"The troops are fighting for your freedoms and without them you won't have any"

Yup. Bullshit all of the way, man.

 

this seems like a good place to put this. i don't hang out in this part of the forums often enough to know if there's a better one where i should have, so if you know of one i appologise in advance for not putting it there. well here goes:

"American deaths as a result of international terrorism (1994-2003): 2,970

American servicemen killed in Iraq since invasion: 2,152

Iraqi dead since invasion: 30,000

Cost of war to date: $226,000,000,000

Population of the U.S.A: 295,734,134

Population of Iraq: 26,074,906

Now, some simple math:
The chance of an individual U.S. citizen having died as a result of international terrorism: 1 in 99,573

The chance of an Iraqi citizen having died as a result of the war in Iraq: 1 in 869

Price of war per American Citizen: $764

Now, let’s assume for the moment that that the ‘war on terror’ was 100% effective, and that not a single American would die as a result of international terrorism for the next 10 years. The price paid per life saved would be $76,094,276. That’s seventy-six million dollars and change. And, of course, ten civilian Iraqi dead for every American death prevented.

We’ve killed a hundred times as many Iraqi as a percentage of the population as we have lost to international terrorism in a decade, or ten times as many in absolute numbers.

"Staying the course" means to continue killing 30 Iraqi civilians a day and spending 200 million dollars a day for the privilege. Our president has directly caused the death of ten times as many civilians as he was out to avenge and he says we must stay the course. He spends more on the war in Iraq than he does on education, even excluding other military expenditures. When the president says "stay the course", he means "continue to kill civilians at an astonishing rate while bankrupting the country in the process". If he stays the course for another few months, he will have gotten more Americans killed since the war started than "the terrorists" have in a decade. This man calls himself a christian."

=^^=
.../\...

 

Wow a mathematician (statitician).

 

I'd like to hear you argue your way out of that one Gary.

 

Its easy to argue.....

Firstly a lot of the figures are monetary figures and you can't put a price on freedom so lets put those figures out of the way.

Secondly.....

Its easy to say what the odds are of an American dying due to international terrorism but the fact remains that using the figures above 2970 Americans died. Doesn't matter what odds you put on it the families of those 2970 people aren't going to be comforted.

If you then take into account the number of people injured seriously because of International Terrorism.

People in Iraq are dying because they keep fighting back. If they stopped fighting back then the war would end and there would be no further killing. Simple as that. I'd like to know how many of the Iraqi people killed as a result of violence were killed for attempting to kill a US, UK, Australian, Canadian etc soldier.

You lot paint the Iraqi people as being peace loving simple people caught up in a conflict they didn't want. The truth is there are enough people fighting back for the troops to stay there which means as a whole the Iraqi people are not completely innocent in all of this.

The stats above fail to take into account the number of Spanish people killed because of terrorism, the number of uk citizens killed because of terrorism. What about the bombs that go off in hotels in indonesia killing holiday makers.

The difference is that the people killed in the world trade centres, on the trains in Madrid, in the Bali bombings, in the London Bombings etc were completely innocent. They had done nothing to provoke such an attack. The people of Iraq as a whole (I'm not pointing my finger at all of them because a good percentage would want peace) are not innocent in all this.

 

Gary, i love you, but you're a poor ignorant bastard

Collateral damage....think about it, terrorism doesn't justify a war that kills soldiers and kills ten times as many women and children.if thats freedom then fuck off and live in america

 

There would be no more women and children killed if the iraqi men stopped fighting.

 

is there actually any reliable sources on iraqi deaths caused by the insurgency?

It seems like every day you hear about a bombing that killed 50-100 iraqis. Sooner or later their number has to catch up to ones killed by US airstrikes.

 

pader

Who started the war?

War gary, people fight

 

technically iraq did, we just resumed military operations since they failed to meet the requirements of the cease fire...

technically speaking of course

 

i don't know about everybody else, but having the government listening in on our phone convesations makes me proud to be an american (sarcasm)

 

as free as a gold fish

 

With much biggger fish than ourselves ready to eat us at any second. I'd rather jump out the tank and flap myself to death.

 

how is that so "different"? do you honestly immagine that the wives and children, grandmothers and grandfathers, who were mercilessly massochered in faluga, as just one example, were any less completely innocent?

and if a forign power were were destroying your infrastructure and killing 'suspected terrorists' who were nine times out of ten, your innocent neighbors, how many of us would not be shooting back and trying to expell them?

i wouldn't be because i'm one of those hated liberal pacifists, but how many so called conservatives wouldn't be?

that is a retorical question that i seriously question your ability to answer to yourself honestly

=^^=
.../\...

 

Why do you paint Iraq to be whiter than white. They didn't have to invade Kuwait all those years ago. They could have allowed the weapons inspectors in. They could have cooperated not with just America but the whole United Nations.

They didn't. The people of the country did not stand up to their leader and therefore must have accepted the regime to a certain extent meaning they are every bit as guilty as the leader.

Take Hitler. All those German soldiers during the war. The SS were largely blamed whereas the German soldiers were thought of as naive and just following orders. Bollocks to that the German soldiers knew exactly what they were doing when killing people.

The Iraqi troops knew exactly what they were doing and by keeping their mouths shut and not standing up for the right thing the Iraqi people have and are doing wrong.

If you sit on the fence all you get are splinters. You get no respect from either side.

The people of Iraq are either for a new democratic Iraq or a continuance of the previous regime. If they are for a new iraq then they need to fight against the tyrants and militants preventing their freedom. If they want to keep the way they were then they must face the consequences of their actions.

 

Only if there is no unity amoung troops and workers. Russian troops (still armed) that joined protestors in Febuarary 1917 which lead to the Febuarary Russian revolution (this should not to be confused with the October revolution that brought Lenin into power) was never punished. The lession, troops going on strike have to ensure solidaridy amoung the troops and the workers and see the revolution to its end.

 

And you got this number of people killed from where????

 

Classic post rofl... So why don't you define what "American" is for us, if voicing our opinions is so dam "unamerican."

 

Not meaning to insult my brothers and sisters over in the USA...but do they put some kind of mind numbing poison in your drinking water? Not even the military talks such over-patriotic crap over here.

 

flouride!!