You could compare the deaths of coalition troops to California, but not Iraqi deaths, which are estimated at about 20,000 per month.
Geez, that's almost 700 Iraqis per fuckin' day?!!! Let's see, we're been there three years or so, right? there's 12 months in a year. So ...over the three years, so .....wow! 700 Iraqis killed per day, huh? That's a lot more than we killed in all of World War II .....maybe even counting World War I? Wow! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Seems like the news media would jump all over that for their broadcasts, do you think? I wonder why they don't? Geez, you dont suppose it's 'cause that number is so fuckin' wrong as to be laughable, do you? ...LOL! Baron Max
Oh, ya' mean just dying of old age, accidents and diseases are figured in to that number??? But, Sam, that ain't exactly the way he presented it, is it? Oh, wait, I see now .....he was attempting to shock people into becoming anti-war, huh? ...LOL! Baron Max
In other words, 700 more people dying everyday is not as far fetched as you seem to think it is. It means 2-3 people dying instead of every one, due to the war.
But Baron, how would you know the real situation in Iraq if you only consume media from pro-US propagandists?
Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Anthony Shadid returns to Baghdad after a year away and finds only heartbreak and horror. ...I asked him whether it would become worse if the American military withdrew. He looked at me for a moment without saying anything, as though he were a little confused. "What could be worse?" he asked, knitting his brow... "This is a civil war now," Harith Abdel-Hamid, a psychiatrist, had told me, trying to diagnose the madness. "When you see hundreds of people killed every day, corpses of people tortured in the streets every day, what else does it mean?"... "Call it what you will," he said, "but it is a civil war."
The Pulitzer Prize has become an award for predominantly anti-American and often completely fictitious "reporting". http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4534_0_3_0_C/ Washington Post reporter Dana Priest won a Pulitzer Prize for a story about CIA "secret prisons" in Europe that cannot be confirmed and appears to be essentially false. and.... http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/074155.php Pulitzer Prize Given to Terrorists- The Pulitzer Prize has been "Awarded to the Associated Press Staff for its stunning series of photographs of bloody yearlong combat inside Iraqi cities." 5 of the 20 photos were taken by journalists who were working with terrorist forces. 11 of the 20 photos would likely cause anti-American inflamation. Only two show Americans in a positive light. Three more show the victims of terrorism. Let's hear it now about how this is just informing Americans about the "truth" about the horrors of war- never mind that it provides terrorists with great propaganda- oh- and incidentally also the "anti-war" (surrender) crowd too. No question the situation in Iraq is brutal but what is needed is not endless exploitive expose of the problems but constructive support for a coherent policy and strategy that can win stability.
We get occasional news shows about regular Iraqi life ...other than the constant violence that the news media likes to show. And I see people walking around the streets, drinkiing coffee in cafes, buy goods from the markets, enjoying a laugh on the streets with their friends, etc, etc. Iraqi life is not all about cowering in horror and fear ....as they like to show on the news. That kind of show doesn't sell, the horror and violence is what sells, so we see much more of it ...often, on slow days, we see the same footage of explosions and violence over and over. Baron Max
Both of you are delusional. Mayagaia's reponse is about the Pulitzer prize, and how photojournalists are bad because they get the inside story, and they aren't propagandistic enough. Oh, and those secret prisons (Bush admits CIA has secret prisons), they don't exist. Baron occaisionally sees people drinking coffee and thinks that means the war is going swell, and I guess that the violence shown is not really violence. Oh, and a parroting of Rumsfeld's statement about the looting, "they are showing the same vase getting stolen over and over". Take the ideological blinders off, gentlemen. I have bested you in verbal combat, and your credibility is now nil.
Oh, geez, ya' mean that you believe all of the bullshit propoganda that the news media dispenses?? ...LOL! Baron Max
You are unable to consider any bad news about Iraq, because you equate it with propaganda. Thus you are unable to analyze the Iraq situation with any accuracy whatsoever. Go away.
I see the bad, Spider, but unlike you and others, I also temper it with what I've seen and know of the actual conditions in many areas of Iraq. Baron Max
Thanks, I had forgotten that Rumsfield statement, but I still prefer his: It is just a "hand full of thugs" causing trouble. Good to have the main leader of the war effort with such clear undestanding of the issues. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, he's not far from being wrong. Most knowledgeable people estimate the number of insurgents at something between 2500 and 3000. With a population of about 12 million, that's about a "handfull", wouldn't you say? Hell, in the USA, we have that many suspected and/or released-on-bail murderers out walking around the steets every day! Baron Max
I would question the "most knowledgeable" part, because if that were true they would all be dead in less tha a month, by official body counts of the insurgents killed. - Want to think your claim again? Or perhaps you think that "insurgents" are really "supper cats" with not 9, but 99 lives each? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think ye're mixing up the members of the "insurgence" with those Iraqi militias who are just killing other Iraqis because their of a different faith ...sunnis versus shiites is NOT an insurgency, it's a civil conflict. Baron Max
No - I was speaking of the fact that the number of "insurgents" reported killed each month by US and alied forces exceeds your total small number of insurgent. Your are trying to duck the illogical statement that you made by pointing to the much greater number of civil war deaths. Yes, that number is large, Perhaps 600,000 by the best, most-through study. - One that did not just report the deaths registered in offical records where few ever are. In case you forgot, you said: "Most knowledgeable people estimate the number of insurgents at something between 2500 and 3000" I made fun of you and that by noting that is less than the number of "insurgents" killed very month* by US allied fire by suggested you think the "insurgents" are "super cats" with not 9, but 99 lives. Face it - your statement is obviously stupid. (And not related to the civil war deaths, we agree.) We were and are speaking of the "insurgents" who are fighting the US and the US installed government. There are many more than 3000 of them as if there were not, they would all be dead in less than one month. ----------------------------------- *In kindness to you, I will admit that most of the "insurgents" US reports killing are like the Viet Cong body bag counts. I.e. by definition, any male between 12 and 80 killed by US allied force was an "insurgent" just as any dead Vietmese male the US killed in this age range was a Viet Cong "gook" so pehaps if one only counted the real "insurgents" there may be only 40 or 50 thousand of them.
You don't think that they might recruit and replace killed members???? Thank you. Your debating style is to be commended. Baron Max
