[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

OT: So who are we fighting exactly in Iraq and afganistan?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 5 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
9/14/2007  11:03 AM
Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by COSSUCKS:

You also fail to mention is its usually not American soilders killing them but other arabs/muslims killing them.
Agreed. Majority of the casualties (Iraqi and American) are because of the Shiah v. Sunni civil war.

War kills.
The acceptable mortality rate at major war games - 5%
When I was in Russian army and 100000 troops was involved in big war game couple of hundreds was killed (accident, friendly fair, crashing planes, helicopters, etc.).
We have 170000 in Iraq so you should expect about 3000 killed per year granted





"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
AUTOADVERT
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
9/14/2007  11:05 AM
Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by COSSUCKS:

You also fail to mention is its usually not American soilders killing them but other arabs/muslims killing them.
Agreed. Majority of the casualties (Iraqi and American) are because of the Shiah v. Sunni civil war.

Which Saddam kept in check and which the Bush Administration allowed to ignite again by their lack of forethought.
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/14/2007  11:31 AM
Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by COSSUCKS:

You also fail to mention is its usually not American soilders killing them but other arabs/muslims killing them.
Agreed. Majority of the casualties (Iraqi and American) are because of the Shiah v. Sunni civil war.

I said it was events that we set into motion. I never said it was Americans killing them. That doesn't alleviate us of responsibility. I've never seen an Iraqi civilian death toll count as low as 80,000 but even going by that conservative count, it means there are almost 30 Iraqi civilians dead for every American soldier.
JohnWallace44
Posts: 25119
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 6/14/2005
Member: #910
USA
9/14/2007  11:58 AM
Yeah, only Bush could take over a country with tons of oil reserves and see the price of oil go up in the US. That makes a lot of sense.
Alan Hahn: Nate Robinson has been on a ridonkulous scoring tear lately (remember when he couldn't hit Jerome James with a Big Mac in early January?)
JesseDark
Posts: 22829
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 9/9/2003
Member: #467
9/14/2007  12:10 PM
Posted by arkrud:
Posted by JesseDark:
Posted by TMS:

it's all about the control of the world's Oil supply & that's all it's ever been about.

You got it absolutely right. The only thing they are trying to stabilize is the ability of oil companies to get the oil.
Now that Bush is drawing up plan for Iran it makes it more clear that no challenge to the oil supply will be tolerated. If we are going to have Iraq fight Iran again we could've just left Saddaam in charge. They go at it every few years any way.

It is not about oil supply - it is about who is getting profits from oil supply.
The only reason why Saddam was removed was his drive to divert the pipes to Russia and replace American groups with Russian, French, and German based companies. It is quite clear why these countries were against the whole war thing. It is so obvious even child can understand this but not American people. Too much of brainwashing


arkrud, I think the distinction from oil supply to oil profits is trivial. Its still about the oil


[Edited by - jessedark on 09-14-2007 12:10 PM]
Bring back dee-fense
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
9/14/2007  12:23 PM
Posted by JesseDark:
Posted by arkrud:
Posted by JesseDark:
Posted by TMS:

it's all about the control of the world's Oil supply & that's all it's ever been about.

You got it absolutely right. The only thing they are trying to stabilize is the ability of oil companies to get the oil.
Now that Bush is drawing up plan for Iran it makes it more clear that no challenge to the oil supply will be tolerated. If we are going to have Iraq fight Iran again we could've just left Saddaam in charge. They go at it every few years any way.

It is not about oil supply - it is about who is getting profits from oil supply.
The only reason why Saddam was removed was his drive to divert the pipes to Russia and replace American groups with Russian, French, and German based companies. It is quite clear why these countries were against the whole war thing. It is so obvious even child can understand this but not American people. Too much of brainwashing


arkrud, I think the distinction from oil supply to oil profits is trivial. Its still about the oil


[Edited by - jessedark on 09-14-2007 12:10 PM]

Not the way the government propaganda pushes it.
They try to convince us that if we will lose control of oil in Middle East this will be disaster for American Economy, jobs, Americans way of life, bla...bla...bla...
The truth is we can get oil from Russia, Norway, Mexico; we have a huge oil field ourselves.
Somebody who controlling the government - huge military, oil, and reconstruction companies together with Saudis, Oman, etc. will lose big $$$$$. This is the only problem...





"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
COSSUCKS
Posts: 20984
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/15/2007
Member: #1569
9/14/2007  1:24 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by COSSUCKS:

You also fail to mention is its usually not American soilders killing them but other arabs/muslims killing them.
Agreed. Majority of the casualties (Iraqi and American) are because of the Shiah v. Sunni civil war.

I said it was events that we set into motion. I never said it was Americans killing them. That doesn't alleviate us of responsibility. I've never seen an Iraqi civilian death toll count as low as 80,000 but even going by that conservative count, it means there are almost 30 Iraqi civilians dead for every American soldier.

You must have missed the almost million or so people that Saddam killed. You must have missed all the mass graves we dug up with little kids in them that were assassinated. You want him back? If you never an Iraqi civilian count as low as 80,000 than please show us all the non biased websites that have it at the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that you claim. The UN has it below 80,000. What is this we stuff anyway? Have you ever served this country? Have you been in the service?
COSSUCKS
Posts: 20984
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/15/2007
Member: #1569
9/14/2007  1:26 PM
Posted by kam77:
Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by COSSUCKS:

You also fail to mention is its usually not American soilders killing them but other arabs/muslims killing them.
Agreed. Majority of the casualties (Iraqi and American) are because of the Shiah v. Sunni civil war.

Which Saddam kept in check and which the Bush Administration allowed to ignite again by their lack of forethought.

LOL yeah Saddam was a real peace keeper. He should get the nobel peace prize outside of almost 1 million murders, and countless rapes he and his sons were responsible for.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/14/2007  1:39 PM
Posted by COSSUCKS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by COSSUCKS:

You also fail to mention is its usually not American soilders killing them but other arabs/muslims killing them.
Agreed. Majority of the casualties (Iraqi and American) are because of the Shiah v. Sunni civil war.

I said it was events that we set into motion. I never said it was Americans killing them. That doesn't alleviate us of responsibility. I've never seen an Iraqi civilian death toll count as low as 80,000 but even going by that conservative count, it means there are almost 30 Iraqi civilians dead for every American soldier.

You must have missed the almost million or so people that Saddam killed. You must have missed all the mass graves we dug up with little kids in them that were assassinated. You want him back? If you never an Iraqi civilian count as low as 80,000 than please show us all the non biased websites that have it at the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that you claim. The UN has it below 80,000. What is this we stuff anyway? Have you ever served this country? Have you been in the service?
Great; so the US is kills due to negligence fewer people than Saddam killed. And all this time I wondered why the world consistently ranked us as one of the most dangerous nations usually up there with North Korea.
COSSUCKS
Posts: 20984
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/15/2007
Member: #1569
9/14/2007  1:45 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by COSSUCKS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by COSSUCKS:

You also fail to mention is its usually not American soilders killing them but other arabs/muslims killing them.
Agreed. Majority of the casualties (Iraqi and American) are because of the Shiah v. Sunni civil war.

I said it was events that we set into motion. I never said it was Americans killing them. That doesn't alleviate us of responsibility. I've never seen an Iraqi civilian death toll count as low as 80,000 but even going by that conservative count, it means there are almost 30 Iraqi civilians dead for every American soldier.

You must have missed the almost million or so people that Saddam killed. You must have missed all the mass graves we dug up with little kids in them that were assassinated. You want him back? If you never an Iraqi civilian count as low as 80,000 than please show us all the non biased websites that have it at the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that you claim. The UN has it below 80,000. What is this we stuff anyway? Have you ever served this country? Have you been in the service?
Great; so the US is kills due to negligence fewer people than Saddam killed. And all this time I wondered why the world consistently ranked us as one of the most dangerous nations usually up there with North Korea.

Once again as was pointed out before the US has not killed most those people. Its other Arabs that have killed most those people. You want to slander the USA service men and women and point the finger at them for those Iraqi deaths despite it being a blatant lie? Thats fine. Thats the freedom/right that other people have risked and or given their lives for so you can do just that.
By the way are you Muslim? If not Bin Ladin just said to become Muslim or be killed. I ask that question rhetorically since I know that you are not.

By the way do not take this as me wanting to be in Iraq. I wish we never went there and would like us out but thats because I'm selfish and I do not want Americans killed. We could be like many countries and just stand by while brutal dictators ruled their countries with a barbaric hand. George Washington originally wanted us to be that way. But when you have power that also comes with responsibility. Should the world and America have sat by when Hitler was trying to exterminate millions of people? Many people in the USA said we had no business going in to Germany. That they never attacked us. I'm proud that we did go in to Germany to do away with Hitler.


[Edited by - COSSUCKS on 09-14-2007 2:22 PM]
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/14/2007  2:26 PM
You don't have to pull the trigger to be negligent in someone's death. And no, I'm not blaming the troops but rather the politicians who sent the troops in to do this mission. (You've been watching too much Fox News or Rush Limbaugh if you thought that was an attack on the troops.)
Cookdcokehop
Posts: 22452
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 3/25/2005
Member: #880
USA
9/14/2007  2:35 PM
Oil Industry
COSSUCKS
Posts: 20984
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/15/2007
Member: #1569
9/14/2007  2:41 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:

You don't have to pull the trigger to be negligent in someone's death. And no, I'm not blaming the troops but rather the politicians who sent the troops in to do this mission. (You've been watching too much Fox News or Rush Limbaugh if you thought that was an attack on the troops.)

I dont watch either so quit making your ridiculous assumptions. Your saying they are negligent in their deaths is just playing word games. Speak clearly in no uncertain terms. Would you rather Saddam have been left in power with his sons?
Then a person via your word games could say you are negligent in the millions of murders and rapes that Saddam and his sons did since you were against military action to stop him
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/14/2007  3:44 PM
Posted by COSSUCKS:
Posted by Bonn1997:

You don't have to pull the trigger to be negligent in someone's death. And no, I'm not blaming the troops but rather the politicians who sent the troops in to do this mission. (You've been watching too much Fox News or Rush Limbaugh if you thought that was an attack on the troops.)

I dont watch either so quit making your ridiculous assumptions. Your saying they are negligent in their deaths is just playing word games. Speak clearly in no uncertain terms. Would you rather Saddam have been left in power with his sons?
Then a person via your word games could say you are negligent in the millions of murders and rapes that Saddam and his sons did since you were against military action to stop him
Maybe I would have saved more lives with other policies. I can't even imagine how many millions, maybe hundreds of millions of ill people around the world could have received medical treatment and starving people could have received food with the money spent on this war.


[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-14-2007 4:17 PM]
playa2
Posts: 34922
Alba Posts: 15
Joined: 5/15/2003
Member: #407
9/14/2007  3:48 PM
Posted by kam77:
Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by COSSUCKS:

You also fail to mention is its usually not American soilders killing them but other arabs/muslims killing them.
Agreed. Majority of the casualties (Iraqi and American) are because of the Shiah v. Sunni civil war.

Which Saddam kept in check and which the Bush Administration allowed to ignite again by their lack of forethought.

They (us govt)wanted chaos , so they could prolong the deployment knowing insurgents would rise up and defend their individual cities.

That is how we take over Iraq oil fields and get those re-building contract with halliburton.

JAMES DOLAN on Isiah : He's a good friend of mine and of the organization and I will continue to solicit his views. He will always have strong ties to me and the team.
Silverfuel
Posts: 31751
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 6/27/2002
Member: #268
USA
9/14/2007  4:17 PM
Posted by COSSUCKS:
Posted by Bonn1997:

You don't have to pull the trigger to be negligent in someone's death. And no, I'm not blaming the troops but rather the politicians who sent the troops in to do this mission. (You've been watching too much Fox News or Rush Limbaugh if you thought that was an attack on the troops.)
I dont watch either so quit making your ridiculous assumptions. Your saying they are negligent in their deaths is just playing word games. Speak clearly in no uncertain terms. Would you rather Saddam have been left in power with his sons?
The problem with this war is that it was never about Saddam and his sons. If the intentions were that noble, the outcome (even today) would be much better but Bush cannot fool us or the Iraqi's. The Iraqi's don't see us as liberators. The see us as invaders. 90% of the blogs in that region (including Iraqi blogs) say we didn't free the Iraqi's from Saddam, we are merely creating another Saddam who will give us the oil. This is why they are fighting each other and they are fighting us. They don't like us just as much as they don't like each other.

You know what I am really upset about? I'm really upset that Bin Laden isn't found. I am upset that the 9/11 perpetrators are running free in Pakistan and Afghanistan while young Americans are protecting oil rigs and Halliburton contractors. If it was about crimes against humanity, Darfur would never be ignored. It would be dealt with first.
Then a person via your word games could say you are negligent in the millions of murders and rapes that Saddam and his sons did since you were against military action to stop him
Fuck Saddam. I am glad he is dead. The problem is that a US administration created him. And Bin Laden. And we will continue to do so until we seriously examine and improve our foreign policy.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
9/14/2007  6:21 PM
Iraqi health minister estimates total number of civilian deaths at 150,000

BAGHDAD (AP) - A stunning new death count emerged Thursday, as Iraq's health minister estimated at least 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war, about three times previously accepted estimates.

Moderate Sunni Muslims, meanwhile, threatened to walk away from politics and pick up guns, while the Shiite-dominated government renewed pressure on the United States to unleash the Iraqi army and claimed it could crush violence in six months.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/061109/w110978.html

Tony Blair called that the most accurate estimate
When Tony Blair was asked about the Lancet report in December 2004, he responded that, “Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is.”
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_643.shtml

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-14-2007 6:24 PM]
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
9/14/2007  9:23 PM
In any case the free path policy for US is over.
Russia regains the muscles and Iran or any other invasion is not possible any more.
200 Russian commandos stopped the bombing in Serbia in 2 hours when Russia was in ruins.
Now I don’t think we can even start the air complain in Iran with 500 MIGs positioned across Russia-Tajikistan border with all this Air defense systems all over South Siberia.
And China, Russia, and India close to integrating Iran in Asia Defense block.
We do get oil but political price can be too high.


[Edited by - arkrud on 09-14-2007 9:24 PM]

[Edited by - arkrud on 09-14-2007 9:25 PM]

[Edited by - arkrud on 09-14-2007 9:25 PM]
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
GoNyGoNyGo
Posts: 23559
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/29/2003
Member: #411
USA
9/15/2007  4:04 AM
Mind numb robots.
COSSUCKS
Posts: 20984
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/15/2007
Member: #1569
9/15/2007  7:56 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Iraqi health minister estimates total number of civilian deaths at 150,000

BAGHDAD (AP) - A stunning new death count emerged Thursday, as Iraq's health minister estimated at least 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war, about three times previously accepted estimates.

Moderate Sunni Muslims, meanwhile, threatened to walk away from politics and pick up guns, while the Shiite-dominated government renewed pressure on the United States to unleash the Iraqi army and claimed it could crush violence in six months.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/061109/w110978.html

Tony Blair called that the most accurate estimate
When Tony Blair was asked about the Lancet report in December 2004, he responded that, “Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is.”
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_643.shtml

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-14-2007 6:24 PM]

Is the truth important to you at all or just your hype?

You clearly just lied about Tony Blair. He never said this latest report was the most accurate estimate as you claimed. He said the number in 2004 was the most accurate estimate.

If you believe so strongly in it why arent you going to Iraq to help the Iraqis? Do you think you would be welcomed or would you likely have your head cut off because of your religion?

Most Americans do not want us to be in Iraq but the problem is you always look to over hype the negative and deceive people instead of just looking at the actual facts. That goes for Iraq and the Knicks.

You seem to get something (almost always negative) in your mind and that is that. Your mind is made up. It doesnt matter what the truth is. You will always look to ignore or minimize any positive and over hype any negative. Once again that goes for the Knicks as well.

[Edited by - COSSUCKS on 09-15-2007 08:28 AM]
Page 2 of 5 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
OT: So who are we fighting exactly in Iraq and afganistan?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy