tipsgnob
New Member
yes...but japanese people are an intelligent group of people.... the Iraqi's not so much...
HE F'n killed him!!!!!!!! Are YOU F'n blind! Yes!
- Thread starter Big P
- Start date
Big P
Well-Known Member
actually one of the great assets of the Iraqi's has always been that they are very well educated even under the oppression of saddam, that is why they had a thriving Nucleur program that began in the 1960's almost 50 years ago
and that is why At 15:55 on 07 June all the way back in 1981 the first F-15 and F-16's from isreal took off to bomb the Osiraq plant nucleur facility in Iraq to stop Iraq's nucleur weapons develpment
then Iraq attacked kuwait, then we attacked Iraq after fuckin with them for so many long hard years but they still kept telling us to shove it up our ass
and i can see why they told us to fuck off so much, cuz they new our presidents didnt have the balls to actually back up thier empty words with actions
And then there was Bush
Next?
no group on earth has ever taken hold of such a large territory and held it for 5 years with such a tiny loss in troops
here some amazing facts for you crazy kids about the wars both of them, pretty much exposes you guys to be the misinformed idiots that you are, sorry but its true
Military Deaths (all causes) 1980-2004
22 Mar 2006
UPDATE (21 Feb 2007): No, the numbers for 2005 and 2006 are not here. I don’t think they’re publicly available yet. Just remember that combat deaths declined in both 2005 and 2006. I wrote more about the recent interest in this at Comparing the military death rates.
Instapundit points out this post at Red State which notes that the increase in the total number of deaths in the US military isn’t all that much greater under GW Bush than it was under the previous three (plus) Presidents. Here’s the gist:
Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let’s compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)
Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton’s term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people duing his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)
In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones).
I’m guessing that total deaths in 2005 are probably about the same as 2004. 2004 saw 848 deaths in Iraq, 2005 saw 846.George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)
Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton’s term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people duing his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)
In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones).
This is, of course very informative and counter to nearly everything you hear on a daily basis, but don’t forget that the militaries under Carter, Reagan, and Bush I were significantly larger than today’s force. Of course, you could also make the argument that the gutting of the military under Clinton set the stage for too few “boots on the ground” in 2003 and beyond, which critics often claim is a contributing factor to the struggle to get the violence under control in the aftermath of the invasion.
But let’s not get all hyped up over this. Yes, things aren’t nearly as doomy and gloomy as Legacy Media tries to tell us, but we should know this already. Here’s a couple of charts I threw together to illustrate the numbers:
UPDATE (05 Sep 2006): The original link to the PDF is dead, so I changed it to a local copy of what I believe to be the same numbers. Hat tip to the reader who pointed out the problem.
UPDATE 2: Be sure to check out the latest discussion on this subject.
Big P
Well-Known Member
21 Feb 2007
Yesterday an article by Alicia Colon in the New York Sun (Heroes and Cowards) noted:
I had meant to let this all pass without commenting, because as I said in the post
Then someone at Democratic Underground picked up on it.
Here are some of the interesting comments (with commentary):
but I didnt think we lost any soldiers in a war under Clinton
what am I missing
Somalia? Go watch Black Hawk Down.
WW2 vets dying of oLd age.
Only WW2 vets still on active duty were counted, though.
Well now count the deaths for other con presidents found this link through google. Appears to be another right wing looney site.
And they link to little ol Murdoc. Does getting called right wing looney site on DU get me in the club? When does my Vast Right Wing Conspiracy membership card arrive? As stated, other presidents were, in fact, counted.
Again, the military does not agree with these numbers, and note that somebody at murdoc decided to only count certain years of each prezs terms.
Ronald Reagan (1981-198
.17,191
G.H.W. Bush (1989-1992) . 6,223
Bill Clinton (1993-2000) . 7,500 with a single death attributed to hostile
W. Bush (2001-2004) . 3,917 Note that this number is only the first 4 years and only 3 years of military combat
Now, Ive never been called a mathematical genius, but which years did I leave out? I mean, the poster listed every year from 1981 through 2004 (which is clearly what the report covers). Boy, did somebody at murdoc cherry pick this data. Oh, and the report comes from the military.
The person who is quoting those numbers is just cherry picking the number of troops that died in combat, out of a force of 150,000, leaving out accidental deaths, homicides, illness, etc and comparing it to the total deaths in the military from all causes during the specific years mentioned.
It is a total lie to say less troops are being killed now than under peacetime under Bill Clinton.
If you include all fatality causes during the period of the Iraq war, the number of troops killed would double.
No. The number are for all deaths. RTFR. (Which means read the report.) And Im not aware of anyone who said fewer troops are being killed now than under Clinton. I have heard some folks say that fewer troops are being killed in Iraq than were killed under Clinton, which is true (ie, not a lie).
If you are going to count the training, accidental, and illness deaths under Clinton, you need to do the same for *.
Youre right. And they were counted. RTFR.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that American military personnel are SAFER ALND LESS LIKELY TO DIE now, during a bloody conflict, than they were during peacetime?????
Again, not sure who said that they were safer and less likely to die. I havent heard anyone. Maybe the guys on the radio. I just look at the numbers and report em.
It sounds as if your author is comparing apples and oranges by fudging statistics to make a point.
If we add current non-theater mortality averages this person is using to bash Clinton era military to our current in-theater mortality, wed probably be able to claim on average 3 to 4K more deaths a year during the 2003 to 2006 Iraq/Iran war period. Thats quadruple or higher the number of deaths during the same period of time.
Uh, the report DOES include those numbers. And the 3 to 4K more deaths just arent there. Again, RTFR.
The DOD has not made public, that I can find, the years 2005 and 2006 when Iraq really started turning to shit.
Yes, the commenter is correct about not being able to find the numbers. (If someone can, let me know.) However, the commenter seems to be ignorant of the fact that combat deaths in 2005 were LOWER than they were in 2004. And that combat deaths in 2006 were LOWER than they were in 2005. So, despite the accurate assessment that some things turned to shit, its not going to be the military deaths numbers.
I must admit that Im usually quite underwhelmed by the value of the discussion on DU when I venture over. As hard as it is to believe, the average commenter there seems to be far less informed than the average Freeper. Id make a graph or something comparing the two, but my calculator doesnt go that low.
Anyway, I think its clear that most folks would be shocked to see that the numbers are what they are.
And if someone can point me to numbers for 2005 and 2006 (if/when available) Id sure appreciate it.
Yesterday an article by Alicia Colon in the New York Sun (Heroes and Cowards) noted:
[T]he mainstream press is constantly bombarding us with the number of military casualties, and it is clear that the reports are meant to incite anger about the Iraqi war. How refreshing it would be if partisan politics could be set aside and reporters put news in the proper perspective without bias.
The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. Thats 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, whos counting?
The statistics were apparently mentioned on the radio (Rush Limbaugh, maybe?) and Ive had a fair number of googlers in to my post from last March on the issue. I used numbers from U.S. ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY DEATHS - 1980 through 2004 put out by the Defense Manpower Data Center.The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. Thats 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, whos counting?
I had meant to let this all pass without commenting, because as I said in the post
This is, of course very informative and counter to nearly everything you hear on a daily basis, but dont forget that the militaries under Carter, Reagan, and Bush I were significantly larger than todays force. Of course, you could also make the argument that the gutting of the military under Clinton set the stage for too few boots on the ground in 2003 and beyond, which critics often claim is a contributing factor to the struggle to get the violence under control in the aftermath of the invasion.
But lets not get all hyped up over this.
I created a couple of quick charts showing that though the numbers arent what one would probably expect, it certainly isnt any sort of vindication or anything. Yes, the DEATH RATE (which is apples-to-apples regardless of the size of the military) was lower in 2004 (war) than in 1980 (peace) and I believe that is the most shocking number here, but a lot of the finger pointing at the rate during the Clinton years isnt terribly constructive.But lets not get all hyped up over this.
Then someone at Democratic Underground picked up on it.
Here are some of the interesting comments (with commentary):
but I didnt think we lost any soldiers in a war under Clinton
what am I missing
Somalia? Go watch Black Hawk Down.
WW2 vets dying of oLd age.
Only WW2 vets still on active duty were counted, though.
Well now count the deaths for other con presidents found this link through google. Appears to be another right wing looney site.
And they link to little ol Murdoc. Does getting called right wing looney site on DU get me in the club? When does my Vast Right Wing Conspiracy membership card arrive? As stated, other presidents were, in fact, counted.
Again, the military does not agree with these numbers, and note that somebody at murdoc decided to only count certain years of each prezs terms.
Ronald Reagan (1981-198
.17,191G.H.W. Bush (1989-1992) . 6,223
Bill Clinton (1993-2000) . 7,500 with a single death attributed to hostile
W. Bush (2001-2004) . 3,917 Note that this number is only the first 4 years and only 3 years of military combat
Now, Ive never been called a mathematical genius, but which years did I leave out? I mean, the poster listed every year from 1981 through 2004 (which is clearly what the report covers). Boy, did somebody at murdoc cherry pick this data. Oh, and the report comes from the military.
The person who is quoting those numbers is just cherry picking the number of troops that died in combat, out of a force of 150,000, leaving out accidental deaths, homicides, illness, etc and comparing it to the total deaths in the military from all causes during the specific years mentioned.
It is a total lie to say less troops are being killed now than under peacetime under Bill Clinton.
If you include all fatality causes during the period of the Iraq war, the number of troops killed would double.
No. The number are for all deaths. RTFR. (Which means read the report.) And Im not aware of anyone who said fewer troops are being killed now than under Clinton. I have heard some folks say that fewer troops are being killed in Iraq than were killed under Clinton, which is true (ie, not a lie).
If you are going to count the training, accidental, and illness deaths under Clinton, you need to do the same for *.
Youre right. And they were counted. RTFR.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that American military personnel are SAFER ALND LESS LIKELY TO DIE now, during a bloody conflict, than they were during peacetime?????
Again, not sure who said that they were safer and less likely to die. I havent heard anyone. Maybe the guys on the radio. I just look at the numbers and report em.
It sounds as if your author is comparing apples and oranges by fudging statistics to make a point.
If we add current non-theater mortality averages this person is using to bash Clinton era military to our current in-theater mortality, wed probably be able to claim on average 3 to 4K more deaths a year during the 2003 to 2006 Iraq/Iran war period. Thats quadruple or higher the number of deaths during the same period of time.
Uh, the report DOES include those numbers. And the 3 to 4K more deaths just arent there. Again, RTFR.
The DOD has not made public, that I can find, the years 2005 and 2006 when Iraq really started turning to shit.
Yes, the commenter is correct about not being able to find the numbers. (If someone can, let me know.) However, the commenter seems to be ignorant of the fact that combat deaths in 2005 were LOWER than they were in 2004. And that combat deaths in 2006 were LOWER than they were in 2005. So, despite the accurate assessment that some things turned to shit, its not going to be the military deaths numbers.
I must admit that Im usually quite underwhelmed by the value of the discussion on DU when I venture over. As hard as it is to believe, the average commenter there seems to be far less informed than the average Freeper. Id make a graph or something comparing the two, but my calculator doesnt go that low.
Anyway, I think its clear that most folks would be shocked to see that the numbers are what they are.
And if someone can point me to numbers for 2005 and 2006 (if/when available) Id sure appreciate it.
misshestermoffitt
New Member
I thought Iraqi women weren't allowed to be educated beyond being a wife and mother and learning the Koran?
Big P
Well-Known Member
not in Iraq, in Iraq women are free to study drive and work. they even have women in thier parliment
they have liquor stores, churchs and huge population of catholics
as far are nations drowning in oil, Iraq has massive potencial to be what lebanon was before war destroyed that beautiful place
you have bangin gurls in mini's back then
YouTube - Lebanon in All it's beauty during the 1970's
these are the bitches of lebanon today still bangin
YouTube - Lebanon ,, Miss Beach
here some more, so theres many arabs countries and some of them are not backwards, they just trying to dodge the bullets between hammas and isreal
YouTube - Lebanese Girls
NeoAnarchist
Well-Known Member
it doesnt matter what we vote, our vote is mute, its th electoral college that makes the choice of who wins....mite as well say fuck it and not vote
btw
VOTE GREEN PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
btw
VOTE GREEN PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ccodiane
New Member
tipsgnob
New Member
Christians make up about 3 per cent of Iraq's population of 28 million, about half the size of the community before the 2003 US-led invasion, according to church leaders and human rights organisations.
Some Christians had moved in recent years to northern Iraq, which appeared safer. But in February the archbishop of Mosul's Chaldean Catholic community, Paulos Faraj Rahho, was kidnapped. His body turned up weeks later.
A new wave of panic has spread through the Christian community in Mosul in recent days as several of its members appeared to be targeted.
So much for the peace loving Iraqis..............
Some Christians had moved in recent years to northern Iraq, which appeared safer. But in February the archbishop of Mosul's Chaldean Catholic community, Paulos Faraj Rahho, was kidnapped. His body turned up weeks later.
A new wave of panic has spread through the Christian community in Mosul in recent days as several of its members appeared to be targeted.
So much for the peace loving Iraqis..............
ccodiane
New Member
KORANIC SCRIPTURE:
5:17 Unbelievers are those who declare: "Allah is the Messiah,
the son of Mary." {51} Believers, take neither Jews nor
Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another.
Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their
number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers. {54} Your only
friends are Allah, His apostle, and the faithful: those who
attend to their prayers, pay their alms-tax, and kneel down in
worship. Those who seek the friendship of Allah, His apostle,
and the faithful must know that Allah's followers are sure to
triumph. {57} Believers, do not seek the friendship of the
infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have
made of your religion a jest and a pastime. {66} If the People
of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews) accept the true faith
and keep from evil, We will pardon them their sins and admit
them to the gardens of delight. {71} Unbelievers are those
that say: "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary." Unbelievers
are those that say: "Allah is one of three." There is one God.
If they do not desist from so saying, those that disbelieve
shall be sternly punished. The Messiah, the son of Mary, was
no more than an apostle: other apostles passed away before him.
His mother was a saintly woman. They both ate earthly food.
{82} You will find the most implacable of men in their enmity
to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the
nearest in affection to them are those who say : "We are
Christians." {116} Then Allah will say: "Jesus, son of Mary,
did you ever say to mankind: 'Worship me and my mother as gods
beside Allah?'" "Glory to You," he will answer, "how could I
say that to which I have no right? If I had ever said so, You
would have surely known it. You know what is in my mind but I
cannot tell what is in Yours. You alone know what is hidden. I
spoke to them of nothing except what You bade me. I said:
"Serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord."
19:35 Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. That is the whole
truth, which they are unwilling to accept. Allah forbid that
He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need
only say : "Be", and it is. Allah is my Lord and your Lord:
therefore serve him. That is the right path. Yet the Sects are
divided concerning Jesus. But when the fateful day arrives, woe
to the unbelievers! Their sight and hearing shall be sharpened
on the day when they appear before Us. Truly, the unbelievers
are in the grossest error. {88} Those who say: "The Lord of
Mercy has begotten a son" preach a monstrous falsehood, at
which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder,
and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a
son to the Merciful, when it does not become Him to beget one!
6:100 Yet they regard the jinn as Allah's equals, though He
Himself created them, and in their ignorance ascribe to Him
sons and daughters. Glory to Him! Exalted be He above their
imputations! He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth.
How should he have a son when He had no consort?
3:53 When Jesus observed that they had no faith, he said: "Who
will help me in the cause of Allah?" The disciples replied:
"We are helpers of Allah. We believe in Him. Bear witness that
we have surrendered ourselves to him. Lord, we believe in Your
revelations and follow your apostle. Count us among Your
witnesses." They plotted, and Allah plotted. Allah is the
supreme Plotter. He said: "Jesus, I am about to cause you to
die and lift you up to Me. I shall take you away from the
unbelievers and exalt your followers above them till the Day of
Resurrection. Then to Me shall you all return and I shall judge
your disputes. The unbelievers shall be sternly punished in
this world and in the world to come: there shall be none to
help them. As for those that have faith and do good works, they
shall be given their reward in full. Allah does not love the
evil-doer." This revelation, and this wise admonition, We
recite to you. Jesus is like Adam in the sight of Allah. He
created him of dust and then said to him: "Be", and he was.
This is the truth from your Lord: therefore do not doubt it. To
those who dispute with you concerning Jesus after the knowledge
you have received, say: "Come, let us gather our sons and your
sons, our wives and your wives, our people and your people. We
will pray together and call down the curse of Allah on every
liar." This is the whole truth. There is no god but Allah. It
is Allah who is the Mighty, the Wise One! If they give no heed
to you, Allah knows the evil-doers.
98:5 The unbelievers among the People of the Book (i.e.
Christians and Jews) and the pagans shall burn for ever in the
fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. But of
all creatures those that embrace the Faith and do good works
are the noblest. God will reward them with the gardens of
Eden, gardens watered by running streams, where they shall
dwell for ever.
4:155 They denied the truth and uttered a monstrous falsehood
against Mary. They declared: "We have put to death the Messiah
Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah." They did not
kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did
for he was made to resemble another for them. Those that
disagreed about him were in doubt concerning his death, for
what they knew about it was sheer conjecture; they were not
sure that they had slain him. Allah lifted him up in His
presence. He is mighty and wise. {171} The Messiah, Jesus the
son of Mary, was no more than Allah's apostle and His Word
which he cast to Mary: a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah
and His apostles and do not say: "Three." Forbear and it shall
be better for you. Allah is but one God. Allah forbid that He
should have a son!
9:30 The Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah, while the
Christians say the Messiah is the son of Allah. Such are their
assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. Allah
confound them! How perverse they are! They worship their rabbis
and their monks, and the Messiah the son of Mary, as gods
besides Allah; though they were ordered to serve one God only.
There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they
deify beside Him. {34} Believers, many are the rabbis and the
monks who defraud men of their possessions and debar them from
the path of Allah. Proclaim a woeful punishment to those that
hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah's cause.
The day will surely come when their treasures shall be heated
in the fire of Hell, and their foreheads, sides, and backs
branded with them. Their tormentors will say to them: "These
are the riches which you hoarded. Taste then the punishment
which is your due."
2:135 They say: "Accept the Jewish or the Christian faith and
you shall be rightly guided." Say: "By no means! We believe in
the faith of Abraham, the upright one. He was no idolater."