This is what happens when Conspriacy Theories gain ground...

[MarkyX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cc-qNml5Zs

No, I am not posting this as a hit piece towards Muslims, but it sure as hell ain't helping the people when videos like this are exposing their behavior. This video is just yet another good reason as to why critical thinking should flourish in society and how much harm conspriacy theorists do to portions of the population. This man is repeating an old claim about "Dancing Mossad agents" to a group of young impressionable minds of the same faith and even go so far as saying that the Zionist Jews are pretending to be Muslims to "make them look bad".

Thanks to fools like the man in the video, he is putting young people at risk and potential targets of harassment or worse. All for what? Because this speaker cannot properly analyze information given to him and instead goes with whatever fits his agenda, true or not.

Call this yet another post as to why we should to continue to debunk with these people, even if they gain publicity like appearing on The View due to a lame host.

[Pardalis]

It sure doesn't help either when top officials in Islamic countries are twoofers as well.

The words of the Syrian Minister of Culture: http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1405

[Travis]

The truth is that the people who do this are the agents of the U.S., with its new anti-Islamic policy,

Why does this myth that the US is anti-Islam keep getting circulated? Did the US abolish Islam in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere ever? What about Kosovo, attacking an Orthodox Christian nation to protect Muslims means nothing to these people?

[MarkyX]

That's exactly my point. No critical thinking is involved here and the speaker resorts to conspiracy theories instead of proper solutions to the problem.

[Architect]

Why does this myth that the US is anti-Islam keep getting circulated? Did the US abolish Islam in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere ever? What about Kosovo, attacking an Orthodox Christian nation to protect Muslims means nothing to these people?

Well the UK gets tarred with the same brush, which is also unfair. But I think it's all tied up with concerns about US imperialism and, in all fairness (this is one for politics) the US is particularly good at ignoring everyone else's viewpoint when it suits them (cf, by way of example, laws attempting to restrict Europeans from dealing with Cuba).

[Travis]

Well the UK gets tarred with the same brush, which is also unfair. But I think it's all tied up with concerns about US imperialism and, in all fairness (this is one for politics) the US is particularly good at ignoring everyone else's viewpoint when it suits them (cf, by way of example, laws attempting to restrict Europeans from dealing with Cuba).

I agree the UK gets treated unfairly too (it's gotta be annoying to always be called America's puppet).

I think "imperialism" is one of the most overused words going around right now. Not only that but it's rarely used correctly! I'm not, however, going to argue that US policy is completely "imperialism free" nor will I assert that everything the US does is right. But there is a big difference between "ignoring viewpoints" and being anti-Islamic.

[Par]

The intervention in Kosovo is also good evidence for refuting the “puppet” charge. It was Blair who rather twisted Clinton’s and Albright’s collective arm to get them behind military action in the first place, as I understand it.

[PhantomWolf]

These are my biggest arguments against Conspiracy Theories to grow.

Reason 1 (http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/healthservices/images/worldwar1_03.jpg)

Reason 2 (http://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/99_00/100/sm1.JPG)

[negativ]

Keep in mind that when you're dealing with Salafists, "declining to convert en masse to Islam" is equivalent to being "anti-Islam".

[Travis]

Keep in mind that when you're dealing with Salafists, "declining to convert en masse to Islam" is equivalent to being "anti-Islam".

Yeah, I'm aware that is all it would take to get them to apply that label. What concerns me are the people around the world who aren't aware of that. They hear all this 'US is anti-Islam' stuff and combine it with their knowledge that the US did just invade two Islamic countries and come to the conclusion that the invasions were part of an anti-Islamic policy. Then when they hear hogwash like US troops massacring a million Iraqi's it seems, to them, possible. From there it's not such a big jump going from that belief to driving a truck bomb into the nearest US embassy. After all if you honestly believed that, that a country is murdering a million people just because of their religion, wouldn't you want to do something about it?

This is exactly why pernicious lies like this need to be nipped in the bud.

[Peephole]

Then when they hear hogwash like US troops massacring a million Iraqi's it seems, to them, possible.
Hogwash? It's probably not a million yet but it's possible it's getting close to that figure.

[Travis]

Hogwash? It's probably not a million yet but it's possible it's getting close to that figure.

Yes, the idea that US troops have killed a million Iraqi's is hogwash. Even the disreputable Lancet Survey only estimates 654,965 deaths and those are "excessive deaths" that would be due to everything from murder by criminals to disease.

For more see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2 003_invasion_of_Iraq#Criticisms)

The Iraq Body Count, which opposes the war, estimates total Iraqi fatalities as being between 57,482 and 63,421. This estimate includes people killed by insurgents in the total.

Visit their website. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

The Iraqi Living Conditions Study, done by the UN, which used the same sampling method as the Lancet Survey, only estimated 24,000 +/-4,000 deaths up through the end of 2004. The head of that study feels the real figure for up to 2007 is around 100,000 deaths. This survey, like the Lancets, also included all deaths over the estimated pre-invasion death rate.

More: http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/population.htm


So, again, the idea of US troops murdering a million Iraqis is hogwash.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cc-qNml5Zs

No, I am not posting this as a hit piece towards Muslims, but it sure as hell ain't helping the people when videos like this are exposing their behavior.


Ugh... I watched that video, then spent a few minutes hopping around youtube clicking on semi-random videos under the "related" tab.

Until I came to this little gem (http://www.erichufschmid.net/MasqueradeParty_Part_1.wmv) and in a fit of silliness I watched the damn thing.

It made me want to kick Eric Hufschmid in the face. :mad:

[Par]

Hogwash? It's probably not a million yet but it's possible it's getting close to that figure.

For one thing, the use of term “massacre” rather implies any such killings are intentional or at least somewhat indiscriminate. For another, the Lancet figure (or you could replace that name with one of a more sober Iraqi death statistic, if you liked) includes those killed by the jihadis, the baathists, the sectarians and so forth. The number of Iraqi non-combatants killed by US (or even coalition) troops would only be a fraction of that total. And the number killed indiscriminately or intentionally is probably extremely low.

So, to say that US troops have “massacred a million in Iraq” is audaciously and triply inappropriate.

[Par]

Note to self: Read the posts after the one you want to reply to.

[Architect]

Even the term "responsible", on the face far more neutral, is diffult; is the US responsible for inra-iraqi figting, often on civilian lines (for example)?

FWIW I can't believe the mess that the buffoons have made of running the place, and would recommend Neil MacKay's "The War on Truth" to you all.

http://www.amazon.com/WAR-TRUTH-Everything-Invasion-Government/dp/1932033629/ref=sr_1_10/002-6719535-3152045?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179746305&sr=8-10 (http://www.amazon.com/WAR-TRUTH-Everything-Invasion-Government/dp/1932033629/ref=sr_1_10/002-6719535-3152045?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179746305&sr=8-10)

[Undesired Walrus]

Do any other Brits find it utterly amazing to hear a Muslim looking guy speak with an American accent?

It seems so strange. It's a bit like a asian guy with a Welsh accent.

[Par]

Walrus: I know what you mean. I felt the same way when I saw some documentary or other featuring Nation of Islam speakers waxing with similarly demagogic pedagogy. Some of them sounded like hip-hoppers. It was marginally surreal.

[Architect]

Do any other Brits find it utterly amazing to hear a Muslim looking guy speak with an American accent?

It seems so strange. It's a bit like a asian guy with a Welsh accent.


In Tarbet in Harris ( in the Western Isles, what I am from) the local corner shop is owned by a family of asian origin who speak amongst the best Gaelic I have ever heard. But the first time you're in there, it is a bit weird! Or, as we say in Gaelic, tha seo weird!

[The Silver Shadow]

It seems so strange. It's a bit like a asian guy with a Welsh accent.
You obviously haven't heard Takuma Sato speak :)

But seriously, WTF? I'm sure that what the guy says happens, but, it happens on a much much much smaller scale that this fellow describes, IMO. That's just my opinion though.

[JimBenArm]

In Tarbet in Harris ( in the Western Isles, what I am from) the local corner shop is owned by a family of asian origin who speak amongst the best Gaelic I have ever heard. But the first time you're in there, it is a bit weird! Or, as we say in Gaelic, tha seo weird!
It's also weird to go to Hong Kong and see the locals speaking English with a proper British accent. Makes perfect sense once you think about it, but it was kinda strange the first time it happened to me.

[Architect]

It's also weird to go to Hong Kong and see the locals speaking English with a proper British accent. Makes perfect sense once you think about it, but it was kinda strange the first time it happened to me.

I'll tell you though, when you go to the USA and hear everyone speaking a strange langiuage which clearly isn't English......jings, it's weird! ;)

[JC Fla]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cc-qNml5Zs

No, I am not posting this as a hit piece towards Muslims, but it sure as hell ain't helping the people when videos like this are exposing their behavior. This video is just yet another good reason as to why critical thinking should flourish in society and how much harm conspriacy theorists do to portions of the population. This man is repeating an old claim about "Dancing Mossad agents" to a group of young impressionable minds of the same faith and even go so far as saying that the Zionist Jews are pretending to be Muslims to "make them look bad".

Thanks to fools like the man in the video, he is putting young people at risk and potential targets of harassment or worse. All for what? Because this speaker cannot properly analyze information given to him and instead goes with whatever fits his agenda, true or not.

Call this yet another post as to why we should to continue to debunk with these people, even if they gain publicity like appearing on The View due to a lame host.

MarkyX, if you read the blog of the guy who took this video, he claims he was harassed by the Muslim Student Union for daring to film this, and that they followed him across campus into a classroom and took his picture. Typical thug intimidation tactics.

[MarkyX]

I knew they were trying to threaten him via voiceover, but taking his picture?

Again, further proof that conspiracy theories when taken seriously can be dangerous to society. Almost borderline criminal.

[Travis]

Note to self: Read the posts after the one you want to reply to.

Sorry I did that to you Par.:cool:

[Travis]

Even the term "responsible", on the face far more neutral, is diffult; is the US responsible for inra-iraqi figting, often on civilian lines (for example)?

FWIW I can't believe the mess that the buffoons have made of running the place, and would recommend Neil MacKay's "The War on Truth" to you all.

You'll get no argument from me that the place has not been administrated correctly, at least in the Sunni Triangle it hasn't. Hopefully the increased heat from from the 2006 election debacle will provide the right incentive to get things in order.

[Peephole]

Yes, the idea that US troops have killed a million Iraqi's is hogwash.
Oh yeah, I don't think the US killed them all.
Even the disreputable Lancet Survey only estimates 654,965 deaths and those are "excessive deaths" that would be due to everything from murder by criminals to disease.
We're a year later so according to their figures it could be getting close to a million. Why do you think it is disreputable by the way?

[T.A.M.]

I hear, all the time, claims about the new AMERICAN EMPIRE, and how it, like the ROMAN EMPIRE, will fall.

WHAT EMPIRE???

The USA hasnt recently changed its borders has it? Have Mexico and Canada recently joined up? Has the USA taken over a country and made it part of their own country recently?

I get so tired of the paranoids misnaming the USA as some power hungry, land hungry evil empire. JHC go back a few hundred years to when Britain was expanding its borders (The British Empire). It is simply rediculous.

Now economically, there is no doubt that USA is a true dominant force, but what is up with this "American Empire" label??

TAM:)

[Travis]

Oh yeah, I don't think the US killed them all.

We're a year later so according to their figures it could be getting close to a million. Why do you think it is disreputable by the way?

The Lancet Survey suffered from horrendous sample bias. They questioned people on deaths but mostly in population centers in the Sunni Triangle which is the most heavily affected region of Iraq. This would be like trying to figure out how many Americans smoke crack by surveying the residents of the Cabrini Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini_Green) housing projects in 1993.

The ILCS study used the same method as the Lancet Survey but dispersed the sample inquiries uniformly all over Iraq and came up with a much lower figure.

The Iraq Body Count tallies confirmed violent deaths and came up with a figure even lower than the ILCS.

Bottom line is that 600,000+ people dead, from anything, is something that couldn't be missed. Where are all the mass graves? Where are the piles of dead bodies? When 500,000 Tutsis were massacred in Rwanda the rivers were literally choked with the dead to the point that dams of human bodies formed. Now we supposedly have even more dead in Iraq, a country swarming with journalists that are mostly antagonistic toward the United States, with no actual documented physical evidence of it? Plus, what's the killing mechanism? Something would have had to kill these 654,965 people. There is no reported famine, pandemic, massacre by troops of either side or weather anomaly that could generate fatalities of this scale so I'd be mighty curious as to what it is that killed them.

[Travis]

I hear, all the time, claims about the new AMERICAN EMPIRE, and how it, like the ROMAN EMPIRE, will fall.

WHAT EMPIRE???

The USA hasnt recently changed its borders has it? Have Mexico and Canada recently joined up? Has the USA taken over a country and made it part of their own country recently?

I get so tired of the paranoids misnaming the USA as some power hungry, land hungry evil empire. JHC go back a few hundred years to when Britain was expanding its borders (The British Empire). It is simply rediculous.

Now economically, there is no doubt that USA is a true dominant force, but what is up with this "American Empire" label??

TAM:)

Oh I totally agree. I got so tired of hearing about this American Imperialism Empire Machine when I was in high school, college or whenever I visit San Francisco. Now that it's on the internet in video form it's just as annoying but also much easier to ignore.

[EugeneAxeman]

The Lancet Survey suffered from horrendous sample bias. They questioned people on deaths but mostly in population centers in the Sunni Triangle which is the most heavily affected region of Iraq. This would be like trying to figure out how many Americans smoke crack by surveying the residents of the Cabrini Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini_Green) housing projects in 1993.

The ILCS study used the same method as the Lancet Survey but dispersed the sample inquiries uniformly all over Iraq and came up with a much lower figure.

The Iraq Body Count tallies confirmed violent deaths and came up with a figure even lower than the ILCS.

Bottom line is that 600,000+ people dead, from anything, is something that couldn't be missed. Where are all the mass graves? Where are the piles of dead bodies? When 500,000 Tutsis were massacred in Rwanda the rivers were literally choked with the dead to the point that dams of human bodies formed. Now we supposedly have even more dead in Iraq, a country swarming with journalists that are mostly antagonistic toward the United States, with no actual documented physical evidence of it? Plus, what's the killing mechanism? Something would have had to kill these 654,965 people. There is no reported famine, pandemic, massacre by troops of either side or weather anomaly that could generate fatalities of this scale so I'd be mighty curious as to what it is that killed them.

Ah, I see now.

If you do not see the bodies, then it is probably just a fabrication.

Where have I heard that before?

So you are expecting Fox News to bring their camera crews into Iraq and film the piles of corpse being dealt with every day?

That's what it would take to keep up with the body count.

We've lost somewhere around 3500 troops in the past four years, which by Vietnam standards is not a very high rate at all. So why the big fuss?

Can't the families of dead soldiers just shut up and let BushCo drive the bus further around Crazy Mountain?

And why all this talk about 600,000+ dead Iraqi civillians?

I don't see them on the news, so it must not be happening.

No, that is just another myth. Actually, the Iraqi people hold us in the greatest esteem and shower us with gifts on a daily basis.

The problem is that we are not accustomed to their culture and often misinterpret these gifts.

Since Iraqis are Godless Muslims, they perceive death as a passge from their miserable life in the stinking desert. Suicide is a way of life there.

When they plant IEDs in the roads, or drive a carload of semtex into a marine patrol, they are attempting to share the greatest gift that they can offer to their revered saviors.

It's all in how you look at it.

Those aren't 650,000 corpses.

They are 650,000 liberated and free souls.

[lozenge124]

I hear, all the time, claims about the new AMERICAN EMPIRE, and how it, like the ROMAN EMPIRE, will fall.

WHAT EMPIRE???

The USA hasnt recently changed its borders has it? Have Mexico and Canada recently joined up? Has the USA taken over a country and made it part of their own country recently?

I get so tired of the paranoids misnaming the USA as some power hungry, land hungry evil empire. JHC go back a few hundred years to when Britain was expanding its borders (The British Empire). It is simply rediculous.

Now economically, there is no doubt that USA is a true dominant force, but what is up with this "American Empire" label??

TAM:)


You could take a look at Chalmers Johnson's book "The Sorrows Of Empire" in which he talks about the "725 official U.S. military bases outside of the country" for an idea of the massive US military presence abroad.
But I think the concept of invading and occupying countries is no longer the way empires work in this day and age. For starters, it is much more efficient to act preemptively, keeping a close eye on power struggles in strategic countries, and backing U.S-friendly or "business-friendly" factions - supplying them with money, weapons etc... If all else fails, you can always call in the CIA for the assassination option, or as a last resort go with the military option. For the guy who wonders why the US is perceived as "anti-Muslim", just look at the history of the Middle East since WWII, the US has backed the worst kinds of dictatorial regimes (Saudi Arabia, Shah in Iran, Egypt, Saddam back in the day, Kuwait and its monarchy, Taliban back in the day, etc) and supplied them with ample weaponry to keep their citizenry under control (and the oil flowing to "international markets").

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the United States created the framework for the world's financial system at Bretton Woods after WWII, and thus exerts enormous control over the world's and other countries' economies through institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. After the Asian financial crisis in 1997, there was some talk of setting up an "Asian Monetary Fund" a lender of last resort to combat such destabilizing events, but the US quickly exerted pressure to crush the idea. A good book on the control the IMF/World Bank exerts on indebted countries (like rewriting the countrie's laws to slash government spending, and encourage an export driven growth model) is The Globalization of Poverty by Michel Chossudovsky. But there are also plenty of activist groups etc (50years.org/). It has been said that a few hundred people in New York have a lot more say over the way African countries govern themselves, than the bulk of the African people.

Finally, there's the role of the private US financial and banking institutions. It's a big mistake to consider the world as a set of independent nation-states all operating in a self-contained manner. These days, with the push for trade agreements, with the WTO, and the liberalization of finance and globalization, it's more accurate to see each country as initimately linked to the US/Western financial system. Every third world/ex-communist, country seems to have a small group of elites who control the bulk of the country's wealth, and siphon it off to their US/London/Swiss/offshore bank accounts with very little making its way back to to the development of their own country. Often the wealth is generated by exporting commodities or manufactured goods to the western "developed" world. This system is the exactly kind of thing that the US-led West has been actively building by pushing all the trade agreements of the past years: cheap labor, cheap commodities.

Anyway, sorry got to go, I also wanted to mention the unfair advantage of the US through its ability to print dollars - the de facto reserve currency of this globalized world. But if you consume 30% of world's commodites & 25% of the energy with 5% of population (or whatever the figures are) chances are you're an empire, you just have to look a bit harder to see it nowadays.

[PhantomWolf]

I also wanted to mention the unfair advantage of the US through its ability to print dollars - the de facto reserve currency of this globalized world.

If people outside the US decide to use USD as a standard, how is that the US's fault? People can use the Euro, the Pound, or the Aussie Dollar just as easily if they wanted too. There is no US official standing over everyone demanding that all international trade be done in USD, it's merely that it was an easy standard to use when one was needed.

if you consume 30% of world's commodites & 25% of the energy with 5% of population

And how much of the world's commodities and energy is produced by America or American Companies?Why shouldn't they supply their own market first?

eta: For example 95% of all L&P softdrink is consumed by New Zealanders, who only make up 0.06% of the world's population. Is that unfair? How about when you consider that L&P is 100% manufactored in New Zealand and pretty much only sold in New Zealand? You are right, you do need to look a bit harder.

[lozenge124]

If people outside the US decide to use USD as a standard, how is that the US's fault? People can use the Euro, the Pound, or the Aussie Dollar just as easily if they wanted too. There is no US official standing over everyone demanding that all international trade be done in USD, it's merely that it was an easy standard to use when one was needed.

Again, you cannot just talk about independent countries with their own currencies operating in theor own spheres. In this era of globalization everything is linked. Bretton Woods established fixed exchange rates between the major currencies and the dollar, with the dollar convertible to gold. This was the foundation for the post WWII western financial system. Of course, at that time, there was still the Eastern block, but for countries within the western sphere of influence, and the signatories of the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference it became impossible to operate outside of this dollar centered system.
France eventually complained, especially under DeGaulle, about the unfair advantage this gave the US as they had the power to print dollars, the reserve currency of the system, and when the US started running large deficits due to the war in Vietnam, France exerted its right to convert dollars into gold. Eventually, this forced Nixon to move off the gold standard. A few years later,In 1974, Henry Kissinger, along with New York and London banking interests, brokered a deal with the Saudi Arabian government, one of the world’s largest oil producers in the 1970s, to ensure the global oil market would remain denominated in US dollars. Saudi Arabia, for its trouble, was armed by the US. The ramifications of this decision have had huge geostrategic importance to this day and oil has subsequently played a very active role in determining world economic and political policies. (global21online.org/cambridge/i1012.html)
Since then, every country has needed dollars to buy oil. As oil is every industrialized nation's lifeblood it has become impossible for any nation to operate without dollars. There's a good book on this called "Petrodollar Warfare" by William Clark which makes the case that the $ shifted from being gold-backed to oil backed (Saudi)

And how much of the world's commodities and energy is produced by America or American Companies?Why shouldn't they supply their own market first?

eta: For example 95% of all L&P softdrink is consumed by New Zealanders, who only make up 0.06% of the world's population. Is that unfair? How about when you consider that L&P is 100% manufactored in New Zealand and pretty much only sold in New Zealand? You are right, you do need to look a bit harder.
I can guarantee that the US wouldn't last 2 minutes if the borders were shut off and imports ceased. Aside from the fact that the US has outsourced much of its manufacturing, just consider oil: The US consumes about 22 million barrels per day, yet only produces 7-8 million barrels per day. Where does it get its oil from? Top exporters to US: Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Angola, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Brazil, Russia, Ecuador, Columbia, Libya, & Congo.
Aside from Canada, these are countries with huge income inequalities and large dispossessed populations. What compels these countries to fuel the US industrial machine instead of using their energy resources for internal development and growth? Well, if you're one of the elites in such a country would you rather sell to your own countrymen many of which make only a few dollars a day, or to the US market where the median income is in the tens of thousand $? It's the same for any commodity, because the colonial legacy left large tracts of land in the hands of the few, and because of the artificially strong value of the $ due to its special reserve-status, this combined with the push for trade liberalization by the developed world has resulted in this sad state of affairs where there is more incentive for these countries to produce for the industrial world then for their own people. But it's not a "natural" state of affairs, it's the result of careful planning and policies by the western political and financial classes.

Anyway, for more on the geopolitical shenanigans that go on behind the scenes, there's an excellent recent article by William Engdahl "Darfur? It's the Oil, Stupid…China and USA in New Cold War over Africa's Oil Riches". 321energy.com/editorials/engdahl/engdahl052207.html

Another good book is Michael Klare's "Resource Wars" and also "Blood and Oil".

Make no mistake, this is the kind of thing that the "War on Terror" is a cover for - but if you want to buy the Bush line that we're in a struggle against "evildoers" "who hate our freedoms" be my guest.

[MG1962]

eta: For example 95% of all L&P softdrink is consumed by New Zealanders, who only make up 0.06% of the world's population. Is that unfair? How about when you consider that L&P is 100% manufactored in New Zealand and pretty much only sold in New Zealand? You are right, you do need to look a bit harder.

So who is getting the other 5% - Or is that part of New Zealands relief package to Australia ;)

[Travis]

Ah, I see now.

If you do not see the bodies, then it is probably just a fabrication.

Where have I heard that before?

If you're trying to make me out as a holocaust denier then you are barking up the wrong tree. There was plenty of evidence of the holocaust outside of the presence of bodies, many of which were found. This same type of evidence is not present in Iraq. We can verify mass murders, even if they are done secretly, by noting the absence of the killed among other things. 650,000 dead people in Iraq is the statistical equivalent of 7,317,000 dead in the USA. Someone would notice this.

So you are expecting Fox News to bring their camera crews into Iraq and film the piles of corpse being dealt with every day?

If there are piles of corpses I would expect someone, say Al Jazeera, to notice and document it. Iraq is swarming with journalists who would just love to find evidence of this type and rake America over the coals for it.

That's what it would take to keep up with the body count.

And Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) is doing just that. Their estimate is 64,243 to 70,384 dead.

We've lost somewhere around 3500 troops in the past four years, which by Vietnam standards is not a very high rate at all. So why the big fuss?

If you were against the invasion from the beginning than just 1 dead soldier is too much to bear for this endeavor. If you supported it, like I did, and expected the number of allied fatalities to be in the 5,000-7,500 range, like I did, than this is actually good.

Can't the families of dead soldiers just shut up and let BushCo drive the bus further around Crazy Mountain?

There are families of dead soldiers that support the war too. My roommate served a tour in Iraq and also supports the endeavor.

And why all this talk about 600,000+ dead Iraqi civillians?

I don't see them on the news, so it must not be happening.

Not seeing it in the news was only one of my problems with the assertion that 650,000 people have died as a result of Iraqi Freedom.

No, that is just another myth. Actually, the Iraqi people hold us in the greatest esteem and shower us with gifts on a daily basis.

Strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument), I never argued that this was the case. But on May 11 Iraqi President Jalal Talabani stated that he hopes the US keeps troops in Iraq for 1-2 more years (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070511/ts_nm/iraq_talabani_dc_1) until the Iraqi Army can take over.

The problem is that we are not accustomed to their culture and often misinterpret these gifts.

Since Iraqis are Godless Muslims, they perceive death as a passge from their miserable life in the stinking desert. Suicide is a way of life there.

This is not my argument, I have never asserted, nor do I believe such things. Your attempts, it seems, to paint me as a Muslim hating NeoCon Christian radical are amusing as I am a not a Muslim hater and I am a lifelong registered Democrat and Atheist.

When they plant IEDs in the roads, or drive a carload of semtex into a marine patrol, they are attempting to share the greatest gift that they can offer to their revered saviors.

Not something I said. Not something I believe.

It's all in how you look at it.

Those aren't 650,000 corpses.

They are 650,000 liberated and free souls.

If there are 650,000 corpses. Which I believe there are not.

Look, the reason, the only reason, I supported this war was to free a people from the tyranny of a dictator that gassed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack) whole villages. Who launched campaigns of ethnic extermination like Al-Anfal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign). Who crushed the 1991 uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq) by murdering at least 20,000 Kurds and at least 100,000 Shia'. Who misused Oil-for-food money to build 60 palaces while at least 500,000 children starved and died.

Was taking down a government that does all that a worthy cause? I thought it was. Apparently, however, we do not see eye to eye on this. After all is said and done we might just have to agree to disagree. It looks like Congress will get its way sooner or later and the US troops will leave. If that happens I will support it and just hope that the fledgling democracy in Iraq does not succumb to the madness of theocratic thuggery and ethnic bloodshed. The people of Iraq have been through so much for so long. They do deserve peace and the opportunity to thrive and live as they see fit. But I'm not sure at this point that I, or anyone, knows how to get it to them. It's a sad situation emblematic of the sometimes frustrating limitations of our human abilities.

[T.A.M.]

The 650,000 Death toll is so all inclusive as to render it nothing more than a left wing propaganda tool. A similar number would be to look at those immediately killed by the Tsunami a couple of years ago (I believe about 160,000 or some such figure), and then look back now, and see what the total death toll is, including those dying in the last 2 years from resulting famine, crime, disease, etc...It is a true number of all deaths RELATED to the event, but not deaths as a DIRECT RESULT of the event.

Similarly, while 650,000 Iraqi's may be dead since the invasion, that is far from the death toll as a DIRECT RESULT of the Military take over of IRAQ.

ie. US Military did not KILL 650,000 Iraqi's. I also doubt that the 650,000 is a true number, as they have not distinguished what percentage of these deaths would have occured has the US not invaded.

TAM:)

[westprog]

Why does this myth that the US is anti-Islam keep getting circulated? Did the US abolish Islam in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere ever? What about Kosovo, attacking an Orthodox Christian nation to protect Muslims means nothing to these people?

The US has effectively abolished Christianity in Iraq, ironically enough.

[Travis]

The US has effectively abolished Christianity in Iraq, ironically enough.

Minority populations do tend to suffer when security breaks down. Unfortunate, certainly, but something that I hope will change. Not because I want more Christians in Iraq but because the people there should have the right to choose to be so if they wish.

[negativ]

It's all in how you look at it.

Those aren't 650,000 corpses.

They are 650,000 liberated and free souls.


Ironically enough, many jihadist 'philosophers' (if you want to call them that) would agree with that statement. The idea of takfir allows them to skirt the Quranic prohibition against killing Muslims by means of what basically boils down to a religious codification of the No True Scotsman fallacy (http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/No_True_Scotsman).

So when an aspiring martyr drives his truck full of chlorine-spiked TNT into an Iraqi police station or a grocery market, he actually is doing a favor to the True Muslims by sending them to Paradise, while the kafir were hellbound anyway, and he's only doing his part to see justice served.

Besides, all the kafir has to do if he sees the truck bomb coming is to declare that "there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet" - and his entrance to Paradise is assured.

Neat, huh?

[gumboot]

So you are expecting Fox News to bring their camera crews into Iraq and film the piles of corpse being dealt with every day?


Maybe not Fox News, but I'd be stunned stupid if Times, the BBC, Al Jazeera, the Washington Post, AP, the legions of independents, and so on didn't.




We've lost somewhere around 3500 troops in the past four years, which by Vietnam standards is not a very high rate at all. So why the big fuss?


Bluntly put, it's a demonstration that Americans don't have the stomach to fight a real war. American soldiers are willing and determined, but their civilian population would never allow them to be committed for long enough to win. If you look at it objectively, the USA has more interest in going into Iraq than it did going into Europe and North Africa during WW2.



No, that is just another myth. Actually, the Iraqi people hold us in the greatest esteem and shower us with gifts on a daily basis.

I know this is anecdotal, but Colby Buzzell, in his book My War claims that every time he went out on patrol (Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Mosul) he came back with his cargo pockets stuffed full with presents given to him by local Iraqis.


The US has effectively abolished Christianity in Iraq, ironically enough.

Another anecdote, Buzzell also recounts entering a Christian neighbourhood where the women walked around freely in skimpy clothing, smiled and flirted with American soldiers, and had no troubles. This was just in a part of Mosul, rather than a single isolated community. Mosul is Iraq's 3rd largest city.

Having read quite a few books by soldiers stationed in Iraq recently, as well as a number of documentaries, I've come to the conclusion that the situation there is nowhere near as bad as the media portrays it, and more specifically, is nowhere near as hopeless. That many Iraqis are still glad the coalition are there, and that there is still a real possibility of success there. Withdrawal from Iraq guarantees failure.

Something to think about.

-Gumboot

[Travis]

My War by Colby Buzzell you say? I'll have to check that out. I've had a keen interest in the development of the Stryker Brigades so that should be a doubly interesting read.

[firecoins]

1. Militant Muslims in Iraq kill more innocent Muslims in Iraq than the US military does.

2. Iran is involved in Iraq much the way the US was involved with previous Middle East dictators. Iran is sending weapons to militants in Iraq and training the militants.

3. The Sunnis and Shites weren't killing each other before the US invaded. Al Qeida was not based in Iraq until the US invasion. So okay, thats the US's fault. But Al Qeida, the protector of Muslims from the evil US, instigates violence between the 2 sects. At what point does Al Qeida take some blame? And the Sunnis? And the Shites? And Iran? And Syria? Do they take no blame for those that they kill?

4. The Euro is replacing the USD as the defacto currency.

[JC Fla]

The anti-war groups (in the US at least) seem to be the descendants of the Vietnam era groups. They seem to think protest is "cool" and that the 60's were a great time for them, and they wish they could just bring them back. Wait, we have a war now, I can convince crowds of gullible late teen, early 20 somethings to walk around chanting "war is bad" (which I do agree is true, but is sometimes necessary) and "This war is bad because I do not like the president who started it" (Which is what it seems to boil down to)

Question, what about the Balkan wars the US got involved in? Genocide, ethnic cleaning, crazed leaders...or was that okay because of the political party of the president who got us involved?

Just wondering.....

[T.A.M.]

Dont make me break into choruses of "All we are saying...."

TAM:)

[Gravy]

JC: I am neither in my 20's, nor gullible, nor do I think protest is "cool," nor have my protests against the Iraq war been because I have a personal aversion to Bush, nor did I wait for the war to begin to make my feelings known publicly and to my elected representatives.

Something has caused you to make a foolish statement. I hope you'll look into that.

[Corsair 115]

Bretton Woods established fixed exchange rates between the major currencies and the dollar, with the dollar convertible to gold. And how many nations use the gold standard anymore? Most nations let the value of their currencies be determined by the markets. Which is why, for example, the Canadian dollar went from parity more than thirty years ago to as low as $0.60 U.S. and is now back up to $0.92 U.S.

I can guarantee that the US wouldn't last 2 minutes if the borders were shut off and imports ceased. Considering the U.S. economy also generates much activity from exports, naturally it wouldn't last very long if there was no trade. Of course, that's true of practically every nation.

Where does it get its oil from? Top exporters to US: Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Angola, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Brazil, Russia, Ecuador, Columbia, Libya, & Congo.Canada currently supplies over one-sixth of all U.S. crude oil imports, and it is in a position to increase that number. Combined, Canada and Mexico supply one-third of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five nations (Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria) combined supply 69% of U.S. crude oil imports. The top ten nations (the previously mentioned five plus Iraq, Angola, Algeria, Ecuador, and Kuwait) supply 87.5% of U.S. crude oil imports. The remaining 12.5% comes from 38 other countries, including places such as Colombia, Brazil, the U.K., Russia, and Norway.

[Travis]

Well Gravy, in defense of JC Fla my own dad opposes the war (and we have almost come to blows over that quite a few times) but just a few weeks ago told me that he would have supported it all along if Clinton had been the President that got us into it.

Not that I'm saying anyone on here thinks like that, though some may, I'm just pointing out that there indeed are people like that out there.

Regarding the Balkans, I remember a very heated protest against that at my college. They had signs saying things like "we're bombing Serbia to make them build Wal-Marts" or "down with imperialism" or "war never saved anyone from anything" and all the usual recycled Vietnam protest chants like "we don't want this racist war." That's when I decided, right then and there, that I would have little regard for such protests in the future.