Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 That would still be a result of the invasion, which is all the Lancet study was saying. 808778[/snapback] My contention is that it would have happened sooner or later, once Saddam kicked the bucket. His one son was insane, and couldn't possibly hold that country together and his other son was universally reviled.
blzrul Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 A million where? Maybe in one part of Iraq. I believe the number is closer to 3 million. Hell if I remember correct after Gulf I he supposedly killed 800,000 in southern Iraq alone for their treachery. How many Iranians were gassed and killed as well? 808324[/snapback] EXCELLENT question. Here's another one: Where did he get the gas? From the-enemy-of-his-enemy perhaps (the red, white and blue one)??
blzrul Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 My contention is that it would have happened sooner or later, once Saddam kicked the bucket. His one son was insane, and couldn't possibly hold that country together and his other son was universally reviled. 809264[/snapback] Ah the old pre-emptive strike mentality! Saddams sons were both nutjobs and would have killed MORE people so our invasion is actually SAVING people from being killed. Yup, that sounds like fodder for a 2007 Nobel prize, in what category I don't know.
Bungee Jumper Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 EXCELLENT question. Here's another one: Where did he get the gas? From the-enemy-of-his-enemy perhaps (the red, white and blue one)?? 809287[/snapback] No, he made them with the agricultural and pharmaceutical industry he purchased from/was given by France and Germany. Nerve agents are fairly easy to make if you can make pesticides, and mustard gas is easier still (mix sulfur monochloride - easily attainable to anyone with a petroleum industry - and ethylene - easily attainable to anyone with a pulse, I think I have some in the workshop, actually - and "shake well"). And the Iraqis were sophisticated enough to invent some of their own..."dusty mustard", binding mustard gas to small sand particles, was particularly nasty. Really, this stuff is very well documented, if you'd bother to look.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Ah the old pre-emptive strike mentality! Saddams sons were both nutjobs and would have killed MORE people so our invasion is actually SAVING people from being killed. Yup, that sounds like fodder for a 2007 Nobel prize, in what category I don't know. 809293[/snapback] Nooo, read again, nozzle. I said that neither of his sons would have kept the country together, thereby causing the same thing as we see now. I say split the !@#$ers up into their own little fiefdoms and be done with it.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 About 6,000 - 8,000 die in the U.S. every day. Thus 2,555,000 per year
John Adams Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 About 6,000 - 8,000 die in the U.S. every day. Thus 2,555,000 per year 810818[/snapback] How'd you take so long to hit this topic projection-boy?
daquixers_is_back Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 How'd you take so long to hit this topic projection-boy? 810862[/snapback] I can hardly remember even posting that ... hmm
PastaJoe Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 Nooo, read again, nozzle. I said that neither of his sons would have kept the country together, thereby causing the same thing as we see now. I say split the !@#$ers up into their own little fiefdoms and be done with it. 809795[/snapback] So you agree with the plan that Joe Biden has been proposing for some time to split into regional autonomous areas with a sharing of oil revenues and border security?
Kelly the Dog Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 About 6,000 - 8,000 die in the U.S. every day. Thus 2,555,000 per year 810818[/snapback] How many die each year in the United States from psycho dictatorial tyrants or full scale invasions/insurgencies? Otherwise, those figures are completely meaningless.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 26, 2006 Posted October 26, 2006 How many die each year in the United States from psycho dictatorial tyrants or full scale invasions/insurgencies? Otherwise, those figures are completely meaningless. 816477[/snapback] Yeah I dont think anyone has calculated a number for that situation in the United States as of yet ... but I could be wrong.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 26, 2006 Posted October 26, 2006 ... but I could be wrong. 817515[/snapback] Yeah, but it keeps alive that remarkable streak you have going.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 Yeah, but it keeps alive that remarkable streak you have going. 817645[/snapback] I have a streak of being wrong?
catchescannonballs Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 91 Confirmed dead today, and that's basically an average day in Iraq, right? 365 days times 100 [averaging up to 100 from 96] and 36,500 a year. Now we know that reporters, public health officials, GIs, etc. can't really get around Iraq at all to see the carnage. With this in mind the larger numbers of hundreds of thousands of dead since the invasion makes since. True, earlier in the occupation things were not as bloody, but the death toll surely must be over 100,000, at least 807514[/snapback] Get back to me when the death toll equals the tens of millions systematically killed by Saddam over the decades. Things may not have gone exactly as planned in Iraq but things are a hell of a lot better now than under the murderous Saddam.
chicot Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 Get back to me when the death toll equals the tens of millions systematically killed by Saddam over the decades. Things may not have gone exactly as planned in Iraq but things are a hell of a lot better now than under the murderous Saddam. 818361[/snapback] Tens of millions?! What is this - think of a number and double it?
catchescannonballs Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 Tens of millions?! What is this - think of a number and double it? 818374[/snapback] Oh sure, Saddam was just a wonderful guy. Problem with you people is you want to blame our soldiers for everything. You blame Bush and Rumsfeld, but we know who you really hate. Just like in Nam. My dad was spit on, had blood thrown on him just for fighting for his country
chicot Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 Oh sure, Saddam was just a wonderful guy. Problem with you people is you want to blame our soldiers for everything. You blame Bush and Rumsfeld, but we know who you really hate. Just like in Nam. My dad was spit on, had blood thrown on him just for fighting for his country 818402[/snapback] Never said he was a great guy. In fact, he was a brutal and cruel dictator. That doesn't change the fact that stating that he systematically killed "tens of millions" is completely ridiculous.
John Adams Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 Oh sure, Saddam was just a wonderful guy. Problem with you people is you want to blame our soldiers for everything. You blame Bush and Rumsfeld, but we know who you really hate. Just like in Nam. My dad was spit on, had blood thrown on him just for fighting for his country 818402[/snapback] How's life under the bridge?
Recommended Posts