More money for war

[ra2fanatic]

i think that america is lucky cuz unlike most countries all we hav is an army that is "voluntary" where we choose to sign that dotted line or not. other countries require that wen u turn 18 u gotta join for min 2 yrs. so those that havn't served, count urself lucky that thers no draft or ne thing. by all means i'm not being bitter or ne thing, but it sux wen i felt americans didn't hav ne support for us while we watched cnn out there.

as for the gi bill, it was attached to the original spending bill to help alleviate hardships for soldies goin to skool rite now gettin barely like 400/month. by passin this new bill, i'd be getthin close to $1k for goin to skool now w/ my new kicker and having spent time overseas it helps me a lot tryin to get my civilian life set again.

i'm not tryin to downplay the deaths of americans or iraqis, but if u think of other things like death my lungcancer, heartattacks or car accidents, they far exceed the deaths out there to bak home. =\ no1 pays attention to those other numbers cuz the war is always the first headline and the news is biased, they show u wat they want u to see. if u saw the good things we did out there, i'm sure americans would seee more light to things...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Documented by who?
How many missing?
I can find you at least 15 other links that "document" more than 300,000...

Again, empty wish Scotty...

About the Iraq Body Count project

IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.

• IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
• IBC records solely violent deaths.
• IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
• IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised.

[Robertbog]

Originally Posted by ra2fanatic

i think that america is lucky cuz unlike most countries all we hav is an army that is "voluntary" where we choose to sign that dotted line or not. other countries require that wen u turn 18 u gotta join for min 2 yrs. so those that havn't served, count urself lucky that thers no draft or ne thing. by all means i'm not being bitter or ne thing, but it sux wen i felt americans didn't hav ne support for us while we watched cnn out there.

as for the gi bill, it was attached to the original spending bill to help alleviate hardships for soldies goin to skool rite now gettin barely like 400/month. by passin this new bill, i'd be getthin close to $1k for goin to skool now w/ my new kicker and having spent time overseas it helps me a lot tryin to get my civilian life set again.

i'm not tryin to downplay the deaths of americans or iraqis, but if u think of other things like death my lungcancer, heartattacks or car accidents, they far exceed the deaths out there to bak home. =\ no1 pays attention to those other numbers cuz the war is always the first headline and the news is biased, they show u wat they want u to see. if u saw the good things we did out there, i'm sure americans would seee more light to things...

You still need some skool...

America in all of her ignorant majesty

[scottwww]

A known British Mullah Mr. Anjum Chaudri describes the "Killing of Innocent" Non-Muslims civilians in suicide bombings as "Legitimate".

[scottwww]

[e90im]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Never forget.

Fear mongering, religious fundamentalist propaganda dressed up as patriotism.

Ask yourself why these brainwashed nothing-to-lose morons did what they did!!!

Answer: Retaliation.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by e90im

Fear mongering, religious fundamentalist propaganda dressed up as patriotism.

Ask yourself why these brainwashed nothing-to-lose morons did what they did!!!

Answer: Retaliation.

Tell us more. Why did your friends do this?

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by scottwww

About the Iraq Body Count project

IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.

• IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
• IBC records solely violent deaths.
• IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
• IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised.

Read between the lines.

Biased source.

"The project collects and analyses reports written or published in the English language."

Think they might miss a couple here and there?

Doesn't include U.S. soldiers. Allied soldiers not counted. Iraqi soldiers not counted. Contractors not counted.

They don't count 'non-civilians', which is wide open to interpretation (even with their 'rigorous' methods).

This organisation only uses death reports published in Western Media, and only from English-language sources. They're in London.

More info from IBC:

"After six months of analysis, he concluded that 20 percent of Iraqi civilian casualties were women and children and that U.S. and coalition forces were responsible for more than a third of civilian casualties."

[Neurorad]

From IBC wiki:

Who did the killing?

37%. US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
9%. Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
36%. Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
11%. Unknown agents (11%).

[Neurorad]

More from Wiki:

Independent journalist Dahr Jamail spent over eight months reporting from occupied Iraq. In a January 15, 2006 email quoted in a January 26, 2006 Media Lens article[5] he wrote: "Due to their [IBC] sources and lack of adequate Arab media in them (who do a much better job of reporting Iraqi civilian casualty counts), it is heavily biased towards western outlets which have from the beginning done a dismal (at best) job of reporting on the air war and consequent civ. casualties."

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Tell us more. Why did your friends do this?

Go back to post #22 and tell us why did YOUR friends do that!!!
Then, the answer to your question will come logically...

If you can't answer, I can post another 1000 links like that from ALL over the world to clarify it for you...

Again, Canadians for example are prosperous, love their country, have high standard of living, and MIND OWN BUSINESS, and no one touches them... Get it???

[ganeil]

There are a number of estimates on civilian casualties in Iraq. The Congressional Research Service issued a report recently that can be found here.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Read between the lines.

Biased source.

"The project collects and analyses reports written or published in the English language."

Think they might miss a couple here and there?

Doesn't include U.S. soldiers. Allied soldiers not counted. Iraqi soldiers not counted. Contractors not counted.

They don't count 'non-civilians', which is wide open to interpretation (even with their 'rigorous' methods).

This organisation only uses death reports published in Western Media, and only from English-language sources. They're in London.

More info from IRB:

"After six months of analysis, he concluded that 20 percent of Iraqi civilian casualties were women and children and that U.S. and coalition forces were responsible for more than a third of civilian casualties."

Hey Nimrod... or Neurorad... your information looks like it probably came from Wikipedia. If you consider more of the article, you would see that the bias is from the left. The people that operate IBC are leftists.

Also, the numbers include violent deaths due to crime. This would reasonably seem to inflate the numbers, because whether there were war or not, there would still be deaths due to crime.

I offered this source as it is a source that is often cited. It looked like one that used a reasonable approach to making a count. It doesn't serve war supporters as you seem to imply. Both right and left have criticised the reports for various reasons. I would expect that any other source you might offer, unless it be an unknown source, would also be criticized. Though IBC is obviously biased to the left, at least the method is reasonable.

So, screw off, Nimrod.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Go back to post #22 and tell us why did YOUR friends do that!!!
Then, the answer to your question will come logically...

If you can't answer, I can post another 1000 links like that from ALL over the world to clarify it for you...

Again, Canadians for example are prosperous, love their country, have high standard of living, and MIND OWN BUSINESS, and no one touches them... Get it???

I am not asking you to regurgitate what I could find on a web search if I were so inclined to pursue it. Give us something from the inside. What is it you talk about with them that could give us better insight as to why they terrorize?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Go back to post #22 and tell us why did YOUR friends do that!!!

I went back and took a look at your links. Does it make you feel better to know that MY FRIENDS didn't do that. YOUR friends did. Aren't you a Clintonista? Certainly not I. Clinton bombed in Yugo probably just to deflect attention from his pending impeachment.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I am not asking you to regurgitate what I could find on a web search if I were so inclined to pursue it. Give us something from the inside. What is it you talk about with them that could give us better insight as to why they terrorize?

WHy do Israeli terrorize Palestinians???
Because they want "Israeli" lands and they won't leave them alone...
WHy does Iran want to have nukes?
Because they want to protect (rather than attack) themselves from what happened to Iraq, Palestine, Syria...

People get pissed when you occupy their lands...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

WHy does Iran want to have nukes?
Because they want to protect (rather than attack) themselves from what happened to Iraq, Palestine, Syria...

People get pissed when you occupy their lands...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel.

"Accept that the life of Zionists will sooner or later come to an end," the Iranian president said in a televised speech.

reported"]Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said the world would witness the destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today echoed his earlier threats to "wipe Israel off the map" by telling a mass demonstration in Tehran, commemorating the 27th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, that Palestinians and "other nations" will remove Israel from the region...

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Hey Nimrod... or Neurorad... your information looks like it probably came from Wikipedia. If you consider more of the article, you would see that the bias is from the left. The people that operate IBC are leftists.

Also, the numbers include violent deaths due to crime. This would reasonably seem to inflate the numbers, because whether there were war or not, there would still be deaths due to crime.

I offered this source as it is a source that is often cited. It looked like one that used a reasonable approach to making a count. It doesn't serve war supporters as you seem to imply. Both right and left have criticised the reports for various reasons. I would expect that any other source you might offer, unless it be an unknown source, would also be criticized. Though IBC is obviously biased to the left, at least the method is reasonable.

So, screw off, Nimrod.

Most of the info I presented came from the IBC website - Methods section.

The quote is from wiki.

I don't care if its left or right, it's my job to scrutinize and question things that I read, and supposed 'facts'. Clearly, it underestimates casualties caused by the war, providing minimum numbers.

You should check your 'facts' better. Oh, yeah, I forgot reality isn't important to you, living in a fantasy world in your mind. You're so stuck in a 'left-right' / 'right-wrong' world that you only believe something if referenced in Drudge.

By the way, Scotty, did you read what the ACLU is complaining about in today's headlines? Or are you too upset with the ACLU to even read about it?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Most of the info I presented came from the IBC website - Methods section.

The quote is from wiki.

I don't care if its left or right, it's my job to scrutinize and question things that I read, and supposed 'facts'. Clearly, it underestimates casualties caused by the war, providing minimum numbers.

You should check your 'facts' better. Oh, yeah, I forgot reality isn't important to you, living in a fantasy world in your mind. You're so stuck in a 'left-right' / 'right-wrong' world that you only believe something if referenced in Drudge.

By the way, Scotty, did you read what the ACLU is complaining about in today's headlines? Or are you too upset with the ACLU to even read about it?

I presented information about civilian deaths in Iraq and clarified where appropriate that this information covers reported deaths of civilians, etc. The information presented there, although gathered by leftists, is at least standardized in method, so it is a better measure that dr325i spewing unsupported numbers from his mouth. It is something like his claim that we have spent 1 trillion dollars on the war in Iraq. The article in the original post here shows what? Isn't it 650 million INCLUDING this new appropriation? That would mean that dr325i has been taking real numbers and doubling them to fit his narrative.

I have not heard about the ACLU today.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

By the way, Scotty, did you read what the ACLU is complaining about in today's headlines? Or are you too upset with the ACLU to even read about it?

You made me curious. What was the story? Any of these?

ACLU participates in gay pride fest, on heels of public school disputes

ACLU challenges new Nevada sex offender classifications

ACLU targets 'noon meal prayer' at U.S. Naval Academy

It would be hard to cause me alarm when it comes to the ACLU. They fight for everything that is wrong, and seldom anything that is right. There is no surprise there. The outrage comes when they win something. The fact of their bringing lawsuits is just a daily occurence.

[scottwww]

“The United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. If I were President, I would begin the process of safely extracting our troops from Iraq. In the first place, our troops are no longer fighting a war, they are an occupation force, which occupies a sovereign country. And this is being done without a Declaration of War. The Iraqi people resent our occupation as much as we would resent another nation stronger than ours invading and occupying America. If such a thing happened to our beloved country, I’m sure many of us would also become “insurgents.”

“In the second place, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely unnecessary. Instead of sacrificing more than 4,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens (not to mention some 2-3 trillion dollars), President Bush should have supported Ron Paul’s bill, H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This is the constitutional way to deal with rogue terrorist organizations. This is the way President Thomas Jefferson responded to the Barbary pirates.’

“According to Congressman Paul, “A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the President the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.”

“Had President Bush responded in this manner, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved, trillions of dollars would not have needed to be spent, Osama bin Laden and most of his fellow terrorists would likely be dead, and we would not be bogged down in a nightmarish military quagmire in Iraq. And, if I were President, this is exactly how I would handle terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.’

“Neither of the two major parties has any interest in bringing our troops home. No matter which of those parties wins the White House, our troops would continue to be used for U.N. missions all over the world. They would continue to stick our nose wherever it does not belong. They would continue our utopian plans of nation-building, empire-building and international meddling. When I become President empire building and playing policeman of the world will come to an immediate halt and the United States of America will once again begin conducting itself as the Republic it was meant to be.”

[scottwww]

“It is a primary obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense of the United States of America, and to be vigilant regarding potential threats, prospective capabilities, and perceived intentions of potential enemies.

“The maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space will be of the highest priority in a Baldwin Administration. As General Charles E. Jones, III, USAF (Ret), as said, ‘Our Air Force and Navy must be so strong that no aggressor, whether terrorist or otherwise, could ever believe they would survive an attack by our forces. Our Army and Marines must be kept strong, well equipped and prepared to deal with any threat to our nation. Having a military which is second to none in strength and preparedness for the defense of our nation, there should be, with few exceptions, no need for the boots of our military on foreign soil.’

“I strongly support the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation. I further support the deployment of a fully-operational strategic defense system as soon as possible. We will not allow a unilateral disarmament and dismemberment of America’s defense infrastructure. History shows that which is hastily torn down is not easily rebuilt. Recent history also shows that foreign military adventurism is likewise destructive to this nation’s national security capability.

“I will insist that all defense expenditures should be directly related to the protection of our nation, and that every item of expenditure must be carefully reviewed to eliminate foreign aid, waste, fraud, theft, inefficiency, and excess profits from all defense contracts and military expenditures. The primary beneficiaries of a strong national defense should be the American people, not the military-industrial complex.

“The goal of U.S. security policy is to defend the national security interests of these United States. Therefore, except in time of declared war, for the purposes of state security, no state national guard or reserve troops shall be called upon to support or conduct operations in foreign theatres.

“As Commander-in-Chief, I will always give our troops my full support and will make it the highest priority of my administration to make sure that our soldiers are well-trained, well-equipped and well-led. ‘Supporting the troops’ means putting their interests and America’s interests first and not in needlessly endangering them by engaging in “policeman off the world” military adventures all over the world. We should be the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and provisioner of ours alone.

“As President I will never deploy American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. “Under no circumstances will the Baldwin Administration commit U.S. forces to serve under any foreign flag or command. I am adamently opposed to any New World Order, and will reject U.S. participation in or a relinquishing of command to any foreign authority.

“In a Baldwin Administration, the armed forces of the United States will always serve under the flag of the United States and the mission of our armed forces will always be to provide for the common defense for these United State of America.”

-Chuck Baldwin