PDA

View Full Version : Over A Million Innocent People Perished In A War Based On A Lie!



Ferre
11-12-2009, 12:35 PM
Now this is what I call man talk.

mafHPre-JgU

Strong
12-12-2009, 09:19 AM
As a point of interest, where does he get that figure of one million from?
What period of time does it relate to?
Is it just in relation to Iraq, or just Afghanistan, or is it a combination of the two conflicts. :sqconfused:

I don't doubt the man, I'd just like to put his claim in some context and get some verifiable details instead of just rhetoric. He is a politician after all, you should never take a politician at his word.

Ferre
12-12-2009, 09:57 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

vectro
12-12-2009, 07:56 PM
LOL, Mox News Unfair and Biased.

I've never seen Kucinich get so tough. I see what he's saying though. Either choose war or choose peace. Don't choose war and say it's the path to peace.

Strong
13-12-2009, 08:59 AM
Statistics based on asking 1499 people questions. It is interesting, but it is only an indication. The sample, while being large, doesn't cover all regions of the country. And of course the big assumption is that everybody you ask is going to tell you the true.

It is not that I'm sceptical, but something more concrete to back up these numbers would add validity to the figures. Perhaps figures from hospitals on casualty rates.

Of course if I remember correctly, the US and British refused to provide any figures themselves. With this in mind no doubt.

One also has to realise that many of the casualties were caused by the Iraqis themselves, 20% from car bombs.


ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."

If Hussein were behind the death of 1 million of his people, think of the cries you would hear in the West.

Ferre
13-12-2009, 09:35 AM
One also has to realise that many of the casualties were caused by the Iraqis themselves, 20% from car bombs.

Those car bombs are a direct result of that war Strong. The only (rare) car bombs that were happening in Saddam's days, believe it or not, were done by USA government supported terror groups, one of those terror groups was lead by a guy who was later appointed in a crucial position in the interim government by the same USA government.

Iraq stinks bro, it has the smell of American imperialism.

(And yes, I could have backed every statement above with links and names, but I could not be bothered this time, anyone who reads this can do a few Google searches themselves)

Brian
13-12-2009, 10:37 AM
I've never seen Kucinich get so tough.

Every now and then he goes on an awesome rant that is web worthy!

vectro
13-12-2009, 08:47 PM
Iraq stinks bro, it has the smell of American imperialism.

Why would you call it American Imperialism? The executive branch of the government changes every 4 to 8 years. The legislative branch changes every 2 years. All of the rotating members in and out for the last 10 years were not part of some imperialist conspiracy.

The Iraq war was a major mistake by George W. Bush and his cronies who wanted to turn it into a Western democracy. They also wanted to make sure their friends profited from the war. Let's not forget how many members of the U.S. Government were against the Iraq war from the onset. The new commanders agree with the current President that trying to "Westernize" Iraq would never work and the best they can do is help to stabilize the country and then remove troops.

Even if the stats aren't perfect... and say... 750,000 people died, that's still enough to listen to the point Congressman Kucinich was trying to make. We all know it's a bloody war.

Additionally, I think he was talking about Afghanistan when he said that war is not the path to peace, which was his main point. Why did he make that point? Because the President recently said that we have to fight now in Afghanistan to achieve peace in the future after deciding to send 30,000 more troops per General McChrystal's requests.

Strong
16-12-2009, 06:15 AM
Guardian: Tony Blair admits: I would have invaded Iraq anyway (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/12/tony-blair-iraq-chilcot-inquiry)


WMD were not vital for war says ex-PM ahead of appearance at Chilcot inquiry


Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public.

The former prime minister made the confession during an interview with Fern Britton, to be broadcast on Sunday on BBC1, in which he said he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

"If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?" Blair was asked. He replied: "I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]".

Significantly, Blair added: "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat." He continued: "I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons in charge, but it's incredibly difficult. That's why I sympathise with the people who were against it [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end I had to take the decision."

From watching some of the inquiry so far, I am not impressed with the questioning, but it will be interesting to see what the out come will be.

Blair seems to be spinning the story already to counter what has been disclosed at the inquiry so far. He is due to appear in January.

Cryren8972
16-12-2009, 06:33 AM
Guardian: Tony Blair admits: I would have invaded Iraq anyway (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/12/tony-blair-iraq-chilcot-inquiry)





From watching some of the inquiry so far, I am not impressed with the questioning, but it will be interesting to see what the out come will be.

Blair seems to be spinning the story already to counter what has been disclosed at the inquiry so far. He is due to appear in January.

I realized this was a bogus reason from day one. Why haven't we invaded South Korea if weapons of mass destruction were such a concern? Because they don't have oil, that's why.

Strong
16-12-2009, 06:49 AM
You know at the beginning of the whole sordid affair I heard that argument and said, no, our governments couldn't be so crass. But increasingly as this inquiry goes on and more evidence comes to light, I'm inclinded to think that maybe that was one of the primary reasons.

Although I think removing Hussein from power was also a large part of the equation and considering what he did to his own people, a legitimate reason. But then that begs the question why wasn't the job completed during the first Iraq war.

I suspect Daddy Bush was smart enough to realise that we would be sucked into the quagmire that we find ourselves in now.

Cryren8972
16-12-2009, 06:53 AM
You know at the beginning of the whole sordid affair I heard that argument and said, no, our governments couldn't be so crass. But increasingly as this inquiry goes on and more evidence comes to light, I'm inclinded to think that maybe that was one of the primary reasons.

Although I think removing Hussein from power was also a large part of the equation and considering what he did to his own people, a legitimate reason. But then that begs the question why wasn't the job completed during the first Iraq war.

I suspect Daddy Bush was smart enough to realise that we would be sucked into the quagmire that we find ourselves in now.

This is completely theory on my part, but I believe that A) Bush Sr regretted not removing Hussein from power during his term so his son finished the job, and B) the oil companies of which Bush had a financial interest in stood to gain a lot of money by raising oil prices. How's that for diabolical politics?

Strong
16-12-2009, 07:05 AM
It is almost conspiraciesque.

Junior had a lot of links with Saudi business men, as did Cheney, if I remember rightly. But going from there to war for money is a trouser splitting step.

Cryren8972
16-12-2009, 07:11 AM
Aren't most wars ultimately about power or money?

Ferre
16-12-2009, 07:36 AM
Aren't most wars ultimately about power or money?

Yes, but things has changed since not that long. In the "old days" (until only a few decades ago) wars were fought for the power and benefit of countries, nowadays they are fought for the power and benefit of corporations.

Also, in the "old days", there had to be a serious enough conflict between two countries to start a war, nowadays the USA empire believes they can go and invade any country their corporate interests lay with the excuse of "pre-emptive" strike. the "justification" for those pre emptive strikes, so far, have been based on lies and war propaganda, not even real conflicts.

Cryren8972
16-12-2009, 07:51 AM
Yes, but things has changed since not that long. In the "old days" (until only a few decades ago) wars were fought for the power and benefit of countries, nowadays they are fought for the power and benefit of corporations.

Also, in the "old days", there had to be a serious enough conflict between two countries to start a war, nowadays the USA empire believes they can go and invade any country their corporate interests lay with the excuse of "pre-emptive" strike. the "justification" for those pre emptive strikes, so far, have been based on lies and war propaganda, not even real conflicts.

I agree 100% with this statement.

vectro
16-12-2009, 08:01 AM
North Dakota Found To Be Harboring Nuclear Missiles | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27654)

Zap
16-12-2009, 08:06 AM
Love the onion, but the point is a valid one.
The USA has WMDs. When does the invasion begin?

Muddy
18-12-2009, 12:09 AM
Sink the Bismark!