Iraq Pullout

this statement is absurd

I'm sorry that you didn't read my mind and realize what I meant by "worse shape." By that I mean prospects for success, not simply number of dead so far. By prospects for success, Vietnam 1970 looks pretty easily winnable in comparison.

My older brother fought in Vietnam, and he didn't spend all his time in APCs or bunkers. Right now, even the green zone isn't safe in Iraq.

Our casualties aren't as high yet, but Bush is working diligently on that "problem." The numbers of American dead per day will probably number in the hundreds per week by Thanksgiving, if we re-elect the idiot.

 

Maybe the best solution is akin to an "out of court settlement." We'll just give Dick Cheney and Halliburton 50 billion dollars immediately, on the grounds that they stop preying on impoverished nations while hiding behind the US flag.

 

Admit that I was wrong about what Jozak? Less have died in Iraq than in one day in Vietnam? Sorry young one but your math fails to square with known fact, so I suggest you stop relying on nice war stories and compare the documented figures.

US Deaths in Vietnam and Iraq by Month (note: the fact that this data only examines the cmparative rates as of October 2003 underscores even more the greater magnitude and frequency of US deaths in our present military venture when one factors in the significant increase up to the present time).

Notwithstanding that, do tell us just how many have to die before you will cease to make lame justifications for it?

 

Admit you were being a jackass, you don't know me, or my family, and you were wrong to assume just becasue I was born in Czechloslovakia and my dad is Czech, does not mean my mom is, and she's not, she's from the U.S., is Native American, and her brother did fight in Vietnam.

I looked where the author said he got stats, from this page: I did not find anything.
http://www.vvmf.org/index.cfm?SectionID=110&AdvancedForm=true

Please shut up...I did not vote for Bush becasue I know what a mess we are in now and what is going on, I realize it is getting worse right now, but that does not make it another Vietnam, at least yet. Talk about denial, you won't even acknowledge the Anfal campaign deaths by Saddam, "Woefully unsubstantiated"...give me a break.

 

I shouldn't have to....clerify next time.

 

Simply because you wish to believe in claims of genocide that mesh with widely spun media claims (which i have shown repeatedly were originated by Chalabi and his politically hungry cohorts) rather than with proven fact, in no way substantiates the claims.

Significant contrary assesment exists to suggest that these deaths occurred as fallout of the Iran/Iraq War rather than any systematic ethnic cleansing campaign. Given that the Kurds sided with Iran makes such claims by Kurdish refugees (who clearly supported the enemies of their own government at the time) unreliable without forensic evidence of hundreds of thousands of boides exhumed to back it up. What limited forensics have been documented have, in fact, confirmed the use of chemical agents used by Iran, not Iraq at that time.

Of course you are free, like other head in the sanders here, to continue raving as if these genocides are conclusively proven, but reality (by any legitimate standard of jurisprudence) dictates otherwise.

I suggest you go back and give some actual time to reviewing the quite well annotated citations in the link "Far from Proven" that i provided for you. If that is not enough, I will happily provide both the Pelletier report and the report of US Army War College, both of which rejected the genocide claims.

As for the link you claim not to have found anything, you obviously failed to comprehend his instructions and the lengthy effort required to search each date of the conflict (date of casualty field clearly provided in the advance search page for just that purpose) in order to build up a comparative record. You clearly wish to simply ignore his report and comparative charts (the result of the very process he describes) so as to keep your erroneous beliefs smugly protected from factual correction. Nevertheless, his report sufficiently debunks those beliefs.

 

I shouldn't have to....clerify next time.

I was being sarcastic towards myself. However, most discussion of Iraq, here in the US, really isn't on numbers, but on whether or not we have even a distant remote chance of winning- by ANY definition of "winning." I seem to recall a drastically greater feeling of optimism in 1970, but I was young then and had a brother in Vietnam. But a lot of people were sure we could still win, and I don't think you could find 50 people in the USA who really believe we still have a chance in Iraq (excluding those who view complete obliteration to be victory).

 

Look, you were wrong because you made a stupid assumption. Jozak's family served in Vietnam. But seeing as admitting you are wrong is against your principles, you want to follow up with remarks like "Im sure uncle billy and uncle ted told you lots of war stories."? Got any other 'funny' jokes about families serving in the military, Lick?

Now lets get back to your campaign of denial about the genocide in Kurdistan.

There were widely spun media claims about genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia too. Does that make them false? No, referring to news stories as "widely spun media claims" is simply empty rhetoric. Also, please learn to distinguish "I have repeatedly said" or "I have repeatedly cut and pasted links to conspiracy websites" from "I have shown/proved". You have failed to show or prove that Chalabi created the genocide story.

This is wrong on several levels. Number one, contrary assessments exist as to whether there was a genocide in Bosnia, whether anyone ever landed on the moon, and whether Mossad piloted remote controlled airplanes into the world trade center (another one of your crackpot conspiracy theories). The existance of contrary assessments means nothing.

Number two, in an outstanding example of shameless apology, you have suggested that we can't believe the Kurds because they were enemies of Saddam. Absurdly, this supposes that genocide victims aren't normally at odds with their government and thus typically make better witnesses.

Number three, as you typically do, you lied and said that most forensics indicate Kurds were gassed by Iran. Typically, this is a lie on several levels. Nobody has said 100,000 Kurds were killed by gas. However, since you are so obsessed with your Iranian gas conspiracy theory, you need to pretend that someone said 100,000 Kurds were gassed in this one incident. And more importantly, most historians and human rights groups right and left believe the Kurds were gassed. You represent a very small lunatic fringe desperately clinging to the Iranian gas story.

is Human Rights Watch a raving head in the sander? Is Amnesty International? You are the lunatic fringe here, the Kurdish genocide was not some idea dreamed up by right wing media in 2002.

We've all wated lots of 'actual' time time reading your conspiracy theory website. They are, in a word, pathetic. Seriously, a website run by a "composer and guitarist for Reality Check, a violently anti-“smooth jazz” jazz-rock quintet."? The Pellietier report, which was written by someone who never went to Iraq and relied entirely on second hand accounts which said the bodies from ONE gas attack were supposedly the wrong color to match the type of chemical weapons we though Iraq was using? And you say this refutes a three-year investigation of 18 tons of captured Iraqi documents, forensic examination of several mass graves, and hundreds of eyewitness accounts by Human Rights Watch? Can you stoop lower than this Lick?

Anyone who wants to see a Kurdish genocide denier completely humiliated by a Human Rights Watch researcher can read this http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2497. The writer uses the same sorts of excuses, rationalisations, and lies that Lick uses, and is properly exposed.

 

Once again PB, its not me who's lying but you. Again a lengthy diatribe of personal beliefs and claims without a single shred of supporting evidence (evidence which i have repeatedly posted only to met by your routine groupthink pandering denials).

Do then give us this overwhelming consensus of "most historians" (and let us see their credentials). Those who served in intelligence functions such as Pelletier have debunked these geneocide claims most thoroughly as has the US Army War College, regardless of your unqualified claims to the contrary. Tis you have shown yourself most clearly to be the liar.

The Kurds were allied with Iran long before any genocide. The Kurds were from the start of the Iran Iraq War in alliance with Iran and it was the very inroads made into Northern Iraq by Iranian forces (thanks to that alliance) that resulted in massive retaliation from Saddam (or do you think that our own government would , for example, allow New England to ally itself with Russia against the rest of the country in a time of war without massive bombardment and mass civilian fallout?) your standards of judgement are entirely hypocritical.

As for Chalabi, the reference to him concerns the entire paradigm which he began years before our invasion (and by which all subsequent pre war claims were filtered), feeding bogus inflated claims to news media which were regurgitated to suit the long awaited intention of conquering Iraq regardless of the facts. I duly provided a link to that effect from the Columbia Journal Review which blows your head in the sand rhetoric back under the rock it belongs.

If I were wrong, I would admit it, but in this my years of research into the those behind US intents and myths undoubtedly outweigh your late entry into and crocodile tears over issues that have been repeatedly exposed as contrived, inflated or outright lies. Yet, since they serve your emotive leanings, you of course continue to pontificate upon unproven allegations. All the hallmarks of a classic dupe.

Ive been vindicated sufficient times over to confidently tell you where you can stuff your snide retorts and routine dismissals of proven fact.

Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan are different matters etirely with clearly verifiable fallouts and body counts. A few hundred bodies found in mass graves in Iraq do not substantiate the sort of vitriolic and politically grasping inflated claims upon which our public was sensationalised into supporting an invasion whose true intents and goals were entirely hidden by those in power and their sycophantical press. Without clear evidence to substantiate what you wish to believe is so, they can be just as easily counted as casualties of the Iran Iraq War itself (again which by our standards makes them "collateral damage").

If you are so adamant in condemning Saddam as a genocidal maniac (in order to justify our illegal invasion of a sovereign nation), then where is your consistency in demanding similar charges and tribunals for This Bush admin, His father and his father's cohorts and even Reagan admin officials all similarly responsible for thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqi civilians?

Again, anyone who cares about actual conclusive facts rather than reports which have no forensic support to back them up can look here (all duly annotated with further mainstream references for those who only believe mainstream sources)...

Establishing the ethos of misinformation sold to the public:

Seven Big Lies about Iraq

False Reporting which created the inflated groupthink paradigm in support of invasion

An examination of Chalabi, criminal, liar, and political aspirant

More on Chalabi's paradigm setting lies and the shame of the administration and media for fostering them

On the as yet unproven claims of genocide:

Pelletier article on Halabja

Once again the survey article with annotated bibliography of sources related to lack of any concrete proof of supposed genocide of 100,000 Kurds

Further interesting snippet which reinforces the constnatly changing nature of the claims. Originally it was 100,000 Kurds gassed, then it later became "machine gunned" to death (original gassing claim mouthed by George Schultz).

Expanded examination of the entire geo-political charade over Iraq in context (also reference to Schultz's claims of gassing 100,000) - long read

Bonus context setting reads concerning our real aims and intents in Iraq:

The truth about claims of restored "sovereignty" and the truth behind our export of democracy

The building of empire and the veil of lies long used to cover Washington's criminality in Iraq

 

He is just mad because all his family has ever fought for, was... "who is gonna take a turn reading the community romance novel."

 

LOL. How interesting that you are now an expert on what my family has or has not done. Funny how your psychic powers could enable you to be such a dupe in all other aspects of our nation's foreign policy methods and goals.

As for being wrong about the comparative body counts, clearly you folks are so intent on posting witticisms rather than examining hard fact that youve failed utterly to stick to the subject matter of Jozak's claim which has indeed been debunked by simple documented calculations (all duly verifiable for any who care to repeat the process described and undertaken by the author of the study).

Like uptight children in a playground you lot are. The very definition of pathetic!

 

What the hell are you suggesting or saying? Are you honestly trying to make fun of my family for living in a former Soviet bloc nation?

 

http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-and-iraq-by-month/
"It’s interesting to me how the Iraq war, so far at least, shows dramatically more US deaths per month than the Vietnam war did at a comparable point in its political lifetime. Yes, I realize that there were far fewer troops in Vietnam at this stage of the war than we currently have in Iraq. I grant that the two wars have followed very differerent scenarios so far.

 

AHAHA LOL LICK! LIKE...OMG! Oh my god!......Funny how you are an expert on MY family's histroy in Vietnam....

Indeed.

 

The Anglo-Americans can NOT finish the job.
The Anglo-Americans are clueless as to what is the real job.

The real job in Iraq is neither democracy nor infastructure.
The real job is rebuilding the dignity of their identity.

They don't want our democracy.
Democracy can NOT be built upon an insecure identity.

They want the dignity of their Arab identity back.
The dignity that the White-West has been stepping on and soiling every year since the Battle of the Pyrimids, 206 yrs ago.

Not just the dignity of what it means to be an Iraqi, but the dignity of the entire Arab World.

That is a job they can only do themselves.

We tried to hand Iraq democracy back in the '20s and '30s.
They spit it back in our face like a dirty hair-ball.

We can NOT use what we did for Germany and Japan as an example.
Germany and Japan nearly conquered the whole world.
They had a very strong sence of identity upon which to build democracy.

The only constructive thing we can do is to STOP acting paternally and treating the Arab World like rebelious children.

We must get out of their lives before THEY can finish the real job.

 

You're just one non-stop laughing jackass aren't you? Can you possibly be more hypocritical? Can you?

Let me briefly summarise the lies in your last post. First, you said that all your facts were "duly annotated with further mainstream references" (in Lick's world, things are never annotated, they are duly annotated).

Here's a list of sources Lick considers mainstream: antiwar.com (a front for the stalinists at ANSWER and the Workers World Party), dissidentvoice.org, a newsletter written by a "composer and guitarist for Reality Check, a violently anti-'smooth jazz' jazz-rock quintet", www.globalresearch.ca, a website devoted to "curbing the tide of 'globalisation' and 'disarming' the New World Order" and headed by noted conspiracy theorist and Milosovic apologist Michel Chossudovsky, and onlinejournal, full of links to conspiracy theories by Michel Chossudovsky and Michael Ruppert at websites like emperors-clothes and fromthewildnerness. It is clearly evidence of just how extremist Lick is that he considers these sources mainstream.

The closest Lying Lick comes to something that is actually mainstream is the Columbia Journalism Review - but the article mysteriously has no mention whatsover of Kurds, Anfal, or anything else relevant to the debate on this thread. And yet you clumsily proclaim that this link "blows my rhetoric back under a rock"? Always raising your fist in triumph when in fact none has been achieved. Who do you think you are fooling, Lick?

Perhaps the dumbest link though was to wanniski - a link which provided arguments which were specifically refuted by HRW in a wanniski link WHICH I ALREADY PROVIDED. In a perfect example of how little thought Lick puts into his posts, he has clearly demonstrated that he is neither reading his own nor anybody else's links and simply cutting and pasting furiously in the hope that quantity over quality will win the day.

Again, a bald faced lie. By most thoroughly you mean they said that in one example of gassing the bodies turned the wrong color according to second hand accounts. Again, you are determine to steer us into believing that 100,000 Kurds were gassed when actually you are only desperately trying to deny one single gassing incident, which represented only a very small part of the overall genocide campaign. What you are too thick to understand is that at the time the Kurdish genocide was inconvenient for US policy, as they were trying to prevent an Iraqi defeat at the hands of Iran. So of course their objective was to pretend their were doubts whether or not Iran or Iraq did the gas in this particular incident. For someone who fills up so much bandwidth celebrating their understanding of the subtleties of US foreign policy, you are looking like a complete chump.

Of course anyone who really wants to see how low Lick will go to apologist for Saddam Hussein has only to read this quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/13/in_iraq_grave_evidence_of_regimes_horrors?mode=PF

With easy, callous indifference Lick sneers at bodies of Kurdish women and children executed with a bullet to the back of the head and bulldozed into mass graves and calls it "collateral damage according to our standards."

Not our standards Lick. Yours.

 

I never denied that your uncles were vietnam though Jozak. Obviously your ongoing disconnect and preference for mere dismissive retort has caused you to miss that point entirely in your rush to simply post something contradictory.

Your uncles' service in Vietnam and their recollected stories of personal experiences is neither valid as a global survey of all casualties over the entire span of our military engagement, nor are they a viable documented reference for purposes of debate here.

Thus in the end, your contention that more died in one day in Vietnam than over the course of our military venture in IRaq to date has been shown quite clearly to be false.

Admit it and move on.

 

And once again PB lies and further demonstrates his inability to comprehend the english language. Duly annotated references are found IN THE REPORTS THEMSELVES as I said. Yet in order to continue his tenacious maintenance of propagandised groupthink denial he calls the addresses of the sites at which the reports in question are resident the annotated references.

Sad sad chap.

I suggest you go back for some lengthy revision in reading comprehension.

I should add further, though undoubtedly apparent to the majority here who actually use their brains for more than sponges for sanitised and decontextualised tabloid spin, that understanding of the way in which such issues as Anfal, Halabja, or the numerous other ever increasingly inflated claims against Saddam were contrived as the preparatory justifications for necessary invasion of Iraq is only achieved by examining the context in which this whole affair has been prosecuted from the very start.

PB, like most warmongering warloving corporate leaning dupes, would love to isolate issues from the context of those involved, their exposed lies and the interests they have long sought from just this very enterprise.

As with any court case, one must gain and understanding of conditions applying to any claim to understand if it is indeed sound and unimpeachable. Those who have followed the expose of lies will realise that whilst Saddam is guilty of many verifiable crimes, both the invasion and subsequent installation of more subservient criminal puppets have been perpetrated on the basis of the flimsiest roster of ever changing, sensationalistic allegations.

They would have you believe that we have the right to heap ever more destruction upon sovereign nations, with impunity, in exercising some self proclaimed authority as global police so long as enough of the public can be convinced of those allegations even where the evidence fails to materialise.

Clearly the duly exposed propaganda has worked on them. God help any defendant who happens to have such types selected for his jury if this is their standard of proof.

Edited to add: A clear indication of PBs continued failure to separate "allegation" from unimpeachable evidence is even contained in the caption next to the gruesome photo of the Globe article he provides. "...believed to have been executed by Saddam Hussein’s military". Belief is not proof ol boy. Clearly that distinction continues to elude you for all the blather to the contrary you regularly post.

 

What the hell do you call that then, Lick? Please explain.

It's funny how the author manages to sneak this part in:

http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-and-iraq-by-month/
"It’s interesting to me how the Iraq war, so far at least, shows dramatically more US deaths per month than the Vietnam war did at a comparable point in its political lifetime. Yes, I realize that there were far fewer troops in Vietnam at this stage of the war than we currently have in Iraq. I grant that the two wars have followed very differerent scenarios so far."]

 

I was making fun of lick, no offence