RRC Archives

yes, but we're killing them to help them, not to be mean... duh!

then why not say that?..I apologize alan..I thought you were just taking a swipe at this administration and their policies. I didn't realize you were trumpeting a human rights issue for the welfare of the countries involved.

And, in an amazing display of predictability......

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... ml&src=rss

It's O.K. ...

Bush added that he was "amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to – you know, that there's a level of violence that they – that they tolerate, and it's now time for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods so people can feel – can feel, you know, at peace."

Remember, this is the administration that likes to edit scientifc reports using people who have no expertise in the given field. These are the same people who think a theory in science is like uncle Bob telling you he has a theory about gophers eating his cherry pie he left outside because he seen em after the fact.

pigsteak wrote:come on paul, quit beinf such a dman cynic...

hey alan, the report was between 400,000 and 750,000...so much for being exact. but carry on...we don't want to ruin a good tirade with the reality of the report.

What was I thinking? 400,000 civilians killed violently since we invaded Iraq is no big deal! They all had it coming, didn't they? They're brown and they live over our oil.

And yes, it's a broad swipe at the administration as well. They're a bunch of drooling idiots that will speak lies with utter belief because it fits what they believe regardless of the facts. Remember, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Paul, science is right more often than it is wrong and it sure as shit is right more often than the current administration is right (by "right" I mean "correct" not "fascist," which they are very often).

Even if the research methods were flawed, that figure is crazy. Let's say it's 200,000 as opposed to 600,000? Big F-ing deal... still an extremely high number... despite our differing opinions on artcars, I think Alan and I share similar thoughts on U.S. administration.

Even if it is "only" 50,000, which is just 20k over what Bush admits, that is still an insane number.

but we kill them to promote peace, doesn't this make sense to you people?

in order to have peace, we have to kill non peaceful people.

all sarcasm aside, the statistics are incredibly easy to manipulate for either side. we could all stipulate that sadam may have killed 600,000 more people by now had we not intervened, but we could also postulate that we could have found a way for peace without the need for so much killing now. Neither idea does any bit of good. The only thing to do now is to find a way to bring an end to the violence and limit the body count further. i would hope everyone would agree on that, no matter how we think they should do it... vote, write letters to those in power, use your voice.

that's my point..no one, not even Bush could have predicted this death toll at the beginnning. we are using hindsight to criticize, which is very dangerous. it is like blaming Clinton for not doing more to catch Bin Laden AFTER he bombs NY....