http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4436698.html American death toll in Iraq hits 3000

Dummy-dubya Bush seems "unshaken".

Hmm, I wonder what the "milestone" of American deaths was in World War II? Or World War I?

And should the American president at that time have been "shaken"? Should they have called a halt to the wars?

Baron Max

3,000 American deaths is a tremendous victory. We're ready to sacrifice 500,000 boys like we did in WWII by 2600 AD.

Ready for Robocop soldiers?

Picture, Any solutions?

Ready for Robocop soldiers?Not a bad idea.

They'll be welcomed in the grateful streets with, um, lubricants and shareware. All the world will hail the advent of American cybergrunts, and all resistance will cease while everyone sings "God Bless America". Right?

I can't believe you're posting this statistic without the statistics for the Iraqis.
How very primitive.
Did you ever read any quality science fiction?
Try begining with Dune....

Fine, then replace "Robocop" with "Sardaukar".

Thank God the Iraqi aren't Zensunni!

I can't believe you're posting this statistic without the statistics for the Iraqis.
....Who kills Iraqis? also the jihad.

Mmmm. Spice. So that's why we're over there.

Who kills Iraqis? also the jihad.Who does the US kill? stones?

I find it interesting that you would equate the death of the invaders of Iraq as victims of terrorism. They didn't have to be there in the first place, and they caused plenty of deaths on their own. Don't get me wrong, our troops try to do their best, to do their duty to the country, but our leaders put them there. It is a sad milestone indeed that 3,000 good Americans had to die for one stubborn idiot, George W. Bush.

Ready for Robocop soldiers?

heh...
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y298/Zahgon/exoskeleton.jpg

Mmmm. Spice. So that's why we're over there.

the spice must flow or the emperors Sadukar will come with swift retribution

Sad milestone, American victims of Islamic terrorists reach 3,000!

American victims? American soldiers are occupying a foreign country, more American soldiers will be dying whether you like it or not, hey, that’s war. ‘Islamic terrorists’, how about you cut out the party lines? it sounds childish. American soldiers have been killed by Baathists, Nationalists, Sunni extremists, Shia extremists and lets not forget those that were killed in road accidents. War is sad for everyone involved, that means Americans and Iraqis.

They didn't have to be there in the first place, and they caused plenty of deaths on their own. Don't get me wrong, our troops try to do their best, to do their duty to the country, but our leaders put them there. It is a sad milestone indeed that 3,000 good Americans had to die for one stubborn idiot, ....

We could have said the very same thing about our invasion of Europe during World War II. Why didn't we?

I would remind you once again that the greater majority of congress voted to invade, so it was NOT just one person as you'd have us believe.

Baron Max

It was a national knee-jerk, dammit! National, I tell you! More troops must be sacrificed for Iraqi Freedom! "We" (or rather other people's kids) won't come home 'til it's over over there (terrorism). So we must be prepared to sacrifice at least as many young Americans as in all our previous wars in this quest. The only good war is Total War! If we don't stop them in Baghdad, the bastards will be in Boston tomorrow. When we're done, we should go back to 'Nam and finish the job right. Look at how the commie gooks are running amok everywhere now. We can't stand losing, nor should we: We're never wrong.

Right, Baron?

Unfortunately a million or more GIs could die in Iraq (if we had sufficient volunteers to send), yet anti-Americanism and international terrorism will persist. What to do? Re-instate the draft? Or something more provocative? Should our righteous admonishment to the "Islamofascists" come in the form of a mushroom cloud, Baron?

Might that make more of 'em angry (don't ya think)?

Go home.

And next time it blows back on America, let's follow the evidence and direct our response exclusively upon the actual perpetrators without distractions. No foreign occupations necessary, just the whole truth about exactly who hit us. When the truth is found, then we can debate what we are going to do about it. As for the debate over whether the occupation of Iraq serves our national interests, it's long over. Americans resoundingly understand now that this war is bullshit.

So go and valiantly pacify Iraq on your own if you must, Baron. Or raise your own private Crusader Army. But don't ask for one more of our sons and daughters who have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our country is already moving on to more productive endeavors, and every American serviceperson killed in Iraq from here forward dies only to temporarily save face for misguided warmongers like you and the lying politicians you have supported, for the fleeting time remaining to your shrinking credibility on the issue of justified American military campaigns.

This website article says it all:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html

It was a national knee-jerk, dammit! National, I tell you! More troops must be sacrificed for Iraqi Freedom! ....

Interesting comments, Hype. But let's put it in a different context, okay? Here's your little speech in a different situation:

"It was a national knee-jerk, dammit! National, I tell you! More troops must be sacrificed for European Freedom! "We" (or rather other people's kids) won't come home 'til it's over over there (Naziism). So we must be prepared to sacrifice at least as many young Americans as in all our previous wars in this quest. The only good war is Total War! If we don't stop them in Germany, the bastards will be in Boston tomorrow."

Interesting when viewed in terms of past history, huh??

Americans resoundingly understand now that this war is bullshit.

Are these the same Americans who voted for President Bush and elected him into office twice? Those same Americans? So you trust those American people to know what's good and right? Interesting, Hype.

Our country is already moving on to more productive endeavors, ...

Many, if not most, Americans felt somewhat the same way during World War II in Europe. Would you have been so ready and willing to bring the troops home in that war, Hype? If not, why not? Or didn't your crystal ball work so well at that time?

Should our righteous admonishment to the "Islamofascists" come in the form of a mushroom cloud, Baron?

Might that make more of 'em angry (don't ya think)?

Dead people don't get angry, Hype. If we killed all of 'em, who'd be left to get anyry? :D

And need I remind you once again that the congress voted overwhelmingly to take the nation to war in Iraq? And those congressmen were voted into power by the same people who you now say have changed their minds??

Baron Max

US Forces did not land in Europe late in the war (1944) to find that Hitler had no weapons with which to threaten his neighbors. Allied Forces did not bring political chaos to Europe. Hitler was not nefariously blamed for Pearl Harbor. Domestic support for WWII did not plummet to less than a 25%. Our losses in Europe would not have been acceptable under discovered false pretenses. Your WWII comparisons are irrelevant crap.

"Dead people don't get angry, Hype. If we killed all of 'em, who'd be left to get anyry? "

How would you propose to kill a billion people, Baron?

"those congressmen were voted into power by the same people who you now say have changed their minds??"

There you have it.

Tell me something, Hype ....if you felt very, very strongly about something, but a bunch of protestors didn't want you to do it ...would you just change your mind and not do it? Are you so weak-willed that you'd let others make up your mind for you? Just like that? Even if you felt very strongly about the issue?

Baron Max

No.

No.

But you want President Bush and his administration to do that very thing?! How can you expect that of him, yet be so strong in your own personal determination? Are you that much of a hippo-critter?

Baron Max

I doesn't seem likely to me that President Bush thinks independently about foreign affairs. He doesn't strike me as an individual with much determination or even concern for affairs beyond his circle of associates. He doesn't seem to have a very good background in international issues, aside from his disastrous Presidential experience. He doesn't seem to have a lot of empathy for the victims of his Iraq adventure. However, it would be a fabulous thing if President Bush could break from his elitist herd, and begin thinking independently.

I doesn't seem likely to me that President Bush thinks independently about foreign affairs. He doesn't strike me as an individual with much concern for affairs beyond his circle of associates. He doesn't seem to have a very good background in international issues, ...

And don't ya' think that that's exactly what people would say about you if you chose to continue on a course that you felt strongly about ....and the protestors didn't agree with you?????? Hmmmm???

I find it difficult to believe that so many people here at sciforums feel that our entire govermental policies should be set by a bunch of protestors shown on tv news, or a bunch of radicals who have little or no knowledge about government or international politics. Odd that you'd want our system changed to that form of government. Really odd.

Baron Max

Reflecting more on your questions, Baron, I must add that determination is not a virtue, unless it is applied for the good of the nation in the case of Presidential responsibilities.

Bush need not respond to protesters in reshaping foreign policy. There is a clamor from all strata of American society, top to bottom, left to right, for a change of course. It's not just a matter of character, but of Constitutional duty, that he respond by making policy changes now.

Please respond to my questions in return.

Reflecting more on your questions, Baron, I must add that determination is not a virtue, unless it is applied for the good of the nation in the case of Presidential responsibilities.

Sure. Good for the nation. But who makes that determination? A bunch of protestors? A few radicals yelling on the tv news every night? Perhaps the news commentators themselves ...hammering away, day after day?

Bush need not respond to protesters in reshaping foreign policy. There is a clamor from all strata of American society, top to bottom, left to right, for a change of course.

Do you have any reliable data to confirm that assertion? And I hope you're not so stupid as to link up some poll numbers!! I want some reliable info for that assertion ...or else I'm going to have to assume that you're just one of those radical protestors yelling in the streets, trying to force your own foreign policy for the US government.

It's not just a matter of character, but of Constitutional duty, that he respond by making policy changes now.

President Roosevelt didn't respond to the criticism about World War II in Europe ...and there was plenty!! In fact, most of congress didn't want to go to war in Europe ..and we might not have had it not been for the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Yet here, you'd have had Roosevelt let the Brits take on the German armies alone, huh? Just 'cause "the people" didn't want to go to war???

Baron Max

hypewaders
~ (4,746 posts)
Today, 02:25 PM #20
US Forces did not land in Europe late in the war (1944) to find that Hitler had no weapons with which to threaten his neighbors. Allied Forces did not bring political chaos to Europe. Hitler was not nefariously blamed for Pearl Harbor. Domestic support for WWII did not plummet to less than a 25%. Our losses in Europe would not have been acceptable under discovered false pretenses. Your WWII comparisons are irrelevant crap.
"Dead people don't get angry, Hype. If we killed all of 'em, who'd be left to get anyry? "
How would you propose to kill a billion people, Baron?

hypewaders, the reason our troops landed in Europe was because of a man named Neville Chamberlain, who declared Peace In Our Time, and allowed Hitler to develop his weapons of mass destruction,

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36.htm

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

Yes we got past it, straight into WWII, and millions of dead and wounded!

Which has what relevance to this discussion?

Saddam is dead

>> Who kills Iraqis?

America.

Saddam kept Iraq in line. Without him over 300,000 Iraqis have been killed

f' the American casualties. Saddam did no wrong, he educated (~60% or more are University trained), he stabilized, and he huffed and puffed and kept the state in line.

Along come the INVAIDERS on no justification and carnage has resulted, AND it is far from over.

America should be take to the war crimes tribunal, and every yank fined one million $US.... LOL as if that will reestablish a future for all the children maimed, killed and displaced.

The consequences of this whole greed getting exercise will be a festering sore that may send us all into a police state

No thanks guys, it makes me puke..

Which has what relevance to this discussion?

Geez, ya' mean that you haven't been paying attention, Hype?

Go back and re-read some of the last few posts ....and try to follow along with the comments and responses. I'm sure you can do it if you put your mind to it.

Baron Max

Baron Max: "I want some reliable info for that assertion"

Assertion: There is a clamor from all strata of American society, top to bottom, left to right, for a change of course.

There's a lot of consultations taking place, and as I announced yesterday, I will be delivering my -- my plans, after a long deliberation, after steady deliberation. I'm not going to be rushed into making a difficult decision, a necessary decision, to say to our troops, we're going to give you the tools necessary to succeed and a strategy to help you succeed. I also want the new Secretary of Defense to have time to evaluate the situation, so he can provide serious and deliberate advice to me. - President GW Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061213-5.html)

Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualties for years without achieving its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq. - Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html)

The truth of the matter is there's a need for radical change in policy. There's a need for a political solution in Iraq and a bipartisan solution here at home. Without those two things happening, there is no possibility, in my view, we succeed in Iraq.-FOXNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,223422,00.html)

As pressure mounts for a change of course in Iraq, the Bush administration is groping for a viable new strategy for the president to unveil by Christmas -Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120801823.html)

Still promising to prevail in Iraq, the president plans to unveil a new strategy to a disillusioned public by Christmas. -MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16150164/)

President Bush reviewed Iraq strategy on Saturday with top generals for a second day in a row amid increasing election-season pressure to make dramatic changes to address deteriorating conditions.

With an increasing number of Republicans – including candidates in the November 7 elections – publicly conceding that the Iraq is not going well, Mr. Bush has suggested that he is open to changes in war tactics, reports CBS News correspondent Dan Raviv. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/21/iraq/main2112748.shtml)

President Bush is reviewing Iraq strategy with top commanders for a second day in a row as election-season pressure increases to make dramatic changes amid deteriorating conditions. -CNN (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/10/bush-commanders-review-iraq-strategy.html)

Faced with a growing list of recommendations and a range of contradictory policy options from key advisers, President Bush yesterday delayed a planned announcement about a new strategy for the war in Iraq until the new year. -Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121200478.html)

We find the Bush administration's delayed Iraq decision particularly repugnant and outrageous. Here we have the "great decider" unable or unwilling to discuss Iraq strategy and purposely delaying his decision until after the first of the year. He cites talking with his advisers as the major reason. Is this not an on-going process rather than a specific project?

Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq is the principal contributor to the U.S. loss of prestige world wide.

Gerald & Dolores Maxey (http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061226/OPINION01/612260317/1008)

Farmington Hills

Baron Max: "I want some reliable info for that assertion"

Assertion: There is a clamor from all strata of American society, top to bottom, left to right, for a change of course.

So you take the words of a few people, the views and opinions of only a few people, to make the leap of faith that they're right ....and that there's a great majority in agreement? Geez, Hype, you're much, much more gullible than I thought you were.

Baron Max

Saddam is dead

>> Who kills Iraqis?

America.

..hmmm, I thought that foreign Arabs & Iraqi Arabs fight each other.

Hype, why don't you take some time to answer my earlier post? I've copied it below so you don't have to waste too much effort:

“ Originally Posted by hypewaders
Reflecting more on your questions, Baron, I must add that determination is not a virtue, unless it is applied for the good of the nation in the case of Presidential responsibilities. ”

Sure. Good for the nation. But who makes that determination? A bunch of protestors? A few radicals yelling on the tv news every night? Perhaps the news commentators themselves ...hammering away, day after day?


“ Originally Posted by hypewaders
Bush need not respond to protesters in reshaping foreign policy. There is a clamor from all strata of American society, top to bottom, left to right, for a change of course. ”

Do you have any reliable data to confirm that assertion? And I hope you're not so stupid as to link up some poll numbers!! I want some reliable info for that assertion ...or else I'm going to have to assume that you're just one of those radical protestors yelling in the streets, trying to force your own foreign policy for the US government.


“ Originally Posted by hypewaders
It's not just a matter of character, but of Constitutional duty, that he respond by making policy changes now. ”

President Roosevelt didn't respond to the criticism about World War II in Europe ...and there was plenty!! In fact, most of congress didn't want to go to war in Europe ..and we might not have had it not been for the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Yet here, you'd have had Roosevelt let the Brits take on the German armies alone, huh? Just 'cause "the people" didn't want to go to war???

Baron Max

I am responding to your posts, Baron. Have a little patience please.

"So you take the words of a few people, the views and opinions of only a few people, to make the leap of faith that they're right"

No leap of faith is necessary for coming to grips with this, Baron. Maybe in your case it does require some extra courage.

Americans want a change of course in Iraq, and you can easily find abundant convincing evidence for this fact in the same ways as you would go about proving any other overwhelming popular desire: Listen to and read the opinions of a broad spectrum of Americans.You can also look to the polls not for hair-splitting nuances, but overall concerns. Iraq is at the top of the national agenda, because Americans are overwhelmingly unhappy about how this war is going.

..., and you can easily find abundant convincing evidence for this fact in the same ways as you would go about proving any other overwhelming popular desire: Listen to and read the opinions of a broad spectrum of Americans.

Is that how you do it, Hype? You listen to a broad spectrum of individual opinions? Or do you read only a few people who claim to have listened to that "broad spectrum" of Americans?

I would also ask ....what do you consider a "broad spectrum"? And additionally, how do you find the time to listen to all those people's opinions? I mean, ya' know, there's some 300 million people in the US ...that's a lot of listening, Hype. How do you find the time to play on sciforums???

You can also look to the polls not for hair-splitting nuances, but overall concerns. ......

I wouldn't believe polls if they forced me to read them at the point of a gun! I'd rather have them shoot me instead. If you believe the polls, about any-fuckin'-thing, then you're not nearly as intelligent as I once thought.

Sorry, Hype, but you're gonna' have to do a lot better than that to get me to believe that "all Americans" are against the war or even that they want a change. We hear that all the time on the news, but how do they know? Ahh, yes, they take a poll ....which means taht they call up about 1,000 people and ask them!! ....LOL!!

Baron Max

Regarding to your WWII comparisons, Baron: Post 20 above addresses them. How ever often you would like to bring it up, please go back to that post for an inkling that WWII enjoyed vastly more popular American support than the present war in Iraq, hands down.

Regarding your question on U.S. civics:

"Good for the nation. But who makes that determination? A bunch of protestors? A few radicals yelling on the tv news every night? Perhaps the news commentators themselves ...hammering away, day after day?"

"The genius of republican liberty seems to demand...not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people...."

-- James Madison, The Federalist, No. 37

The concentration of [all the powers of government] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government.... The government we fought for was one not only founded on free principles but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy...that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectively checked and restrained by the others... For this reason...the legislative, executive, and judicial departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval

Leaders in democracies differ from their authoritarian counterparts in the conduct of war in that they require higher levels of consent from the populace to initiate and prolong wars. This need helps to explain a broad array of empirical regularities regarding the differential war behavior of democracies. For example, democracies tend to pick fights that they are likely to win quickly even though they are more likely than authoritarian states to accept draws or even defeats as a war goes on. Such patterns suggest a broader and more continuous conception of democratic accountability than one based solely on voters’ use of elections to reward incumbents for triumphant wars and punish them for unsuccessful military adventures. In this more extensive view, democratic leaders rely on “contemporary consent”: they need high levels of public support to initiate a war and must maintain that support to carry on a war. This assumes a relation between public opinion and policy not unlike that of the “dynamic representation” model for domestic policy.

Erik Voeten, Public Opinion, the War in Iraq, and Presidential
Accountability (http://home.gwu.edu/~voeten/Iraqpaper.pdf)

"What do you consider a "broad spectrum"? And additionally, how do you find the time to listen to all those people's opinions? "

I meet a broad spectrum of people in my work. I get around. I talk politics in the course of a day. I read extensively. I follow the news. I'm interested in people's opinions, and I'm interested in the future of my country. That's how.

"Sorry, Hype, but you're gonna' have to do a lot better than that to get me to believe that "all Americans" are against the war or even that they want a change."

You know that I have not claimed that all Americans are against the war in Iraq or want a change. I have informed you that most are, and most do. I have offered you corroboration. There is not much more I can offer you, regardless of what I may take the time to inform you about. If you summarily discount all sources of information, then there is no way for me to convince you that the sky is blue on a clear day. There comes a point when you must choose to open your own eyes to what surrounds you.

"What do you consider a "broad spectrum"? And additionally, how do you find the time to listen to all those people's opinions? "

I meet a broad spectrum of people in my work. I get around. I talk politics in the course of a day. I read extensively. I follow the news. I'm interested in people's opinions, and I'm interested in the future of my country. That's how.

Of the 300 million Americans, what percentage do you think you've talked to?

And you can actually say that that's a "broad spectrum" indicating the opinions of all Americans? You take it like the polls, huh ....where they ask 1,000 people, then claim that that's how the entire nation feels? Don't you think that's pretty odd and strange ...and inaccurate???

(edit): I would remind you, Hype, that the last election, while being touted as a great victory for the anti-war Democrats, was not such a grand show of overwhelming vote, was it? In many of the races, if not all, it was not a landslide victory for anti-war folks.

Baron Max

Of the 300 million Americans, what percentage do you think you've talked to?

And you can actually say that that's a "broad spectrum" indicating the opinions of all Americans? You take it like the polls, huh ....where they ask 1,000 people, then claim that that's how the entire nation feels? Don't you think that's pretty odd and strange ...and inaccurate???

(edit): I would remind you, Hype, that the last election, while being touted as a great victory for the anti-war Democrats, was not such a grand show of overwhelming vote, was it? In many of the races, if not all, it was not a landslide victory for anti-war folks.

Baron Max

Read this article:

http://www.dailymirror.lk/2006/11/10/opinion/01.asp

Read this article:

So one article by one person is supposed to mean something to anyone? It's just one person's opinion written out and published in a paper ...big fuckin' deal!

It's so easy for people to make such a big deal outta' the recent congressional election, as if it was some kind of major, monumental event. But I must warn y'all that the Democrats won the congress by only the barest of margins! Don't take that as such a big deal, okay?

What it seems to show for some is that ...."..the American people have spoken!" Yet some of you seem to forget that there were many Republicans that were voted for in that election. Why do you see only the one side of the voting????

"The American people have spoken!" Yep, that's right ....and they're still about 50-50 split!! So don't make it out to be more than it is.

Baron Max

3k US military deaths mean nothing to armchair chickenhawks. This is precisely why we need a draft. The pain and loss needs to be spread across all income levels to ensure the supporters of the war on Iraq are forced to justify the cost.

3k US military deaths mean nothing to armchair chickenhawks. This is precisely why we need a draft. The pain and loss needs to be spread across all income levels to ensure the supporters of the war on Iraq are forced to justify the cost.

Yeah, we need a draft to kill off the rest of our middle class and replace them with cheaper illegal immigrants.

- N

Yeah, we need a draft to kill off the rest of our middle class and replace them with cheaper illegal immigrants.

- NMore like: We need to make the sons and daughters of the wealthy deploy to Iraq and die in Iraq. Until then the chickenhawks won't see any reason to stop sending mostly working class youth to die for their profit margins.

Yeah, we need a draft to kill off the rest of our middle class and replace them with cheaper illegal immigrants.

- NGotta have that talk with CNN's Lou Dobbs.

For Baron Max:
Since we are a 'Democracy/Republic' (both highly debateable) we elect officials who in theory 'vote' for us in all matters. If the public is against it then the elected official should be against it. His/Her opinion should not matter as they are representing the people not themselves.

Though some would say the opinion and will of the minority needs to be protected and fought for....

For Hypie:
Max's WWII comparison is completely valid. The problem is that you forget to include the media which did not exist in WWII (have you ever seen those black and white Victory films? Propaganda at its finest!). Even Korea with its 30,000+ deaths failed to create a stir- yet you add color film and up to date death toll broadcasts and Vietnam turns into an anti-war shark fest. The Media is now the biggest factor in any US conflict. Can you imagine the news if the Battle of Gettysburg happened today? 50,000 dead in what 3 days?

3,000 dead in 3 years of war. 14,000 dead each year due to drunk driving. 500,000 a year dead due to cigarettes. Which one is most likely to recieve a protest in DC?

For Baron Max:
Since we are a 'Democracy/Republic' (both highly debateable) we elect officials who in theory 'vote' for us in all matters. If the public is against it then the elected official should be against it.

Agreed. But the problem, of course, is who or what makes that determination of how the public feels or thinks about some issue? Do you listen to the news broadcasts to see the fervent few protestors? Or do you watch the polls, where they use the responses of only some 1,000 people?

Or do you 'listen' to those who remain silent and go about their jobs and lives, and let their representative do the job they hired him to do? (Most people only complain loudly when things aren't going the way they expected.)

Somehow, just somehow, I get the general idea that our system was not designed in such a way to allow for a vocal few loud and boisterous protestors to control our government policies.

3,000 dead in 3 years of war. 14,000 dead each year due to drunk driving. 500,000 a year dead due to cigarettes. Which one is most likely to recieve a protest in DC?

You forgot to include the number of Americans murdered or killed in drug wars, gang wars, etc. But your point is more than valid ...Hype is more interested in using the war deaths in an attempt to convince others to surrender to the terrorists and violent civil/religious protestors.

Baron Max

Agreed. But the problem, of course, is who or what makes that determination of how the public feels or thinks about some issue? Do you listen to the news broadcasts to see the fervent few protestors? Or do you watch the polls, where they use the responses of only some 1,000 people?

Polls are just a sampling of what the whole might be. I don't understand why you're so against sampling and polling, especially when there's an entire mathematical method behind it. You probably might not have taken it or learned it, which is why you're so against it. I don't know.

It's just like sampling they do for food production. After they make a packet of cupcakes, for example. Do you think the manufacturers take a bit out of every cupcake they produce? No. They choose a sample (maybe 100 out of every 100,000 or more). As long as it's a RANDOM sample, and not targetted, then that sample should (but not always) respresent the whole. But probably what I've just said it too difficult for you to understand, so I'll stop.

Or do you 'listen' to those who remain silent and go about their jobs and lives, and let their representative do the job they hired him to do? (Most people only complain loudly when things aren't going the way they expected.)

Somehow, just somehow, I get the general idea that our system was not designed in such a way to allow for a vocal few loud and boisterous protestors to control our government policies.

Our system of government is designed so that the elected official is elected by a majority; thus, the elected official listens to that majority and gives them what they want. If there are silent people, then tough luck for them. It's sad how not enough Americans don't protest, send letters, or call their elected official if that official doesn't keep his/her promise. We complain, but that's just about it. It's sad.



You forgot to include the number of Americans murdered or killed in drug wars, gang wars, etc. But your point is more than valid ...Hype is more interested in using the war deaths in an attempt to convince others to surrender to the terrorists and violent civil/religious protestors.

Baron Max

I've embarrassed you before when quoting numbers about American casualties before.

You tried to use the argument that we shouldn't withdraw from Iraq because WW2 deaths were higher than Iraq War deaths and we didn't withdraw in WW2. You also tried to argue a long time ago that more Americans died from car accidents than in Iraq. And it kept going on and on.

I'll repeat again and embarrass you again. You and others fail to mention, in all cases, is that your comparison is totally flawed.

How many troops are there in Iraq? 150,000? Almost 200,000 in the beginning?

How many troops were there in WW2? Something like 1,000,000+?? Probably more.

Can you compare the actual deaths when there were a lot more troops serving in one war (thus, increasing the chance of instances of death) compared to the other?

How many drivers are there in America? It's not only 150000 or 200000. It's more in the tens of millions. Can you compare Iraq and car accidents when there are millions more drivers than soldiers in Iraq?

I'll use a crappy example to show the crappiness of these comparisons.



Let's say there are 10 apples in every apple tree. There is a field of 10 trees, with 60% of the apples are rotten. There is also a field of 30 trees, with 40% of the apples rotten. Which field has more rotten apples?

Obviously the latter, because there are more apples to begin with in the field of 30 trees; thus, with a 40% rotting rate, the field of 30 will undoubtedly have more rotten apples.

What you are saying is, because there is 120 rotten apples in the field of 30, it's 100% OK AND FINE that there are "only" 60 rotten apples in the field of 3 trees, when in fact, the actual RATE of rotting apples is higher in the former compared to the latter.

I've mentioned this before, but I guess you've ignored it or weren't bright enough to understand, but it seems like you keep going back to the numbers comparison argument, even though it's been proven flawed again and again.

Polls are just a sampling of what the whole might be. I don't understand why you're so against sampling and polling, especially when there's an entire mathematical method behind it. You probably might not have taken it or learned it, which is why you're so against it. I don't know.

Done properly, polling can be a relatively accurate tool. But the problem is that it's seldom done "properly" ..it's done by pollsters who are out to prove something that their clients want to hear! Big difference, wouldn't you say?

As long as it's a RANDOM sample, and not targetted, then that sample should (but not always) respresent the whole. But probably what I've just said it too difficult for you to understand, so I'll stop.

And may I ask just how one can tell if the poll is taken randomly or not? Do you think pollsters would remain in business if the polls didn't reflect what the client wanted them to?

And thanks for you concern about my ignorance and about my ability to understand. I'm often quite ignorant about topics and issues, but I've never been afraid to say so. As to understanding lessons, sometimes I can, sometimes I can't.

If there are silent people, then tough luck for them. It's sad how not enough Americans don't protest...

So you think our govermental policies should be determined by a few loud protestors? That whatever a few loud protestors want, the government should give them what they want?

You and others fail to mention, in all cases, is that your comparison is totally flawed.

And I've told you and others many times before, it's not the numbers that I'm drawing out in similarity, but the use of the number of dead in Iraq as a tool for decision-making. It's not a comparison of numbers or even a percentage of deaths. You should read my posts again and you'll see clearly that I never attempted to compare the numbers ...only the methodology of argument.

I've mentioned this before, but I guess you've ignored it or weren't bright enough to understand, ....

Why not both?

Again, please read my posts and you'll see that I never attempt to make any comparison to the number of deaths ...only the use of it as decision-making statistic.

Baron Max

Genji, Baron walked the walk, he knows far more than you about death, and the loss of troops, he has carried the body bags of his buddies and turned them over to people like me to take back to graves registration, we know the sadness of empty bunks and missing buddies at the mess table, and the two faces of people who use the deaths of our friends and buddies for political purposes.

I'm glad the public is made more aware of our military adventures by the media. Maybe war will become unpopular?

WWII was a good cause, therefore there is no comparison.

spidergoat

WWII was a good cause, therefore there is no comparison.

And if the Germans had won you would be saying the same thing.

True, if the Germans had won, fighting the Germans would still have been a good cause.

But you would only know history the history from the German's NAZI point of view, so you would respond from that perspective. Yes fighting them would have been a good thing but you would have never known it.

"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953), Supreme Allied Commander during WWII



- N

But you would only know history the history from the German's NAZI point of view, so you would respond from that perspective. Yes fighting them would have been a good thing but you would have never known it.

I wouldn't know it because I would be dead. In contrast, Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way.

Here is all I have to say about the military occupation of Iraq:
If the soldiers are willing to pick up guns and be soldiers, then they must also be willing to die under the command of the country which employs them? Isn't that the risk of being a soldier anyway? It's one of those personal choice things.

Genji, Baron walked the walk, he knows far more than you about death, and the loss of troops, he has carried the body bags of his buddies and turned them over to people like me to take back to graves registration, we know the sadness of empty bunks and missing buddies at the mess table, and the two faces of people who use the deaths of our friends and buddies for political purposes.Amazing then that life is so cheap to you two isn't it? Was having Saddam's head on a platter worth 3k American lives wasted ON PURPOSE? Not by accidents or heart disease but deliberately killed for Saddam's head. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, you know, the ones we were there to...save. I walked the fuckin walk alright. I'm paying for the war on Iraq. My opinion is worth just as much as Jethro's at the local honkytonk.

WWII was a good cause, therefore there is no comparison.

It wouldn't seem that way to many people in the US at the time! From 1939 until December 1941, the congress nor the people would give Roosevelt the right to go to war in Europe against Germany.

If one thinks about it for just a moment, you, Spider, would have been one of those people!

Baron Max

In contrast, Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way.

Neither was Germany!

Baron Max

Amazing then that life is so cheap to you two isn't it?

Look around the world, Genji, .....life IS cheap ...and it always has been. Too many people make big deals about deaths in the Iraq War, yet ignore completely the unnecessary deaths due to drunk driving, murder, assault, rape, and accidents of all kinds that happen daily. Life is cheap ...except where it serves some political purpose like "proving" that the war is bad, etc. Shame on y'all.

Was having Saddam's head on a platter worth 3k American lives....

Yes! And every one of those dead soldiers and marines would have said so themselves!

My opinion is worth just as much as Jethro's at the local honkytonk.

No it ain't! Jethro is a nice guy ...you I ain't so damned sure about.

Baron Max

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16442767/

So you have gathered all the information that all service members killed in Iraq believe it was worth the cost to topple and murder Saddam Hussein? I assume all of their family and friends feel the same? How 'bout the 300,000 plus dead Iraqi's and their family & friends? Destroying their country was also worth it to defeat and murder Saddam? Odd that the Party of God (GOP) war supporters didn't convince the rest of America their war was worth it. Budget busting adventurism isn't in the conservative playbook.

Dummy-dubya Bush seems "unshaken".

approximate numbers of overall deaths in wwII was 50,000,000. Soviet Union, 20,000,000 casualties civilian and military. China, 3,000,000- 15,000,000- 3,000 is a small number, although 1 casualty seems to be 1 too many..... I am no longer a supporter of ole W.... he has lost all of my respect, republican or not.

Odd that the Party of God (GOP) war supporters .War on terror ( from the republicans' point of view) is not always just a "God-ly" issue.

Gengi

Amazing then that life is so cheap to you two isn't it?

No again your wrong, were understand just how valuable the life of our friends are, and were, just because there are places around the world were life in cheep, doesn't mean we don't understand it's value, How cheep was life under Saddam and his Sons in Iraq? Saddam had a fair trial in the Iraqi Courts, his punishment was condoned under the Shari' Law's, and Blessed by the Koran, it was far more of a trial than hundred of thousands of the victims of Saddam's regime ever received, and the hanging was carried out with more dignity than throwing some one you suspect of being disloyal to the dogs to be eaten.

Gengi, here is a site that should interest you, it is copy's of punishment on video, of Iraqi's taken by Saddams thugs to prove to Saddam that they were doing their job's for him.

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alert_saddams_c.html

Gengi



No again your wrong, were understand just how valuable the life of our friends are, and were, just because there are places around the world were life in cheep, doesn't mean we don't understand it's value, How cheep was life under Saddam and his Sons in Iraq? Saddam had a fair trial in the Iraqi Courts, his punishment was condoned under the Shari' Law's, and Blessed by the Koran, it was far more of a trial than hundred of thousands of the victims of Saddam's regime ever received, and the hanging was carried out with more dignity than throwing some one you suspect of being disloyal to the dogs to be eaten.

Gengi, here is a site that should interest you, it is copy's of punishment on video, of Iraqi's taken by Saddams thugs to prove to Saddam that they were doing their job's for him.

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alert_saddams_c.htmlI'm not a Hussein loyalist. He had Iraqi Communist Party members murdered, literally dragged out of government cabinet meetings and shot like dogs. Their families suffered similar fates. I just do not believe he was Ever a threat to US security or US interests. He had no connection to 9/11, never attacked the US or American citizens yet he was tried by a puppet regime and handed to government death squads. I'm not sure how this is an example of democracy. I'm pleased we don't yet have a system like that here. Wasn't Hussein's regime similar?
I also do not believe the sacrifice was worth all of the death and destruction it has wrought on Iraq and the US. Not to mention the astronomical cost as it spirals upward along with the death toll.
If Americans were allowed to vote on spending close to a trillion dollars and killing 3k of our own soldiers to topple one dictator (who likely will be replaced by a militant fundamentalist Muslim sectarian cleric) I doubt very much if we ever would have been there at all.
Anyone that is high fiveing and feeling vindicated about Saddam's head being on GW's platter is a fool. This war on Iraq will prove to be the single biggest debacle and criminal act ever perpetrated by the USA and it's people.

Life is cheap for all dictators. And they all consider themselves patriots.

Saddam said, “The laws in Iraq were just and there were no weapons of mass destruction. Whatever I did, I did it for my country.”

http://news.google.co.in/news/url?sa=t&ct=in/1-0&fp=459c20929db2e683&ei=lIOcRYOcHKCIsgHkwcyIBw&url=http%3A//www.zaman.com/%3Fbl%3Dinternational%26trh%3D20070103%26alt%3D%26 syf%3Dbutun&cid=1112291818

'Deutschland über alles'-Hitler


Patriot Act -GWB (http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/)

Ha!

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

I'm not a Hussein loyalist. He had Iraqi Communist Party members murdered, literally dragged out of government cabinet meetings and shot like dogs. Their families suffered similar fates. I just do not believe he was Ever a threat to US security or US interests. He had no connection to 9/11, never attacked the US or American citizens yet he was tried by a puppet regime and handed to government death squads. I'm not sure how this is an example of democracy. I'm pleased we don't yet have a system like that here. Wasn't Hussein's regime similar?
I also do not believe the sacrifice was worth all of the death and destruction it has wrought on Iraq and the US. Not to mention the astronomical cost as it spirals upward along with the death toll.
If Americans were allowed to vote on spending close to a trillion dollars and killing 3k of our own soldiers to topple one dictator (who likely will be replaced by a militant fundamentalist Muslim sectarian cleric) I doubt very much if we ever would have been there at all.
Anyone that is high fiveing and feeling vindicated about Saddam's head being on GW's platter is a fool. This war on Iraq will prove to be the single biggest debacle and criminal act ever perpetrated by the USA and it's people.

The sad part in all this is that if the US will support a majority regime (Shias), Saudi Arabia will fund Sunni insurgents to offset Iranian influence at its border- they are already building walls there. If its a minority regime, Iran will help the majority ethnic group. The US has single handedly written the death warrant of all the Iraqi people, unless it gets another Saddam, who will be against both Saudi Arabia and Iran and will have the will to suppress any opposition, because he wants a secular country. So what does this war achieve for Iraq besides mass murder of innocents?

The sad part in all this is that if the US will support a majority regime (Shias), Saudi Arabia will fund Sunni insurgents to offset Iranian influence at its border- they are already building walls there. If its a minority regime, Iran will help the majority ethnic group. The US has single handedly written the death warrant of all the Iraqi people, unless it get another Saddam, who will be against both Saudi Arabia and Iran, because he wants a secular country. So what does this war achieve for Iraq besides mass murder of innocents?Very true. The arrogance and ignorance of the Bush adminstration has created a violent and costly black hole that generations of people will have to pay for. They really thought they could replace their govt. with a puppet and make a fortune plundering their oil! Disguising this expensive adventure as a national security matter.
Now it will evolve into a national security matter.

But you would only know history the history from the German's NAZI point of view, so you would respond from that perspective. Yes fighting them would have been a good thing but you would have never known it.

Why not?

Most historians believed and acknowledged that the Soviets could've taken on the Germans on their own after Stalingrad. Of course, that would've meant that Europe would've been Communist, but who knows? America might've taken over all of Eastern Asia (at least all the former Japanese-occupied areas).

We all know that Germany's best forces were sent to fight on the Eastern Front, because the Soviets were a greater threat to the Germans than Britain/USA/Canada. We ended up fighting what was leftover on the Western Front, but even then, we struggled.

Luckily, the US was a lot LOT more successful against Japan, which I think was a brilliantly masterminded strategy (except for the actions of Admiral Halsey).

Gengi
Was the cost of getting rid of Hitler worth It? You just don't seem to want to admit that Saddam was part of the Terrorist Cabal, and that he supported, gave sanctuary, to terrorist, and was working to rebuild his Military, and WMD, and that during his time as Dictator of Iraq the violence was hidden because it was his people doing the violence, on the surface yes Iraq look peaceable, and well ordered, but just look at the personal tape's that Saddam kept of the beatings and torture and executions by his Fayadeen Saddam, Iraq wasn't at peace when we invaded, and the Blood Code that these people live by being carried out by the Shia' for all the atrocities that Saddam and his Sunni henchmen carried out.

terryoh, I must humbly disagree with your premises that the Soviets could have taken Hitler on alone, If Hitler had finished the job on Britain, before he started on the Soviet Union he would have had 12 to 20 more divisions available, and the North Atlantic would have been a German Pond, which would have meant that here would have been very little supplies reaching Russia from the Allies, as we would have to have shipped them directly from the U.S. across a ocean controlled by Hitler's U-Boats, and the battle of Stalingrad would have had a different out come, the biggest thing that we did to help the Russians was with the trucks and railroad equipment, for transportation of supplies and troops we sent them, they didn't have the ability at the time to move the troops needed with out them, and they never would have gotten the Siberian divisions to their western front in time to have been any use.

How people fool themselves, rather than face the truth and consequences of their folly:


Many Iraqis think conditions have gotten so bad in their country, they'd like to see Saddam Hussein back in power, according to some of the seven young Iraqi men who had a candid discussion with The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith.

All are college-educated and speak English.

"When the Americans started this whole war issue," said one, who will be referred to as person No. 1, "we started to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and we walked toward it. But when the war happened, that light was the American train coming the other way that ran us over."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/earlyshow/main1649689.shtml


Saddam Better for Women
Sanjay Suri

LONDON, Mar 29 (IPS) - Women were far better off under former Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein, a women's group has found after an extensive survey in Iraq.

''Under the previous dictator regime, the basic rights for women were enshrined in the constitution,'' Houzan Mahmoud from the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq told IPS in an interview. The group is a sister organization of MADRE, an international women's rights group.

Under Saddam, she said, ''women could go out to work, university and get married or divorced in civil courts. But at the moment women have lost almost all their rights and are being pushed back into the corner of their house.''

The recent constitution which was written under the U.S. government's supervision is ''very backward and anti-women,'' Mahmoud said. ''They make Islam the source for law making, and the main official religion of the country. This in itself means Islamic Sharia law and according to this women will be considered second-class citizens and will have no power in deciding over their lives.''

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693


The former U.N. human rights chief for Iraq said abuses are as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein. Extrajudicial killings and torture are soaring, and morgue workers are being threatened by both government-backed militiamen and insurgents not to properly investigate deaths, he told AP in Sydney, Australia.

"Under Saddam, if you agreed to forgo your basic right to freedom of expression and thought, you were physically more or less OK," said John Pace, who last month left his post as director of the human rights office at the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq. "But now, no. Here, you have a primitive, chaotic situation where anybody can do anything they want to anyone."


Of course the US cannot understand what the fuss is about.

In 2004 the US averaged 44 murders a day.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-still-insists-on-civil-war-in-iraq


Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix on Wednesday described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "pure failure" that had left the country worse off than under the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1025-01.htm

Christians were better off under bad Saddam, one-time U.S. ally.

According to Simon Calwell of The Times, “in the Shia-dominated south of the country…[a]ll women, including Christians---who under Saddam could wear the latest fashions and make-up, and go to work---are under pressure to wear the hijab.” Churches have been bombed by Islamists, priests have been abducted for ransom, liquor shops owned by Christians have been targeted. Baathist Iraq was a basically secular state.

Gays were better off under bad Saddam, one-time U.S. ally.

According to Ali Hili, a gay Iraqi man recently interviewed by Amy Goodman on MPR’s Democracy Now! Program, “Iraq, at the time of Saddam, was -- I mean, I’m talking about as a gay Iraqi -- it was not as bad as we can see now... There [were] no homophobic attitudes toward gay and lesbians. Most of them [were] welcomed in the community and the society… It’s a very dark age for gays and lesbians and transsexuals and bisexuals in Iraq right now. And the fact that Iraq has been shifted from a secular state into a religious state was completely, completely horrific. We were very modern. We were very, very Western culturalized -- Iraq -- comparing to the rest of the Middle East.

Intellectuals were better off under bad Saddam, one-time U.S. ally.

The Times Higher Education Supplement noted in September 2004 “a widespread feeling among the Iraqi academics that they are witnessing a deliberate attempt to destroy intellectual life in Iraq.” According to the Monitoring Net for Human Rights in Iraq, over 1,000 Iraqi academics and scientists had been shot to death between the beginning of the U.S.-led invasion and late 2005.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar06/Leupp31.htm

During a BBC interview on Monday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said that the average Iraqi was better off under Saddam Hussein's regime than now. Under Saddam, "they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school," according to Annan.

Annan also called the present situation "much worse" than the last civil war in Lebanon. Secretary General Annan joined the ranks of a growing list of critics of the Iraq war who also say life was better under Saddam.
http://cnnexposed.com/story.php?story=27

Increasing numbers of children in Iraq do not have enough food to eat and more than a quarter are chronically undernourished, a UN report says.

Malnutrition rates in children under five have almost doubled since the US-led intervention - to nearly 8% by the end of last year, it says.

The report was prepared for the annual meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

UN specialist on hunger Jean Ziegler, who prepared the report, blames the worsening situation in Iraq on the war led by coalition forces.

He was addressing a meeting of the 53-nation commission, the top UN rights watchdog, which is halfway through its annual six-week session.

When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, about 4% of Iraqi children under five were going hungry; now that figure has almost doubled to 8%, his report says.

Governments must recognise their extra-territorial obligations towards the right to food and should not do anything that might undermine access to it of people living outside their borders, it says.

That point is aimed clearly at the US, but Washington, which has sent a large delegation to the Human Rights Commission, declined to respond to the charges, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/10017

Must say, it is an achievement when a genocidal dictator becomes a fond memory as compared to "democracy".

Its also incredibly ironic that the "insurgents" and "militants" that the US is fighting in Iraq today are the same "victims" that were "suppressed" by Saddam.

I can't believe you're posting this statistic without the statistics for the Iraqis.

400,000 Iraqis dead, that means WE WIN! GO AMERICA!

:m:

Once again if 500,000 people are dying each year from smoking (and we are soooo concerned about Americans dying) then where are all the protests?

1,000 deaths a year out of 150,000 troops (in a war which is incredible...) is a lower percentage than those who smoke and die from it. So once again where are all the protests?

We had more soldiers die on the road leading to our base than in Iraq. Maybe Cindy should have had a protest concerning the road? I mean if all she REALLY cares about is the lives of Soldiers she would be protesting soldiers drinking, soldiers smoking, vehicle safety, road safety, and demanding that tanks have seat belts! 3,000 deaths is just some figure Anti-war head in the sand pacifists use to justify their cause.

She would do more good for society sending care packages to the troops overseas.

Most dead smokers are 79 or older.

A quarter of all smokers die when they are between 35-69 years of age (125,000 people a year). Ive seen family die of cancer and i'd rather get shot in combat.

edited to add: Since 1951 smoking has killed an estimated 100 Million people world wide. Where are all the protests? The UN should do something!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3826127.stm

samcdkey

Its also incredibly ironic that the "insurgents" and "militants" that the US is fighting in Iraq today are the same "victims" that were "suppressed" by Saddam.

Your proof for this?

I would have thought its pretty obvious.

Muqtada al-Sadr, the son of a revered ayatollah killed by Saddam Hussein's regime in 1999


The Mahdi Army, also known as the Mahdi Militia or Jaish al Mahdi (Arabic جيش المهدي) , is a militia force created by the Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in June 2003. The Islamist militia rose to international prominence on April 4, 2004 when it spearheaded the first major armed confrontation against the U.S-led occupation forces in Iraq from the Shiite community in an uprising that followed the banning of al-Sadr's newspaper and attempts to arrest him, and lasted until June 6.

I would have thought its pretty obvious.

Huh? Al-Sadr's men are killing other Muslims, Sam! In fact, they're killing them by the hundreds.

Baron Max

Huh? Al-Sadr's men are killing other Muslims, Sam! In fact, they're killing them by the hundreds.

Baron Max

And they started right after the US stepped in. Why do you think that is?:rolleyes:

And they started right after the US stepped in. Why do you think that is?

Because Americans won't use the same tactics that Sadman did to quell any of the unrest and violence in Iraq. Thus the radical Muslims are more free to kill those other Muslims that they don't like.

If you'd allow the US to use the same tactics that Sadman did, we'd have no violence in Iraq now. Freedom also gives one the freedom to kill others.

Baron Max

Because Americans won't use the same tactics that Sadman did to quell any of the unrest and violence in Iraq. Thus the radical Muslims are more free to kill those other Muslims that they don't like.

If you'd allow the US to use the same tactics that Sadman did, we'd have no violence in Iraq now. Freedom also gives one the freedom to kill others.

Baron Max

So if the US is attacking the same people as Saddam, who are they "saving"?

Plus:
The two most prominent militias -- the Mehdi Army and the Badr Organization -- are armed wings of Shiite political parties whose support is crucial to the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

So the US is attacking the same militia that is holding up the "democratically" elected government?

More "successes" in Iraq:


Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army has replaced al Qaeda in Iraq as "the most dangerous accelerant" of the sectarian violence plaguing Iraq for nearly a year, according to a Pentagon report.

The number of attacks recorded in September and October were the highest on record, the report found, but it provided no specific figures.

Nearly 70 percent of attacks targeted U.S. and allied troops, "but the overwhelming majority of casualties were suffered by Iraqis," the report concluded.

Happy days are here again?

So if the US is attacking the same people as Saddam, who are they "saving"?

They aren't.

Baron Max

They aren't.

Baron Max

They aren't what? Attacking, saving or having any idea whatsoever of the shit they are head over heels deep in? :rolleyes:

Site proof Sam, Site Proof, from what I have put together is the Iraqi's who are bearing the brunt of the attacks, and the casualties, yes the attacks are up, but this also means we are killing more terrorist, the question is can the terrorist keep up the tempo of attacks and the loss's they incur from them.

And with out the howl from the Media, what have the terrorist achieved militarily? It is with people like you who the terrorist seem to impress, the Guy's I talk to, who come back from their tour's say the don't have the stuff to win the war militarily, that when they can get a hold on the terrorist they die like rats in a half filled 55 gallon drum.

cite proof?

Its a Pentagon report, with your "connections" you can surely access it.

Or are your buddies keeping secrets from you too?:rolleyes:

And the "terrorists" are also holding up the government, so essentially the US is destabilising the Iraqi government.

As for your buddies in Iraq: I'm sure they think Iraq is an oasis in the desert, filled with bubbling brooks and virgins.:D

hellloooooooo anybody home? Reality check 1...2...3...

May 1, 2003

http://www.davidstuff.com/usa/lincoln/bush-mission.jpg

No Sam my friend are telling me, yes there are more attacks on U.S. troops, but that works to our advantage, it give us a better chance of killing them, and they tell me that it is still the Iraqi civilians that are taking the brunt of the attacks in Iraq, and most of those attacks are blood feud reprisals,and as far as old Muqtada Al-Sadr, he wants to become the next Saddam of Iraq, we made a mistake in letting him set up his militia, but it looks like he is going to get his just deserts shortly, and we are going to correct that mistake.

There are more attacks on U.S. troops, but that works to our advantage.
So I guess it would be a bad thing if attacks on US troops declined?

It would make no difference, we would then go after them, it just a little easer when they come to you.

It would make no difference, we would then go after them, it just a little easer when they come to you.
Go after them? Do you know where to go to get them? Do you know there they are?

Go after them? Do you know where to go to get them? Do you know there they are?

You've never heard of Fallujah? Sam-o, Sam-o. Block 'em in, then go house to house and kill 'em all.

Baron Max

You've never heard of Fallujah? Sam-o, Sam-o. Block 'em in, then go house to house and kill 'em all.

I recall a seige on Fallujah some time ago. Did that stop the insurgency? Or affect it in any way? And isnt killing mass numbers bound to create more insurgents (unless you kill everyoine in Iraq)?

Nickelodeon, yes, that is what Intellengence is for, Reconnance, it's what i did for 17 years for Uncle Sam.

Nickelodeon, yes, that is what Intellengence is for, Reconnance, it's what i did for 17 years for Uncle Sam.
The same intellignece that told us there were WMD in Iraq in 2003?

Sam just heard that in 2006, the Iraqi's lost 16,976 casualties, and we have lost 3,000 troops since the beginning of the war, so who is taking the brunt of the casualties?

I recall a seige on Fallujah some time ago. Did that stop the insurgency? Or affect it in any way?

Yes, it did have an effect. But liberal assholes and idiot politicians wouldn't let the US military continue a tactic that worked ....they want only tactics that don't work, so that our military has to work under almost impossible conditions. (Just like we had to do in Vietnam ...when something worked, we weren't allowed to continue it!)

Baron Max

Yes, it did have an effect. But liberal assholes and idiot politicians wouldn't let the US military continue a tactic that worked ....they want only tactics that don't work, so that our military has to work under almost impossible conditions. (Just like we had to do in Vietnam ...when something worked, we weren't allowed to continue it!)

Baron Max

Why do you think that is? Is it possibly because war is ultimately profitable?

Nickelodeon, no tactical intell, and from the info that I get from the guy's coming back is that there are WMD being found, and that Saddam sent the majority to Syria, don't worry they will turn up again to bite us in the ass.

Why do you think that is? Is it possibly because war is ultimately profitable?

I don't know ....but my guess is it's simply what we like to call "international politics". Which is, I think, an excuse used by some in order not to hurt the feelings of someone else, or some other nation/culture/people/etc. I.e., trying to be all things to all people at the same time. Stupid, but that's what it seems.

Baron Max

Sam just heard that in 2006, the Iraqi's lost 16,976 casualties, and we have lost 3,000 troops since the beginning of the war, so who is taking the brunt of the casualties?

So the US is "saving" Iraq by attacking the militia that is holding up the democratically elected government, is part of the biggest militia currently operating in Iraq (finishing ahead of Al Qaeda even) and is killing innocent civilians while targeting US troops. And all this a great thing which is part of the grand plan of the US. Which GWB is going to apparently change sometime when he gets around to figuring out what to do.

Hmm makes perfect sense.:eek:

btw, re: the Iraqi casualties- is the US doing body counts now?

I don't know ....but my guess is it's simply what we like to call "international politics". Which is, I think, an excuse used by some in order not to hurt the feelings of someone else, or some other nation/culture/people/etc. I.e., trying to be all things to all people at the same time. Stupid, but that's what it seems.

Baron Max

OOOOH ok, so basically what Bush tried to do to win the election. Be for all sides at once, and have a lot of grey areas. Its no use trying to 'not hurt the feelings of other nations', I believe they already hate the USA. Yes, i agree stupid.

Which militia is holding up Iraq? how much was the taken in the hold up? old Muky, is angling to become the next Saddam, He isn't doing anything that is helping the Iraqi government.

Which militia is holding up Iraq? how much was the taken in the hold up? old Muky, is angling to become the next Saddam, He isn't doing anything that is helping the Iraqi government.

Neither is anyone else.

Ragnarok, weather they hate us or don't, should not have any thing to do with our mission in Iraq, other countries opinion should have no bearing on the way operation of our troops are conducted, the conduct of our operations is our concern as it involve the lives of our troops.

samcdkey, Really? I'm starting to believe my grand pa, he said the biggest mistake in the 20th century was giving women the vote.

samcdkey, Really? I'm starting to believe my grand pa, he said the biggest mistake in the 20th century was giving women the vote.

Uh Oh. All hells about to break loose. This is gonna be fun.

Ragnarok, weather they hate us or don't, should not have any thing to do with our mission in Iraq, other countries opinion should have no bearing on the way operation of our troops are conducted, the conduct of our operations is our concern as it involve the lives of our troops.

samcdkey, Really? I'm starting to believe my grand pa, he said the biggest mistake in the 20th century was giving women the vote.

I'm not surprised. The US for all its talk on freedom has yet to produce a woman President, even after 200 years.

And one would assume that the opinion of people being "saved" would count, especially when simultaneously battling a war on "terror".:rolleyes:

I'm not surprised. The US for all its talk on freedom has yet to produce a woman President, even after 200 years.

I'm sure they'll produce someone just as incompetent as the last few male presidents. She will be black, also, because everyone loves a pity party.

And one would assume that the opinion of people being "saved" would count, ...

And just who are they, Sam? Can you tell us how to recognize them? How can we tell the difference between them?

I mean, you seem to know, so that's why I'm asking you ....the "One Who Sees All and Knows All" - SamCDKey!

Baron Max

samcdkey, Really? I'm starting to believe my grand pa, he said the biggest mistake in the 20th century was giving women the vote.

As I grow older, I'm coming to believe that myself. We should have kept women in the home where they belong, taking care of the home and raising the children properly. You can see the effects of women's rights in how the children have been raised and what they've become.

Baron Max

And just who are they, Sam? Can you tell us how to recognize them? How can we tell the difference between them?

I mean, you seem to know, so that's why I'm asking you ....the "One Who Sees All and Knows All" - SamCDKey!

Baron Max

That is my question. How do you know? Who is an "insurgent"? Who is a civilian? Who is the US "saving"? From whom? How can they tell when the people have been saved? When do they know they have "won"? Who is the target, the enemy? Against whom is the US fighting in Iraq?

Samcdkey
And one would assume that the opinion of people being "saved" would count, especially when simultaneously battling a war on "terror".

And what do you think that opinion is? From what I have read yes the Iraqi's want us to leave, but not until the country can stand on it's own, tell me what you think will happen if we leave? Peace? what do you want to bet, and what do you want to bet that the terrorist won't stop, and that they will follow us back to America and continue the Attack, that the attacks around the world will also continue and increase, do you want to bet?

Wow. wow. Lets make em wear burkas too.

As I grow older, I'm coming to believe that myself. We should have kept women in the home where they belong, taking care of the home and raising the children properly. You can see the effects of women's rights in how the children have been raised and what they've become.

Baron Max

You could always move to Saudi Arabia. :D
The oil is (or was, a couple years back) just 70 halalas a liter.

Baron remember that she say's she can't read minds, but she sure seems to try to do it.

Samcdkey


And what do you think that opinion is? From what I have read yes the Iraqi's want us to leave, but not until the country can stand on it's own, tell me what you think will happen if we leave? Peace? what do you want to bet, and what do you want to bet that the terrorist won't stop, and that they will follow us back to America and continue the Attack, that the attacks around the world will also continue and increase, do you want to bet?

And the solution is...?

Who is the target, the enemy? Against whom is the US fighting in Iraq?

The radical Muslims who are killing the other radical Muslims, that's who!

Baron Max

And the solution is...?

Well, it's obvious to me ....if there were no Muslims in the world, there'd be no terrorism or terrorist attacks (or at least damned few, if any!). And you wonder why the west is fearful of, and maybe hates, Muslims???

Baron Max

Let the Military do it's job and keep the politicians out of the military planning until the mission is accomplished and the war is won and they are needed to conclude the peace treaty.

That is probably the stupidest argument you have ever made, B-max. If there were no guns there would be no shootings, if there were no air there would be no lung cancer...

until the mission is accomplished and the war is won
So basically until everyone is dead.

That is probably the stupidest argument you have ever made, B-max. If there were no guns there would be no shootings, ...

Which is exactly the same argument that people make when supporting gun control. And if I'm not mistaken, it's one that you support, too. Interesting, huh?

Baron Max

Let the Military do it's job and keep the politicians out of the military planning until the mission is accomplished and the war is won and they are needed to conclude the peace treaty.

That part of the operation was finished in about two weeks. But that wasn't good enough for Bush, he had to install a puppet government and permanent bases to keep control over the OIL!

So basically until everyone is dead.

In other words:

The sad part in all this is that if the US will support a majority regime (Shias), Saudi Arabia will fund Sunni insurgents to offset Iranian influence at its border- they are already building walls there. If its a minority regime, Iran will help the majority ethnic group. The US has single handedly written the death warrant of all the Iraqi people, unless it gets another Saddam, who will be against both Saudi Arabia and Iran and will have the will to suppress any opposition, because he wants a secular country. So what does this war achieve for Iraq besides mass murder of innocents?

So basically until everyone is dead.

No, not everyone. Just those who'd take up arms and try to kill others ...in particularly, other Muslims!

I believe that the term you're searching for is ....surrender by the Muslim radicals and insurgents. Sort of like we had in Japan and Germany in World War II. Or would you have preferred that we still be fighting those wars???

Baron Max

No, not everyone. Just those who'd take up arms and try to kill others ...
Then you better kill yourselves.

No, not everyone. Just those who'd take up arms and try to kill others ...in particularly, other Muslims!

I believe that the term you're searching for is ....surrender by the Muslim radicals and insurgents. Sort of like we had in Japan and Germany in World War II. Or would you have preferred that we still be fighting those wars???

Baron Max

Makes perfect sense.

So who are the insurgents (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2025900) in Iraq? I mean, since the US is saving (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200304/01/eng20030401_114323.shtml) the innocent (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&art_id=qw1165582802351B262&click_id=2813&set_id=1)Iraqis from these evil (http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/) insurgents (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html), they can tell which (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1882607,00.html) is (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/19/19315/6590) which (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/)right?

spidergoat

That part of the operation was finished in about two weeks. But that wasn't good enough for Bush, he had to install a puppet government and permanent bases to keep control over the OIL!

This show how much you really understand about military operations, people like you don't ever want to account for the fact that the enemy has a brain and does tactical adjustment to the situation presented to them, yes we made mistakes, they are made in every war, but that doesn't mean that you pack your duffel and quit, you adjust your tactic's to, if the politicians let you, and keep killing the enemy, until he quits, and asks for peace, there are many similarities to WWII, but there are many differences, and one of those differences is that this is a religious war, a crusade by the Moslems, and it doesn't involve state entities, so this is and will be a long dirty, vicious fight with people who pay no attention to the Laws Of War, and it will not be done in a few years like WWII, and it won't stop just because we disengage and go home, they will be like the plague, they will follow us home and through out the world, spreading just like the plague they are.

Makes perfect sense.

i wonder sam if you are an american citizen. you dont sound like you support america in any way.

spidergoat



This show how much you really understand about military operations, people like you don't ever want to account for the fact that the enemy has a brain and does tactical adjustment to the situation presented to them, yes we made mistakes, they are made in every war, but that doesn't mean that you pack your duffel and quit, you adjust your tactic's to, if the politicians let you, and keep killing the enemy, until he quits, and asks for peace, there are many similarities to WWII, but there are many differences, and one of those differences is that this is a religious war, a crusade by the Moslems, and it doesn't involve state entities, so this is and will be a long dirty, vicious fight with people who pay no attention to the Laws Of War, and it will not be done in a few years like WWII, and it won't stop just because we disengage and go home, they will be like the plague, they will follow us home and through out the world, spreading just like the plague they are.

Interesting philosophy. Sounds exactly like the terrorist rhetoric about the US.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.

You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk.

The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at the White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview with him? So that he may relay to the American people what he has understood from us to be the reasons for our fight against you?

If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th. This concerned the causes of the war.

As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief among them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.

Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr to the region.

At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

Interesting philosophy. Sounds exactly like the terrorist rhetoric about the US.

so you compare blood thirsty animals to b.r. ? the problem is the terrorists who want to blow up everyone who isnt muslim, and they are driven by belief. i wonder, in ww2 would you call the death camps resistance too.

so you compare blood thirsty animals to b.r. ? the problem is the terrorists who want to blow up everyone who isnt muslim, and they are driven by belief. i wonder, in ww2 would you call the death camps resistance too.

Unless I'm mistaken, Iraq is mostly Muslim. More BS rhetoric.:rolleyes:

spidergoat



This show how much you really understand about military operations, people like you don't ever want to account for the fact that the enemy has a brain and does tactical adjustment to the situation presented to them, yes we made mistakes, they are made in every war, but that doesn't mean that you pack your duffel and quit, you adjust your tactic's to, if the politicians let you, and keep killing the enemy, until he quits, and asks for peace, there are many similarities to WWII, but there are many differences, and one of those differences is that this is a religious war, a crusade by the Moslems, and it doesn't involve state entities, so this is and will be a long dirty, vicious fight with people who pay no attention to the Laws Of War, and it will not be done in a few years like WWII, and it won't stop just because we disengage and go home, they will be like the plague, they will follow us home and through out the world, spreading just like the plague they are.

Gee, I thought we went to stop Saddam's WMDs from proliferating or being used in an attack against us or our allies.

The fact that we went to war against Al Quida, and the members of Al Quida are Muslims has nothing to do with the fact that most Iraqis are also Muslims. Just who is fighting a holy war against whom?

Who is the enemy in Iraq? Sunnis are killing us, and Shia are killing us. The only ones not killing us are the Kurds.

Follow us home? Like they can't find America without a trail of breadcrumbs?

i wonder sam if you are an american citizen. you dont sound like you support america in any way.

I don't support US foreign policy. I believe if unchecked in it's present course, it will lead to the destruction of American society and all it stands for.

so you compare blood thirsty animals to b.r. ? the problem is the terrorists who want to blow up everyone who isn't muslim, and they are driven by belief. i wonder, in ww2 would you call the death camps resistance too.

The terrorists (Muslim extremists) want to blow up Muslims, too. They do not consider Muslims aligned with the US or those who advocate anything other than Islamic law to be real Muslims.

Sam, it is great how you show your ability to think like a terrorist, and your Moslem to, a coincidence, or is that the product of reading the Koran? and following Mohamed?, You definitely do defend the terrorist don't you.

Unless I'm mistaken, Iraq is mostly Muslim. More BS rhetoric.:rolleyes:
the muslims who blow up other muslim consider them infidels, and you know it!
if i was an american i wouldnt want you in my country thats for sure. you bash american soldiers who died in iraq, you bash the war on terror and you take only one side and thats the muslim side every single time. just like ini srael your kind are screaming you are never right you are only wrong, same here inly change israel for america. im glad no body here is falling for your crap.

spidergoat, surprisingly they don't, the fight in Islam is over who has the right interpretation of the Koran, much as the Christians did in the Dark Ages, the difference is that the Christians learned from their foolishness, the Moslems don't seem to have that capability.

Sam, it is great how you show your ability to think like a terrorist, and your Moslem to, a coincidence, or is that the product of reading the Koran? and following Mohamed?, You definitely do defend the terrorist don't you.

More personal attacks? So you don't see the resemblance between your rhetoric and OBLs?

You can only claim I defend the terrorists if you also claim I defend you. As I have pointed, both of you are using the same excuses and refusing to take responsibility for the death of innocents, whether they be women, children or US soldiers. All are cannon fodder to your foolish games of power.

Sam, it is great how you show your ability to think like a terrorist, and your Moslem to, a coincidence, or is that the product of reading the Koran? and following Mohamed?, You definitely do defend the terrorist don't you.

What the hell does that mean?

Unless I'm mistaken, Iraq is mostly Muslim. More BS rhetoric.:rolleyes:Are you denying that there's inner fascism between Sunni - Shiite Muslims on on another that sees each other "not the right Muslim"?
So is Sudan. (African Sufi victims of Arab Sunni).

Are you denying that there's inner fascism between Sunni - Shiite Muslims on on another that sees each other "not the right Muslim"?
So is Sudan. (African Sufi victims of Arab Sunni).

Hello Kiwi.

We had this discussion already when you were "To Post it Up". Look it up if you have Amnesia as well.

spidergoat, surprisingly they don't, the fight in Islam is over who has the right interpretation of the Koran, much as the Christians did in the Dark Ages, the difference is that the Christians learned from their foolishness, the Moslems don't seem to have that capability.

There is no real fight in Islam over correct interpretation. The fight in Iraq is about which religious and ethnic group is in power.

Which involves the interpretation of the Koran, Sunni, Shai', Bahai, Suffie, they all are killing each other over there quest for power, and the ability to impose their belief on everyone else, the only one's to seem to have made peace with the rest of the world are the Bahai'.

More personal attacks? So you don't see the resemblance between your rhetoric and OBLs?

You can only claim I defend the terrorists if you also claim I defend you. As I have pointed, both of you are using the same excuses and refusing to take responsibility for the death of innocents, whether they be women, children or US soldiers. All are cannon fodder to your foolish games of power.

in case you havent noticed america was attacked by muslims(more then once). the backward muslim world, which you so proudly represent , declared war on the west. the us retaliated as it should. this isnt a game of power, this is a war against people who act on religious belief and they think they are winning. they shouldnt be allowed to win and must be stopped. if you only criticized america by what its does, ok, but you criticize the its reason, and distorting it because you probably identify with your muslim brothers. your kind is not less dangerous then the terrorists abroad. you make it look like you dont support terrorists, and use it to criticize the war in iraq for instance. maybe the us government made a mistake by attacking iraq, but they did the right thing by protecting themselves from muslims. the real problem is iran and its allies like n.korea, hezbullah and hamas. thats the enemy.

I recall Americans did quite a bit of killing each other over ideological differences.

I recall Americans did quite a bit of killing each other over ideological differences.

very informative data.

Which involves the interpretation of the Koran, Sunni, Shai', Bahai, Suffie, they all are killing each other over there quest for power, and the ability to impose their belief on everyone else, the only one's to seem to have made peace with the rest of the world are the Bahai'.

Shows how much you know about the religion. The different sects in Islam are politically divided. There are no differences between the Sunni and Shia in interpretation of Quran, only in political hierarchy. The differences are within the Sunnis and Shias and can overlap both sects. These differences are not a matter of contention however and any Muslim can switch between any sects of Islam without any problem whatsoever.

But I'd not expect any better from you. Your knowledge of other cultures /religions speaks for itself.

Comparison chart:
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islamic_sects.htm

Shows how much you know about the religion. The different sects in Islam are politically divided. There are no differences between the Sunni and Shia in interpretation of Quran, only in political hierarchy. The differences are within the Sunnis and Shias and can overlap both sects. These differences are not a matter of contention however and any Muslim can switch between any sects of Islam without any problem whatsoever.

But I'd not expect any better from you. Your knowledge of other cultures /religions speaks for itself.

Comparison chart:
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islamic_sects.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Shia-Sunni_relations

i guess wikipedia is lying about this then....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Shia-Sunni_relations

i guess wikipedia is lying about this then....

Can you show me where it says they follow different interpretations of the Quran?

Can you show me where it says they follow different interpretations of the Quran?

Shia and Sunni are the two major branches of Islam (see Historic background of the Sunni-Shi'a split for their origins). There are differences both in beliefs and practices.

The Umayyads were overthrown in 750 by a new dynasty, the Abbasids. The first Abbasid caliph, As-Saffah recruited Shiite support in his campaign against the Umayyads by emphasizing his blood relationship to the Prophet's household through descent from his uncle, Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib. The Shia also believe that he promised them that the Caliphate, or at least religious authority, would be vested in the Shiite Imam. As-Saffah assumed both the temporal and religious mantle of Caliph himself. He continued the Umayyad