The terrorism theory President Bush refuses to hear (1 Viewer)

[gerhard]

Re: The terrorism theory bush refuses to hear

According to Wikipedia Civilian dead: At least 3,485 and the Conflict started October 7, 2001–(conflict still ongoing).

Can you show me this? I cant find the number 3485 anywhere on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan
At the end of this page, they have the 3600 dead as a result of US bombings (and only bombings), as well as some people who think less people died in the bombings. And a guy from the Gaurdian who thinks 'between 20,000 and 49,600 people may have died of the consequences of the invasion'

. Compared to South Africa which is not at war, people died as a result of crime since October 2001-today is 100,000 (at an annual rate of 20,000)

I don't have to be in South Africa to know how violent it is, Statistics are available for you and me to compare the two places.

Ok first off, I didnt argue that South Africa isnt violent, I argued against your statement that Afghanistan is more free than South Africa. Honestly I dont think you actually believe this and regret saying it but arent game to admit it. Afghanistan is operating under some form of Sharia law, while South Africa is a liberal democracy. Its pretty obvious on that basis alone that South Africa is more free than Afghanistan.

I also didnt say you have to go to South Africa to know how violent it is, I said you would have to go to know how free it is because freedom isnt something easily quantifiable.

Secondly, your statistics are absurd. You arent comparing the same thing accross the two counties. You compare the amount of murders in south africa with civilian bombing deaths in afghanistan (I honestly cant work out where else the number came from). You ignore all murders, deaths not caused by US soldiers, factional warlord fighting, etc in afghanistan. If you want to accurately compare then obviously you would need to take into account all deaths in afghanistan, not this small subset.

progress are clearly made in Afghanistan and the people are free compared to what it was under Taliban.

If you want to change your argument, admit the last one was wrong. Is Afghanistan freer than South Africa?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Re: The terrorism theory bush refuses to hear

According to Wikipedia Civilian dead: At least 3,485 and the Conflict started October 7, 2001–(conflict still ongoing). This civilian dead include people who died as a result of US air raid as well as casualties of ground offensive from oct 2001- today. Compared to South Africa which is not at war, people died as a result of crime since October 2001-today is 100,000 (at an annual rate of 20,000)

I don't have to be in South Africa to know how violent it is, Statistics are available for you and me to compare the two places.

If you are South African and hurt by these comments, I have no intention of doing that. I am only telling you that progress are clearly made in Afghanistan and the people are free compared to what it was under Taliban.

Why compare the two places? Irregardless of how free or safe Sth Africa is, Afghanistan is neither free nor safe. Where did you get your cource for the second theory, on the number of deaths on the result of crime in sth africa?

Would you like Bush to 'free' South Africa? Why do you think Bush hasn't 'freed' Zimbabwe, or even places closer to home like Chile and Cuba from their dictators?

Because this saintly President wants control of the areas in which he can gain the greatest profit, and 150 000 afghan and iraqi dead are a small price to pay for more oil.

And f**k those countries who can't help him financially. At least under their former leaders, Afghanistan and Iraq weren't economically crippled, relying on american aid, the american army even to keep their country together. When the army leaves, everything will collapse. America knows this, and so, if they ever leave, they have also ensured they have a 'humanitarian' route back in.

"Oh, we have to save the Iraqi's, they can't get along without us!'

 

[bshoc]

Here's a terrorist theory I refuse to hear - that its better to "leave the region alone" after the continued threat to western civilians, than to take the fight to the islamic homelands where it belongs, boots on the ground was a bad idea though, crushing air and cruise missle campaigns should be the way this is done. If the choice is between bombs going off in Bagdad or bombs in London, its Bagdad without a doubt.

 

[gerhard]

if it had been left alone in the first place its unlikely any of this would have happened

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Here's a terrorist theory I refuse to hear - that its better to "leave the region alone" after the continued threat to western civilians, than to take the fight to the islamic homelands where it belongs, boots on the ground was a bad idea though, crushing air and cruise missle campaigns should be the way this is done. If the choice is between bombs going off in Bagdad or bombs in London, its Bagdad without a doubt.

And yet I wonder why that is. Aren’t civilian deaths in Baghdad just as tragic as those in London? Iraqi's are humans first. They die just like those poor British did, or the Americans

 

[onebytwo]

Here's a terrorist theory I refuse to hear - that its better to "leave the region alone" after the continued threat to western civilians, than to take the fight to the islamic homelands where it belongs, boots on the ground was a bad idea though, crushing air and cruise missle campaigns should be the way this is done. If the choice is between bombs going off in Bagdad or bombs in London, its Bagdad without a doubt.

i think its extremely pompous of you to put a value on the life of people because they come form different countries. i think the people in the world that share your outrageous view, we could do without.

 

[banco55]

i think its extremely pompous of you to put a value on the life of people because they come form different countries. i think the people in the world that share your outrageous view, we could do without.

We all put a value on the lives of others. That's why most people would be more affected by the death of a family member versus a stranger, more affected by the death of a schoolmater etc.

 

[turtleface]

If the choice is between bombs going off in Bagdad or bombs in London, its Bagdad without a doubt.

Hence why the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Japan in World War 2, killing masses of civilians to (hypothetically) save (hypothetical) Soldiers' lives in a (hypothetical) invasion of Japan. It seems that the western world don't give a shit about people if they aren't westerners.

We all put a value on the lives of others. That's why most people would be more affected by the death of a family member versus a stranger, more affected by the death of a schoolmater etc.

Maybe that explains why most of us probably feel more sad when the news reports that "5 Americans killed" than we feel when the last line in the story says "(oh by the way) 50 iraqi's were also killed"

 

[bshoc]

And yet I wonder why that is. Aren’t civilian deaths in Baghdad just as tragic as those in London? Iraqi's are humans first. They die just like those poor British did, or the Americans

Nobody wins by playing for the other team.

 

[bshoc]

Hence why the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Japan in World War 2, killing masses of civilians to (hypothetically) save (hypothetical) Soldiers' lives in a (hypothetical) invasion of Japan. It seems that the western world don't give a shit about people if they aren't westerners.

Actually that's incorrect, Japan was on the verge of capitulation, the nukes were dropped for 3 reasons primarily:

1. Vengeance for Pearl Harbour and the actions of the Japanese throughtout WWII.
2. Send the Soviets a very clear and powerful message by dropping nukes not to far from the territory of the USSR.
3. See what happens to a living, functioning city when it is nuked (abit of a living sandbox scenario). Remember back in 1945, the "japs" weren't "human."

Its a legitimate point that some westerners dont give a shit about other people, but I guarantee you the % of westerners caring about other people throughtout the world is far higher than what any of those "other people" caring for westerners. I actually have a unique perspective being from a part of the world that could arguably be called non-western and on the occasional recieving end of some of the West's crap. Yes the world is anarchial, hostile and nationalistic, live with it.

 

[bshoc]

Actually, it's debatable, so how bout you stop talking in absolutes as if you know the motivations of the actions of people 50 years ago.

Those actually aren't my conclusions, but rather of people extremely learned in this field, such as Waltz, and others who actually lived in that timeframe or had unparalled knowledge about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary

 

[The Brucemaster]

Wow, isn't it fun to selectively quote Wikipedia articles to support your case?

As Brogan very eloquently pointed out there's more than one side to an argument.

 

[bshoc]

Wow, isn't it fun to selectively quote Wikipedia articles to support your case?

As Brogan very eloquently pointed out there's more than one side to an argument.

Stop trying to be a smartass.

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[46][47] Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[47] Major General Curtis LeMay,[48] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[49] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[50]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[51] "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[51] The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
""Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[52][51]When every high ranking "military" person in the pacific theater and allied armed forces calls it "militarily unnecessary" - start looking for other reaons. ... MacArthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower - who's other opinion even matters?

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Re: The terrorism theory bush refuses to hear

Why compare the two places? Irregardless of how free or safe Sth Africa is, Afghanistan is neither free nor safe. Where did you get your cource for the second theory, on the number of deaths on the result of crime in sth africa?

http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/pubs/public_info/C/86878/1

Statistics speak louder than your opinion and are reliable.

Would you like Bush to 'free' South Africa? Why do you think Bush hasn't 'freed' Zimbabwe, or even places closer to home like Chile and Cuba from their dictators?​

South Africa's high crime rate isn't Bush's fault. Mugabe and Castro are on their death beds. Chile is not ruled by Dictator, it has a Woman President, democratically elected of course.

Because this saintly President wants control of the areas in which he can gain the greatest profit, and 150 000 afghan and iraqi dead are a small price to pay for more oil.

Bush's Salary $400,000 per year, including a $50,000 expense allowance. He did not get any money from Iraq nor he have any interest in companies that wants to invest in Iraq oilfields. What profit are you talking about? Explain please. Number of Iraqis killed according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ is 45613 at Max and in Afghanistan 3500 max total in both countries are 49113, no where near 150,000 as you claimed. If you want us to believe your exaggerated and unscrupulous claim; at least supply a reliable source. By the way Afghanistan don't have any oilfields.


And f**k those countries who can't help him financially. At least under their former leaders, Afghanistan and Iraq weren't economically crippled, relying on american aid, the american army even to keep their country together.


More lack of knowlege here here!Iraq and Afghanistan were on the verge of bankruptcy when they were invaded, Iraq was due to UN sanctions, Afghanistan was due to more than 20 years of Civil wars, they have been relying on international Aid since 1970's. There were millions of starving afghan refugees fleeing Taliban rule in Pakistan before US intervened. There was barely any economic activity in the country except Opium production.

 

[onebytwo]

Re: The terrorism theory bush refuses to hear

​

South Africa's high crime rate isn't Bush's fault. Mugabe and Castro are on their death beds. Chile is not ruled by Dictator, it has a Woman President, democratically elected of course.

was iraqi politics and bullshit WMD's Bushs fault?

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Re: The terrorism theory bush refuses to hear

was iraqi politics and bullshit WMD's Bushs fault?

The above post illustrate Ignorance at its best

 

[Comrade nathan]

Here's a terrorist theory I refuse to hear - that its better to "leave the region alone" after the continued threat to western civilians, than to take the fight to the islamic homelands where it belongs, boots on the ground was a bad idea though, crushing air and cruise missle campaigns should be the way this is done. If the choice is between bombs going off in Bagdad or bombs in London, its Bagdad without a doubt.

The Iraqi-terrorist funding relationship was never proved and most people accept it as false. Invading and occupying Iraq probally further enraged the terrorist and made them more likely to want to punish the civilians of the governments who took part in the imperialist venture.

 

[onebytwo]

Re: The terrorism theory bush refuses to hear

The above post illustrate Ignorance at its best

why?
your saying south africa's problems arent bush's fault, and im saying iraqs problems shouldnt have been americas fault or problem.
hows that ignorant?

 

[onebytwo]

Re: The terrorism theory bush refuses to hear

More lack of knowlege here here!Iraq and Afghanistan were on the verge of bankruptcy when they were invaded, Iraq was due to UN sanctions, Afghanistan was due to more than 20 years of Civil wars, they have been relying on international Aid since 1970's. There were millions of starving afghan refugees fleeing Taliban rule in Pakistan before US intervened. There was barely any economic activity in the country except Opium production.

more stupidity here!
stop trying to justify the wars for iraq and afghanistans social, civil and economic problems. that was never the premise for invasion.youve just modified the entire reason for invasion, which was originally about WMDs, none were found or will ever be found. i still cant work out how the CIA and bush admin. attained 'evidence' when no weapons ever existed. they obviously made the whole shit up to get their people on their sides.
many countries around the world, unfortunately, suffer from these social problems. but bush never got involved with them because they werent oil rich, and he had nothing to benefit from them.

 

[onebytwo]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RrXaFluPY4A
^bush admin. lies exposed

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2MezNB-qDzw&mode=related&search=
^bush's plain stupidity and how he has the whole world wrapped around his finger