3
   

New roll-out (propaganda campaign) for war with Iran?

 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:25 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
published in Britain's most respected medical journal The Lancet in October 2006. The study concluded that 654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation, in addition to deaths expected from Iraq's normal death rate.


I can believe that many died during the war if you count deaths from disease, and deaths from Iraqis killing each other, along with people killed by American soldiers.

But I'd be skeptical of claims that more than a few percent of that number was due to American weapons fire.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:25 pm
And by what exactly, oralloy, do you differ from the other other terrorists, those from and behind 9/11?

It can't be much more than perhaps the skin colour.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:28 pm
oralloy wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
published in Britain's most respected medical journal The Lancet in October 2006. The study concluded that 654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation, in addition to deaths expected from Iraq's normal death rate.


I can believe that many died during the war if you count deaths from disease, and deaths from Iraqis killing each other, along with people killed by American soldiers.

But I'd be skeptical of claims that more than a few percent of that number was due to American weapons fire.


oralloy, What is "your" resource for your belief in the lower numbers you claim? Hunches don't count.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:34 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
And by what exactly, oralloy, do you differ from the other other terrorists, those from and behind 9/11?

It can't be much more than perhaps the skin colour.



I am uncomfortable with the notion of directly targeting civilians.

The terrorists, on the other hand, revel in the notion of targeting civilians.



My desire to strike at them is based on my severe aggravation at them having made such a grievous attack on my country.

Their desire to strike me is based on their desire to exterminate non-Muslims.



Nuking an ally of the terrorists would be an act of war. The US as a country has the right to go to war.

The terrorists are not a country, and thus do not have the right to go to war.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:38 pm
oralloy: The terrorists are not a country, and thus do not have the right to go to war.


In the real world, they do go to war. It's up to us to develop the proper defensive mechanisms in cooperation with all of our allies. They're not going to stop just because you say they don't have a right to go to war.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:42 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
oralloy wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
published in Britain's most respected medical journal The Lancet in October 2006. The study concluded that 654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation, in addition to deaths expected from Iraq's normal death rate.


I can believe that many died during the war if you count deaths from disease, and deaths from Iraqis killing each other, along with people killed by American soldiers.

But I'd be skeptical of claims that more than a few percent of that number was due to American weapons fire.


oralloy, What is "your" resource for your belief in the lower numbers you claim? Hunches don't count.


I'm not sure why hunches don't count, since someone can base their belief on anything.

However, one thing I base it on is the Iraq Body Count website. I think they clearly overcount the number of dead since they count everything that is mentioned by multiple media outlets. The Saddam government back in 2003 (as do the insurgents today) tried to inflate the number of civilians killed. Every time the media bought into the inflated claims, those inflated claims got added to the IBC totals.

So I presume that whatever the IBC number is, the real number is a lot less.

However, I've seen some estimates that give low numbers for US combat in Iraq. I can try to go look them up in a bit.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 12:45 pm
oralloy wrote:

My desire to strike at them is based on my severe aggravation at them having made such a grievous attack on my country.


When you speak generally and abstractly of a "them".....to whom are you referring? 9/11 was committed predominantly by Saudi's. Would you advocate turning Saudi Arabia into a glass parking lot?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 01:01 pm
candi wrote :

Quote:
When you speak generally and abstractly of a "them".....to whom are you referring? 9/11 was committed predominantly by Saudi's. Would you advocate turning Saudi Arabia into a glass parking lot?


that wouldn't do , would it ?
president bush wouldn't order to attack someone with whom he has just recently been walking hand-in-hand with , or would he ?
hbg

http://mjhinton.net/slides/duhbya/bush-abdullah-c.jpg

"you are my kind of people !"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 01:41 pm
They were Muslim terrorists who happened to be born in Saudi Arabia, I wasn't aware that was in doubt.

I am sure you guys know that, but the truthiness of what you said is much better for your little jabs, huh?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 01:47 pm
McGentrix wrote:
They were Muslim terrorists who happened to be born in Saudi Arabia, I wasn't aware that was in doubt.

I am sure you guys know that, but the truthiness of what you said is much better for your little jabs, huh?



The master jabber speaks. LOL
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 01:48 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
They were Muslim terrorists who happened to be born in Saudi Arabia, I wasn't aware that was in doubt.

I am sure you guys know that, but the truthiness of what you said is much better for your little jabs, huh?



The master jabber speaks. LOL


Much better then being a master baiter. :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 01:56 pm
See? He proves himself over and over and over...
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 02:01 pm
oralloy wrote:
oralloy wrote:
blatham wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Quote:
If Iran chooses to side with the Taliban and/or al-Qa'ida, it is fine with me if we directly target their civilians in retaliation for 9/11.


How many slaughtered civilians will satisfy your retaliatory hunger for the 3,000 dead in New York? Serious question. There are already some 100,000 and quite possibly more in Iraq plus unknown thousands in Afghanistan. Could you give us a number please. I'd like to know what marker you see appropriate as a time to stop slaughtering civilians.


I'll have to think about it.


I feel a bit icky trying to come up with quotas of civilians to kill.

Pray tell.

I know it's been done with nuclear war planning, because I remember reading about the controversy when the Soviets made provisions to evacuate people to bunkers outside cities, and we were left with the capability to destroy the factories, or kill the workers, but not both. (We solved it by expanding the number of warheads so we could in fact target both.) But I don't think I need a "particular number of civilians dead" to satisfy me.

Is there a number which exceeds your personal satisfaction? What might that be?

What I'd like is something that not only smashes al-Qa'ida and/or their allies, but also horrifies everyone who gloated over 9/11.

I think the use of American nuclear weapons on a large Muslim population center might be just the thing.

Not every nuke has the same fallout as a nuclear bunker buster at high yield. A multi-megaton airburst wouldn't be nearly as bad fallout-wise. The damage to the ozone layer would be regrettable though.

So, if Iran ever becomes an ally with Osama, I'd say we should just pop a high yield airburst over Tehran. That wouldn't have to be even considered targeting civilians, since it is a political leadership target.

Tehran would be a good tradeoff for the World Trade Center regardless of how many died there.


So, a million or twelve million (population of Tehran) innocent civilians exterminated, rather like cockroaches or rats (a la Goebbels) really, on the basis of your hunch it might be "just the thing" to sober up gloaters.

I have no confidence that you'll grasp that what you advance is not rational strategy but is actually psychosis.

We won't be talking again.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 02:01 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
See? He proves himself over and over and over...


I don't see c.i.

Perhaps you will explain if only as a novel experience. They say one should try everything once.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 02:16 pm
spendius wrote:
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
See? He proves himself over and over and over...


I don't see c.i.

Perhaps you will explain if only as a novel experience. They say one should try everything once.



And this from the town drunk.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 02:17 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Suppose the neocon stuff is the right policy.


Surely there would be objective evidence that this in fact were true, if it were true, but there seems to be a paucity of such.

Cycloptichorn


Is there "objective evidence" supporting the notion that any of the alternative "policies" are "right"?

Just what might be the "objective evidence" that would convince you of the "rightness" of any policy? How much time must pass before it is truly available. Most of the great errors (or omissions) of political leaders in history seemed (at least to them and their supporters) at the time to be "right" and beneficial. The unhappy fact suggested by history is that it is very difficult to either find the "right" strategy or even to accurately forsee the side effects of any given strategy.

It seems to me that the only way to be surely wrong in such assessments is to be sure - beyond doubt - that you are right.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 02:17 pm
mcg wrote :

Quote:
They were Muslim terrorists who happened to be born in Saudi Arabia, I wasn't aware that was in doubt.

I am sure you guys know that, but the truthiness of what you said is much better for your little jabs, huh?


"Muslim terrorists who happened to be born in Saudi Arabia" - i actually thought that they were saudi citizens - or am i wrong ?

Quote:
Truthiness is a satirical term created by television comedian Stephen Colbert to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts

it seems that mcg has become a student of stephen colbert Shocked Laughing
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 02:22 pm
Bernie-

Isn't it evidence of our side's humanity that we fight with most of our claws, which we have developed at great expense, in cotton wool.

Do you think the other side would show the same reserve.

I saw an American advising us to nuke Argentina to save us all that trouble we went to in the Falkland Islands.

War is no holds barred surely. All's fair in love and war. Thus this isn't really a war. When does a war segue into a Police action?

There are plenty of people alleging "pussyfooting". They did all through the IRA problem.

Not me though. I go with the Government.

You can't keep walking away from your opponents with a flung insult. Why don't you explain why nuking Tehran is not an option for any number of reasons. Unless you do that you connive at him going around preaching a foolish policy. Out of pique.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 02:24 pm
McGentrix wrote:
They were Muslim terrorists who happened to be born in Saudi Arabia, I wasn't aware that was in doubt.

I am sure you guys know that, but the truthiness of what you said is much better for your little jabs, huh?


I was actually directing my response to oralloy McG....but thanks for your response anyway. I needed to hear you say truthiness just one more time on this board. It has not quite gotten old yet....

Oralloy claimed that "they" (presumably meaning Muslims) launched a greivous attack on his country, and feels that a counter strike against "them" is/was in order. That part was obvious.

I wanted clarification on who precisely you strike out against. If there is a "them" that one can refer to, then fine. I thought the "them" was bin Laden and al Qaeda....but, as we have come to realize, Bush is no longer concerned with bin Laden....or al Qaeda. He just doesn't "spend that much time on him..."
From whitehouse.gov

I guess if I was oralloy, and aggravated with the attacks "they" orchestrated against my country....and my government knew who the perpetrators were....I'd be a little more than aggravated that my President simply became disinterested in bringing to justice the perpetrators of the horrors of 9/11.

To fill in some blanks McG..."they" are bin Laden's al Qaeda. "They" were Saudi's. Make me understand why "they" are not in the crosshairs. Make me understand why Saddam, who has since been proven to have had no connection to 9/11, bin Laden or al Qaeda was given military priority over bin Laden and al Qaeda. The "war" in Afghanistan is a joke....it was given a fraction of the interest of Iraq. Make me understand.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 02:26 pm
c.i. wrote-

Quote:
And this from the town drunk.


And that from the town fool.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 08:23:15