GQ_jumper 4 #26 January 15, 2007 That's alien to a lot of youQuote Gee don't hold yourself too high and mighty, come to think of it, wouldn't taking the moral high ground involve NOT making insults like this? or do you have cheat days for your morals, kind of like I do for my diet?History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #27 January 15, 2007 Hey, amazon said some thing I am trying to figure out. She said we have killed HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Iraqi Citizens, since you and I have been on opposite tours there, lets add our figures and see how many actually are from Coalition Forces collateral damage, not the stuff in the media that adds all the numbers together (Syrian Insurgents, Iranian Insurgents, AQ Insurgents, Sunni Insurgents, Shiite Insurgents, Coalition Forces, Iraqi Army and Police Forces) and assigns blame to the US exclusively.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #28 January 16, 2007 Quote[ Not interested. See, that's not my logic -- it's the logic of anyone who thinks that iraqis wanting to join the US army is evidence of the goodness of America. I use morality to decide what I do -- not comfort. That's alien to a lot of you, but it's what I learned as a child and I still believe it's the right way. ...................................................... In the Vietnam conflict South Vietnamese Soldiers joined up for the money and benefits. Many claimed that they weren't good soldiers (for the most part), and were only in it for the cash. Money and comfort from starvation can have a big affect on people. I wonder how many American soldiers really believe in what they are doing over there. I know there are many, but maybe they too just signed up for the cash. Just some left wing food for thought, and I'm no lefty....Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #29 January 16, 2007 OH, I thought this was that series of pictures of Iraqis having laughs with GI's and GI's petting fuzzy kitties..... all the while ignoring teh 240k Iraqi deaths as per the UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #30 January 16, 2007 Yes, facts like 240k dead Iraqis..... just supress those facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #31 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuote ... wasn't the American military who trained Osama Bin Laden??? .... Yes. The US supported the muja's along with Osama fighting off the Soviet invasion in the 80s. You would have preferred we support the Soviets? Perhaps you forgot who's side the ruskies were on during that little war entitled, "WWII." Hating the ruskies was so 80's, so Reagan, so can we realize that old POS was one of the most detrimental presidents the US ever enjoyed and get over it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #32 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote ... wasn't the American military who trained Osama Bin Laden??? .... Yes. The US supported the muja's along with Osama fighting off the Soviet invasion in the 80s. You would have preferred we support the Soviets? Perhaps you forgot who's side the ruskies were on during that little war entitled, "WWII." Hating the ruskies was so 80's, so Reagan, so can we realize that old POS was one of the most detrimental presidents the US ever enjoyed and get over it? You're a decade short, but yeah.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #33 January 16, 2007 QuoteI though that only Americans could join the US army, how did a Kurd joined the US army? Guamanians and Peurto Ricans can join too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #34 January 16, 2007 Quoteall the while ignoring teh 240k Iraqi deaths as per the UN. So, the UN puts the Iraqi death total at 240,000? Got a link? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #35 January 16, 2007 QuoteWell, per Bush, that's one of the problems Iraq has - they're not grateful enough for our liberating them. From a recent interview: "I think, I think I'm proud of the efforts we did. Uh, we liberated that country from a tyrant. Uh, I think the Iraqi people owe the, the American people a huge debt of gratitude. That's the problem, here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq." QuoteI think, I think I'm proud of the efforts we did. Nuff said. I think, I think I know EP's. I think, I think I know how to use a gun. I could go on, but what an ass-monkey to be that unassertive about such an important issue. Not that it needs to be said, but Bush is obviously winging the presedency. Maybe next term he will get it right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #36 January 16, 2007 Quoteit's the logic of anyone who thinks that iraqis wanting to join the US army is evidence of the goodness of America. Right. They could be joining for revenge, for inside info, to attack us inside, for many reasons. Just as born Americans can join for many reasons, to conclude motive based strictly upon actions is so means justifies the ends. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #37 January 16, 2007 The UN says 240k, we are there illegally, so doesn;t that lead to some culpability? IN teh US they would call that fellony murder, being enagaged in a felonious act and having people die. But of course we are immune from that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #38 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuote[ Not interested. See, that's not my logic -- it's the logic of anyone who thinks that iraqis wanting to join the US army is evidence of the goodness of America. I use morality to decide what I do -- not comfort. That's alien to a lot of you, but it's what I learned as a child and I still believe it's the right way. ...................................................... In the Vietnam conflict South Vietnamese Soldiers joined up for the money and benefits. Many claimed that they weren't good soldiers (for the most part), and were only in it for the cash. Money and comfort from starvation can have a big affect on people. I wonder how many American soldiers really believe in what they are doing over there. I know there are many, but maybe they too just signed up for the cash. Just some left wing food for thought, and I'm no lefty....Steve1 Of course, one of the many motives that get trashed to call it love of the US by the righties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #39 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ... wasn't the American military who trained Osama Bin Laden??? .... Yes. The US supported the muja's along with Osama fighting off the Soviet invasion in the 80s. You would have preferred we support the Soviets? Perhaps you forgot who's side the ruskies were on during that little war entitled, "WWII." Hating the ruskies was so 80's, so Reagan, so can we realize that old POS was one of the most detrimental presidents the US ever enjoyed and get over it? You're a decade short, but yeah.... Yea, no I think I'm right on. We could talk debt, the debt Clinton curtailed into a horizontal, but you wouldn't respond. Reagan re-established the oppessive employer, runaway spending and military idiocy to name a few. As Ford said, he was a great spokesman but an absent mahager; I tend to agree with that. Grandpa Ronnie can;t be bad at all... until you look at the 7.6T increase in debt he started via his alzheimer-led spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #40 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteall the while ignoring teh 240k Iraqi deaths as per the UN. So, the UN puts the Iraqi death total at 240,000? Got a link? I read the title on Yahoo, didn't click on it. It coyld be wrong, as I didn;t read into it. Other groups have said 665k a few months ago, so who knows where the number is at. I've read all the way from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands, but what bothers me is the need to place a number. How about the 24 villiagers, mostly women and children that those murderous US GI's drug out their houses and murdered, ALLEGEDLY, that's only 24. It's the act rather than the number and the numbers vary as much as the opinions of the war and are proportionate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #41 January 16, 2007 Here's the Lancet survey released last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq It said 665k and was refuted by US and Iraqi governments, who were obvioulsy US controlled. However statasticians and epidemiologists agreed with the findings. I will look for that UN article. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #42 January 16, 2007 *hands Lucky a new tune to replace the old worn out one*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #43 January 16, 2007 QuoteHere's the Lancet survey released last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq It said 665k and was refuted by US and Iraqi governments, who were obvioulsy US controlled. However statasticians and epidemiologists agreed with the findings. I will look for that UN article. Of course... obviously US controlled... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #44 January 16, 2007 The Iraqui's do not want the numbers to get out... they are suppressing the data so that the world does not think they actually do have a CIVIL WAR going on.. http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/world/middleeast/21statistics.html U.N. Says Iraq Seals Data on the Civilian Toll By WARREN HOGE Published: October 21, 2006 UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 20 — The United Nations office in Baghdad says that Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has ordered the country’s medical authorities to stop providing the organization with monthly figures on the number of civilians killed and wounded in the conflict there, according to a confidential cable. The cable, dated Oct. 17 and sent to United Nations officials in New York and Geneva by Ashraf Qazi, the United Nations envoy to Iraq, says the prohibition may hinder the ability of his office to give accurate accounts in its bimonthly human rights reports on the levels of violence and the effect on Iraqi society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #45 January 16, 2007 QuoteHere's the Lancet survey released last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq It said 665k and was refuted by US and Iraqi governments, who were obvioulsy US controlled. However statasticians and epidemiologists agreed with the findings. I will look for that UN article. I'm familiar w/ the Lancet study. I've yet to see any other studies/estimates, with numbers that are even one fourth of the Lancet figures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #46 January 16, 2007 Quote*hands Lucky a new tune to replace the old worn out one* Hands it back, as Neal is the usual user of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #47 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteHere's the Lancet survey released last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq It said 665k and was refuted by US and Iraqi governments, who were obvioulsy US controlled. However statasticians and epidemiologists agreed with the findings. I will look for that UN article. Of course... obviously US controlled... Just because we have well over 100k well-armed troops and massive equipment, they changed their form of government to mirror that of ours doesn't mean they are a puppet of teh US, no way. SADDAM EXECUTION: SH held on a US base until execution, tried in a form more like the the US than previous Iraqi, hung in US fashion, dropped rather than elevated and strangled doesn;t mean in any way that the US had anything whatsoever to do with it. Furthermore, putting the Sheite in charge was a real charmer too, just add water to have all the dissention you could ever want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #48 January 16, 2007 QuoteThe Iraqui's do not want the numbers to get out... they are suppressing the data so that the world does not think they actually do have a CIVIL WAR going on.. http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/world/middleeast/21statistics.html U.N. Says Iraq Seals Data on the Civilian Toll By WARREN HOGE Published: October 21, 2006 UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 20 — The United Nations office in Baghdad says that Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has ordered the country’s medical authorities to stop providing the organization with monthly figures on the number of civilians killed and wounded in the conflict there, according to a confidential cable. The cable, dated Oct. 17 and sent to United Nations officials in New York and Geneva by Ashraf Qazi, the United Nations envoy to Iraq, says the prohibition may hinder the ability of his office to give accurate accounts in its bimonthly human rights reports on the levels of violence and the effect on Iraqi society. Right, makes them look unbalanced and vulnerable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #49 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteHere's the Lancet survey released last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq It said 665k and was refuted by US and Iraqi governments, who were obvioulsy US controlled. However statasticians and epidemiologists agreed with the findings. I will look for that UN article. I'm familiar w/ the Lancet study. I've yet to see any other studies/estimates, with numbers that are even one fourth of the Lancet figures. Yea, I really hate to make ti a numbers game, altho I fall into the same trap. Those 24 villiagers or any of the >3k US troops is enough to really suck. I swore I saw 240k by the UN, I will look for it. Either way, certianly > 100k, which is again using a numbers game to measure the attrocities over there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bazelos 0 #50 January 16, 2007 QuoteMany non-citizens join the Army, now it is a way for some to get their citizenship. Got any more info on this? (Yes I tried google but nothing came up on goarmy or any of the army websites)!He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
matthewcline 0 #27 January 15, 2007 Hey, amazon said some thing I am trying to figure out. She said we have killed HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Iraqi Citizens, since you and I have been on opposite tours there, lets add our figures and see how many actually are from Coalition Forces collateral damage, not the stuff in the media that adds all the numbers together (Syrian Insurgents, Iranian Insurgents, AQ Insurgents, Sunni Insurgents, Shiite Insurgents, Coalition Forces, Iraqi Army and Police Forces) and assigns blame to the US exclusively.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #28 January 16, 2007 Quote[ Not interested. See, that's not my logic -- it's the logic of anyone who thinks that iraqis wanting to join the US army is evidence of the goodness of America. I use morality to decide what I do -- not comfort. That's alien to a lot of you, but it's what I learned as a child and I still believe it's the right way. ...................................................... In the Vietnam conflict South Vietnamese Soldiers joined up for the money and benefits. Many claimed that they weren't good soldiers (for the most part), and were only in it for the cash. Money and comfort from starvation can have a big affect on people. I wonder how many American soldiers really believe in what they are doing over there. I know there are many, but maybe they too just signed up for the cash. Just some left wing food for thought, and I'm no lefty....Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 January 16, 2007 OH, I thought this was that series of pictures of Iraqis having laughs with GI's and GI's petting fuzzy kitties..... all the while ignoring teh 240k Iraqi deaths as per the UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 January 16, 2007 Yes, facts like 240k dead Iraqis..... just supress those facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuote ... wasn't the American military who trained Osama Bin Laden??? .... Yes. The US supported the muja's along with Osama fighting off the Soviet invasion in the 80s. You would have preferred we support the Soviets? Perhaps you forgot who's side the ruskies were on during that little war entitled, "WWII." Hating the ruskies was so 80's, so Reagan, so can we realize that old POS was one of the most detrimental presidents the US ever enjoyed and get over it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote ... wasn't the American military who trained Osama Bin Laden??? .... Yes. The US supported the muja's along with Osama fighting off the Soviet invasion in the 80s. You would have preferred we support the Soviets? Perhaps you forgot who's side the ruskies were on during that little war entitled, "WWII." Hating the ruskies was so 80's, so Reagan, so can we realize that old POS was one of the most detrimental presidents the US ever enjoyed and get over it? You're a decade short, but yeah.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #33 January 16, 2007 QuoteI though that only Americans could join the US army, how did a Kurd joined the US army? Guamanians and Peurto Ricans can join too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #34 January 16, 2007 Quoteall the while ignoring teh 240k Iraqi deaths as per the UN. So, the UN puts the Iraqi death total at 240,000? Got a link? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #35 January 16, 2007 QuoteWell, per Bush, that's one of the problems Iraq has - they're not grateful enough for our liberating them. From a recent interview: "I think, I think I'm proud of the efforts we did. Uh, we liberated that country from a tyrant. Uh, I think the Iraqi people owe the, the American people a huge debt of gratitude. That's the problem, here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq." QuoteI think, I think I'm proud of the efforts we did. Nuff said. I think, I think I know EP's. I think, I think I know how to use a gun. I could go on, but what an ass-monkey to be that unassertive about such an important issue. Not that it needs to be said, but Bush is obviously winging the presedency. Maybe next term he will get it right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #36 January 16, 2007 Quoteit's the logic of anyone who thinks that iraqis wanting to join the US army is evidence of the goodness of America. Right. They could be joining for revenge, for inside info, to attack us inside, for many reasons. Just as born Americans can join for many reasons, to conclude motive based strictly upon actions is so means justifies the ends. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 January 16, 2007 The UN says 240k, we are there illegally, so doesn;t that lead to some culpability? IN teh US they would call that fellony murder, being enagaged in a felonious act and having people die. But of course we are immune from that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuote[ Not interested. See, that's not my logic -- it's the logic of anyone who thinks that iraqis wanting to join the US army is evidence of the goodness of America. I use morality to decide what I do -- not comfort. That's alien to a lot of you, but it's what I learned as a child and I still believe it's the right way. ...................................................... In the Vietnam conflict South Vietnamese Soldiers joined up for the money and benefits. Many claimed that they weren't good soldiers (for the most part), and were only in it for the cash. Money and comfort from starvation can have a big affect on people. I wonder how many American soldiers really believe in what they are doing over there. I know there are many, but maybe they too just signed up for the cash. Just some left wing food for thought, and I'm no lefty....Steve1 Of course, one of the many motives that get trashed to call it love of the US by the righties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ... wasn't the American military who trained Osama Bin Laden??? .... Yes. The US supported the muja's along with Osama fighting off the Soviet invasion in the 80s. You would have preferred we support the Soviets? Perhaps you forgot who's side the ruskies were on during that little war entitled, "WWII." Hating the ruskies was so 80's, so Reagan, so can we realize that old POS was one of the most detrimental presidents the US ever enjoyed and get over it? You're a decade short, but yeah.... Yea, no I think I'm right on. We could talk debt, the debt Clinton curtailed into a horizontal, but you wouldn't respond. Reagan re-established the oppessive employer, runaway spending and military idiocy to name a few. As Ford said, he was a great spokesman but an absent mahager; I tend to agree with that. Grandpa Ronnie can;t be bad at all... until you look at the 7.6T increase in debt he started via his alzheimer-led spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #40 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteall the while ignoring teh 240k Iraqi deaths as per the UN. So, the UN puts the Iraqi death total at 240,000? Got a link? I read the title on Yahoo, didn't click on it. It coyld be wrong, as I didn;t read into it. Other groups have said 665k a few months ago, so who knows where the number is at. I've read all the way from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands, but what bothers me is the need to place a number. How about the 24 villiagers, mostly women and children that those murderous US GI's drug out their houses and murdered, ALLEGEDLY, that's only 24. It's the act rather than the number and the numbers vary as much as the opinions of the war and are proportionate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #41 January 16, 2007 Here's the Lancet survey released last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq It said 665k and was refuted by US and Iraqi governments, who were obvioulsy US controlled. However statasticians and epidemiologists agreed with the findings. I will look for that UN article. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 January 16, 2007 *hands Lucky a new tune to replace the old worn out one*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 January 16, 2007 QuoteHere's the Lancet survey released last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq It said 665k and was refuted by US and Iraqi governments, who were obvioulsy US controlled. However statasticians and epidemiologists agreed with the findings. I will look for that UN article. Of course... obviously US controlled... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #44 January 16, 2007 The Iraqui's do not want the numbers to get out... they are suppressing the data so that the world does not think they actually do have a CIVIL WAR going on.. http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/world/middleeast/21statistics.html U.N. Says Iraq Seals Data on the Civilian Toll By WARREN HOGE Published: October 21, 2006 UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 20 — The United Nations office in Baghdad says that Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has ordered the country’s medical authorities to stop providing the organization with monthly figures on the number of civilians killed and wounded in the conflict there, according to a confidential cable. The cable, dated Oct. 17 and sent to United Nations officials in New York and Geneva by Ashraf Qazi, the United Nations envoy to Iraq, says the prohibition may hinder the ability of his office to give accurate accounts in its bimonthly human rights reports on the levels of violence and the effect on Iraqi society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #45 January 16, 2007 QuoteHere's the Lancet survey released last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq It said 665k and was refuted by US and Iraqi governments, who were obvioulsy US controlled. However statasticians and epidemiologists agreed with the findings. I will look for that UN article. I'm familiar w/ the Lancet study. I've yet to see any other studies/estimates, with numbers that are even one fourth of the Lancet figures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 January 16, 2007 Quote*hands Lucky a new tune to replace the old worn out one* Hands it back, as Neal is the usual user of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #47 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteHere's the Lancet survey released last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq It said 665k and was refuted by US and Iraqi governments, who were obvioulsy US controlled. However statasticians and epidemiologists agreed with the findings. I will look for that UN article. Of course... obviously US controlled... Just because we have well over 100k well-armed troops and massive equipment, they changed their form of government to mirror that of ours doesn't mean they are a puppet of teh US, no way. SADDAM EXECUTION: SH held on a US base until execution, tried in a form more like the the US than previous Iraqi, hung in US fashion, dropped rather than elevated and strangled doesn;t mean in any way that the US had anything whatsoever to do with it. Furthermore, putting the Sheite in charge was a real charmer too, just add water to have all the dissention you could ever want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #48 January 16, 2007 QuoteThe Iraqui's do not want the numbers to get out... they are suppressing the data so that the world does not think they actually do have a CIVIL WAR going on.. http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/world/middleeast/21statistics.html U.N. Says Iraq Seals Data on the Civilian Toll By WARREN HOGE Published: October 21, 2006 UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 20 — The United Nations office in Baghdad says that Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has ordered the country’s medical authorities to stop providing the organization with monthly figures on the number of civilians killed and wounded in the conflict there, according to a confidential cable. The cable, dated Oct. 17 and sent to United Nations officials in New York and Geneva by Ashraf Qazi, the United Nations envoy to Iraq, says the prohibition may hinder the ability of his office to give accurate accounts in its bimonthly human rights reports on the levels of violence and the effect on Iraqi society. Right, makes them look unbalanced and vulnerable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #49 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteHere's the Lancet survey released last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq It said 665k and was refuted by US and Iraqi governments, who were obvioulsy US controlled. However statasticians and epidemiologists agreed with the findings. I will look for that UN article. I'm familiar w/ the Lancet study. I've yet to see any other studies/estimates, with numbers that are even one fourth of the Lancet figures. Yea, I really hate to make ti a numbers game, altho I fall into the same trap. Those 24 villiagers or any of the >3k US troops is enough to really suck. I swore I saw 240k by the UN, I will look for it. Either way, certianly > 100k, which is again using a numbers game to measure the attrocities over there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bazelos 0 #50 January 16, 2007 QuoteMany non-citizens join the Army, now it is a way for some to get their citizenship. Got any more info on this? (Yes I tried google but nothing came up on goarmy or any of the army websites)!He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
