Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Ok, say you are right...where do you get your numbers from?
Guys I know that were there and are still there since the beginning. Its a guesstimate at best but the bodies that had to be collected were staggering.
But bear in mind Im the kind of guy that knows deaths are a part of something like this.
Something changed in america over the last 50 years. No one raised a peeep when we slaughtered over 600,000 women and children (read almost no men) on the cities of dresden, frankfurt and many cities in the Ruhr valley. Because it is either us or them. Now it seems many people would rather see our guys killed. Very perplexing.
I know, i know youll say well our guys shouldnt be there in harms way to begin.....well they are and its still the same as it has been for 10 thousand years of warfare....Us or them. I prefer them.
EDIT: Along that same line if ww2 happened today with the same technology as back then but with the current mindset many americans would oppose the atomic bombs in Japan. They would either say, ok Japan is not really a threat now or make our guys go in and get slaughtered on their way to victory. This is what I am saying about the change of thinking in todays world. And truth be told I think its very sad and probably the downfall of america at some point in the future as the #1 world power.
__________________
Goal for 2008: Half as many penalties.
Last edited by swd1974; October 28th, 2004 at 12:50 PM.
UPDATE: After reading the TNR analysis of the article, I guess that what the number illustrates is that 100,000 more people died than might have been expected under a continuing period under Saddam Hussein. The study apparently factors in things like people dying from heat exhaustion because of downed power, bad water, etc. Much of it also from artillery and indescriminate bombing.
SWD: I'm guessing that the difference between this and Dresden is that in Germany it was viewed as "us or them." In Iraq, this was totally a war of choice, and was allegedly to save Iraqi civillians.
What about the deaths caused by suicide bombers and insurgent snipers? This article makes it seem like 90% of these deaths were caused by our bombers and air attacks and almost all of the dead were women and children. Do you honestly believe our air power has killed 100,000 people since the war ended. That would equate to about 143 people per day, every day since the war ended. Can you imagine this happening even once without the main news media being all over it? Except for the past month or so, we were hardly conducting any bombing raids at all.
Please bear in mind that this study is being done by a very liberal leaning group of people who just happened to realease this report prematurely only a couple of days before the election. What a co-incidence.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
What about the deaths caused by suicide bombers and insurgent snipers? This article makes it seem like 90% of these deaths were caused by our bombers and air attacks and almost all of the dead were women and children. Do you honestly believe our air power has killed 100,000 people since the war ended. That would equate to about 143 people per day, every day since the war ended. Can you imagine this happening even once without the main news media being all over it? Except for the past month or so, we were hardly conducting any bombing raids at all.
Please bear in mind that this study is being done by a very liberal leaning group of people who just happened to realease this report prematurely only a couple of days before the election. What a co-incidence.
Psst...Actually the report is putting that figure at 95% of the deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships.
What about the deaths caused by suicide bombers and insurgent snipers? This article makes it seem like 90% of these deaths were caused by our bombers and air attacks and almost all of the dead were women and children. Do you honestly believe our air power has killed 100,000 people since the war ended. That would equate to about 143 people per day, every day since the war ended. Can you imagine this happening even once without the main news media being all over it? Except for the past month or so, we were hardly conducting any bombing raids at all.
Please bear in mind that this study is being done by a very liberal leaning group of people who just happened to realease this report prematurely only a couple of days before the election. What a co-incidence.
I'm not defending the report, but I think all the things you mentioned are included in their numbers. Would there be say, suicide bombers without our invasion?
I think we all know that thousands of innocent people have been caught up in this war and the events that have followed.
It's your right to disregard it, I just think this group of people have been ignored no matter the numbers.
Please bear in mind that this study is being done by a very liberal leaning group of people who just happened to realease this report prematurely only a couple of days before the election. What a co-incidence.
I was thinking about this today and it really made me chuckle. The Republicans are crying foul because this week there have been numerous reports of things going wrong for the Bush Administration. My question is two fold: Why should this week be any different from the rest of the year when almost weekly we got news reports of scandals: Abu Grhab, WMDs missing, Halliburton over charging - FBI investigating, Bremmer saying not enough troops, Condi saying those aluminum tubes were up in the air, The last job report wasn't as high as people predicted it would be, etc. etc. etc.
This week's news reports aren't October surprises Cons - THEY ARE PAR FOR THE COURSE WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION.
Hell - the Bush administration could have held off the "October Surprise" about the Al-Caca stuff - they had the info two weeks ago according to the White House - but did they say anything about it? No - they hid it like they hide everything else.
And now today we get word that the latest Bush as was completely doctored and until a liberal website called the RNC on it:
I was thinking about this today and it really made me chuckle. The Republicans are crying foul because this week there have been numerous reports of things going wrong for the Bush Administration. My question is two fold: Why should this week be any different from the rest of the year when almost weekly we got news reports of scandals: Abu Grhab, WMDs missing, Halliburton over charging - FBI investigating, Bremmer saying not enough troops, Condi saying those aluminum tubes were up in the air, The last job report wasn't as high as people predicted it would be, etc. etc. etc.
This week's news reports aren't October surprises Cons - THEY ARE PAR FOR THE COURSE WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION.
Hell - the Bush administration could have held off the "October Surprise" about the Al-Caca stuff - they had the info two weeks ago according to the White House - but did they say anything about it? No - they hid it like they hide everything else.
And now today we get word that the latest Bush as was completely doctored and until a liberal website called the RNC on it:
I'm sure that was just an honest mistake, though, right?
October Surprise - hell - I guess we should name it the 2004 Surprise if you base it on bad news for the administration.
Isn't it interesting that this guy who created the ad seems like the first person in the last four years of the administration to take responsibility for anything?
Quote:
"There was no need to do that," said Mark McKinnon, head of Bush's advertising team who shouldered the blame. "Everyone technically works for me so I accept the responsibility."
If only the rest of the Administration could be this forthright.
I was thinking about this today and it really made me chuckle. The Republicans are crying foul because this week there have been numerous reports of things going wrong for the Bush Administration. My question is two fold: Why should this week be any different from the rest of the year when almost weekly we got news reports of scandals: Abu Grhab, WMDs missing, Halliburton over charging - FBI investigating, Bremmer saying not enough troops, Condi saying those aluminum tubes were up in the air, The last job report wasn't as high as people predicted it would be, etc. etc. etc.
This week's news reports aren't October surprises Cons - THEY ARE PAR FOR THE COURSE WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION.
Hell - the Bush administration could have held off the "October Surprise" about the Al-Caca stuff - they had the info two weeks ago according to the White House - but did they say anything about it? No - they hid it like they hide everything else.
And now today we get word that the latest Bush as was completely doctored and until a liberal website called the RNC on it:
I'm sure that was just an honest mistake, though, right?
October Surprise - hell - I guess we should name it the 2004 Surprise if you base it on bad news for the administration.
Hasn't Kerry been saying all along that Bush won't admit his mistakes? What happened here? And all this coming from the party who had Michael Moore as their political spokesman? Does the word hypocrite come to mind?
Most of the things you mention here would have hardly merited a two paragraph article in the back of the newspaper if it weren't for the liberal biased media. CBS and the NY Times have taken the lead on most of this and turned it into a 3 ringed circus. Helps to have the media on your side, doesn't it?
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Hasn't Kerry been saying all along that Bush won't admit his mistakes? What happened here? And all this coming from the party who had Michael Moore as their political spokesman? Does the word hypocrite come to mind?
Most of the things you mention here would have hardly merited a two paragraph article in the back of the newspaper if it weren't for the liberal biased media. CBS and the NY Times have taken the lead on most of this and turned it into a 3 ringed circus. Helps to have the media on your side, doesn't it?
But it's the Democrats who are desperate. Remember that, fellas.
Hasn't Kerry been saying all along that Bush won't admit his mistakes? What happened here? And all this coming from the party who had Michael Moore as their political spokesman? Does the word hypocrite come to mind?
Most of the things you mention here would have hardly merited a two paragraph article in the back of the newspaper if it weren't for the liberal biased media. CBS and the NY Times have taken the lead on most of this and turned it into a 3 ringed circus. Helps to have the media on your side, doesn't it?
Edit:
Oh and BTW, I'm sure Bush personally authorized this change just like he did over in Iraq when he told the military not to guard the high explosives at Al Qaaqaa.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Linear Mode
