West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Ant on November 07, 2004, 03:42:54 PM
-
Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune
PARIS, Oct. 28 - An estimated 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect consequence of the March 2003 United States-led invasion, according to a new study by a research team at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
Advertisement
Coming just five days before the presidential election the finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since it is far higher than previous mortality estimates for the Iraq conflict.
Editors of The Lancet, the London-based medical publication, where an article describing the study is scheduled to appear, decided not to wait for the normal publication date next week, but to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the election.
The Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.
In the study, teams of researchers led by Dr. Les Roberts fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.
Although the authors acknowledge that data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect is extensive. Using what they described as the best sampling methods that could be applied under the circumstances, they found that Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it.
Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.
"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins team. Dr. Burnham said the team excluded data about deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, because that city was the site of unusually intense violence.
In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in their families since the conflict started. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by American-led forces, mostly airstrikes, and most of those killed were women and children. The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers reported.
The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies and included doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad.
There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, since that translates into an average of 166 deaths a day since the invasion. But some people were not surprised. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University, who works on the www.iraqbodycount.net project.
That project, which collates only deaths reported in the news media, currently put the maximum civilian death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Mr. Lipscomb said.
The researchers said they were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited by the decision to cut down on driving time when possible in order to reduce the risk to the interviewers. Each team included an Iraqi health worker, generally a physician.
Although the teams relied primarily on interviews with local residents, they also requested to see at least two death certificates at the end of interviews in each area, to try to ensure that people had remembered and responded honestly. The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.
Some of those killed may have been insurgents, not civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in deaths included a rise in murders and some deaths were caused by the decline of medical care. "But the majority of excess mortality is clearly due to violence," Dr. Burnham said.
The study is scientific, reserving judgment on the politics of the Iraq conflict. But Dr. Roberts and his colleagues are critical of the Bush administration and the Army for not releasing estimates of civilian deaths.
"This study shows that with moderate funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained," the authors wrote.
_____
For the original study see:
http://www.thelancet.com/home
-
There's nothing scientific in this research.
-
It wouldn't surprise me.
Is this massive loss of lives really necessary?
-
Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune
PARIS, Oct. 28 - An estimated 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect consequence of the March 2003 United States-led invasion, according to a new study by a research team at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
Advertisement
Coming just five days before the presidential election the finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since it is far higher than previous mortality estimates for the Iraq conflict.
Editors of The Lancet, the London-based medical publication, where an article describing the study is scheduled to appear, decided not to wait for the normal publication date next week, but to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the election.
The Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.
In the study, teams of researchers led by Dr. Les Roberts fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.
Although the authors acknowledge that data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect is extensive. Using what they described as the best sampling methods that could be applied under the circumstances, they found that Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it.
Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.
"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins team. Dr. Burnham said the team excluded data about deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, because that city was the site of unusually intense violence.
In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in their families since the conflict started. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by American-led forces, mostly airstrikes, and most of those killed were women and children. The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers reported.
The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies and included doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad.
There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, since that translates into an average of 166 deaths a day since the invasion. But some people were not surprised. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University, who works on the www.iraqbodycount.net project.
That project, which collates only deaths reported in the news media, currently put the maximum civilian death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Mr. Lipscomb said.
The researchers said they were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited by the decision to cut down on driving time when possible in order to reduce the risk to the interviewers. Each team included an Iraqi health worker, generally a physician.
Although the teams relied primarily on interviews with local residents, they also requested to see at least two death certificates at the end of interviews in each area, to try to ensure that people had remembered and responded honestly. The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.
Some of those killed may have been insurgents, not civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in deaths included a rise in murders and some deaths were caused by the decline of medical care. "But the majority of excess mortality is clearly due to violence," Dr. Burnham said.
The study is scientific, reserving judgment on the politics of the Iraq conflict. But Dr. Roberts and his colleagues are critical of the Bush administration and the Army for not releasing estimates of civilian deaths.
"This study shows that with moderate funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained," the authors wrote.
_____
For the original study see:
http://www.thelancet.com/home
You need a hobby.
-
You need an education, and judging by that picture, a haircut as well
-
How many Terrorists have we killed.
-
How many Terrorists have we killed.
Are you really that retarded?
What if some terrorist said "When we attacked on 9/11, we were aiming to kill the people who might've been a threat to society... we're sure there were at least a few child molestors in that building"
-
How many Terrorists have we killed.
Are you really that retarded?
What if some terrorist said "When we attacked on 9/11, we were aiming to kill the people who might've been a threat to society... we're sure there were at least a few child molestors in that building"
it was a fair question i'd like to know corellation between civilian and terrorist deaths, the civillian deaths in iraq are disgusting and they only add ammo to terrorist army in the way of increased recruits, i blame american tactics of indescriminate bombings and targeting people without verifying who they are, did anyone see that footage of the crowd of people funning through the street in iraq when an american plane was flying over all that was said was they could see them running it took 2 seconds for comand and control order a misile into the crowd
-
did anyone see that footage of the crowd of people funning through the street in iraq when an american plane was flying over all that was said was they could see them running it took 2 seconds for comand and control order a misile into the crowd
Yeah, i saw that shit man, some fucked up shit..The guy was on the plane and he saw a group of people and he was like "i can spot a targert" then he droped the bomb then and killed at least 50 people.
-
I just read that at least 15,000 innocent civillians were killed. 100,000 is a little off.
And honestly, how do people in baltimore know how many innocent iraqis have died? Its not like their counting dead bodies themselves.
But im not going to go against your argument that lots of innocent civillians are dying. Even if the number was 5,000 that is still too many, especially when our "goal" is to liberate them.
-
How many Terrorists have we killed.
Are you really that retarded?
What if some terrorist said "When we attacked on 9/11, we were aiming to kill the people who might've been a threat to society... we're sure there were at least a few child molestors in that building"
it was a fair question i'd like to know corellation between civilian and terrorist deaths, the civillian deaths in iraq are disgusting and they only add ammo to terrorist army in the way of increased recruits, i blame american tactics of indescriminate bombings and targeting people without verifying who they are, did anyone see that footage of the crowd of people funning through the street in iraq when an american plane was flying over all that was said was they could see them running it took 2 seconds for comand and control order a misile into the crowd
how are you going to blame americans when the iraqis do the same thing? it's WAR, get used to it
-
I call bullshit.
Interviews with civilians to determine casualties? You count, not poll, the dead.
-
i believe on CNN and Fox News it said the count was wrong, it was not 16,000 it was at a 100,000.....bush is on the best Murder Spree ever.....i bet those Columbine shooters r crying in helll cuz there attempt sucked compared to this one! =p
-
1. In the list you should add all the civils (journalists, doctors, etc..) killed by terrorists, and the death of those ones is as brutal and wrong as the death of all the other "innocent" Iraqi people. Cause all i read here is that Americans are bombing innocents. But guess what? Terrorists are doing the same! They bombed the Twin Towers, and there were no soldiers in it (am i wrong?). They boicotted airplanes using innocent people like "bombs". They've bombed Italian Carabinieri, and they were there to help building streets and helping doctors in the Badgad hospitals. They've bombed Red Cross. They've bombed UN. They've bombed Iraqi police. They've killed the most important political Iraqi who were about to instaure Democracy in Iraq. They've killed journalists and beheaded people live on tv. So please, when you make topics like this one, always remember that. Cause if you dont, you only say a small part of the story. Dont reply with: "They had to defend themselves", cause i didnt quote the deaths of soldiers, but the deaths of innocent people who wasnt fighting a war. Just like the "poor" Iraqi citizen arent.
2. This research has NOTHING scientific, like i said. It's impossible to determine the exact number of killed people from Baltimore, or interviewing the population. One example: when the war was at his best, sometimes a bomb bombed a plaza. Well, if you interviewed the common people the deaths were 200, if you interviewed the Red Cross and the Iraqi police the deaths were 20 and if you interviewed the Americans the deads were terrorists. Who do you trust? Why? This poll counted probably the "rumors" from the common people, but it's nothing "scientific". It's like when parties makes parades in the streets and manifestations. If you ask it to the organizators, there are 300,000 people parading. If you ask it to the Police, there are 50,000 people parading. It's like that everywere. You cant simply say that they were 300,000 just cause you interviewed someone. You know what i mean? If you wanna do something scientifical, you have to count them one by one. If you cant, simply dont sell your poll like something "scientifical", expecially when the US Government says deaths are like 14-20,000 and you say they are 100,000.
3. It's not possible to make a war and not kills innocent guys. The population is ALWAYS the first victim of every war. But this one wasnt a war Iraq vs USA. This one was something different. USA invaded Iraq to free their population from Saddam. They did. If you ask the politicians in Iraq, and the organizations of Iraqi refugees all over the world, they all thank USA for their support. Of course they aint satisfacted about victims, but they know it's impossible to make peace without fighting. Also, if you ask UN now, they'll say to stay there cause now that the first step is done, they have to give Iraq freedom by letting them organize free elections. Once again, when you have a mission, you have to judge it, and not the number of deaths. If the mission was to free Iraq, then the mission is almost complete. Then you can discuss if the "mission" was right or wrong, but you cant use the civils deads to argument it. Cause like i said, when you make a war, you make victims. And your men got killed.
4. You should ask Iraqi people: "do you prefeer to die to have freedom or do you prefeer to live under the Saddam regime?". REAL MEN should better die then living trapped. So ask them if the deads are dead in vain or if they're dead to make Iraq (and them all) free. Ask it.
5. I can quote you dozen of other polls about Iraqi deads in Iraq since 2003 US Invasion. Some are "bigger" (150,000), some are "smaller" (12,000), some are in the middle. Where's the scientific thing in all that?
-
I just read that at least 15,000 innocent civillians were killed. 100,000 is a little off.
And honestly, how do people in baltimore know how many innocent iraqis have died? Its not like their counting dead bodies themselves.
But im not going to go against your argument that lots of innocent civillians are dying. Even if the number was 5,000 that is still too many, especially when our "goal" is to liberate them.
from what i heard it was a joint iraqi american group who carried out the survey based on the average loss of life per family i think it was something like 1 in 20 families had a family member die as a result of the invasion, falluja was excluded from the poll die to the high loss of life. i am more inclined to believe the 100000 figure due to the amount of bombs america has dropped opporation shock and ore probably did 16000 alone.
-
Antonio, I agree the results may be flawed, but I also believe there is an incentive for the US to understate the civilian death toll. Either way, there have been a large number of civilian casualties, counted in the tens of thousands. Additionally, there are thousands who are now homeless, and thousands with serious life altering injuries (i.e. people with missing limbs, shrapnel embedded in their body, paralysis, permanent scarring, etc.)
This post was meant to highlight the cost of war. 3000 Americans were killed sept. 11th, many of them were from manhattan, a city that voted 90-10 against Bush, and strongly opposes the Iraq war.
You stated "we went to Iraq to liberate the Iraqis." Nothing could be further from the truth. We went to war because we feared Iraq had WMD, and ties to terrorism. The final analysis proved it had neither. Now we are fighting for the freedom of a people who are violently opposing our occupation. A new breed of Iraqi politicians have been given power, and not surprisingly have thanked the US for their newly granted authority, but their support is hardly conclusive evidence that we are doing the right thing in Iraq.
It is not right nor is it fair to force a system of government on people, by killing their citizens, and proclaiming yourself in the right. If the objective is to help the iraqi people establish a new form of government that form of government should be their own choice. The US was not established by a 3rd party fighting for our freedom. We choose our freedom and fought for it ourselves. In Iraq, we made a miscalculation, and disguised it by calling it a fight for freedom. But how can you say you are fighting for the people, when you are killing them to achieve an objective that was determined by us not them?
In the end I can only say that this is not a simple situation with simple answers, and you should be cautious before you quickly jump to a conclusion that says we are always in the right because our government says so. Its not for you or me to determine whether, and how the Iraqis, or any group of people earn their freedom. It is not for you or me to call them cowards for choosing another way of life. The Iraqis are fighting for their way of life. You can see it daily. They are fighting against the coalition. They are fighting against the US because thousands of their family members have been killed by US bombs, there houses have been destroyed, and their children have died because of our actions. If you cannot understand why this is the case, simply consider your actions had your brother been killed by a foreign nation occupying your country and arrogantly telling you they are there to help you when everyone knows they were there because of WMD that never existed.
-
1. In the list you should add all the civils (journalists, doctors, etc..) killed by terrorists, and the death of those ones is as brutal and wrong as the death of all the other "innocent" Iraqi people. Cause all i read here is that Americans are bombing innocents. But guess what? Terrorists are doing the same! They bombed the Twin Towers, and there were no soldiers in it (am i wrong?). They boicotted airplanes using innocent people like "bombs". They've bombed Italian Carabinieri, and they were there to help building streets and helping doctors in the Badgad hospitals. They've bombed Red Cross. They've bombed UN. They've bombed Iraqi police. They've killed the most important political Iraqi who were about to instaure Democracy in Iraq. They've killed journalists and beheaded people live on tv. So please, when you make topics like this one, always remember that. Cause if you dont, you only say a small part of the story. Dont reply with: "They had to defend themselves", cause i didnt quote the deaths of soldiers, but the deaths of innocent people who wasnt fighting a war. Just like the "poor" Iraqi citizen arent.
hang on - r u just arguing that there is no difference between the Terrorists and the American government?
It sounds like you're trying to say that because terrorists have killed innocent people - its alright for the american government to kill innocent people as well. i mean you can't be serious can you? If the America is trying to wage this war on terror - how in world does arguing that they are doing the same thing as terrorists help their case?
-
1. In the list you should add all the civils (journalists, doctors, etc..) killed by terrorists, and the death of those ones is as brutal and wrong as the death of all the other "innocent" Iraqi people. Cause all i read here is that Americans are bombing innocents. But guess what? Terrorists are doing the same! They bombed the Twin Towers, and there were no soldiers in it (am i wrong?). They boicotted airplanes using innocent people like "bombs". They've bombed Italian Carabinieri, and they were there to help building streets and helping doctors in the Badgad hospitals. They've bombed Red Cross. They've bombed UN. They've bombed Iraqi police. They've killed the most important political Iraqi who were about to instaure Democracy in Iraq. They've killed journalists and beheaded people live on tv. So please, when you make topics like this one, always remember that. Cause if you dont, you only say a small part of the story. Dont reply with: "They had to defend themselves", cause i didnt quote the deaths of soldiers, but the deaths of innocent people who wasnt fighting a war. Just like the "poor" Iraqi citizen arent.
hang on - r u just arguing that there is no difference between the Terrorists and the American government?
It sounds like you're trying to say that because terrorists have killed innocent people - its alright for the american government to kill innocent people as well. i mean you can't be serious can you? If the America is trying to wage this war on terror - how in world does arguing that they are doing the same thing as terrorists help their case?
LoL, this is great.
-
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041107/capt.bag10211070833.iraq_bag102.jpg)
A boy recovers in a Fallujah hospital after a U.S. airstrike in Fallujah, Iraq Saturday, Nov. 6, 2004, which killed his father, according to hospital officials. U.S. jets pounded Fallujah early Saturday in the heaviest airstrikes in six months, including five 500-pound bombs dropped on insurgent targets.
:-\
-
Hey pussies , cowards, rednecks, stupid morons, republicans etc
Guess what the casualty figures were from the first Gulf War? Dont know? Thats cuz they remain a secret.
So you understand why Tech thinks of the majority of you guys as monkeys when you debate the scientific nature of this poll.
-
Antonio, I agree the results may be flawed, but I also believe there is an incentive for the US to understate the civilian death toll. Either way, there have been a large number of civilian casualties, counted in the tens of thousands. Additionally, there are thousands who are now homeless, and thousands with serious life altering injuries (i.e. people with missing limbs, shrapnel embedded in their body, paralysis, permanent scarring, etc.). This post was meant to highlight the cost of war. 3000 Americans were killed sept. 11th, many of them were from manhattan, a city that voted 90-10 against Bush, and strongly opposes the Iraq war.
Nothing to reply.
You stated "we went to Iraq to liberate the Iraqis." Nothing could be further from the truth. We went to war because we feared Iraq had WMD, and ties to terrorism. The final analysis proved it had neither. Now we are fighting for the freedom of a people who are violently opposing our occupation. A new breed of Iraqi politicians have been given power, and not surprisingly have thanked the US for their newly granted authority, but their support is hardly conclusive evidence that we are doing the right thing in Iraq.
Hold on man. I never said that. Plus "we" is not something i can say, since i didnt go to war, and my nation, Italy, didnt fight the war. I reported the main reason Bush is giving right now why his troops are there, and it's because he wants Iraq to have democratic elections. That's Bush, not Antonio thinking that. I never talked about the reasons i think USA fought this war, and IF this war was/is right or wrong imo. Personally i think this war was a mistaken ("was", not "is". But we can discuss about this difference in another topic).
It is not right nor is it fair to force a system of government on people, by killing their citizens, and proclaiming yourself in the right. If the objective is to help the iraqi people establish a new form of government that form of government should be their own choice.
Here i disagree. And i can say that cause i'm Italian, and i've indirectly lived it with Benito Mussolini and fascism, for 22 years. Everydody here wanted democratic elections. Everybody here didnt want the fascism. But it's not easy to destroy a corrupted system when they kill all the oppositors, and you really cant do nothing about it. And if you open your mouth, your family gets incarcerated. In the first moments i thought the same exact thing you wrote: "If they dont want Saddam they can make a revolution, or shit like that". But then i talked about it with my grandfather (who lived when Mussolini was the "duce"), and he made me look dumb and "so" young, talking about shit i dont even know. Dont make the same mistake i made. "Should be their own choice"? Well, do you honestly think they preferred Saddam to democratic elections? C'mon..
The US was not established by a 3rd party fighting for our freedom. We choose our freedom and fought for it ourselves. In Iraq, we made a miscalculation, and disguised it by calling it a fight for freedom. But how can you say you are fighting for the people, when you are killing them to achieve an objective that was determined by us not them?
Simply because Saddam is in jail, and in jan they'll hopefully have free elections. Obviously Americans aint fighting against common people, they are fighting against resistence, fanatics and terrorists. Tragically, it's still a war, and when you launch a bomb from an airplane, that bomb can kill innocent people. And a lot of innocent people are dying. But c'mon, they aint fighting the same guys they wanna help, that's too deep as a provocation. I understand it, but i disagree.
In the end I can only say that this is not a simple situation with simple answers, and you should be cautious before you quickly jump to a conclusion that says we are always in the right because our government says so.
Once again, it's YOUR government, and i aint saying this war is right. You got it wrong.
Its not for you or me to determine whether, and how the Iraqis, or any group of people earn their freedom. It is not for you or me to call them cowards for choosing another way of life. The Iraqis are fighting for their way of life. You can see it daily. They are fighting against the coalition. They are fighting against the US because thousands of their family members have been killed by US bombs, there houses have been destroyed, and their children have died because of our actions. If you cannot understand why this is the case, simply consider your actions had your brother been killed by a foreign nation occupying your country and arrogantly telling you they are there to help you when everyone knows they were there because of WMD that never existed.
Man, Iraqi aint fighting AGAINST Americans. If you say so, you are manipulating the truth (or you got manipulated). Iraqi are fighting WITH Americans to have free elections. I'm Italian, and i can say Iraqi loves us, we work with them building streets, helping Iraqi Police, helping their doctors, and we never used a single bullet against them. You are making some confusion between common people, Iraqi politicians, fanatics of Allah or Saddam, the resistence and the terrorists. They aint all the same things. The last 3 are against USA. Terrorists, fanatics of Saddam and resistence should go to jail.
-
1. In the list you should add all the civils (journalists, doctors, etc..) killed by terrorists, and the death of those ones is as brutal and wrong as the death of all the other "innocent" Iraqi people. Cause all i read here is that Americans are bombing innocents. But guess what? Terrorists are doing the same! They bombed the Twin Towers, and there were no soldiers in it (am i wrong?). They boicotted airplanes using innocent people like "bombs". They've bombed Italian Carabinieri, and they were there to help building streets and helping doctors in the Badgad hospitals. They've bombed Red Cross. They've bombed UN. They've bombed Iraqi police. They've killed the most important political Iraqi who were about to instaure Democracy in Iraq. They've killed journalists and beheaded people live on tv. So please, when you make topics like this one, always remember that. Cause if you dont, you only say a small part of the story. Dont reply with: "They had to defend themselves", cause i didnt quote the deaths of soldiers, but the deaths of innocent people who wasnt fighting a war. Just like the "poor" Iraqi citizen arent.
hang on - r u just arguing that there is no difference between the Terrorists and the American government?
It sounds like you're trying to say that because terrorists have killed innocent people - its alright for the american government to kill innocent people as well. i mean you can't be serious can you? If the America is trying to wage this war on terror - how in world does arguing that they are doing the same thing as terrorists help their case?
Where did i say that? I NEVER said there's no difference between the terrorists (why "T"errorists?) and the American Government (why "g"overnment?). I simply remembered that those terrorists kills innocent people too. It's not a comparsion, and i never said it's right for USA to take a revenge or to kill other people in return. To kill someone is ALWAYS wrong. I was talking about the poll, not about political aspects of the war. Dont get it wrong. What i mean is that if you wanna make a complete poll, you should consider (read the first words of point 1) all this innocent people dead by terrorist acts too, cause they aint "soldiers" fighting a war, but casualties of war. And sometimes they are real "heroes", like Italian doctors killed, etc..
-
look at that fucking picture, thats those people EVERY MINUTE. and america couldnt give two fuckin shits, its sad.
-
cuzzz its the land of the brave nigga shit man upz cuz we x out punk niccaz
-
look at that fucking picture, thats those people EVERY MINUTE. and america couldnt give two fuckin shits, its sad.
we're the reason the hospital thats treating that baby is still there, those coward iraqi bastards use hospitals as their hideouts and then cry when someone inside gets hurt...
america should start doing this, we'll strap homeless and elderly to our tanks and planes and shit so we can get some sympathy...this is was, that's not the first innocent baby to ge tinjured and it won't be the last
-
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041107/capt.bag10211070833.iraq_bag102.jpg)
A boy recovers in a Fallujah hospital after a U.S. airstrike in Fallujah, Iraq Saturday, Nov. 6, 2004, which killed his father, according to hospital officials. U.S. jets pounded Fallujah early Saturday in the heaviest airstrikes in six months, including five 500-pound bombs dropped on insurgent targets.
:-\
that poor child - my hope goes out to him and every other innocent that has been affected by the American government, Iraq government and terrorist, in war or not, regardless.
it is my belief that pictures like this need to be seen every day by the public in the countries that have invaded Iraq (my country included) - just so they remember what their government is doing.
and to Antonio, i apologize, i just got the impression that you were looking to justify the death of innocents, but impressions are often wrong. I agree the innocents killed by terrorists needs to be polled as much as the innocents killed by the the American government or any other government for that matter, although not neccessarily in the same thread, since the two polls are unrelated.
also i dont know why i put a capital for terrorist and not for government - force of habit i guess - in essays ive always been taught not to type government with a capital, and im constantly seeing the word "terror" with a capital T in headlines i guess it just forced it ways into my habits.
-
look at that fucking picture, thats those people EVERY MINUTE. and america couldnt give two fuckin shits, its sad.
we're the reason the hospital thats treating that baby is still there, those coward iraqi bastards use hospitals as their hideouts and then cry when someone inside gets hurt...
america should start doing this, we'll strap homeless and elderly to our tanks and planes and shit so we can get some sympathy...this is was, that's not the first innocent baby to ge tinjured and it won't be the last
I dont wanna turn this topic into a pro-Italian thing, but the saddest thing is that in Badgdad there's only the ITALIAN Red Cross, since the International one runned away from Iraq. And that's ridiculous. How you wanna help Iraq if you dont even have the International Red Cross or UN there? Ok, they bombed them, but shit, they HAVE to stay there. UN talks talks talks, blames blames blames.. but where they at? International Red Cross continues to blames blames blames.. but where the fuck they at?
-
also i dont know why i put a capital for terrorist and not for government - force of habit i guess - in essays ive always been taught not to type government with a capital, and im constantly seeing the word "terror" with a capital T in headlines i guess it just forced it ways into my habits.
Yeah, i knew you didnt do it with a meaning. ;)
-
how can any ordinary iraqi respect iraq's governments tough stance on terroists when the head of the governing council was a terrorist/cia collaborator himself who blew up a school bus full of children under saddam.
-
how can any ordinary iraqi respect iraq's governments tough stance on terroists when the head of the governing council was a terrorist/cia collaborator himself who blew up a school bus full of children under saddam.
They'll change him, if they dont trust him. Anyway you talked about "respect"? Man that's a deep word. 90% of the people who posts in this board doesnt respect their own President. Maybe more than 90%.
-
this is a new goverment to replace the old despised government it must hold the respect by the majority of iraqis which it doesn't, the sunnis have pulled out over falluga and the head of state is a terrorist imposed on them by america
-
how can any ordinary iraqi respect iraq's governments tough stance on terroists when the head of the governing council was a terrorist/cia collaborator himself who blew up a school bus full of children under saddam.
They'll change him, if they dont trust him. Anyway you talked about "respect"? Man that's a deep word. 90% of the people who posts in this board doesnt respect their own President. Maybe more than 90%.
If we take it as a given, that we must always respect our president, then we set ourselves up to elect and continue to support and respect an individual who does not respect us. Why should we respect a president who is undeserving of that respect. If respect is a requirement than it means nothing.
-
look at that fucking picture, thats those people EVERY MINUTE. and america couldnt give two fuckin shits, its sad.
Its his fathers fault, not Americas. We told all cilviilians to leave the city. More then 200,000 people left, and the dumbasses like his father that stayed got him self killed and his son fucked up.
-
it's amazing how you treat them Iraqis as villains in a war that you started.
-
it's amazing how you treat them Iraqis as villains in a war that you started.
he didn't say he was guilty, he simply said he was a moron... when you get anykind of warning that something coming might wipe out you and your family, a normal person would evacuate
and this further goes to show how america does everything wrong... if we just ran in there and bombed the whole town...we're terrible, if we give people weeks notice to get out because we're going to bomb the whole town...we're terrible
-
this is a new goverment to replace the old despised government it must hold the respect by the majority of iraqis which it doesn't, the sunnis have pulled out over falluga and the head of state is a terrorist imposed on them by america
Man you got it wrong. You dont "create" democracy in 1 step. It's step by step. The first one aint democracy. Now it's time to have a leader trusted by Americans. Till the elections. Plus they've killed or are about to behead all the ones who seems to have the curriculum and the leadership to rule the nation... (till the elections). :(
Plus guess what? UN made that name, not Bush. And the previous one they named, got killed. And the one before him too.
-
how can any ordinary iraqi respect iraq's governments tough stance on terroists when the head of the governing council was a terrorist/cia collaborator himself who blew up a school bus full of children under saddam.
They'll change him, if they dont trust him. Anyway you talked about "respect"? Man that's a deep word. 90% of the people who posts in this board doesnt respect their own President. Maybe more than 90%.
If we take it as a given, that we must always respect our president, then we set ourselves up to elect and continue to support and respect an individual who does not respect us. Why should we respect a president who is undeserving of that respect. If respect is a requirement than it means nothing.
In Democracy, you should respect your President. You can disagree with him, and do whatever you (legally) can to fight him, but you should respect him. Cause the majority of your own Nation elected him. Anyway i aint the one who talked about "respect".
-
You need an education, and judging by that picture, a haircut as well
Get a new monitor... I am in the military.
-
this is a new goverment to replace the old despised government it must hold the respect by the majority of iraqis which it doesn't, the sunnis have pulled out over falluga and the head of state is a terrorist imposed on them by america
Man you got it wrong. You dont "create" democracy in 1 step. It's step by step. The first one aint democracy. Now it's time to have a leader trusted by Americans. Till the elections. Plus they've killed or are about to behead all the ones who seems to have the curriculum and the leadership to rule the nation... (till the elections). :(
Plus guess what? UN made that name, not Bush. And the previous one they named, got killed. And the one before him too.
america selected and approved all members of the governing council didn't (not positions but for them to be a part of it)
-
this is a new goverment to replace the old despised government it must hold the respect by the majority of iraqis which it doesn't, the sunnis have pulled out over falluga and the head of state is a terrorist imposed on them by america
Man you got it wrong. You dont "create" democracy in 1 step. It's step by step. The first one aint democracy. Now it's time to have a leader trusted by Americans. Till the elections. Plus they've killed or are about to behead all the ones who seems to have the curriculum and the leadership to rule the nation... (till the elections). :(
Plus guess what? UN made that name, not Bush. And the previous one they named, got killed. And the one before him too.
america selected and approved all members of the governing council didn't (not positions but for them to be a part of it)
Obviously. Is it strange to you? UN did NOTHING the whole conflict. They aint even in Bagdad. Why should they select the members one by one?
-
the UN didn't approve the war kofi anan said it was an illegal war as the un couldn't agree on the war subsequently they couldn't agree in helping out in stabilising and humanitarian projects, plus they were in iraq until they got they got bombed then they left and came back.
-
the UN didn't approve the war kofi anan said it was an illegal war as the un couldn't agree on the war subsequently they couldn't agree in helping out in stabilising and humanitarian projects, plus they were in iraq until they got they got bombed then they left and came back.
The UN is worthless it doesn't get anything done. Discussing the UN's role in Iraq is pointless.
-
the UN didn't approve the war kofi anan said it was an illegal war as the un couldn't agree on the war subsequently they couldn't agree in helping out in stabilising and humanitarian projects, plus they were in iraq until they got they got bombed then they left and came back.
The UN is worthless it doesn't get anything done. Discussing the UN's role in Iraq is pointless.
-
the UN didn't approve the war kofi anan said it was an illegal war as the un couldn't agree on the war subsequently they couldn't agree in helping out in stabilising and humanitarian projects, plus they were in iraq until they got they got bombed then they left and came back.
The UN is worthless it doesn't get anything done. Discussing the UN's role in Iraq is pointless.
I would like to know why the UN is worthless in your opinion.
-
the UN didn't approve the war kofi anan said it was an illegal war as the un couldn't agree on the war subsequently they couldn't agree in helping out in stabilising and humanitarian projects, plus they were in iraq until they got they got bombed then they left and came back.
The UN is worthless it doesn't get anything done. Discussing the UN's role in Iraq is pointless.
I would like to know why the UN is worthless in your opinion.
Read a book of history and highlight the page where you see something positive and concrete done by UN. Then tell me why France is more important than Brasil for UN, or England is more important than Italy, or Russia is more important than India. And give me a good reason why UN is a good institution.
-
Off the top off my head , its peacekeeper presence in Cyprus. Dont know why I answered that retarded statement of yours, but here u go.
-
Off the top off my head , its peacekeeper presence in Cyprus. Dont know why I answered that retarded statement of yours, but here u go.
Oh!! Its peacekeeper presence in Cyprus. WOW! Hands down, you won. ::)
What about the other questions anyway?
-
Your entire question is dumb, dont u understand?
Dont u understand that youre just pulling together random things and trying to pass it off as points?
Dont u see the contradiction is insulting the UN because it stood in the way of war plans, when one of the justifications for this war plans was violations of UN law.
If you diss the UN, you diss yourself. It was the West that put together the UN, save a spot for China. Yeah the UN can be criticized but I dont understand how u can use that fact as justification for ANYTHING youre trying to argue
-
Your entire question is dumb, dont u understand?
Dont u understand that youre just pulling together random things and trying to pass it off as points?
Dont u see the contradiction is insulting the UN because it stood in the way of war plans, when one of the justifications for this war plans was violations of UN law.
If you diss the UN, you diss yourself. It was the West that put together the UN, save a spot for China. Yeah the UN can be criticized but I dont understand how u can use that fact as justification for ANYTHING youre trying to argue
First of all i aint using UN being worthless as a justification for something i'm trying to argue. You made a question, i replied. If my question is dumb it's just cause you cant reply to it (lol @ Ciprus. What about Iraq, Israel-Palestina, Africa, China-Tibet, North Korea, Cote d'Avoir, Albania, India-Pakistan, etc?). Random things? Shit, i just told you why i think UN is worthless. 1. Cause UN does nothing but documents and papers. 2. Cause they runned out of Iraq (we was talking about Iraq). 3. Cause the whole system of the veto and how it's organized is dumb. On a side note, i'm Italian. "We" didnt create UN. If you wanna make a joke about it, "they" created UN against "us" (and Germany-Japan...)