Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

We don't do bodycounts

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    sovtek wrote: »
    I have listened to plenty of American news and plenty of American views. I am from Texas actually. Still, I would back up Akrasia's assertions here fully.

    Yes, I'm sure you are.
    I would support those who do in principle and would be there myself if possible.
    Allowing them through Shannon implicates the Irish government in a war crime as well as the Irish people in general. Those who take a stand against it are rejecting that institutional crime and I fully support that despite being American myself.

    I have yet to understand the mindset. Do you believe then, that the murders ordered by Saddam were not crimes then. Or you don't care because the Iraqis did not land in Shannon?


  • Options
    #33
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    wes wrote: »
    Lets be realistic here. That will never happen (stand trial for war crimes).

    That's possible, although you have to remember that America is slowly loosing its grip on power in international institutions and in reputation in general. It's not inconceivable that 30 years from now things might be very different. Still I do not think there are statute of limitations here. Pinochet cheated his date with justice by the short hairs. There are other war crimes trials taking place in Latin America at the moment. Back in the day when they were supported by the CIA they probably thought that would never happen. Never say never.


  • Options
    #34
    MeatProduct
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭MeatProduct


    mrgalway wrote: »
    I have yet to understand the mindset. Do you believe then, that the murders ordered by Saddam were not crimes then. Or you don't care because the Iraqis did not land in Shannon?
    MrGalway, to my knowledge no one here is trying to justify those in Iraq who are killing American soldiers or indeed what Saddam did in his time. It seems you are trying to argue against a point that doesn't really exist here, but I know how blinded people can get with the anti-US vibe.

    Nick


  • Options
    #35
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Yes, I'm sure you are.

    I am what?


    I have yet to understand the mindset. Do you believe then, that the murders ordered by Saddam were not crimes then. Or you don't care because the Iraqis did not land in Shannon?

    When did I nor anyone countering your argument state that we supported Saddam and what does it have to do with American troops killing civilians and being a catalyst for sectarian violence?
    Anyway Saddam was illegally tried and executed for his efforts. If there was real justice he would have been tried with his buddies...ie Rumsfeld et. al. in the Hague.


  • Options
    #36
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    MeatProduct wrote: »
    MrGalway, to my knowledge no one here is trying to justify those in Iraq who are killing American soldiers or indeed what Saddam did in his time.

    Just to clarify my point.
    Actually I would justify Iraqi's killing American soldiers. They invaded Iraq and are legitimate targets. The Americans as occupiers have no right to be there and therefore no rights (only responsibilities) other than what the Geneva Convention allows combatants.
    I back up Akrasia's point however...that if it is justifiable for American troops to kill civilians because of their impossible situation then it follows that it's ok for the insurgents to do likewise. Of course I think that both are committing war crimes and neither taking of civilian life is justified.
    Furthermore I have yet to witness anyone on this board being "blinded" by the "anti-US" stance. People mostly argue against the policies of the Bush regime and rightly so in my opinion. When people accuse me of that I laugh. Its like calling American Jews who take principled stand against the Israeli government/military (being in the majority no less) "self hating Jews"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    Actually, I had better state something here. I am neither a right winger, a conservative nor obviously not a liberal. In fact I am against the war.

    I cannot stand the blatant propoganda comming out from Fox news but at the same time I also cannot stand the aptly put "anti-US vibe" that causes otherwise sane people to call US soldiers who have left their jobs, their wives or husbands, the sons and daughters for up to 14 months at a place where the only thing guaranteed is a chance of being killed or maimed, as murderers and war criminals. That is not right, that is as bad as what you expect from the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity!

    On a separate note, a mod has accused me of insulting meatproducts. It was not intentional and I humbly appologize for the insult.


  • Options
    #38
    MeatProduct
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭MeatProduct


    sovtek wrote: »
    Furthermore I have yet to witness anyone on this board being "blinded" by the "anti-US" stance. People mostly argue against the policies of the Bush regime and rightly so in my opinion. When people accuse me of that I laugh. Its like calling American Jews who take principled stand against the Israeli government/military (being in the majority no less) "self hating Jews"
    I disagree with any killing of a human, it shouldn't even be the last option. It's a childish way of dealing with our issues as a civilisation, hoping the problem will go away by eradicating those who are percieved to be causing the problem. The world is not getting better through the means of death, although we are certainly masters of it now.

    I am not suggesting that there are people here on boards that are overtly anti-US, I was commenting that I know how they are. But I would agree, too many people use that finger-pointing "your a liberal" as a means of avoiding issues. Again, the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm, it all comes down to personal responsibility.

    Nick


  • Options
    #39
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Actually, I had better state something here. I am neither a right winger, a conservative nor obviously not a liberal. In fact I am against the war.

    I cannot stand the blatant propoganda comming out from Fox news but at the same time I also cannot stand the aptly put "anti-US vibe" that causes otherwise sane people to call US soldiers who have left their jobs, their wives or husbands, the sons and daughters for up to 14 months at a place where the only thing guaranteed is a chance of being killed or maimed, as murderers and war criminals. That is not right, that is as bad as what you expect from the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity!

    No matter what hardships the US soldiers encounter as such they are there of their own free will. They could obey their own code of conduct and resist being deployed to Iraq. It's not a nice choice but its the only legal avenue left for them. It's a fact to call them as such and therefore not only right but accurate. That's unlike O'Reilly in that he attacks whomever disagrees with him personally and when he starts to loose an argument. No one here has yet to do that.
    If you want to look at the other side it would be wrong for you to refer to Iraqi insurgents as murderers considering their far more difficult situation. One they had no say in, unlike the US soldier, whatsoever.


  • Options
    #40
    MeatProduct
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭MeatProduct


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Actually, I had better state something here. I am neither a right winger, a conservative nor obviously not a liberal. In fact I am against the war.

    I cannot stand the blatant propoganda comming out from Fox news but at the same time I also cannot stand the aptly put "anti-US vibe" that causes otherwise sane people to call US soldiers who have left their jobs, their wives or husbands, the sons and daughters for up to 14 months at a place where the only thing guaranteed is a chance of being killed or maimed, as murderers and war criminals. That is not right, that is as bad as what you expect from the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity!

    On a separate note, a mod has accused me of insulting meatproducts. It was not intentional and I humbly appologize for the insult.
    Apology accepted MrGalway, appreciated.

    Yes, they leave their jobs and their families and kill people with jobs and families in a different country. There are two sides to this. They are going into a war, it's not a computer game, it's their error if they are not prepared for the harshness of the situation. There is an anti-US vibe for very good reasons. I am not satisified with their reasons for killing hundreds of thousands of people, I think you can expect some people to be a bit upset with the US because of that.

    Nick


  • Options
    #41
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Actually, I had better state something here. I am neither a right winger, a conservative nor obviously not a liberal. In fact I am against the war.

    I cannot stand the blatant propoganda comming out from Fox news but at the same time I also cannot stand the aptly put "anti-US vibe" that causes otherwise sane people to call US soldiers who have left their jobs, their wives or husbands, the sons and daughters for up to 14 months at a place where the only thing guaranteed is a chance of being killed or maimed, as murderers and war criminals. That is not right, that is as bad as what you expect from the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity!

    On a separate note, a mod has accused me of insulting meatproducts. It was not intentional and I humbly appologize for the insult.

    The "anti-US vibe" as you call it is perfectly justified. The US empire has for years ignored commen sense and human justice in its dealings with other countries. Any godshit with brains can see that. None of your points make sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    nice1franko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭nice1franko


    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


  • Options
    #43
    FYI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭FYI


    MeatProduct wrote: »
    MrGalway, to my knowledge no one here is trying to justify those in Iraq who are killing American soldiers or indeed what Saddam did in his time. It seems you are trying to argue against a point that doesn't really exist here, but I know how blinded people can get with the anti-US vibe.
    Nick


    If Russia invaded the US would you object to an armed US resistance?


  • Options
    #44
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    I cannot stand the blatant propoganda comming out from Fox news but at the same time I also cannot stand the aptly put "anti-US vibe" that causes otherwise sane people to call US soldiers who have left their jobs, their wives or husbands, the sons and daughters for up to 14 months at a place where the only thing guaranteed is a chance of being killed or maimed, as murderers and war criminals. That is not right, that is as bad as what you expect from the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity! Quote mrgalway

    The US is in Iraq and soldiers in times of war (its the status that the US gives itself)they are expected to die if needs be .So when they join up (not conscripted) they expect to see terrible things ,maybe get killed ,maimed etc.
    So dont join up and then they wont have to leave families.Its a choice they have or had to join the army.


  • Options
    #45
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    I am not satisified with their reasons for killing hundreds of thousands of people, I think you can expect some people to be a bit upset with the US because of that.

    Again, how do you come up with the "hunderds of thousands" number?

    If that was true, do you think that there would not be thousands of videos on Youtube of the killings or hundreds of thousands of pictures of dead bodys on Webshots and the other online albums?

    There isn't for a reason, because human nature does not condone it.


  • Options
    #46
    nice1franko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭nice1franko


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Again, how do you come up with the "hunderds of thousands" number?

    hundreds of thousands of deaths have indeed occurred because of the invasion

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Total_Iraqi_casualties


  • Options
    #47
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    meditraitor wrote: »
    The "anti-US vibe" as you call it is perfectly justified. The US empire has for years ignored commen sense and human justice in its dealings with other countries. Any godshit with brains can see that. None of your points make sense.

    Yes, an open mind.


  • Options
    #48
    MeatProduct
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭MeatProduct


    FYI wrote: »
    If Russia invaded the US would you object to an armed US resistance?
    I would not object to an armed resistance against an agressor if that response was to remove the direct cause to the attack and go no further like killing those not responsible. This is the real world and these things happen and most likely always will. It would be nice to have seen a general trend of progress throughout history. There will always be those who will disregard others for the sake of their own ego. Do they need to be killed, probably not, removing them from their position of power would be quite effective. Maybe having them experience the situation they have created would give some perspective to their past actions.

    What would you suggest in that scenario FYI?

    Nick


  • Options
    #49
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Again, how do you come up with the "hunderds of thousands" number?

    If that was true, do you think that there would not be thousands of videos on Youtube of the killings or hundreds of thousands of pictures of dead bodys on Webshots and the other online albums?

    There isn't for a reason, because human nature does not condone it.

    What sort of figure would you estimate mrgalway as to casualties since the invasion of Iraq?


  • Options
    #50
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    Let's see. The programme so far.


    The US invaded Iraq
    Defeated them and Removed Saddam
    They devised a hairbrained Jeffersonian Democracy type government for them
    They held free elections
    A Coalition of Shia parties gained power and are running the governent
    The US tried to train an Iraqi Army to take over so that most could go home and some could stay at a local base
    Some Sunnis decided to destabilise the governmetn by blowing up Shia
    The Shia retaliated.
    The US is still there trying to keep the two sides appart and getting killed in the process.
    Some pacifist in Ireland are calling them war criminals.

    Pretty much sums up the pertinent details up to now.


  • Options
    #51
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    What sort of figure would you estimate mrgalway as to casualties since the invasion of Iraq?


    What? Total "bodycount" caused by the US Army, Regular Iraqi Army and Blackwater or the "bodycount" caused by the Sectarian Militias, the Sectarian Militia members that infiltrated the Iraqi Army and Police Forces and the suicide bombers?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    MeatProduct
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭MeatProduct


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Again, how do you come up with the "hunderds of thousands" number?

    If that was true, do you think that there would not be thousands of videos on Youtube of the killings or hundreds of thousands of pictures of dead bodys on Webshots and the other online albums?

    There isn't for a reason, because human nature does not condone it.

    Again? Why again MrGalway? What other figure did I come up with before this? According to a Lancet survey found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
    from the start of the war until June 2006 654,965 of excess deaths have occured of which 31% were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown.

    Human nature is quite happy to lay down and plug up it's ears and ignore the big bad world. The massive use of prescription drugs should evidence that.

    Nick


  • Options
    #53
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    mrgalway wrote: »
    What? Total "bodycount" caused by the US Army, Regular Iraqi Army and Blackwater or the "bodycount" caused by the Sectarian Militias, the Sectarian Militia members that infiltrated the Iraqi Army and Police Forces and the suicide bombers?

    I think you are being a bit coy.I said total casualties so that would include all your categories.


  • Options
    #54
    nice1franko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭nice1franko


    mrgalway wrote: »
    If that was true, do you think that there would not be thousands of videos on Youtube of the killings or hundreds of thousands of pictures of dead bodys on Webshots and the other online albums?
    try googling it mr galway.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1_k4xHJd4rY

    then try googling a lot more ... I fear you've a lot to learn about the world.

    edit-

    also, if someone uses the term "american empire" it doesn't mean they don't have an open mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire


  • Options
    #55
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    mrgalway wrote: »
    Let's see. The programme so far.


    The US invaded Iraq
    Defeated them and Removed Saddam
    They devised a hairbrained Jeffersonian Democracy type government for them
    They held free elections
    A Coalition of Shia parties gained power and are running the governent
    The US tried to train an Iraqi Army to take over so that most could go home and some could stay at a local base
    Some Sunnis decided to destabilise the governmetn by blowing up Shia
    The Shia retaliated.
    The US is still there trying to keep the two sides appart and getting killed in the process.
    Some pacifist in Ireland are calling them war criminals.

    Pretty much sums up the pertinent details up to now.

    That's a pretty blinkered list


  • Options
    #56
    FYI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭FYI


    mrgalway wrote: »
    What? Total "bodycount" caused by the US Army, Regular Iraqi Army and Blackwater or the "bodycount" caused by the Sectarian Militias, the Sectarian Militia members that infiltrated the Iraqi Army and Police Forces and the suicide bombers?


    "to initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"


  • Options
    #57
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    MeatProduct wrote: »
    Again? Why again MrGalway? What other figure did I come up with before this? According to a Lancet survey found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
    from the start of the war until June 2006 654,965 of excess deaths have occured of which 31% were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown.

    Human nature is quite happy to lay down and plug up it's ears and ignore the big bad world. The massive use of prescription drugs should evidence that.

    Nick


    I actually prefer reading the Wiki discussion as there tend to be a lot of revisionists as well as people pushing their own agenda being the main contributors.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

    If I may quote the first couple of paragraphs of some very interesting reading:
    The biggest objection to the Lancet survey is that if 654,965 excess deaths occurred in 1200 days, there would be an average of 546 deaths per day. Why aren't we hearing those kinds of numbers? On the other hand, I agree that the methodology used by Lancet if done correctly should yield the correct results. The question is - was it done correctly? The first thing that came to mind is the honesty of the interviewers. From Wikipedia's article:

    Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels, was quoted in an interview for Nature.com saying that Burnham's team have published "inflated" numbers that "discredit" the process of estimating death counts. "Why are they doing this?" she asks. "It's because of the elections.". However, another interviewer a week later paints a more measured picture of her criticisms: "She has some methodological concerns about the paper, including the use of local people — who might have opposed the occupation — as interviewers.

    Yes, that wiki entry is a very good reference for supporting someones notion of hundreds of thousands of people were killed by the Americans.

    Do you know what a pile of 654,965 would look like. Or 546? If this was indeed true, do you not think that some news source, Al Jazeera perhaps, would have uncovered such a huge slaughter?


  • Options
    #58
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    sovtek wrote: »
    That's a pretty blinkered list


    Why is it blinkered? Because I have not included terms like killers, butchers, war criminals in it?

    That is a unbiased list of what has happened there so far.


  • Options
    #59
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    FYI wrote: »
    "to initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"

    Actually, it was an enforcement of UN sactions set back in 1991. But that is neither here nor there.


  • Options
    #60
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    With respect mrgalway I would be most interested in what your figure or rough estimate to date is on the total casualties are as a result of the Iraq invasion as you appear to be disputing other posters figures without putting forward your own .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    mrgalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭mrgalway


    FYI wrote: »
    "to initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"


    I am not sure how you can call it a "war of aggression" in an un-biased sort of way.

    Germany invading Poland, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Greece and even Russia were wars of agression. Iraq invading Kuwait and Iran before were also wars of agression.

    This was a means of getting rid of a dictator who was a butcher at times. The prolonged stay to support a disgrace for a government is a disgrace.


Advertisement