An intresting observation today

[guyser]

I think he got to the point where he treated every Iraqi as a possible terrorist.

And THAT is the reason you were able to enjoy his company for lunch. Good for him.

[Liam]

kimmy:Do you remember how the Iraqi people happily toppled his statue in Baghdad?

I remember that - seeing the people on CNN pulling the statue down. Then I remember a another mainstream story with a wide angle camera view showing the scene surounded by American tanks and exposing the fact that those people pulling the statue down were prisoners with guns pointed at them.

Both wrong. Many of the people around the toppling of the Saddam statue were Chalabi's guys. Of course they were happy. The US soldiers were on the periphery and, yes, armed. It was a war zone afterall. Anyhow, the Chalabi guys couldn't topple the statue, so the US military guys put a chain around it and pulled it down with a tank. The whole thing, when seen in the TV close-ups, seemed like an amazing moment. When you pulled the cameras back to see that the cheering crowd wasn't all that big and that it was US soldiers who pulled it down... well, it kind of changes the story.

[Liam]

I kind of feel bad for guys like Ray. I have tons of respect for all they do, but they were used, big time. The Bush administration played on their sense of patriotism like a fiddle. I'd find it pretty hard to admit that my buddies and I were used and that we risked our lives to give Bush a "victory" going into the 2004 election cycle.

It is understandable that the sense of betrayal would cut so deep that some guys in the military simply refuse to believe the evidence mounting against the administration: no WMD, no mobile bio-labs, no pre-war planning, ridiculous death benefits to the families of killed soldiers, extensions of tours of duty, no post-war planning, Abu Ghraib, torture, secret prisons, no body armor, poorly equipped humvees, and now, the ulitmate insult: substandard medical care for injured soldiers coming home.

But I am thankful for the likes of guys like Ray. They give their all. It doesn't mean that he's above reproach, though. I just wish a few more Rays would be independent in thought and recognize that the rah-rah Bush guys do not have their backs and never did.

[sunsettommy]

kimmy:I will skip the part where you attempt to divine what Ray thinks and go on to this last part:

These intentional re interpretations are a form of trolling.

Aw geez go rat on me about it with Greg.

Just make sure it is Kimmy you complain about.

LOL!

[sunsettommy]

The same terrorists who kill their own and does not accept the ELECTED BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE government.

The "invading force" that topples a murderous thug and free the populace.

The same "invading force" that makes it possible for Iraq to form a democratic government.Thereby eliminating the dictatorship that was under Saddam the butcher.The bloodbaath party disposed of.

You are kidding. You think the Iraqi people are free?

You have NO right to make any of your claims until the foreign invaders are out of Iraq.

You mean those "freedom fighters"?

He he he ......

[kuzadd]

Polynewbie:

I don't understand how Ray can call an Iraqui a terrorist when he is part of the invading force.

The same terrorists who kill their own and does not accept the ELECTED BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE government.

The "invading force" that topples a murderous thug and free the populace.

The same "invading force" that makes it possible for Iraq to form a democratic government.Thereby eliminating the dictatorship that was under Saddam the butcher.The bloodbaath party disposed of.

The same "invading force" that enforces the penalty for thumbing at all those U.N. resolutions over WMD for 12 years.

I don't understand how Ray being there makes him a better statician wrt casualties.

Well at least better than you since you said even less than he did over it.

LOL.

What does Ray think of the Geneva convention ?

At least he goes out of his way NOT to kill civilians including the children.The terrorists are killing civilians including children.They recently used children in a car bombing.

The terrorists have broken the Geneva convention many times and care less doing so.

I will skip the part where you attempt to divine what Ray thinks and go on to this last part:

There have been estimates by independent bodies of 500,000 dead Iraquis. 10,000 kids under 5 dead sounds reasonable. If you consider Iraq war 1 and Bushes sanctions its probably quite a bit higher than that.

It we the voting citizens that should be accepting the moral responsibility for the war, not Ray. Ray is no more responsible if it was wrong than we are.

Estimates that vary considerebly.

Meanwhile you seem willing to overlook the part where Saddam and his goons killed many HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS.Maybe as many as a MILLION (the high end of the estimates)Many with sadistic methods and bury them in sand.Already 100,000 + have been found in mass burials in the sand.

That Saddam for 12 years running fights against the UNITED NATIONS resolutions for not complying with the agreed documentation and destruction of WMD he admitted having.

That he and his sons and select goons raped women in rape rooms.Taking women from homes and killing the husbands.This went on for many years.

Terrorising the populace.

That Saddam was supporting terrorism with money and more.

Shelters international terrorists.

A menace to the region starting TWO wars.

Do you remember how the Iraqi people cheered at Saddams death?

Do you remember how the Iraqi people happily toppled his statue in Baghdad?

Do you know that Kurdistan is very happy of being liberated by coalition forces?

Do you realize that because he is gone Iraq could ELECT people into the government offices and that they have a constitution?

The only terror going on these days are from the so called insurgents (terrorists).Lately even the regional shieks are tired of the Al queda's destructive ways.Recently a surge in recruitments in the police and army forces has been noted and may have been because the Shieks want to help stop the terrorists and make a lot more money with a stable nation being more attractive to the worlds investers.

If they stop attacking and become part of a democratically elected nation.

Then the coalition forces will leave.

'The "invading force" that topples a murderous thug and free the populace.

oh, really???

not to be rude, but, when I read this type of stuff, irrelevant of who posts it.

I seriously wonder, where , people get these nonsensical ideas?

the "invaders topples a murderous thug and free's the populace??

what the heck is this, some form of delusion?

the invaders ( America) toppled an uncooperative puppet, to take control of the oil, for a variety of reasons.

war is NEVER fought to free people, I am going to say that again war is NEVER fought to free people.

War is about control of geopolitical resources! that's it! Plain and simple!

A piece of land, water, oil, etc., etc.,

If this poster would recall correctly the attack on iraq was about WMD's, "the smoking gun, in the form of a mushroom cloud, alleged ties to terrorism, propagandic ties to 9/11, ALL BOGUS.

It was only SOLD as a exercise in 'freeing"a populace, when it was clear all the LIES of the Bush Junta , made the war a farce.

In other words "freeing the iraqis" was but one of numerous sales pitches to the domestic populace to justify an illegal, unjust, unnecessary, misery , inflicted on 100,000's of thousand, possibly millions of people, in another country, who were attacked in a preemptive manner, for the same reasons war are always, have always , been waged!

Control of geopolitical resources, whatever those resources are deemed to be "in the interests of " the invader/occupier.

[obsidian]

uh, sorry facts are facts.

you think most of the deaths of children are marines shooting them in the head? no its "collateral" damage from the "fog of war". and at that, most are dying from malnutrition and poor healthcare and drinking water.

not to discredit your marine friend, but is he so omnipotent in the battle field he is everywhere at once? and knows everything that happens in iraq?

if he saw 3 kids dead, multiply that by how many troops is it? 100, 000 initially in 2003, probally around 150,000 now. and you get alot of kids, see the flaw in his reasoning?

[sunsettommy]

uh, sorry facts are facts.

you think most of the deaths of children are marines shooting them in the head? no its "collateral" damage from the "fog of war". and at that, most are dying from malnutrition and poor healthcare and drinking water.

not to discredit your marine friend, but is he so omnipotent in the battle field he is everywhere at once? and knows everything that happens in iraq?

if he saw 3 kids dead, multiply that by how many troops is it? 100, 000 initially in 2003, probally around 150,000 now. and you get alot of kids, see the flaw in his reasoning?

No.

Most are dying from Malnutrition,poor healthcare and drinking water?

Please back this up and by the way almost all of the children these days are being killed by the terrorists.

[obsidian]

well considering from 1990-2000 nearly 500,000 iraqi children died from my stated causes.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-ga...nd%20Population

and please tell me how war would make this anybetter, if not tenfold worse?

plz show me the citation you have of "most of the terrorists killing children"

thanks

[moderateamericain]

well considering from 1990-2000 nearly 500,000 iraqi children died from my stated causes.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-ga...nd%20Population

and please tell me how war would make this anybetter, if not tenfold worse?

plz show me the citation you have of "most of the terrorists killing children"

thanks

The reason most of the children are getting killed is not because American soldiers are targeting him, Its because A. Terrorist use buildings they KNOW or assume American troops wont fire on. b ) Vicinity of an IED C) caught in the crossfire. Terrorist specifically use playgrounds, schools, crowded areas specifically to draw American forces into accidentally killing civilians especially women and children, why? it helps there cause in the media. Thats guerrilla war 101, turn the media and world opinion against them.

[obsidian]

heresay

citations plz

[moderateamericain]

heresay

citations plz

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02...main/index.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/21/news/iraq.php

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial_feb0704.php

"gives an estimate for deaths directly by US forces (does not include natural causes and terrorist attacks)

So far, in the "war on terror" initiated since 9-11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan, another death toll that continues to rise long after the world's attention has moved on."

So really the death toll by the US is really only at around 13k. Wheres the rest of those deaths coming from? and this source is blatantly anti Bush and anti war.

It also goes on to say that American deaths due to para-military forces amounts to 3375 killed.

This is why i believe the amount of children killed by US forces cannot be even close to 200,000 children. Its also why i believe the majority of deaths in Iraq have been perpetrated by Iraqis or foreign Terrorist.

And on top of that I seen the bastards do it with my own two peepers.

[Liam]

So really the death toll by the US is really only at around 13k. Wheres the rest of those deaths coming from? and this source is blatantly anti Bush and anti war.

It also goes on to say that American deaths due to para-military forces amounts to 3375 killed.

This is why i believe the amount of children killed by US forces cannot be even close to 200,000 children. Its also why i believe the majority of deaths in Iraq have been perpetrated by Iraqis or foreign Terrorist.

And on top of that I seen the bastards do it with my own two peepers.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with being anti-Bush (are we not at least supposed to have the illusion of democracy anymore?), and I don't think anyone wants to be considered PRO-war. Well, maybe some do, I don't know. But you've misquoted the claim of the pamphleteer -- it was 20,000 children killed, not 200,000. Please don't fall into the modern day conservative's debate tactic of inflating the outrage or inventing falsehoods you can easily tear apart. Next thing you know, you'll be saying liberals are blaming Bush for 2,000,000 children's deaths.

[obsidian]

ok that still does not make up the majority of deaths.

they were anti-war protesters, u believe there was no bias?

now let me ask you this. would any of this be happening unless the US unjustly invaded iraq? and is this civil war not part of their plan for unstability(only funding 1 religous group)?

[Black Dog]

The reason most of the children are getting killed is not because American soldiers are targeting him, Its because A. Terrorist use buildings they KNOW or assume American troops wont fire on. b ) Vicinity of an IED C) caught in the crossfire. Terrorist specifically use playgrounds, schools, crowded areas specifically to draw American forces into accidentally killing civilians especially women and children, why? it helps there cause in the media. Thats guerrilla war 101, turn the media and world opinion against them.

Sorry, what? Killing children is good press?

Anyway, you're wrong. Most child deaths are a result of disease and malnutrition.

So really the death toll by the US is really only at around 13k. Wheres the rest of those deaths coming from? and this source is blatantly anti Bush and anti war.

That's an estimate of the number directly attributable to the U.S and the coalition (ie. on the recieving end of their bombs or bullets). It rules out the number of deaths from other circumstances that occured as a result of the invasion (ie. the breakdown of the health system and the ongoing civil war are direct consequenses).

Note too, that IBC, while a good resource, offers an extremely incomplete picture due to its methodology. It only reports deaths reported in the media.

This is why i believe the amount of children killed by US forces cannot be even close to 200,000 children. Its also why i believe the majority of deaths in Iraq have been perpetrated by Iraqis or foreign Terrorist.

Earlier, you said the number was 20,000 and referred specifically to children under 5 years of age. Totally reasonable number. Even 200,000 deaths (for those under 18) isn't unreasonable, given half of Iraq's population is in that age group.

[AndrewL]

Every Tuesday and Thursday my buddy Ray and I take lunch at this little Mexican restaurant in downtown Charlotte. A little about Ray, hes a bit younger than I at 26. He recently went Inactive with the United States Marine Corps. (squibbys that can shoot) He did two tours in Iraq. Was in the thick of the Fallujah campaign and also did a his first tour in Afghanistan. Anyways, were walking down the street and theres some Anti-war protesters handing out leaflets with statistics on the war. I see them coming up to us, and I try to distract Ray away. Not happening in this situation. He grabs the leaflet and reads it, and I can just see his face getting purple. The leaflet had some misleading facts. Like 20,000 children under 5 killed in the war. Which is just horse shit. Maybe 20k since operation desert storm maybe.

Anyways Ray launches into these guys about putting out misleading facts, explains that he was there in the thick of the fighting. These guys tell him he does not know anything about it. At this point I'm in pure shock. A decorated Marine just told you eyewitness experience from not 1 but 2 tours of duty and you believe some piece of fact that he probably got off the internet? Ray in a few drunk moments told me about being ambushed in Afghanistan by Terrorist who used a play ground as cover and shot 3 children. But other than that, he says he saw very few children killed as a result of US fire. The guy has no reason to lie to me about this stuff. He also helped build one of the first Hospitals in Fallujah. Did you know they can actually do heart surgery in Fallujah? Three years ago, they did not even have a hospital.

How would Ray have any idea if those are misleading fact are not. First off, 20k children dead under 5 is not unreasonalbe when one considers that children are often the most common victims of war. Second, im assuming that the pamphlet did not say 20k kids were killed by american fire, only that 20k kids were killed as a result of the war. Third, most civilian casualties are a result of air strikes, not the actions of ground forces. Fourth, the experiences of one soldier in Iraq, a nation of close to 30 million poeple, is hardly significant at all.

Andrew

[sunsettommy]

well considering from 1990-2000 nearly 500,000 iraqi children died from my stated causes.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-ga...nd%20Population

and please tell me how war would make this anybetter, if not tenfold worse?

plz show me the citation you have of "most of the terrorists killing children"

thanks

Well golly you use statistics from before the war and my gosh the children seriously SUFFERED under Saddam's rule.

LOL!

You have as yet provided statistical evidence that the children continue to have similar number of deaths during the 2 WEEKS ground war and the subsequent terror/guerilla war afterwards.

Pony up please.

[obsidian]

well the children didnt die because saddam horded all the food and water for his swimming pool.

the fact is UN sanctions banned UN countries from sending food, medicine, pipes, water filtration devices, etc. to Iraq.

the leading cause of death among children was dirahea. i dont have the statistics, but do you really think a collapsed government, an ongoing occupation war, and a civil war are more conducive for life? like really think about it. they bombed powerplants, bridges, food depo's, basically Iraqs infastructure, which was already in shambles. once again i dont have the statistics but im sure they would support this, it's common sense. how could they be better off now? they don't even have their NATIONALIZED OIL anymore...

[moderateamericain]

I think what we need to define here, and where the confusion lies, is what are we defining. Even assuming that 200,000 children have died under the age of 5 from 1992-present the Fliers being handed out were deliberately vague and left you the impression that because of US presence in the Iraq that 200k children dropped dead. Which is clearly not the case. I wish i still had the flier so I could right down everything exactly as it was written. And Has health care really dropped off that much in Iraq? Does anyone have an sources to site that? Because i KNOW they have put up new hospitals in some of the Medium to Large size communities. Such as earlier stated Fallujah which has modern medical equipment.

"

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with being anti-Bush (are we not at least supposed to have the illusion of democracy anymore?), and I don't think anyone wants to be considered PRO-war. Well, maybe some do, I don't know. But you've misquoted the claim of the pamphleteer -- it was 20,000 children killed, not 200,000. Please don't fall into the modern day conservative's debate tactic of inflating the outrage or inventing falsehoods you can easily tear apart. Next thing you know, you'll be saying liberals are blaming Bush for 2,000,000 children's deaths."

No theres nothing wrong with being anti bush, i was pointing that out because had i pulled that source from a Conservative site, I automatically would have been told its not a good estimate simply from being from a Conservative site.

My point is a soldiers experiences on the ground are tenfold more relevant then some Liberal/conservative opinion writer who has not even been there. And NOBODY can make me think otherwise on that. Until you've been there your only reading what others think about it.

[Liam]

A soldier can only tell you what he sees with his own eyes. I'll agree that he might have expertise regarding the events that take place in his immediate vicinity. However, 99.9999% of Iraq is not within his immediate vicinity. If he is in Ramadi and a van filled with school children runs over an IED in Ramadi, he'll know about it. If that same van ran over an IED in Fallujah, the soldier in Ramadi is unlikely to know much, if anything, about it.

The pamphlet claimed that 20,000 kids were killed as a result of the war. It did not say targeted and/or killed by US soldiers. Frankly, I'd be surprised if the death toll of children over the past four years of war (from *all* sources, gun fire, aerial bombing, IEDs, accidental deaths, terrorists, disease, malnourishment, ruptured healthcare systems, etc.) was that low. That would be surprising to me. Anyone who claims outright that 20,000 childrens' deaths are not possible -- even if that person is Soldier Ray -- he's simply got his mind closed to the scale of the catastrophe of war.

[Jerry Galinda]

Terrorists or insurgents – it depends who describe situation in Iraq and Afghanistan- belief that – “than worse than better”.

They have “allies” – naïve people in Europe and America.

[moderateamericain]

I'm gonna see if i can contact the demo party here and see if they have a copy of it. So i can write down exactly what was on that sheet.

[Jerry Galinda]

Terrorists or insurgents – it depends who describe situation in Iraq and Afghanistan- belief that – “than worse than better”.

They have “allies” – naïve people in Europe and America.

I'm gonna see if i can contact the demo party here and see if they have a copy of it. So i can write down exactly what was on that sheet.

My English isn't fluent - and I don't know exactly - what it means - what you write.You are against or for this sentences. I am right or wrong.

[Black Dog]

Has health care really dropped off that much in Iraq? Does anyone have an sources to site that? Because i KNOW they have put up new hospitals in some of the Medium to Large size communities. Such as earlier stated Fallujah which has modern medical equipment.

Iraq health care 'in deep crisis'

More hospitals don't mean moore of better doctors, medicine, food, and other necessities. Nor does it mean the hospitals they have aren't struggling to cope with the carnage of civil war.

[ScottSA]

Has health care really dropped off that much in Iraq? Does anyone have an sources to site that? Because i KNOW they have put up new hospitals in some of the Medium to Large size communities. Such as earlier stated Fallujah which has modern medical equipment.

Iraq health care 'in deep crisis'

More hospitals don't mean moore of better doctors, medicine, food, and other necessities. Nor does it mean the hospitals they have aren't struggling to cope with the carnage of civil war.

From your link:

UK foreign secretary Jack Straw pointed out that since the conflict 95% of children under five had been immunised, some 150 primary health care centres were planned and a string of hospitals in the south of the country had been renovated.

He said the great mistake the report made was blaming any problems with healthcare on the Iraqi government and health ministry rather than terrorists and insurgents.

"In those many areas of Iraq where there are no terrorists and no insurgents there is no problem whatsoever with the delivery of health care."

In effect then, its not the state of healthcare, it's the level of violence.