http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[protesto]

What can we do against the war in Iraq as webmasters? I found this site when I was surfing :
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[Dominic]

My datacentre has them second for a search on 'iraq' and number 3 has how much is spent on the war ticking over on the screen: http://costofwar.com/

Get involved in writing to your political representatives if you want to contribute to changing policy.

[Crazy_Rob]

Get involved in writing to your political representatives if you want to contribute to changing policy.

That only works if you own a very large business. Most of our representatives no longer represent or care about us!

[paymentapprovaltooslow]

What can we do against the war in Iraq as webmasters? I found this site when I was surfing :
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Please remove that URL.. It is counterproductive in the war on terror to be sprading those beliefs.

[wendydettmer]

Please leave it up, other viewpoints should be, and are welcome.

[debunked]

Read the stats and see why so many Iraqi's are tired of the terrorists in their country. Did anyone see some of the protests that the Iraqi's have had aimed at those same terrorists? I don't remember the where the links was...

They can add 3 others to the list - wife and 2 children in the car of a terrorists who pulled an AK-47 on a military convoy. He knew what he was doing to his family when he planned that one!

[Dominic]

That only works if you own a very large business. Most of our representatives no longer represent or care about us!

If you write a letter, thats 1 letter. No big deal. But if you can get lots of people in that politician's constituency writing letters it does get taken into consideration. Some movements use post cards, with a generic statement and room for people to add their personal comment, handing them out in malls and so on. To be effective though you do need at least a thousand letters in a fairly concentrated timeframe - like two to four weeks.

My uncle lead the Australian forces in Iraq for a while, not that we have many troops there but anyway, I support the soldiers doing their jobs but disagree with the politics behind the war. I think the end result of the war in iraq will be more terrorism.

[Crazy_Rob]

I think the end result of the war in iraq will be more terrorism.

That's what our leaders are hoping for.

[Dominic]

I thought it was pretty priceless that Bush called for the withdrawal of occupying Syrian forces to be withdrawn from Lebanon *before the election*!

"President Bush says freedom will prevail in Lebanon as he repeated calls for Syria to withdraw its troops from the country. The appeal came as hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Lebanon gathered to show their support for Syria's presence."

[Crazy_Rob]

Millions of demonstrators!

[GTech]

500,000 as one report says. Millions of supporters of terrorism. That's just one side of the story.

Debunked, I was reading the database this morning myself. It's hard not to notice who is doing the killing over there. Terrorists. The site would add some credibility if they distinguished that, and were not trying to blame the US for every death (including those from health care related). Might also help to list those million or so that saddam killed before we got there.

Hey, but there are those that are disappointed he's not still mass murdering :(

[david_sakh]

Please remove that URL.. It is counterproductive in the war on terror to be sprading those beliefs.

that's right, we should all sit and down and shut up and mind our own business. And if the Man says to shoot our brother in the face, we'd damned well better do it. God forbid we kick Pandora in the shin to keep her from opening the box, she knows what's best for us.

hey, who wants to watch football?

Hey, but there are those that are disappointed he's not still mass murdering

I know, we should punish him for firebombing all those Japanese civilian centers...or using nuclear weapons...or giving money to horrible men like Saddam when it's convenient...oh wait...I mean, giving money to himself when it's convenient.

I must be talking about the wrong country.

I'm starting to think this country is splitting down the lines of what's best for me and what's best for humanity, and if that included not being fickle and self-serving and betraying trust for profit, I wouldn't complain.

[GTech]

I know, we should punish him for firebombing all those Japanese civilian centers...or using nuclear weapons...or giving money to horrible men like Saddam when it's convenient...oh wait...I mean, giving money to himself when it's convenient.

I must be talking about the wrong country.

I'm starting to think this country is splitting down the lines of what's best for me and what's best for humanity, and if that included not being fickle and self-serving and betraying trust for profit, I wouldn't complain.

Some people are disappointed in democracy. I know 8 million people that are glad it's finally arrived. At least 8 million that would prefer to see him burn in hell for killing over a million of his own people during his reign of terror.

But there are those that would still prefer to have him in power or make excuses for him. Always amazes me.

[david_sakh]

We've killed more innocents than Saddam ever has.

What if...say...Sweden stumbled upon a molecular disruption device and put a Napoleon in power...should they have the right to punish us for our past sins...or the cultural or poltical difference? What about self-determination? The mandate of heaven is lost quite easily, it just takes time.

If we want to do what is right, I'm all for it, but we need to stop doing what is convenient.

Usually its a good idea to give power to the responsible guy, as those who hate saddam have said. I don't think we've earned the title, but the power is still there, ready to be misused.

[GTech]

That's just flat out right untrue. I'd like to think you are more educated than to make such a blatantly false statement.

We've killed more innocents than Saddam ever has.

What if...say...Sweden stumbled upon a molecular disruption device and put a Napoleon in power...should they have the right to punish us for our past sins...or the cultural or poltical difference? What about self-determination? The mandate of heaven is lost quite easily, it just takes time.

If we want to do what is right, I'm all for it, but we need to stop doing what is convenient.

[david_sakh]

Civilians killed, Japan alone: 672,000

Not to mention the money we pumped into south america. God only knows what evil was done with that, at the hands of dictators, no less. And what about the money we gave to osama bin laden? Terrorism was fine, as long as it was the Russkies whats get blowed up.

[GTech]

Civilians killed, Japan alone: 672,000

The bombing in Japan was long ago and has long been cleared up between our government and theirs. That was then, it was war. It's touching you are still concerned about it.

But your comment was "We've killed more innocents than Saddam ever has." Which could be construed that while we are over there (note the topic and first post) we've killed more Iraqis than he ever did.

Saddam is a man, we are a country. We've been around a lot longer than he has. Maybe that's not the real issue?

[GTech]

Civilians killed, Japan alone: 672,000

And what about the money we gave to osama bin laden? Terrorism was fine, as long as it was the Russkies whats get blowed up.

Who said allies are allies forever? What about the fact he attacked our country? Or does that not play into the picture?

Sorry, I don't make excuses for terrorists.

[david_sakh]

Instead of gassing the kurds, saddam really should have done the christianly thing, you know, take their lands from them and put them on forced march and sap away at their culture with each passing year.

Ok, that was a cheap shot. But as Jesus said.

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

[GTech]

Lots of stones being cast. I can't cast my stone in favor of the terrorists though. I know some people can/will, but not me.

Do we just kind of go along to one "how about the big naughty US did this" to another, overlooking the scenario of world events?

Are you disappointed in Democracy? It seems to be flourishing. Without disappointment, one cannot appreciate victory.

[david_sakh]

what is this a misconstrue fest? And what the hell does saddam have to do with terrorism, if it's money, then we are just as responsible for indirect killing.


Lots of stones being cast.

then maybe we shouldn't have thrown rocks at the little kids in teh first place

look, you seem to be getting angry, and you are making me out to be something that I'm not. I'll hang on here for five more minutes, but lets not escalate this. I have a freaking programming assignment due at 4 tomorrow, that's after classes.

If you are going to call me a terrorist or a terrorist supporter for denouncing a violation of self determination, then I don't want to argue anymore. I know where my loyalties lie, but I have enough self-respect to question them instead of gulping down what I'm told.

[GTech]

I'm not angry at all. I just choose not make excuses for terrorists.

I always appreciate good debate. Saddam had a lot to do with terrorism. I can elaborate for you, but I suspect you already know to the depth he was involved with terrorism.

It's one thing to blame your country for things that happen in war, then try to compare them to the mass killing of an evil dictator when no war was happening at all.

[david_sakh]

look i made the native american comparison ok, and tho ww2 was a noble struggle (not the civilian slaughter, but in principle), we have killed elsewhere and solely for our benefit and you know it.

sigh.

ok going to bed. (i mean home and then bed, hopefully)

At least you are more rational than sitetutor was, he's a good guy, but he really had that topic explode with rage, from me, ac, and him. You might call us all single-minded but damn was that a pointless exchange. :o

[GTech]

I'm always open to good debate. I have no reason to be upset at words, I can only try to offer an opinion from the persective of one who doesn't blame his country for the world's problem and excuse those that are really to blame.

BTW, I'm part naitive American. I don't hold any animosity to those times.

I'm sorry you are disappointed in democracy, I'm sorry you seem to prefer saddam still be in power. I disagree. I think people should be free to choose.

Reminds me of an old quote:


"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing, which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than him." -- John Stewart Mill (1806-1873)

[david_sakh]

oh my god i knew you'd drag me back into this. please stop putting words into my mouth, because the end does not justify the means.

you say i'd want saddam in power? No, i'd prefer him not to be. That doesn't make sense you say? Well think of it like this, I'd like to have sex with an appealing woman, but not if it meant raping her. The end does not justify the means. It's all about principal.

And no, I personally, am not disappointed with democracy, flawed though it may be, but it is not my responsibility to decide for another people how they should be governed. If I want to spread my ideas, I'll send missionaries and envoys, not bombs.

can we please leave it at taht for tonight?

I haven't made any counterarguments; only defended my position. I really have to do this linked list crap.

[GTech]

oh my god i knew you'd drag me back into this. please stop putting words into my mouth, because the end does not justify the means.


I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I noted you seemed to have considerable disappoint over things of long past, but so little disappoint with one man responsible for killing millions. Maybe there's a rational reason after all?


you say i'd want saddam in power? No, i'd prefer him not to be. That doesn't make sense you say? Well think of it like this, I'd like to have sex with an appealing woman, but not if it meant raping her. The end does not justify the means. It's all about principal.


Here's a better comparison. If you learned the woman you wanted to have sex with was killing millions of people because she was HIV infected and having unprotected sex with multiple partners every day, would you want to stop her, or just let her go on killing because it's none of your business? After all, she is killing people, innocent people, however slow and painful the death may be.


And no, I personally, am not disappointed with democracy, flawed though it may be, but it is not my responsibility to decide for another people how they should be governed. If I want to spread my ideas, I'll send missionaries and envoys, not bombs.


Is it your responsibility to be disappointed for them? Even though they value and appreciate their new found freedoms? It is good to spread your ideas via missionaries and envoys. That's far better than spreading it by the sword.


I haven't made any counterarguments; only defended my position. I really have to do this linked list crap.

I understand, respond when you can. Seriously though, I don't get upset. I'm surprised my posts even indicate that to you. I've debated long enough to know that people that are in bed with their ideals rarely ever change them, no matter how much fact you put forth. And I admit, it's much easier to be on the "blame America" bandwagon. It's a popular bandwagon to be on, but it will be short lived. There's too much change and too much progress going on in the world. Too many blatantly liberal papers printing main headlines like "What if Bush was Right?"

Going back to the topic, I spent some time exploring the database of the site (in this topic) that is blaming America for everything. And I do mean everything. It appears that even if someone had a heart attack since we arrived, the US is to blame. Funny how so many deaths seem to be caused by terrorists in the database, and yet mysteriously there is no blame for them.

[Design Agent]

I'm not angry at all. I just choose not make excuses for terrorists. - Entirely because you are not angry at all.

There are very few people that 'just want to blow themselves and other up' its usually a case of dispair, revenge and anger - cause and effect.

Doesn't matter who started it, its been going on since the dawn of time.
Most of the people dont blame the country, they blame a few individuals at the top.

[david_sakh]

bleh......................

i don't think we are making any sense to each other.

I guess I'm not a nationalist and the way things are going, I never will be. I think Mencius had it right:

do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

(paraphrased)

that's a philosophy I can stick to.

[GTech]

And I would prefer to stop the woman with aids from killing the masses.

"Is there not some chosen curse, some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven, red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man who owes his greatness to his country's ruin!" -- Joseph Addison.

Goodnight David, will check in tomorrow. Hope you received my PM well.

[paymentapprovaltooslow]

THis thread is gonna be huge....10 pages possibly...

Anyway, I say keep the pandoras box closed. We dont need more complexities in life.

But Bush is tryingto do this war on terror, and he doesn't need all these people complaining about it. I agree with GTEch and I am glad you know whats going on cause alot of peopel dont know whats at stake here.

[J.D.]

Here's a better comparison. If you learned the woman you wanted to have sex with was killing millions of people because she was HIV infected and having unprotected sex with multiple partners every day, would you want to stop her, or just let her go on killing because it's none of your business? After all, she is killing people, innocent people, however slow and painful the death may be.If only the world were this simple... I saw this couple on TV the other day and the girl was HIV-positive, but the guy wasn't. Crazy as it sounds, the guy was madly in love with her and was practicing just that - unprotected sex. Miraculously enough, at the time the program was made, he still was clean. According to your logic, somebody should try to save the innocent guy and just shoot the girl on sight. Well, guess what - he may just shoot the shooter.

J.D.

[anthonycea]

Some people are disappointed in democracy. I know 8 million people that are glad it's finally arrived. At least 8 million that would prefer to see him burn in hell for killing over a million of his own people during his reign of terror.

But there are those that would still prefer to have him in power or make excuses for him. Always amazes me.

G-tech, your hero and roll model Bush Senior is the one who let him stay in power after the first "so-called American victory" in the early 90's.

That is what gave Saddam the opportunity to gas the Kurds.

His puppet son and Chenny are responsible for all time record gas prices (OIL $55.00 a barrel now) and remember, Bush said the war was OVER last MAY.

You Republicans are lost and your propaganda is old man, everyone knows that Bush leadership has failed and that he is a lame duck President.

[GTech]

saddam gassed his people on his own. He didn't need a permission slip from us. He didn't need a permission slip for mass graves, head chopping, throwing people off roofs, cutting off people's hands, tongues and other attrocities. It doesn't surprise me that you would try to find a way to blame America for his actions though :rolleyes:

Neither Bush nor Cheney can control oil prices. I find it illuminating you think a president has that power though.

Is it too early to start making excuses for terrorists too?

[anthonycea]

I don't blame America, I blame Bush Senior and his failed administration that somehow got back in power through corrupt "elections".

You are the one making excuses for his failures.

Seems to me that situation sounds like our administration of the prison abu grave or whatever :confused:

See the link below if you are interested in our way of getting info out of folks by sending them to other countries to be abused.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002198512_secrets06.html

A few secrets that no one knows about exist in the above article G-tech.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Crazy_Rob]

saddam gassed his people on his own

The Kurds were not "his people".

[GTech]

Sure they were his people, they were in Iraq, he gassed them. Makes it no less the attrocity. But people still defend him.

Anthony, you skipped right over that controlling oil prices. Just kind of lob things out and hope someone will believe one of them, eh?

[Crazy_Rob]

Sure they were his people, they were in Iraq, he gassed them. Makes it no less the attrocity. But people still defend him.


Who defends him? I've never heard anyone defend him.

[anthonycea]

I know you have a problem with sound logic G-tech, so lob this :cool:

http://www.alternet.org/story/20127/

Presidents can determine oil prices by filling the oil fields with war and that is exactly what the Bush Senior administration has done.

RECORD OIL PRICES, destruction of the world economy, even the Federal Reserve Board chairman has warned of it, in addition to record national debt and trade deficits run up under Bush.

Now he wants the Social Security money also.

He also wants your children, parents have come out against Bush sending their kids to fight for his oil just in the last week it is in the news.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=parents+military+recruitment&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&pstart=1&fr=sfp&b=11

:cool:

[GTech]

It would help if what you are posting as evidence that presidents have control over oil prices actually talked about it. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Clinton could not control rising oil prices either, though he did release some reserves in an effort to try. It didn't work. Why would you take the time to post an article that neglects to back up your point?

I say again, neither Bush nor Cheney can control oil prices. No president has that authority. Oil prices are controled by OPEC.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11731


Both arguments at least held their own--with the second argument gaining political and media traction--until the entire premise was dealt some doses of reality in the last few weeks.

The first "war for oil" argument was dispatched when, on January 8th, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bush administration plans to hand over the operation of the Iraqi oil fields to a proposed Iraqi state oil company, modeled after those in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Presumably the Iraqis would take full control of the operation perhaps next summer when the new government takes over.

This would mean that US oil companies would not control the oil--or the profits coming from its sale--the Iraqis would.

The second argument was severely damaged when SEC documents released November 7th revealed that Halliburton's activities in Iraq for the first three quarters of 2003 yielded just $46 million in operating profits on $1.3 billion in sales, a margin of about 3.5%. (When Cheney took office, Halliburton was trading around $50; in 2002 it traded around $10; it is now trading about $28, tracking approximately with the rest of the stock market the last twelve months.)

Then on January 7th the New York Times reported that the Defense Department doesn't believe that Halliburton overcharged the military for gasoline (it was locked into a long-term contract it had signed with a Kuwaiti firm when the price was higher).

Despite the fact that Democrats had charged Halliburton with profiteering, the company made a 3.5% profit on all its business in Iraq for the first three quarters of the year and wasn't guilty of "gouging the taxpayer" on the infamous gasoline deal.

If the Bush administration has been trying to help US oil companies in general, and Halliburton specifically, it's not done a very good job so far.


I suppose there are still misguided people, uneducated in the finer points of life, that still hang on to the oil for war premise.

[anthonycea]

Did you get that link from your Republican propaganda network G-tech?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Heritage+foundation+republican+propaganda&btnG=Google+Search

It is certain that most of your information comes from the propaganda filled Heritage foundation or other Republican controlled groups.

[GTech]

Thats sort of a cop out Anthony. Wouldn't you have more credibility to discredit the information? Anyone can claim "that's just propaganda." How much effort does it take? Apparently not a lot, as you tend to use it quite often.

Takes some time disprove it. It quotes the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. I will understand if you can't though. After all, it takes no effort to say "that's propaganda."

[anthonycea]

All your "fact check" links are Republican propaganda G-tech, who do you think you are fooling. :confused: :confused:

http://horowitzwatch.blogspot.com/2002_07_21_horowitzwatch_archive.html

The above link is a bit of information on your supplied link.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[GTech]

Still taking the path that requires no effort?

"but, but, but...it's propaganda."

What a shame, you don't even try :rolleyes:

[anthonycea]

What is there to resist, history and fact prove your wrong :confused:

Your positions could be blown down with a 1 MPH wind :confused: :p ;)

[GTech]

And the best you have is "but, but, but...it's propaganda?"

Good one Anthony! Way to put forth the effort with some credibility.

[anthonycea]

Credibility :confused:

Sort of like the last two American elections and the information sources you use to attempt to convince the members to believe propaganda.

Digital Point is not the Fox News Network but you may be on Rupert Murdock's payroll G-tech :confused: :p :p

[GTech]

The post that stopped Anthony:

It would help if what you are posting as evidence that presidents have control over oil prices actually talked about it. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Clinton could not control rising oil prices either, though he did release some reserves in an effort to try. It didn't work. Why would you take the time to post an article that neglects to back up your point?

I say again, neither Bush nor Cheney can control oil prices. No president has that authority. Oil prices are controled by OPEC.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11731


Both arguments at least held their own--with the second argument gaining political and media traction--until the entire premise was dealt some doses of reality in the last few weeks.

The first "war for oil" argument was dispatched when, on January 8th, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bush administration plans to hand over the operation of the Iraqi oil fields to a proposed Iraqi state oil company, modeled after those in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Presumably the Iraqis would take full control of the operation perhaps next summer when the new government takes over.

This would mean that US oil companies would not control the oil--or the profits coming from its sale--the Iraqis would.

The second argument was severely damaged when SEC documents released November 7th revealed that Halliburton's activities in Iraq for the first three quarters of 2003 yielded just $46 million in operating profits on $1.3 billion in sales, a margin of about 3.5%. (When Cheney took office, Halliburton was trading around $50; in 2002 it traded around $10; it is now trading about $28, tracking approximately with the rest of the stock market the last twelve months.)

Then on January 7th the New York Times reported that the Defense Department doesn't believe that Halliburton overcharged the military for gasoline (it was locked into a long-term contract it had signed with a Kuwaiti firm when the price was higher).

Despite the fact that Democrats had charged Halliburton with profiteering, the company made a 3.5% profit on all its business in Iraq for the first three quarters of the year and wasn't guilty of "gouging the taxpayer" on the infamous gasoline deal.

If the Bush administration has been trying to help US oil companies in general, and Halliburton specifically, it's not done a very good job so far.


I suppose there are still misguided people, uneducated in the finer points of life, that still hang on to the oil for war premise.

but, but, but...

[anthonycea]

So you post the same propaganda again that no one believed the first time, great move G-tech, your best (you are your own worst enemy) quality is that you never give up :p ;) :p :)

[GTech]

Does the person with the red dot speak for everyone?

[anthonycea]

Surely not the Republican goody two shoe Sunday going killers that think that they must defend the faith of Pat Robertson and Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell :p :)

http://www.alternet.org/story/21428/

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Design Agent]

Speaks for me ;) if its on the subject of republicans, personally I prefer publicans

[GTech]

Surely not the Republican goody two shoe Sunday going killers that think that they must defend the faith of Pat Robertson and Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell

I was not aware of your hatred for Christians. Do you often use that hatred to back up your oil theories?

[GTech]

Speaks for me ;) if its on the subject of republicans, personally I prefer publicans

In what way?

[Design Agent]

Do you know what a publican is?

[GTech]

Not familiar with the term.

[anthonycea]

I was not aware of your hatred for Christians. Do you often use that hatred to back up your oil theories?

Read the article linked in post # 50 G-tech and you will see folks that actually practice their faith are against the false religion that the Republican Sunday goers have and practice.......

Has Jerry Falwell ever asked you if you have been saved brother :confused: ;)

[GTech]

That's ok. When you start reading articles yourself instead of making up your own facts as you go along, we might have something. As long as I have the opportunity to correct your blatant lies, that's all that's important.

In the meantime, your apparent hatred for Christians is overwhelming (once again). Not surprising though, you seem to have a lot of hatred for anything in this country.

[anthonycea]

:p :p :p :p ..................

[Design Agent]

Someone that runs a pub!