114,000 US Troops not killed today!

[Tmy]

Im sick of the latest spin that the "liberal" media is tryingto make Bush look bad by focusing on the dead soilders. WELL ITS A BIG DEAL, people what to know about it.

Whats worse the the comparisons to say the daily murder rate in LA. Talk about apples and oranges. If 14 Police officers were killed in LA in one day, it'd be a major story. Should we exepect less if it happens in Iraq.

[Crossbow]

Anyone else listen to the "Capitol Steps" Halloween Show the other day where they had a skit of George Bush and Don Rumsfeld looking over a map of the world (which had almost all of the countries on it) and George W. said something like "people are making such a big fuss over the two countries we are bombing, but no one is saying anything about the vast majority of the countries that we are not bombing".

Good stuff!

:p

Edited for correction!

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Crossbow
.... Dick Rumsfeld ....interesting slip of the keyboard.

[Judith]

I keep hearing on the news that Iraq is 'the size of California', and I think if the Feds sent in troops to quell some uprising in California
and these attacks were going on, it would be a very, very, very big deal that one state was causing all those problems.

People would be arguing why we have spent so much effort on an internal state matter. But the repubs like big government solutions for problems like that.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kullervo
interesting slip of the keyboard.

Ooops! Sorry about that, my mistake.

For some reason I got the name 'Dick' and the name 'Don' confused.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Judith
I keep hearing on the news that Iraq is 'the size of California', and I think if the Feds sent in troops to quell some uprising in California
and these attacks were going on, it would be a very, very, very big deal that one state was causing all those problems.

People would be arguing why we have spent so much effort on an internal state matter. But the repubs like big government solutions for problems like that.

Fortunately the recall passed and Arnold was elected, eliminating the need to send in troops. :D

[Mr Manifesto]

Let's try not to think how many people might not have been killed if the US accepted Iraq's peace offer (http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=72402&region=4).

[shemp]

I'm afraid you're wrong. 113,998 US troops were not killed today.

Two More U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031106_350.html)

Bring them home now.

[Luke T.]

Several billion religious people didn't blow anything up today. Film at 11.

[Dancing David]

I am glad that all soldiers did not get hurt or killed today! The reason to focus on the recent casualties is singular,

did Don "the Penis" Rumsfeld ignore the advice of planners who suggested the means to reduce the number of post war casualties.

Are there reasons that they didn't call up the draft and send a lot more troops?

[Tmy]

Calling up the draft would be political suicide for Bush n company. (hmmm the Democrats should be spinning this possibilty)


This reminds me of the coverage I saw this one soilders funeral. Big procession, military honors, lots of press coverage, hundreds of people packed the church to show their respects. It was obvious that the liberal media, and the entire town, blew the whole thing out of proportion in order to embarass Bush.

The Vietnam Memorial, a big black marble slap in the face of Richard Nixon. Veterens Day, and annual humilation of President Taft!!!!

[Richard G]

I'd prefer to see a running tally of the terrorist scum that are dying daily. A huge raid happened yesterday, I know the bodycount just went up.

[Ursa Major]

Originally posted by Richard G
I'd prefer to see a running tally of the terrorist scum that are dying daily. A huge raid happened yesterday, I know the bodycount just went up.

Body counts? Well, I guess since that PR strategy worked so well in Vietnam...

[glee]

Originally posted by Richard G
I'd prefer to see a running tally of the terrorist scum that are dying daily. A huge raid happened yesterday, I know the bodycount just went up.

And the best news of all is that there is a fixed number of terrorists, so all Bush has to do is kill (or imprison) them to make the World safe forever. :rolleyes:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Richard G
I'd prefer to see a running tally of the terrorist scum that are dying daily. A huge raid happened yesterday, I know the bodycount just went up.

I'd like to see a running tally of the innocent civillians that are dying daily.

Of course, the US doesnt give a sh-t about the Iraqis, which is why they dont keep any count at all.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Richard G
I'd prefer to see a running tally of the terrorist scum that are dying daily. A huge raid happened yesterday, I know the bodycount just went up.

Oh yeah! The body count way to victory!

That methodology worked so well in Vietnam too that we have decided to dust it off for use again today.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I'd like to see a running tally of the innocent civillians that are dying daily.Your prayers have been heard: Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm). Almost 10 000 now, woohoo!

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Your prayers have been heard: Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm). Almost 10 000 now, woohoo!

despite being against the Iraq war, i find that site to be highly dubious.

[Earthborn]

despite being against the Iraq war, i find that site to be highly dubious.Read the description of their methodology. I think you'll agree that until now, there is no better count of the number of civilian deaths, and every death is backed up by several sources. And they are honest about their biases. People would complain too if they tried to hide them. They are independent not in the US government or the former Iraqi government.

Most importantly: they show not one, but two figures, to make sure no one can accuse them of exaggeration or playing down the number. (The 'almost 10 000' is based on the maximum of course).

They have been recording the number of civilian deaths since the beginning so they had no way to know beforehand how many the war would result, and everyone of them was reported in more than one independent news source. You can check them yourself if you want.

Until someone comes up with a better tally, I'm going to consider this one the most accurate.

[Richard G]

Do those civilian death counts include those killed in terrorist attacks?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Richard G
Do those civilian death counts include those killed in terrorist attacks?

Why dont you read the frikcin link, Dick?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Richard G
Do those civilian death counts include those killed in terrorist attacks?Yes, those are included. All reported civilian deaths that are the result by the war in Iraq are included, but it isn't necessary that the Americans led forces caused them.

If you have a problem with that, all you have to do is click on 'latest database entry' which gives you a list of the entries of all the incidents that are counted. Every entry has the incident included, the target and the sources. For some there is a 'details' in the 'incident code' column giving you details about how Iraqi Body Count has adjusted for error and inaccuracies.

To get a count you agree on, all you have to do is substract from the total the (probably 30-40) deaths you don't agree on should be in there.

[Tmy]

Have there been many terror attacks in Iraq? Seems like most of the bombing and such was aimed at military targets.

[Ursa Major]

Originally posted by Tmy
Have there been many terror attacks in Iraq? Seems like most of the bombing and such was aimed at military targets.

Police stations, government buildings, UN offices and other "authority" targets account for most of the non-military attacks. Those aren't strictly civilian targets so it really comes down to your definition of terrorism.

I think the attacks on NGOs, mosques and infastructure are definitely terror attacks. The disturbing thing is that sort of terrorism didn't exist in Iraq until the US took over.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ursa Major

The disturbing thing is that sort of terrorism didn't exist in Iraq until the US took over.

True. They had a whole different sort of terror in Iraq until then.

[Luke T.]

I suppose the International Red Cross counts as a military target with you guys when it "really comes down to your definition of terrorism." :rolleyes:

Link. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3216539.stm)

Let me understand this. If someone deliberately blows up a police station or a U.N. building, that doesn't count as terrorism in your book?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I suppose the International Red Cross counts as a military target with you guys when it "really comes down to your definition of terrorism." :rolleyes:

Link. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3216539.stm)

Let me understand this. If someone deliberately blows up a police station or a U.N. building, that doesn't count as terrorism in your book?

Well I usually think of terror attacks as aimed at civilians in order to freak out the population. Like blowingup a bus or mall.

If the Isrealies attack a Palistianian police station, would you call that terrorism?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


True. They had a whole different sort of terror in Iraq until then.

Yes. Luckily for Iraq, America is apparently in the business of freeing countries of tyranny without UN support.

While we're on, what country is next on the Freedom Fries menu... Y''know, after the mess in Iraq is eventually sorted out.

China? Nope. That country can fight back. Don't go there.
Saudi Arabia? Vested interests. Don't go there.
Indonesia? Vested interests. Don't go there.
Congo? Not a big vote-getter I guess. Or are there vested interests there as well?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tmy
Calling up the draft would be political suicide for Bush n company. (hmmm the Democrats should be spinning this possibilty)


This reminds me of the coverage I saw this one soilders funeral. Big procession, military honors, lots of press coverage, hundreds of people packed the church to show their respects. It was obvious that the liberal media, and the entire town, blew the whole thing out of proportion in order to embarass Bush.

The Vietnam Memorial, a big black marble slap in the face of Richard Nixon. Veterens Day, and annual humilation of President Taft!!!!

I would posit that many attended for many different reasons, I doubt that the Info-Tainment Industry did it to embarass GWB! They did it for rating! The days of embarassing the president are dependant on the president pulling a Slick Willy.

i hope the hoopa was to honer the family of the dead.

The Viet Nam emorial is a sysmbol of grief and rememberance, I don't view it as an attack on Nixon.

But hey thats my POV, many attend for many different reasons.

[Ursa Major]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I suppose the International Red Cross counts as a military target with you guys when it "really comes down to your definition of terrorism."

Link.

Let me understand this. If someone deliberately blows up a police station or a U.N. building, that doesn't count as terrorism in your book?


The Red Cross is an NGO. Police (and the UN for that matter) are paramilitary organizations and logical targets for any group resisting an occupation (like the French Resistance, for example).

[Jon_in_london]

Better make that 113,992

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3249493.stm

[The Don]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Better make that 113,998


Please don't keep score like this, it only gives the right wingers further ammunition to make their specious "Leftists are really want all the soldiers killed" claims

If you are going to keep score, at least be arithmetically correct, I make it 113,992