9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 02:15 pm
That's not only a conservative number on the low side, but why isn't anybody questioning Bushco on this issue of lost Iraqi lives that seems to only get worse? Aren't we supposed to be there to help Iraq's security? What other country would deem this "progress?"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 02:19 pm
Cice, Cyclo, I always post IBC's higher counts.
Quote:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/


The worldwide update of reported civilian deaths in the Iraq war and occupation.

The IRAQ BODY COUNT Database
This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world's only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.

Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available here and on various IBC web counters which may be freely displayed on any website or homepage, where they are automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. This method is also used to deal with any residual uncertainty about the civilian or non-combatant status of the dead. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.

THE IRAQ BODY COUNT PROJECT
This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world's only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks).
It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available here and on various IBC web counters which may be freely displayed on any website or homepage, where they are automatically updated without further intervention.

Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. This method is also used to deal with any residual uncertainty about the civilian or non-combatant status of the dead. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.

Rationale:
Most actors in conflict, whether state or non-state, have historically displayed little serious interest in documenting and investigating civilian deaths and their causes. Inertia in this respect is also displayed by transnational organisations who could be expected to have particular concern for civilian casualties (such as the Red Cross or appropriate agencies of the United Nations).

Be they men, women or children, civilian casualties, are the most unacceptable consequence of all wars. Each civilian death is a tragedy and should never be regarded as an acceptable cost of achieving political aims. We believe it is a moral and humanitarian duty for each such death to be recorded, publicised, given the weight it deserves, compensated appropriately and, where possible, investigated to establish whether there are grounds for criminal proceedings.

The UN Secretary-General has called the world community to advance a new human-centred approach to conflict, which places the security needs of ordinary people above the interests of regimes or state powers. As a contribution to this effort, the Commission on Human Security (CHS) was founded in 2001 and delivered its final report "Human Security Now" (link) in May 2003.

The duty of ?'recorder' falls particularly heavily on the ordinary citizens of those states whose military forces took the actions which precipitated civilian deaths. In the case of Iraq, this responsibility must be borne predominantly by the citizens of the USA and the UK, even more so since the recent national elections in which the citizenry of both countries freely returned George W Bush (November 2004) and Tony Blair (May 2005) to office, thus endorsing the original policies that led both countries to war without the authority of the UN security council, as well as endorsing later policies which have ensured the continuation of high levels of violent civilian deaths in Iraq to this day.

Our project thus continues to record single-mindedly and on a continually-updated basis one key and immutable index of the fruits of war: the death toll of innocents. The full extent of this has often gone unnoticed until long after a war has ended, if at all. One reason is that reports of incidents where civilians have been killed are scattered in different news sources and spread over time: one or two killed here, a few dozen there, with only major incidents being guaranteed headline coverage. But the smaller numbers quickly add up. It is to these all too easily disregarded victims of violence that Iraq Body Count is dedicated, and we are resolute that they, too, shall have their memorials.

It is accepted that war causes many dire consequences for the civilian population even if they are not directly killed or injured in military strikes. They may suffer long-term injury or illness (as a result, for instance of radiation, post-conflict contact with unexploded munitions, pollution due to spillage of toxic materials). People may suffer deep psychological trauma, miscarriage, bereavement, dislocation, and loss of home and property. Destruction of civil infrastructure and economic systems can have effects which last for generations. These factors undoubtedly cause many further deaths. However, documenting and assigning responsibility for such effects requires long-term "on the ground" resources. Immediate deaths and injuries through the use of weaponry can be pinpointed in place and time, and responsibility straightforwardly attributed to the weapon that caused the death or injury.

Methodology:
Overview
Sources
Data Extraction
Data Storage
Publication of data (including conditions of use)
Limitations

1. Overview
Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication.

2. Sources
Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).
ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.

The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.

Note 1. Some sites remove items after a given time period, change their urls, or place them in archives with inadequate search engines. For this reason it is project policy that urls of sources are NOT published on the iraqbodycount site.

3. Data extraction
Data extraction policy is based on 3 criteria, some of which work in opposite directions.
a. Sufficient information must be extracted to ensure that each incident is differentiated from proximate incidents with which it could be potentially confused.
b. Economy of data extraction is required, for efficiency of both production and public scrutiny.
c. Data extraction should be uniform, so that the same information is available for the vast majority of incidents. This is best guaranteed by restricting the number of items of information per incident to the core facts that most news reports tend to include.

The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract the following information only for each incident:
• Date of incident
• Time of incident
• Location of incident
• Target as stated by military sources
• Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)
• Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
• Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
• Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)

Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each data extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent scrutineers prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review should further details become available at a later date.

Note 2. Definitions of minimum and maximum
Reports of numbers dead vary across sources. On-the-ground uncertainties and potential political bias can result in a range of figures reported for the same incident. To reflect this variation, each incident will be associated with a minimum and maximum reported number of deaths. No number will be entered into the count unless it meets the criteria in the following paragraphs. This conservative approach allows relative certainty about the minimum.

Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by at least two of our approved list of news media sources.

Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least two of the listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this case, the lower number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be zero if there is a report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources. "Unable to confirm any deaths" or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount to a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of "0" in the minimum column.

As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both reports refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the total figure as a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless details are present clearly identifying some or all of the dead as civilian - in this case the number of identifiable civilians will be entered into the minimum column instead of "0". The word "family" will be interpreted in this context as meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi non-extended family size: 6. -CIA Factbook 2002.]

4. Data storage
Although it is expected that the majority of sources will remain accessible on the web site from which they were drawn, the project will create a secure archive of all original sources (in both electronic and paper form). Where judged appropriate by the project team, this data may be released to bona-fide enquirers, for verification purposes. At an appropriate juncture, the entire archive will be passed to an institution of public record (such as a University or National Library) for permanent access by bona-fide researchers. The copyright of original sources will remain with the originators. The copyright of the Iraq Body Count data extraction remains with the named researchers on the project (see About us).

5. Publication of data (including conditions of use)
Once verified through the processes described in section 3 above, each new incident will be added as a new line on a spreadsheet database which will be updated regularly (at least daily) on the www.iraqbodycount.org site. The total minimum and maximum deaths will be automatically updated, and will feed through to all remotely positioned web-counters donwloaded from the site.

Permission is granted for any individual or agency to download and display any of the web counters available on this site, provided that the link back to the www.iraqbodycount.org site is not disabled or otherwise tampered with when displayed on a live interactive web-site. Permission is also granted for cut-and-paste downloads of the spreadsheet database listing each incident. All press and non-commercial uses are permitted. Other commercial uses are prohibited without explicit permission (contact [email protected]).

We request that you acknowledge any use of the Iraq Body Count data base or its methodology by mentioning either the project name ("Iraq Body Count") or the url (www.iraqbodycount.org) or the names of the principal researchers, Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda.

6. Limitations and scope of enquiry:
Any project has limitations and boundaries. Here are some FAQs about this topic and our answers to them.

Why don't you report all civilian deaths in Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War ended?
Our decision to stick with deaths from Jan 2003 is mainly tactical, and based on the resources we have. We would rather provide one stream of verifiable evidence to a high degree of reliablity than spread ourselves too thin. Current deaths are more newsworthy than past deaths, and will be of more interest to the general websites who will carry the IBC Web Counters. We agree that reckoning total deaths since 1991 is a very worthwhile project. We would be happy to support someone wanting to do this, but we can't manage it ourselves with current resources.

Why don't you report civilian injuries as well as deaths?
Injuries are difficult to quantify. Anything from shock to loss of limb can be classified as an injury. Also, injuries can recover, so that by the time there is independent verification the injury can have healed. The level of resource we would need to track and categorise the far higher number of injuries would likely overwhelm our resources. Deaths are irreversible and immutable. Again, they are the most "newsworthy" tip of the iceberg, and the greatest crime against innocents.

"Does your count include deaths from indirect causes?"
Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.

(The above FAQ does not apply to sanctions; although we are opposed to them, our study deals with the consequences of our current military actions in Iraq. It has also been newly revised due to our growing awareness that we were too narrowly-focused on bombs and other conventional weapons, neglecting the deadly effects of disrupted food, water, electricity and medical supplies. These effects, though relatively small at the outset of a war, are likely to become much more significant as time passes, and we will monitor media reports accordingly.)
Won't your count simply be a compilation of propaganda?

We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the conflict. We will faithfully reflect the full range of reported deaths in our sources. These sources, which are predominantly Western (including long established press agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press) are unlikely to suppress conservative estimates which can act as a corrective to inflated claims. We rely on the combined, and self-correcting, professionalism of the world's press to deliver meaningful maxima and minima for our count.

Will you co-operate with other similar projects?
Many projects are needed to evaluate the full human cost of this war. We value them all, but this one is ours. We need to ensure that our study is focused and that its intent, scope and limits are widely and clearly understood. We will certainly build up and maintain our set of links to projects doing related work so that viewers of this site can be pointed to related activity.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 02:29 pm
It doesn't matter. Their 'higher' counts are still known to be overly conservative b/c of the methodology used. Though I commend you for using the bigger overly conservative numbers.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 02:37 pm
I look at it this way; at least there are numbers that are produced - even though many understand they are conservative on the low side. Depending on the person using those numbers, they will translate those numbers to argue their own subjective viewpoints about the war in Iraq.

I find that totally acceptable.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 05:45 pm
Those papers (the intelligence reports) drew from expertise within a number spy agencies and were distributed to scores of White House, national security, diplomatic and congressional officials ?- most of whom were listed in 81 pages of the Senate report.

Among other conclusions, the analysts found:

• Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, steep and probably turbulent challenge. They said that contributions could be made by 4 million Iraqi exiles and Iraq's impoverished, underemployed middle class. But they noted that opposition parties would need sustained economic, political and military support.

• Al-Qaida would see the invasion as a chance to accelerate its attacks, and the lines between al-Qaida and other terrorist groups "could become blurred." In a weak spot in the analysis, one paper said that the risk of terror attacks would spike after the invasion and slow over the next three to five years. However, the State Department recently found that attacks last year alone rose sharply.

• Groups in Iraq's deeply divided society would become violent, unless stopped by the occupying force. "Score settling would occur throughout Iraq between those associated with Saddam's regime and those who have suffered most under it," one report stated.

• Iraq's neighbors would jockey for influence and Iranian leaders would try to shape the post-Saddam era to demonstrate Tehran's importance in the region. The less Tehran felt threatened by U.S. actions, the analysts said, "the better the chance that they could cooperate in the postwar period."

• Postwar Iraq would face significant economic challenges, having few resources beyond oil. Analysts predicted that Iraq's large petroleum resources would make economic reconstruction easier, but they didn't anticipate that continued fighting and sabotage would drag down oil production.

• Military action to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would not cause other governments in the region to give up such programs.

As numerous investigations have found, the intelligence agencies of the United States and its allies were wrong about Iraq's supposed weapons programs.

The report is the latest chapter in the Intelligence Committee's ongoing investigation into the prewar Iraq intelligence. Because committee members couldn't agree on clear conclusions about the postwar predictions, they saved their analyses for appendices attached to the report.

"The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al-Qaida," wrote four Democratic senators ?- Rockefeller, Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record) of Indiana and Sheldon Whitehouse (news, bio, voting record) of Rhode Island.

Meanwhile, four Republican senators ?- Bond, John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record) of Utah and Richard Burr (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina ?- wrote that the report exaggerates the importance of the pre-invasion assessments. They said the reports weren't based on intelligence information, but instead were speculation from experts in and out of government.

"They were no more authoritative than the many other educated opinions that were available in the same time frame," the Republicans wrote.

___

On the Net:

Senate Intelligence Committee: http://intelligence.senate.gov/index.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 01:37 pm
Bush to be pressed on troop withdrawal By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
47 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Even as Pentagon planners search for ways to shift the Iraq mission from combat to support with fewer U.S. troops, Democrats plan to raise their pressure on President Bush to end U.S. involvement in the unpopular war.

Bush signed a war spending bill late Friday that does not set a date for U.S. troop withdrawals. It was a defeat for Democrats who want the president to start pulling troops out of Iraq ?- an idea roundly rejected by administration officials.

"We are there because the security of this nation depends on a successful outcome," Vice President Dick Cheney told U.S. Military Academy graduates Saturday in West Point, N.Y.

If what Cheney is even close to factual, why is it that their project called Iraq has increased terrorism around the world, and situations there seem to get worse and worse every day, week, month and year we are involved in this quagmire? It's now four years and counting. Can't they see the futility of their rhetoric?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 05:06 pm
chancellor gordon brown - britain's prime minister to take office june 27 -
has admitted to mistakes in the iraq invasion .
i wonder what point of view our a2k friends in britain have of chancellor brown ; what is the likelihood of a change of course in iraq ?
hbg



Quote:
Brown admits Iraq mistakes made
Chancellor Gordon Brown has admitted the government has made mistakes over its handling of the situation in Iraq.
Speaking at a Labour Party hustings meeting in Bristol, Mr Brown said it was a divisive issue for the nation.

He said the government and others had fallen short when it came to rebuilding Iraq's economy after the war.

Mr Brown, who becomes PM on 27 June, said economic activity, employment and security were key to achieving peace.


'Economic deprivation'
He spoke candidly about the government's failures in Iraq during a Labour question and answer session with trade unionists at the meeting.

Mr Brown said: "There's massive unemployment in Iraq and that is a failure on our part, a failure on the part of those who've been in Iraq, that there is still so much economic deprivation and people are not in jobs."

Mr Brown said developing the economy and political system in Iraq was key.

"I see the next stage as us getting to a position where there is security, so our troops can move to an "overwatch position", getting economic development so that people have jobs and have got economic prosperity.

"And getting the political system sorted out so a democracy is fully functioning. Let us not deny that this has been a divisive issue."

Speaking later at the Hay Festival, in mid Wales, he said he took "collective responsibility" for the decision to go to war with Iraq and reiterated that it had "clearly divided the country."

'Peaceful settlement'

Earlier in Bristol he was asked if he could rule out military action over Iran.

Mr Brown said multilateral action and economic sanctions were the best ways to deal with the situation.

The chancellor, who has not previously elaborated on his view that sanctions against Iran were working, said: "We want a peaceful settlement to the Iran issue."

It was "totally wrong" for countries to defy the international community and to start stockpiling nuclear weapons, he added.

"What we don't want is a situation where we move from North Korea to Iran to African countries, where we have no control. I think multilateral pressure is the right thing to do."

The government has been careful not to give unequivocal assurances since former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said military action was "inconceivable" in November 2004.

Suggestions that US anger over his stance contributed to his removal from the job in a reshuffle last year were strongly denied.

Enrichment activities

In February Mr Blair said that diplomacy, not military action, was the best way to resolve the stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme.

He told the BBC he was not aware of any plans to attack Iran and said the only viable solution was a political one.

But he said he could not "absolutely predict every set of circumstances".

Conservative leader David Cameron warned earlier this week that although military action could have devastating consequences, it should not be ruled out.

The UN Security Council has passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspends all enrichment activities.

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in a report on Wednesday that Tehran was stepping up enrichment and obstructing inspections.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of he IAEA, said it might be too late to stop Iran entirely and the focus should be on preventing large-scale enrichment - a policy rejected by US and UK diplomats.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran will not be deterred from pursuing its nuclear goals and insists that it is co-operating with the IAEA.

Relations between the UK and Iran hit a low point when 15 Royal Navy personnel based on HMS Cornwall were seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards on 23 March in the northern Gulf.


source :
A NEW BRITISH PRIME MINISTER ... AND A NEW SOUNDBITE ?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 05:13 pm
U.S. deaths near grim Memorial Day mark

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 25 minutes ago



BAGHDAD - Americans have opened nearly 1,000 new graves to bury U.S. troops killed in Iraq since Memorial Day a year ago. The figure is telling ?- and expected to rise in coming months.


In the period from Memorial Day 2006 through Saturday, 980 soldiers and Marines died in Iraq, compared to 807 deaths in the previous year. And with the Baghdad security operation now 3 1/2 months old, even President Bush has predicted a difficult summer for U.S. forces.

"It could be a bloody ?- it could be a very difficult August," he said last week.


U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus on Saturday acknowledged the increase in casualties as a result of the American surge in forces to regain control of Baghdad.

"We're doing heavy fighting. This is a fight. There's a war on out there," he told reporters at al-Asad Airbase in western Iraq.

General Petraeus is supposed to be one of the smart guys involved in this war, but the statement he made above makes one wonder where his head is at.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 05:14 pm
CLUE: This so-called war has been going on for over four years. jeeesh!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 07:56 pm
The WH is now warning of an increase in violence in Iraq...

Wasn't the purpose of the surge to prevent violence? It seems even the WH is admitting that it isn't working with this warning.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 08:22 pm
parados, That was a given; increase the troops, and more will be exposed to the killing fields. Don't need no rocket scientist to figure that one out! I said as much before this "surge" took place.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 08:48 pm
parados wrote:
The WH is now warning of an increase in violence in Iraq...

Wasn't the purpose of the surge to prevent violence? It seems even the WH is admitting that it isn't working with this warning.

The WH is warning that the surge will cause an increase in violence before it causes a decrease in violence.

Get it right.

After the surge fails, you can celebrate.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 11:29 pm
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
The WH is now warning of an increase in violence in Iraq...

Wasn't the purpose of the surge to prevent violence? It seems even the WH is admitting that it isn't working with this warning.

The WH is warning that the surge will cause an increase in violence before it causes a decrease in violence.

Get it right.

After the surge fails, you can celebrate.


Celebrate? Spoken like an arse.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 03:34 am
Here's an interesting thing. And encouraging sign of things to come, perhaps?

Two anti-war protesters in the UK were tried for breaking into a US air base with the intent to cause damage, on the basis that the planes were about to take part in a war crime and could be legitimately stopped.

The judge allowed the legal defence, and the 12-man jury acquitted them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,2088629,00.html
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 04:58 am
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
The WH is now warning of an increase in violence in Iraq...

Wasn't the purpose of the surge to prevent violence? It seems even the WH is admitting that it isn't working with this warning.

The WH is warning that the surge will cause an increase in violence before it causes a decrease in violence.

Get it right.

After the surge fails, you can celebrate.


Isn't that something. We have been in Iraq over four years and the only thing this administration can offer us is more violence and more casualities.

And it's the same for Afghanistan.

TWO FAILURES

If this is the best we can do against a minority population in revolt over our invasion what do you think Iran must be thinking.

Oh ya, they're shak'in in their boots. Rolling Eyes

George Bush has show the world our immense power and they're laughing.

Quote:
But the United States, not Estonia, is Nashi's particular bugbear. "It is time to put an end to America's being the strongest and most influential empire," says Nikolai Panchenko, a ranking member of the group. He's echoing the views of the Russian leadership, whose stance toward the United States is more belligerent now than at any time since the cold war. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to Moscow last week, seeking to tamp down the hostility before Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin sit down together at a G8 summit next month in Germany. Nevertheless, in two days of talks Rice won no concessions from the Russians beyond an agreement to cool the anti-U.S. rhetoric?-such as Putin's grim reference in a speech earlier this month to certain countries' making "claims of exceptionality" and becoming "a new threat, as during the time of the Third Reich."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18754293/site/newsweek/

So while we're banging our heads on the rocks of tiny countries the big boys, Russia and China, just get stronger; watching us throw our resources down the drain on garbage like Iraq.

Quote:
Ben Franklin, 2007
8.5 feet wide by 10.5 feet tall in three horizontal panels

Depicts 125,000 one-hundred dollar bills ($12.5 million), the amount our government spends every hour on the war in Iraq.


http://www.chrisjordan.com/images/current2/1169334256.jpg

http://www.chrisjordan.com/images/current2/1169343421.jpg

http://www.chrisjordan.com/images/current2/1169344704.jpg

http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=?view=XXX_09NNN/
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 06:11 am
McTag wrote:
Here's an interesting thing. And encouraging sign of things to come, perhaps?

Two anti-war protesters in the UK were tried for breaking into a US air base with the intent to cause damage, on the basis that the planes were about to take part in a war crime and could be legitimately stopped.

The judge allowed the legal defence, and the 12-man jury acquitted them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,2088629,00.html


USAF security force should have shot them.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 06:49 am
mysteryman wrote:

USAF security force should have shot them.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 06:50 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
mysteryman wrote:

USAF security force should have shot them.


Did you have a reply,or were you just practicing your ability to quote others?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 06:52 am
Neither. I only wanted to get your response archived.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 06:55 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Neither. I only wanted to get your response archived.


Why?
Did you think I would try and delete my response?

I will say it again...the USAF seciruty personnel should have shot them for trespassing.

Do you want me to repeat it again?

THE USAF SECURITY PERSONNEL SHOULD HAVE SHOT THEM!![/[/color]size]

There,I have repeated it,and made sure that others would notice it.

Is that good enough for you?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/11/2026 at 01:08:14