Quote :

""No one has had more blood on his hands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children," Rumsfeld said of Zarqawi,"

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060608-092238-7817r

False. The CIA, and the presidnet admitted that hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians have died over the past few years as result of our occupatoin/liberation. Bush is responsible for more innocent deaths, maybe he is well meaning and wishes long term stability -- but facts or facts. Sorry, it doesnt sound good, but its a fact.

Which makes, rummy, again, wrong.

[Edited on June 8, 2006 at 2:39 PM. Reason : []][]]

6/8/2006 2:39:17 PM

whats your point here??

you hate bush and his administration so much you cant accept anything good happening??

6/8/2006 2:42:29 PM

did i not state it?

my point is that this statement is factually incorrect.

[Edited on June 8, 2006 at 2:45 PM. Reason : 931]

6/8/2006 2:44:20 PM

hmmm...well done...

6/8/2006 2:45:19 PM

wow, can i make a thread where a fact is false too?

6/8/2006 2:47:21 PM

he just has to make a thread against the administration...just so he feels better

6/8/2006 2:48:04 PM

I agree with JoshNumbers, we need to send F-16s to go bomb the White House.

6/8/2006 2:48:56 PM

Thats where you and I part ways.

6/8/2006 4:18:02 PM

Quote :

"The CIA, and the presidnet admitted that hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians have died over the past few years as result of our occupatoin/liberation."

Where did they admit to hundreds of thousands of deaths?

6/8/2006 4:23:34 PM

what % of those were a direct result of our actions, and what % were due to people like zarqawi?

how many would've been lost under saddam in the past few years, particularly with the UN sanctions still in place? how will it compare in the long run?

6/8/2006 4:26:30 PM

at least the trains ran on time

6/8/2006 4:27:15 PM

When you make a metaphorical statement...its going to be factually incorrect.

What'd you think, he's just washing his hands in blood?

6/8/2006 4:29:40 PM

we're going to pay someone 25,000,000 for this shit?

6/8/2006 4:30:14 PM

^^^yeah, that's a lot of our battle

[Edited on June 8, 2006 at 4:30 PM. Reason : ^^^]

6/8/2006 4:30:26 PM

^^^^ funny because i was laying in bed this morning and heard a train go by.

i thought to myself "say what you will about president bush, at least he got the trains to run on time."

[Edited on June 8, 2006 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2006 4:30:54 PM

Josh, I don't think you are right. As you calculate it, you are including those killed by Zarqawi in the statistics for those killed by Bush's invasion. This is like charging the cops with murder because they didn't catch the crook fast enough.

Therefore, to compare, you must ONLY count Iraqi civilians killed directly by U.S. soldiers. Those killed by bombs and those killed by soldiers. And remember, you cannot include insurgents or Sadam loyalists because they are not "innocent Iraqi men, women, and children."

To be fair, don't count Iraqi police and U.S. soldiers in Zarqawi's statistics. As such, I think Zarqawi has us beat since between the two of us he is the only one actually targetting "innocent Iraqi men, women, and children."

6/8/2006 5:11:26 PM

He wouldn't be targeting "innocent Iraqi men, women, and children" if we hadn't invaded Iraq. So, you see, it really is our fault.

6/8/2006 5:21:12 PM

Quote :

"between the two of us he is the only one actually targetting "innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.""

well, him and the marines who went off the reservation

6/8/2006 5:29:55 PM

one could argue that if Zarqawi did do the shit he does we wouldn't be in iraq in the first place

6/8/2006 5:40:16 PM

^ Good point, so I guess Osama is responsible for all of it.

6/8/2006 5:47:35 PM

^^WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

6/8/2006 5:48:24 PM

i have no idea...

6/8/2006 8:25:23 PM

It's ultimately the fault of zionist jews.

Forget about their hands, they drink the blood of innocent Iraqi men and women. They save the blood of Iraqi children for special events like Shabbat.

6/8/2006 9:55:40 PM

so x00,000 innocent iraqi men, women, and childern have been killed by US troops. Next thing you are going to tell me is that we have death camps over there.

6/8/2006 10:04:50 PM

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


Not sure how accurate that is..but no where near hundreds of thousands..Hell no where near one hundred thousand.

6/8/2006 11:27:16 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/berg.interview/

That is a link to an interview with the father of the guy whose son's head got chopped off by Zarqawi.

Quote :

"O'BRIEN: Mr. Berg, thank you for talking with us again. It's nice to have an opportunity to talk to you. Of course, I'm curious to know your reaction, as it is now confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who is widely credited and blamed for killing your son, Nicholas, is dead. MICHAEL BERG: Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that. ... O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy, you know... BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy. O'BRIEN: There's a theory that as they try to form some kind of government, that it's going to be brutal, it's going to be bloody, there's going to be loss, and that's the history of many countries -- and that's just what a lot of people pay for what they believe will be better than what they had under Saddam Hussein. BERG: Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush. But both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror. (Watch I don't buy that. Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son. Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda. Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability. Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein? "

6/9/2006 2:07:45 AM

Wow, he sounds pretty blinded by grief.

Bush has made some bad decisions, but comparing him unfavorably to Saddam is irrational. There's a big difference between a torturous murderer and an idiot.

6/9/2006 2:26:36 AM

Quote :

" http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Not sure how accurate that is..but no where near hundreds of thousands..Hell no where near one hundred thousand. "

the minimum and maximum confirmed deaths as reported by IraqiBodyCount is an *extremely conservative* figure. they only count a death when the death is independently reported by two separate, credible media organizations.

By their own reckoning, their total confirmed number of civilian deaths is likely to be much less than the actual amount.

from their own website (see FAQ, and Methodology) :

Quote :

" We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war. (emphasis theirs) "

it's most likely that the actual number of civilian deaths in Iraq, due to US military action, has exceeded 100,000.



[Edited on June 9, 2006 at 2:32 AM. Reason : ]

6/9/2006 2:32:06 AM

I don't think he's saying there's no difference between them.

I think he's wondering that, from an Iraqis perspective, how are things now better than they were before? To them, it might not really seem like Bush, or America, is better than Saddam.

6/9/2006 2:33:19 AM

I dont thing Berg is "blinded by grief"

It appears that his perception is quite clear:

Quote :

" Berg said the blame for most deaths in Iraq should be placed on President Bush, who he said is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi." "Zarqawi felt my son's breath on his hand as held the knife against his throat. Zarqawi had to look in his eyes when he did it," Berg added, pausing to collect himself. "George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_al_zarqawi_berg.html "

6/9/2006 2:41:29 AM

gore and kerry dont have blood on their hands

cause they lost

6/9/2006 2:48:51 AM

what is everybody's stance on President Bush and his politics/policies?

6/9/2006 2:56:35 AM

durr

6/9/2006 3:05:51 AM

That Berg guy is one fucked up piece of taint. That man cut your son's head off, you don't have to feel sorry for his family when he dies. Then, to call the president more of a terrorist than the actual #1 terrorist in Iraq is utterly ridiculous. If you don't support the war, that's fine by me, but if you actually think the president is a terrorist and doesn't care about civilian deaths, then you don't deserve to live because you're either so fucked up on drugs it isn't funny or you're making the retard runner look like a Jeopardy contestant.

6/9/2006 6:40:40 AM

here is where democrats like joshnumbers fuck up

they say stuff like this:

Quote :

"The CIA, and the presidnet admitted that hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians have died over the past few years as result of our occupatoin/liberation. Bush is responsible for more innocent deaths"

but offer no realistic solutions

thats why democrats fucking lost in 2004

6/9/2006 6:44:43 AM

and it's why they won't gain anything this year

[Edited on June 9, 2006 at 7:39 AM. Reason : ']

6/9/2006 7:28:33 AM

Quote :

"it's most likely that the actual number of civilian deaths in Iraq, due to US military action, has exceeded 100,000."

But again, that number STILL includes all deaths, whether killed by American's or by Zarqawi himself. If 90,000 of that total were personally beheaded by Zarqawi you are still blaming George Bush for them.

In other news:
Iraq Less Violent than Washington, D.C.

Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.

While that number sounds high - astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it's significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation's capital.

"It's 45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C.," King told Crowley.

Other American cities with higher violent civilian death rates than Iraq include:
Detroit - 41.8 per 100,000
Baltimore - 37.7 per 100,000
# Atlanta - 34.9 per 100,000
# St. Louis - 31.4 per 100,000
The American city with the highest civilian death rate was New Orleans before Katrina - with a staggering 53.1 deaths per 100,000 - almost twice the death rate in Iraq.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/29/132706.shtml?s=ic

[Edited on June 9, 2006 at 9:08 AM. Reason : lnk]

6/9/2006 9:08:27 AM

Quote :

"how many would've been lost under saddam in the past few years, particularly with the UN sanctions still in place? how will it compare in the long run? "

you would imply that inaction by our government when people die around the world is justification to hold them responsible? no. in general, the populus does not hold our gov' responsible except in extremely glaring cases.

MAYBE we've prevented more deaths by going to war. thats a MAYBE.

but, the FACT, is that we are directly responsible for more deaths then Zarqawi.

Quote :

"Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000. "

Ill take my statistical facts from people whose political future doesnt rest on the positive perception of the war. (or negative)


[Edited on June 9, 2006 at 10:06 AM. Reason : [][][]

6/9/2006 10:02:46 AM

Quote :

"but, the FACT, is that we are directly responsible for more deaths then Zarqawi."

Again, how do you figure? I suspect more people have been killed by Zarqawi's bombing of public places than America's bombing of rural hiding places.

Quote :

"Ill take my statistical facts from people whose political future doesnt rest on the positive perception of the war. (or negative)"

It is a numbers game, if you think his numbers are wrong then post the real ones. But even if his numbers are off they shouldn't be off by much because he is playing a game with the numbers. Violent crime is less frequent in rural settings, even here in America, and even per person. So, comparing the per-person violent death rate from an entire country (which includes both rural and urban) to a decidedly urban city (which is only urban) should always result in the city seeming more dangerous. As such, I suspect his numbers should be right unless Iraq is a rediculously violent place, which it appears to not be.

Zarkawi may kill 50 people a month, but New Yorkers manage to kill hundreds without help.

[Edited on June 9, 2006 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/9/2006 10:07:50 AM

Quote :

"Ill take my statistical facts from people whose political future doesnt rest on the positive perception of the war. (or negative) I agree with"

6/9/2006 10:08:01 AM

Quote :

"Violent crime is less frequent in rural settings, even here in America, and even per person. So, comparing the per-person violent death rate from an entire country (which includes both rural and urban) to a decidedly urban city (which is only urban) should always result in the city seeming more dangerous. As such, I suspect his numbers should be right unless Iraq is a rediculously violent place, which it appears to not be."

Exactly. The comparison of a country as a whole with any single city is incredibly flawed and I'm surprised anyone would even attempt to do so. I'd be much more interested in seeing the numbers of, say, Baghdad, Tikrit, Fallujah, etc. as compared to the most violent American cities.

6/9/2006 11:00:48 AM

Quote :

"False. The CIA, and the presidnet admitted that hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians have died over the past few years as result of our occupatoin/liberation."

Maybe if Iraq didn't harbor people like Zarqawi we wouldn't have had a need to occupy/liberate Iraq in the first place. Just sayin'.

6/9/2006 11:31:25 AM

Quote :

"it's most likely that the actual number of civilian deaths in Iraq, due to US military action, has exceeded 100,000."

The site gives a maximum of 42,000 deaths, that's based on reported deaths. Are you seriously suggesting that in one of the most watched and scrutinized wars in history, some 50,000+ people have died with no mention?

6/9/2006 11:48:57 AM

Quote :

"Maybe if Iraq didn't harbor people like Zarqawi we wouldn't have had a need to occupy/liberate Iraq in the first place. Just sayin'."

Zarqawi was NOT there when Saddam was in power. Sheesh, you Bush-supporters sure are blind.

Quote :

"Are you seriously suggesting that in one of the most watched and scrutinized wars in history, some 50,000+ people have died with no mention?"

Why is that so hard to believe? Isn't it a well-known rule of thumb that depending on the crime, for every crime reported, anywhere between another one to ten go unreported? Even assuming a very conservative figure of 50% being reported, that still makes 84,000. Think about all the commotion and craziness over there, with people being shot or blown to bits every few minutes. A lot of families just bury their dead in their backyards without telling anybody official.

Quote :

"Exactly. The comparison of a country as a whole with any single city is incredibly flawed and I'm surprised anyone would even attempt to do so."

Yes, it is disgusting that Americans would stoop so low, as to compare a violent city like DC with the WHOLE of Iraq. I bet if they calculated the number of violent deaths JSUT FOR Baghdad, they would get a figure in 200-300 per 100,000 range. Who would be able to stomach that?

6/9/2006 12:34:03 PM

so i would hear your point if you said bush was responsible for a certain number of lost lives

but you say bush is DIRECTLY responsible

however Zarqawi literally killed people with his bare hands and weapons whereas Bush "ordered his troops"

so how the fuck is bush DIRECTLY responsible for more deaths? indirectly is another story

you liberals and your lack of vocabulary

6/9/2006 12:35:44 PM

RAIN ON THE SCARECROW
BLOOD ON THE PLOW

6/9/2006 12:45:17 PM

Quote :

"so how the fuck is bush DIRECTLY responsible for more deaths? indirectly is another story"

so you have to discount the people killed by zarqawi using weapons. because it was the weapons which did the killing. so such deaths would fall under "indirectly killed by zarqawi."



jesus, wtf is the difference if you kill someone yourself, or you stand there and tell somone else to do it??? now, i am not saying that bush ordered killing of innocents, but you saying that if someone has a person killed, but doesn't do the killing himself, somehow, they are less guilty. according to the law (man-made, divine, or logic), they are equally guilty.

6/9/2006 12:51:53 PM

he's the decider

6/9/2006 12:53:59 PM

the honest difference?

bush has not (to my knowledge) ordered the deaths of any innocent people. innocent people have been killed in going after people like zarqawi.

zarqawi ordered the deaths and participated directly in the murder of innocent people. he cut the throats of innocent people and held their heads up on camera.

an innocent death is an innocent death, but zarqawi and people of his ilk are much more blood stained than bush.

edited to add that bush has plenty on his hands too, for a multitude of reasons.

[Edited on June 9, 2006 at 12:58 PM. Reason : *]

6/9/2006 12:57:13 PM

Quote :

"I bet if they calculated the number of violent deaths JSUT FOR Baghdad, they would get a figure in 200-300 per 100,000 range. Who would be able to stomach that?"

Surely credible statistics have been guessed at on the internet somewhere.

Baghdad has a population of 5,948,800. According to USA today the most number of Iraqi's to die in a single month was about 1,000, producing an annual death rate of 201 per 100,000 a year if that rate was sustained for another 11 months, or four times that of New Orleans pre-Katrina.

I like numbers

Of course, this also means if you exclude Baghdad from the statistics the remainder of Iraq is remarkably safe, probably safer than some U.S. states.

http://www.pubquizhelp.34sp.com/geo/popcity.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-03-20-iraq_x.htm

[Edited on June 9, 2006 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/9/2006 2:05:26 PM