy crowd like these sort of stories the liberal press is spinning.
Two degrees of Zarqawi-ation
-
Nightshade
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
If you had anything resembling a clue as to what you're talking about, you'd know that the 9/11 conspiracy nuts firmly believe that Israel was involved with the whole deal, dummy.Canidae wrote: The only reason they don't call the Israelis liars is because it doesn't feed an active US government 9/11 conspiracy crowd like these sort of stories the liberal press is spinning.
Ten years of sanctions have left an estimated 300,000 to 1.5 million Iraqis dead. CBS' Lesley Stahl used the figure of 500,000 dead when she interviewed Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1996. Was such collateral damage worth it? Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."Dave wrote:Don't forget a little help from the Iraqi dictatorseremtan wrote:true. it's more like 750,000 iraqis (sanctions, with a little help from daddy and clinton) + 50,000 afghans (war) + 100,000 iraqis again (war)
that's nowhere near 6 million
+ military dead gulf war 1 = 100,000
+ civilian casualties gulf war 1 = 50000
+ military dead Gulf war 2 = 150,000 - 200,000
+ civilian casualties gulf war 2 = 50,000
+ afghanistan = 50,000 military and civilian
yeah the loss of anywhere up to 2,000,000 iraqis alone or the equivalent of 10 - 15 % (iraq stands around 26,074,906) was really worth the "evil" dictator
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
Your a fucking moron dave.
Nightshade wrote:If you had anything resembling a clue as to what you're talking about, you'd know that the 9/11 conspiracy nuts firmly believe that Israel was involved with the whole deal, dummy.Canidae wrote: The only reason they don't call the Israelis liars is because it doesn't feed an active US government 9/11 conspiracy crowd like these sort of stories the liberal press is spinning.
If you could rub 2 braincells together and get a spark you would understand what I'm saying - that the press never questions the reality that the Israelis kill terrorist leaders and their other high leaders THEY GET REPLACED BY OTHERS AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE IN THAT JOB GETS KILLED AGAIN MONTHS LATER. I know what conspiracist theories on 9/11 are and that is not the point I'm making .
The main reason stories like this get published is some writers have objectives to show that everything the current government says is a lie and to ridicule them (when not every thing is)
Have you stopped wearing your helmet, Corky?
[img]http://www.subliminaldissonance.com/popehat.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.subliminaldissonance.com/images/smilies/nothing.jpg[/img]
with an emphasis on the word littleDave wrote:Don't forget a little help from the Iraqi dictatorseremtan wrote:true. it's more like 750,000 iraqis (sanctions, with a little help from daddy and clinton) + 50,000 afghans (war) + 100,000 iraqis again (war)
that's nowhere near 6 million
some sort of comparison might be in order:
saddam: poison gas
US/UK: napalm and depleted uranium
saddam: accused of threatening the world with (non-existent) WMDs
US/UK: actually threatened iraq with real WMDs (nukes) prior to the 2003 war
saddam: fake democracy gives 99% support for dictator
US/UK: fake democracy where the demands of the most popular parties (end to occupation, end of selloff of state industry to foreign corporations) was ignored in favour of profiteering
saddam: attacks kuwait in an act of aggression; SC resolutions and the use of military force to eject him from kuwait
US: a year earlier attacks panama in an act of aggression; no SC resolutions, no use of force to eject them (see also grenada, south vietnam, etc)
saddam: accused of harbouring terrorists (abu nidal living in quiet retirement in baghdad)
US: train terrorists in fort bening, funds and support them throughout latin america; found guilty of state terrorism in world court in 1986 over contra attacks in nicaragua; funded the mujaheddin (which later became al-qaida) during the 1980s via pakistan
saddam: a threat to his neighbours, apparently
US/UK: a threat to everyone, actually
saddam: sent political opponents to jail and tortured them
US: sent alleged 'terrorists' to jail and tortured them
and that's leaving out the social conditions in iraq pre- and post-sanctions, the relative iraqi bodycounts of both sides and of course the relative degree of lying about their true intentions on both sides
owned?
So you really believe old one-legged Zarqawi is the ultimate boogy-man, coordinating all the attacks against us in Iraq, and that we are regularly killing his closest ally without ever finding him?Canidae wrote:Nightshade wrote:If you had anything resembling a clue as to what you're talking about, you'd know that the 9/11 conspiracy nuts firmly believe that Israel was involved with the whole deal, dummy.Canidae wrote: The only reason they don't call the Israelis liars is because it doesn't feed an active US government 9/11 conspiracy crowd like these sort of stories the liberal press is spinning.
If you could rub 2 braincells together and get a spark you would understand what I'm saying - that the press never questions the reality that the Israelis kill terrorist leaders and their other high leaders THEY GET REPLACED BY OTHERS AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE IN THAT JOB GETS KILLED AGAIN MONTHS LATER. I know what conspiracist theories on 9/11 are and that is not the point I'm making .
The main reason stories like this get published is some writers have objectives to show that everything the current government says is a lie and to ridicule them (when not every thing is)
Have you stopped wearing your helmet, Corky?
And if I don't believe that also, then I'm a conspiracy theorist?
Is that what you're saying?
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
Nice, you have to revert to name calling to "complete" an argument.[FTF]Pyro wrote:Ten years of sanctions have left an estimated 300,000 to 1.5 million Iraqis dead. CBS' Lesley Stahl used the figure of 500,000 dead when she interviewed Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1996. Was such collateral damage worth it? Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."Dave wrote:Don't forget a little help from the Iraqi dictatorseremtan wrote:true. it's more like 750,000 iraqis (sanctions, with a little help from daddy and clinton) + 50,000 afghans (war) + 100,000 iraqis again (war)
that's nowhere near 6 million
+ military dead gulf war 1 = 100,000
+ civilian casualties gulf war 1 = 50000
+ military dead Gulf war 2 = 150,000 - 200,000
+ civilian casualties gulf war 2 = 50,000
+ afghanistan = 50,000 military and civilian
yeah the loss of anywhere up to 2,000,000 iraqis alone or the equivalent of 10 - 15 % (iraq stands around 26,074,906) was really worth the "evil" dictator
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
Your a fucking moron dave.
You couldn't even get the grammar right.
Reminder: Gulf War I was in 1991, Rummy met with Saddam in 1983.
In the years following the Gulf War, the UN implemented sancations against Iraq. Saddam and his cronies chose to continue living high on the hog and allowed their fellow citizens, the people they're supposed to defend, to wallow in misery. (And they had help doing it (oil for food, anyone?...)).
So your disingenuous attempt to trace the death figures you posted directly to 1983 is summarily retarded and ignores all the history between 1990 and the fall of Saddam. Way to toss the Afghanistan figure into your little additions as well.
Also Madeleine Albright is a cunt
= history, the heavily-edited versionDave wrote:Nice, you have to revert to name calling to "complete" an argument.
You couldn't even get the grammar right.
Reminder: Gulf War I was in 1991, Rummy met with Saddam in 1983.
In the years following the Gulf War, the UN implemented sancations against Iraq. Saddam and his cronies chose to continue living high on the hog and allowed their fellow citizens, the people they're supposed to defend, to wallow in misery. (And they had help doing it (oil for food, anyone?...)).
So your disingenuous attempt to trace the death figures you posted directly to 1983 is summarily retarded and ignores all the history between 1990 and the fall of Saddam. Way to toss the Afghanistan figure into your little additions as well.
Also Madeleine Albright is a cunt
but madeleine albright IS a cunt however
-
Big Kahuna Burger
- Posts: 2458
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:56 pm
Dave wrote: Point 1Nice, you have to revert to name calling to "complete" an argument.
You couldn't even get the grammar right.
Whats your point fag
Point2Reminder: Gulf War I was in 1991, Rummy met with Saddam in 1983.
...... Duhuck..... :icon27: ..... Reminder ...... Who was Ronald Reagan's Vice President........Ding ding ding....Vice President: George H. W. Bush.
Who was ronald reagans national security advisor just before the gulf war....... Ding ding ding..... From 1987 to '89, Secretary of State Colin Powell was appointed as President Reagan's security adviser in the wake of the Iran-Contra scandal. . His last assignment, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, was as the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including Operation Desert Storm in the victorious 1991 Persian Gulf war.
Who was on the national security council during the first gulf war ..... ding ding ding.......Condoleeza Rice-1989 Appointed to National Security Council by George HW Bush. Bush, introducing Rice to Gorbachev: "This is Condoleezza Rice. She tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union."
So yeah.... tell me some more about history and how nothing ties in again. :icon27:
Point 3In the years following the Gulf War, the UN implemented sancations against Iraq. Saddam and his cronies chose to continue living high on the hog and allowed their fellow citizens, the people they're supposed to defend, to wallow in misery. (And they had help doing it (oil for food, anyone?...)).
What are you talking about. Iraq was once one of the regions shining stars with public school, medical and social security systems paid for by oil exports. That is until sanctions, led by The US and the UK and passed by the UN "Security Council" (See the US and UK puppet council) was implemented. The Sanctions which DIRECTLY allowed for the exportation of oil in RETURN for 50 to 60 CENTS per Iraqi per day. That is to cover ALL FOOD, CLOTHES, EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, SOCIAL SYSTEM, PENSIONS, MEDICINES, DOCTORS, HOSPITALS, EVERYTHING.
We stole oil and at the same time paid WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY under the market value for the stuff that we actually bought in the OIL for AID program. Not to mention that everyday during the period 1992 - 2003 (See end of gulf war 1 and begining of gulf war 2) we bombed iraq and its infrastructure on a daily basis.
So tell me again DAVE, How is Saddam to blame for this????? answer me that..... Saddwam, whe's an evwil mwan..... Fucking joke Dave and to be perfectly honest if you are going to form opinions on a subject, base it on facts rather than a load of shit tha tyou saw on CNN or FOX..... oh and that directly relates you = moron see Point 1
point 4So your disingenuous attempt to trace the death figures you posted directly to 1983 is summarily retarded and ignores all the history between 1990 and the fall of Saddam. Way to toss the Afghanistan figure into your little additions as well.
See above cause quite frankly dave...... well I said it once, I'll say it again. your a moron.
Also Madeleine Albright is a cunt
Dont disagree
Last edited by [FTF]Pyro on Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
oddly enough, this is exactly what i was thinking about your responsesDave wrote:Both of you are only focusing on a small portion of the story, albeit you are making a better attempt (while still ignoring Saddam's agency in the whole affair)seremtan wrote:yes really, since you bring nothing in response
re: 'agency' - a worthwhile topic, so long as 'agency' is understood according to its relative range and impact. on the one hand, we have saddam, a brutal dictator and (for a while) a middling regional power; on the other, we have the US, *the* major global power, whose aggressive activities make saddam look like little league BY COMPARISON.
incidentally, according to the people who administered the oil for food program, something like 85-90% (forget exact figure, but it was in that ballpark) of the aid went to where it was supposed to. the myth of saddam hogging it all was just that: a myth - one put about by the chief protagonists (US & UK) for very obvious reasons: the only alternative answer to the question "why are so many iraqis - especially children - dying?" is "because of the US/UK sponsored sanctions regime". that's not an answer those two govts would like to get into general circulation
and let's not get on to the oil-for-food program fraud committed by US oil companies to which the US govt turned a blind eye.
i think you'll find my 'small portion of the story' is in fact the whole story, including all the unpleasant bits that many people would like to forget. fact is, saddam, aided by us, raped iraq witless, then we raped it ourselves directly, and are continuing to do so to this day