LONDON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the U.S.-led invasion last year, American public health experts have calculated in a report that estimates there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=NW_1-T&oldflok=ne-us-12-l6&flok=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20041028%2F1457167130.htm&sc=rontz

Two-thirds of violent deaths in the study were reported in Falluja, the insurgent held city 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad which had been repeatedly hit by U.S. air strikes.

"Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes," Roberts added in the study.


Old Reb says:

Wouldn't is be normal that most deaths would occur where there were the most terrorist. The news media is trying to help protect the Falluja terrorist from being neturalized by US & Iraqi forces trying to bring peace to the country.

The last time we backed off Falluja, it became a major hub for terrorist, a safe area to launch attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.

By neutralizing Falluja we will stop a lot of the killings. You don't stop killers by giving them a safe place to plan and operate

And that's exactly why Bush's idea of "taking the war to them" rather than waiting for it to come to us makes a DAMN lot of sense!!! Civilian casualties WILL happen in the hosting country.

If we sit around and do nothing, we WILL have terror strikes. I think 9/11 has proven that to us.

So, how is attacking Iraq preventing a terrorist attack? Saddam had no weapons and almost no ties to terrorism. Many other countries had much larger ties to terrorism, and the fact is, they have only grown stronger as a result of us being stranded in Iraq. So, we are actually not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are not moving forward in this fight against terrorism.

You have made that exact same post everyday for months now. There have been numerous theads created by you, and numerous others that you have participated in, that have hashed, re-hashed, and argued every possible angle to your post. In fact, the Politics section is inundated with your posts about it.

Here is an idea: If you want to continue to argue about the justification of the war, why don't you do so there?

Karankawa, no one has proved me wrong on those points I’m bringing up. So until you republicans do so, I’ll keep on posting that exact same argument. Plus, you neo-cons don’t seem to get easy concepts…so to make sure you do, I’ll post the same arguments over and over. Either live with it, refute it, or block me. Take your pick.

Originally posted by Overdose
Karankawa, no one has proved me wrong on those points I’m bringing up. So until you republicans do so, I’ll keep on posting that exact same argument. Plus, you neo-cons don’t seem to get easy concepts…so to make sure you do, I’ll post the same arguments over and over. Either live with it, refute it, or block me. Take your pick.

Can you say spam?

I am sort of new here so I haven't noticed OD's spam. Od has proved nothing except that he has the right to repeat over and over his view. That is ok. I can do the same but not as often.

I like the option that let me block sick avatars and I also like the ignore option. I have never used it, but it is nice knowing it is there.

old reb

Originally posted by Karankawa
And that's exactly why Bush's idea of "taking the war to them" rather than waiting for it to come to us makes a DAMN lot of sense!!! Civilian casualties WILL happen in the hosting country.

Do you mean Iraq would have attacked the USA on american ground ? With their missiles, maybe ; or they would have send their paratroopers or navy ?

Here you go OD. Here is another article claiming 200,000 deaths. Do I hear 300,000------ going once, going going. Ok 200,000 it is. No, it think it must be 300,000, what do you say OD. Who creates these fake figures and why?

xxxxxxxxxx
That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of war.


http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596

old reb

Originally posted by astrapol2
Do you mean Iraq would have attacked the USA on american ground ? With their missiles, maybe ; or they would have send their paratroopers or navy ?

They would if they could but they would get their butts kicked.

They attack soft civilian targets, like twin towers, trains in Spain, 50 unarmed soldiers, woman head of CARE. They are real brave men.

old reb

Originally posted by Overdose
Saddam had no weapons and almost no ties to terrorism.
Did you believe this even before we went to war? Or are you saying this because we now KNOW there were no WMD's in Iraq?

Originally posted by old-reb
They would if they could but they would get their butts kicked.

They attack soft civilian targets, like twin towers, trains in Spain, 50 unarmed soldiers, woman head of CARE. They are real brave men.

old reb

Twin towers, Madrid : Iraq has nothing to do with these.
Brave or not is not the point. The point is Iraq never intended any attack against the US territory. Honestly why would they ? Which country would be mad enough to attack the USA ?

Originally posted by astrapol2
Which country would be mad enough to attack the USA ?

Which country ruined Saddams dreams of taking kuwait and Sadia Arabia and becoming a mega oil power? Who was enforcing no fly zones in Iraq so they could not wipe out the Kurds? Who threatened attack on Iraq if they didn't allow UN inspectors? Who?

How could Saddam get at the US? Use the forces aviable to him-----Islamic terrorist who hate the little satan and the great satan.

old reb

dont be silly, honorable saddam would never allign himself with islamic terrorists. thats just absurd

Originally posted by Travh20
dont be silly, honorable saddam would never allign himself with islamic terrorists. thats just absurd

Almost as absurd as your post.

When have Iraqi terrorists ever attacked the US?

Iraqi nationals or Iraqi funded? Look deeper than direct connections.

These Islamic radical bastards don't have a country, they would use any country to fight us. Iraq just happens to be where we drew the line. They are pouring in there from every rat-hole that they have been able to hide in. The same people that would pour in here to attack you in bed at night if they could. They HATE you.
They want to KILL you. They DESPISE you and me. These are not some panti-waste bully on your block-these are hardened killers that want you dead. Everyone that is killed in Iraq is one less to deal with.

They chose to fight in Iraq. They could have stood back, allowed democracy to take effect, then voted out the party they did not want in power. No they chose the battleground. The collateral deaths are their fault. No one is forcing them to attack American troops. They are just fanatical bastards that want Americans dead and don't mind seeing their own people dead to do it. Iraq is merely the time and opportunity

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
These Islamic radical bastards don't have a country, they would use any country to fight us. Iraq just happens to be where we drew the line. They are pouring in there from every rat-hole that they have been able to hide in. The same people that would pour in here to attack you in bed at night if they could. They HATE you.
They want to KILL you. They DESPISE you and me. These are not some panti-waste bully on your block-these are hardened killers that want you dead.

Wow dan, that sounds a bit extreme.

Everyone that is killed in Iraq is one less to deal with.

True, but how many people who died in Iraq were "radical Islamic Bastards" and how many were innocent Iraqi citizens?

They chose to fight in Iraq. They could have stood back, allowed democracy to take effect, then voted out the party they did not want in power.

If Iraq had invaded our country and decided to install a governmnet of their choosing, would you fight?

No they chose the battleground. The collateral deaths are their fault. No one is forcing them to attack American troops.

I think the US had a hand in "choosing the battleground" and bears a large responsibility for the collateral deaths.

They are just fanatical bastards that want Americans dead and don't mind seeing their own people dead to do it. Iraq is merely the time and opportunity

If they don't mind seeing innocent Iraqis die, then we are more than happy to oblige them.

Originally posted by es347fan
Iraqi nationals or Iraqi funded? Look deeper than direct connections.

Do you have evidence that shows that Iraqi-funded terrorist have carried out attacks in this country, or is this just a supposition on your part?

You're not going to find courtroom level evidence that jumps up & smacks you in the face. Not in the media, and probably not in anything that any everyday citizen has ready access to.

Yes vile, I sound extreme. The Islamic fanaticals I speak of act extreme. I do not believe our entering Iraq has much to do with their fighting us. I do not believe they fight us because we "invaded Iraq". They fight us because we are infidels. All infidels are targets.
And no, if our government suddenly started to go house to house killing or kidnapping innocent people merely because they were not Democrats or Republicans and another country came to our defense I would not fight them. I would fight with them as many Iraqis are doing now. Sadaam killed or locked up anyone that defied his government.

We chose to enter Iraq and end the regime of Sadaam, which we did, any civilian deaths that occured afterwards is because the fanatical Islamic extremists that hate all infidels are attacking and killing American troops and placing Iraqi citizens in harms way.

Originally posted by es347fan
You're not going to find courtroom level evidence that jumps up & smacks you in the face. Not in the media, and probably not in anything that any everyday citizen has ready access to.

I was asking what evidence you had to support your statement, not what I might find.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
We chose to enter Iraq and end the regime of Sadaam, which we did, any civilian deaths that occured afterwards is because the fanatical Islamic extremists that hate all infidels are attacking and killing American troops and placing Iraqi citizens in harms way.

For the most part that's probably true, but I'm sure that when we attack towns like Fallujah (which we are apparently preparing to do again), there are civilians that will be killed by American shelling and bombing.

Here's the thing...given our current strategy in Iraq, since there seems to be no end to the number of radical Islamiacs, and our stategy seems to help create more in any case, how do you forsee this conflict ending?

Silverbullet,
you don't really KNOW anything that your government and military officials haven't TOLD you... There are reasons for that....
Asstrapol, aren't you in France? I mean... contrary to popular belief, the French really care for the U.S. right.... Are you American or French? or just confused? Your country isn't really involved in this endeavor is it? So, what's it to you? Affffrrraaaid france is next? With all the muslim extremists your country supports(after pissin em off...), I wouldn't be surprised.... Hey, how do you say ZIP IT! in french? I know I know.... This is an open forum, free exchange of ideas.... Here's an idea, why don't you look up the Levant, check out some Syrian and Lebanese history,Arab-Israeli War of 56, the northern coast of Africa, the list goes on.... If something could be screwed up and left to be fixed, leave it to the french.... Hey, how bout Vietnam......

Originally posted by NoFlakjacket
Here's an idea, why don't you look up the Levant, check out some Syrian and Lebanese history,Arab-Israeli War of 56, the northern coast of Africa, the list goes on.... If something could be screwed up and left to be fixed, leave it to the french.... Hey, how bout Vietnam......

Interesting you would bring up the examples you did. All of these examples, with the possible exception of the '56 war, are examples of French attempts at imperialism. Imperialist behavior often ends in failure, no matter which nation is engaged in it. I'm really not sure why you brought up Vietnam...we certainly did more damgae to that country than the French.

Originally posted by NoFlakJacket
Silverbullet,
you don't really KNOW anything that your government and military officials haven't TOLD you... There are reasons for that....
But....our biased media outlets said so! The info had to come from somewhere.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
For the most part that's probably true, but I'm sure that when we attack towns like Fallujah (which we are apparently preparing to do again), there are civilians that will be killed by American shelling and bombing.

Here's the thing...given our current strategy in Iraq, since there seems to be no end to the number of radical Islamiacs, and our stategy seems to help create more in any case, how do you forsee this conflict ending?
--------------------------------------------------------

Fallujah should be given an evacuation time limit.

In answer to you question Vile, the ending of this conflict is difficult to answer because of fanatical Islamic leaders.
I will answer how a good leader would handle the Islamic side.
When Bush is re-elected I would take my people completely underground. I would spent the next few years infiltrating vulnerable countries with millions of Islamic people. I would have them blend in and become voters, activists, and lobbiests. I would overcome the infidels secretly, as a thief in the night.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
For the most part that's probably true, but I'm sure that when we attack towns like Fallujah (which we are apparently preparing to do again), there are civilians that will be killed by American shelling and bombing.

Here's the thing...given our current strategy in Iraq, since there seems to be no end to the number of radical Islamiacs, and our stategy seems to help create more in any case, how do you forsee this conflict ending?

We have to go after the radicals who are doing the killing and if they operate out of Fallujah then we must go there and root them out.

Everytime the Israelis arrest a terrorist the Palestines say, "You are creating more terrorist" What they mean to say is, "let us kill you but you don't dare fight back".

Nobody can expect a clean end to the conflict. It is religious based and will end when religion doesn't tell people to kill to get to heaven.

old reb

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
These Islamic radical bastards don't have a country, they would use any country to fight us. Iraq just happens to be where we drew the line. They are pouring in there from every rat-hole that they have been able to hide in. The same people that would pour in here to attack you in bed at night if they could. They HATE you.
They want to KILL you. They DESPISE you and me. These are not some panti-waste bully on your block-these are hardened killers that want you dead. Everyone that is killed in Iraq is one less to deal with.

They chose to fight in Iraq. They could have stood back, allowed democracy to take effect, then voted out the party they did not want in power. No they chose the battleground. The collateral deaths are their fault. No one is forcing them to attack American troops. They are just fanatical bastards that want Americans dead and don't mind seeing their own people dead to do it. Iraq is merely the time and opportunity

And now you know the effects of fear mongering and ignorance. Oh yea they don't despise you (thats the bias media talking), they despise your government, sorta like the rest of the world. And did it ever occur to you that this country probably didn't want democracy in the first place? What gives you the right to impose your form of government onto others? Terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the invasion, but now freedom fighters and people who rebel against the occupation are fighting back.

Originally posted by CX returns
Terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before the invasion, but now freedom fighters and people who rebel against the occupation are fighting back.

Ha, ha, ha

You maka me a laugh with such funny jokes.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
Ha, ha, ha

You maka me a laugh with such funny jokes.

old reb

What i meant was the terrorism wasn't as high before the invasion as it is now...

-one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
unknown

I think terrorism was just as high of a threat as it is now...it may seem more like it's higher than it was in the past because we're actually experiencing the terrorists doing something of that nature.

Before we came it was state terrorism by the Baath party.

Now it is rebel terrorism by Baath party. Does anybody remember the 20,000 Muslims killed in ond day by Saddam's Baath party when they gassed their own people?

old reb

Wasn't it more like 60-65,000?

Originally posted by CX returns
What i meant was the terrorism wasn't as high before the invasion as it is now...

-one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
unknown

"one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" it always amuses me to see these americans who think this will somehow mean they wont die when one of these "freedom fighters" blows up a building they and their family is in. Heres a little hint. the terrorists, or freedom fighters, if you prefer, dont give a rats ass what political party you are in. planes and bombs dont discriminate based on what you feel about the war in iraq. It seems as if the leftists think if they can just be as objective about the terorrists and their motives as they can they will somehow not be attacked. talk about living with your head in the sand.

and CX, I also notived that you, along with a few others on this board, seme to think the iraqis dont want to be free. why is that? do you want to be free? are they somehow less then human? freedom is the natural state of man. The only people who enjoy oppression and dictatorships are the oppressors and dictators. You seem to think that a few thousand islamic foreign fighters and baathist insurgents fighting the occupation represent the whole population of iraq. A popular quote is a quote by Benjamin franklin, it says something along the lines of "those who are willing to give up a little freedom for a little secuirty deserve neither", well, you semd to be perfectly fine with taking away the iraqis freedom for a litlte security for yourself, which is sad. and besides, you also seem to be implying that if we didnt invade iraq we would somehow be complelty safe. BS. last I heard we didnt invade iraq before 9-11. your whole argument is based in fear nad cowardice and a complete lack of knowledge about what freedom even is.

Originally posted by Travh20
"one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" it always amuses me to see these americans who think this will somehow mean they wont die when one of these "freedom fighters" blows up a building they and their family is in. Heres a little hint. the terrorists, or freedom fighters, if you prefer, dont give a rats ass what political party you are in. planes and bombs dont discriminate based on what you feel about the war in iraq. It seems as if the leftists think if they can just be as objective about the terorrists and their motives as they can they will somehow not be attacked. talk about living with your head in the sand.

and CX, I also notived that you, along with a few others on this board, seme to think the iraqis dont want to be free. why is that? do you want to be free? are they somehow less then human? freedom is the natural state of man. The only people who enjoy oppression and dictatorships are the oppressors and dictators. You seem to think that a few thousand islamic foreign fighters and baathist insurgents fighting the occupation represent the whole population of iraq. A popular quote is a quote by Benjamin franklin, it says something along the lines of "those who are willing to give up a little freedom for a little secuirty deserve neither", well, you semd to be perfectly fine with taking away the iraqis freedom for a litlte security for yourself, which is sad. and besides, you also seem to be implying that if we didnt invade iraq we would somehow be complelty safe. BS. last I heard we didnt invade iraq before 9-11. your whole argument is based in fear nad cowardice and a complete lack of knowledge about what freedom even is.

Predictable american trying to tell me im cowardly. Let's start with your first arguement. The terrorists don't threaten to attack you know, as long as you stop comprimising muslim security (statement made by Osama). After 9/11 they never actually tried to commit any more attacks, but Bush kept tell the public they were. There's fearmongering right there. Argument two. What if you were a democractic kind of guy enjoying life and allo of a sudden, some asshole country decides to invade and impose their government onto you. How would you feel? I'd be downright pissed. The iraqis feel the same. The argument i was making is that the iraqi people never asked the states "Hey, can you bring democracy to us?" Third argument. "The only people who enjoy oppression and dictatorships are the oppressors and dictators." True... you know who else benefited from dictators in the past? THE US OF A! Even though you never had any dictator governments in power, you were more than happy to overthrow many governments (including democratically elected governments) and install dictators to get what you wanted from the country. Hell you even crushed the rebellions for the dictators. Last argument. IRAQ NEVER posed a security threat to you... WMD's? They didn't have the resources to build them because of the sanctions!!!! I am done for now

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Almost as absurd as your post.

When have Iraqi terrorists ever attacked the US?

Terrorist are international and move in and out of Iraq at will. For now they are coming from all parts for a decisive battle with those who try to recreate a free Iraq.

old reb