Where do we go from here? Deficits, wars and a world on the edge

The figure from the Lancet Report is of the TOTAL number of violent deaths in Iraq-to include insurgents. Surely Chip wasn't including the Iraqi military and especially the insurgents as "innocent". Moreover, it didn't differentiate between those killed by insurgents or just plain thugs, and those killed by coalition forces.

Nice try with the obfuscation, guys. It really was. Too bad, I'm paying attention, otherwise you might have gotten away with it.

Oh, and Chip, you've been talking nothing but Iraq this whole time-how convenient to suddenly throw in Afghanistan to beef up your shakey position.

-Kiamat Dusk

I guess you conveniently missed my entire post about Afghanistan and my thoughts about it. Oh, and I'm sure only 3000 Iraqi civilians were killed by the US military and the other 70k or so were killed by thugs. Idiot.

1. Clinton did attack Sudan over ties with al Qaeda.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html

2. Bush ordered troops into Iraq for a lot of reasons-ties to al Qaeda was *not* one of them.

3. If we wanted to go to war for oil, we'd traipse down to Venezuela which has plenty of it, is much closer, and would put up far less resistance.

Any other questions?

-Kiamat Dusk
The Answer Man...but not the man from A.N.S.W.E.R.

So far in this thread I've been called "sick" at least twice and now an "idiot". And no Jeska Linden in sight. But let me so much as call someone a sillyhead and down she swoops to dispense justice from on high.

So much for the girl from San Francisco.

Where is your high minded Liberal sense of equal justice now Kendra, Isis, Rose, and Chip?

-Kiamat Dusk
Sick Idiot with a sleeping disorder

The point of my post about the Lancet study was not intended to confuse or obscure anything. I was pointing out that statistically, chances are pretty good that more innocent civilians probably have died during the occupation than have actually been documented.

I also wanted to note that the people who did the study did not simply pull the information out of the air - they went door to door in a controlled study and applied a valid, proven, mathematical algorithm to their data. Dismissing this information because it was done by "academics", would be akin to my dismissing the information that you have given me regarding al Qaeda links to Iraq just because you are conservative. (Which I did look at , consider, and did not dismiss). I say right in my post that their data included the deaths of insurgents.

For what it's worth, whether it's one dead Iraqi civilian or 100,000, it's still too many. It's bad for them and their families and it's bad for us (Americans). Because for every dead Iraqi civilian you can count on at least one person in that family, if not more, willing to become a terrorist and extract revenge on Americans at the cost of their own lives. Even if they were not inclined to do so before.

Since as General Franks says, "We don't do body counts," the bottom line is that if, as General Franks says, we don't even count civilians then we are not even acknowledging their deaths and this provides a breeding ground for hate. Ask yourself what you would do if one of your loved ones was killed by someone who invaded America for the obscure reasons that we invaded and now occupy Iraq. I don't think that you would see them as a liberator, no matter how bad the government had become.

I must be missing something because I don't see a post from jeska anywhere in this thread. What am I missing?

I'm a socialist -- each according to his needs --and you need to be told the truth.
as for the link you requested, I'd post it --but the link to the post in protestwarrior.com's forums now points to a deleted thread.

Aah... so what you are saying is that I am supporting terrorists by condemning the actions of my government because they got us into a mess that I didn't agree with in the first place??? Yea that's about as logical as 2+2=5. Get real. And you sit there and complain that people are calling you an idiot, as you yourself are accusing ME of supporting terrorists (which of course, under your precious Patriot Act you espouse to be such a great thing, its grounds for being declared an "enemy combatant" and held for indeterminate confinement with no legal counsel).

TheTRUTH is, I don't support ANYONE who takes actions to KILL another human being or have them killed, no matter what the reason, what country they are from, what government they are from, what religion they are, or what color their skin is, etc! There are better ways to get along with one another on this world than beating eachother to a pulp.

PS Thank you Chip, Rose, Kendra for responding after that post, it saved me a lot of typing!

My high minded sense of equal justice flew out the window about the time you called me a 9/11 apologist. You sick disgusting idiot

This "for us or with the terrorist" mentality is probably the scariest manifestation of the neuvo Republican bipartisanism. The idea that questioning government motivations is an automatic indicator of ones allegiance to the harbingers of terrorism will no doubt paralyze the common mans ability to protect the very freedom that so many claim they are trying to protect. We must question the validity of the information given to us by any government official.

Government is not partisan, the citizens of the government are partisan. Government of any form is a hungry beast who once elected unfetters itself from the shackles of it's party affiliation and becomes only the manifestation of power with only the desire to gain more power at any cost. Regardless of the government label (communist, socialist, fascist, democratic), the government will try to increase power in order to stay alive through the creation of laws, the annexing of property, the control of finances and the waging of wars. The difference in each of these types of government is the manner in which the people control the government, not the other way around.

In a democracy, like any other form of government, the government will try to obtain more and more power. It is the fact that the will of the people control the growth of a democratic government that keeps these powers in check. It is our job to control the government by questioning, voting, revolting, protesting and demanding that the government answers to us. It is not our job to pledge allegiance, rally the flag, bow to the king or hand over our freedoms without question.

Forget the flag and remember the constitution and bill of rights; they should be your only flag. If we do not protect our freedoms from the hungry monster of power, all of this debate will be moot. We will have nothing left but a flag to worship and a king to bow before. That is not democracy, that is not freedom.

The fact is, I never see any of you-*any* of you making long, ranting posts (or even short, non-ranting ones)about how awful the terrorists are, how terrible Saddam was, how evil Kim Jong Il is or expressing any remorse whatsoever for the innocents targetted by these people. The only time you mention that you are against it, is when I show that you seem to be supporting it.

Instead you go on and on about the "evils" of president Bush. You constantly reserve your criticisms for your own country, countrymen, and the man whom the majority of them elected as president.

Again, I state that there is NOTHING wrong with dissent. It is a good and healthy thing. My issue with the Left is that it is ALL negative with you SOLEY because you don't like the man. To you. Bush can do NO right. I do not harbor a "with us or against us" mentality. I'm simply saying if you claim to be against *both* factions-then prove it. Let's see someone post an article about the latest suicide bombing in Baghdad and actually condem the *bombers* vice the president. If you're going to blame Bush for Abu Ghraib, then at least give him credit for freeing kids from Saddam's children's prisons and shutting down his rape rooms. If you're going to blame him for every civilian casualty, then give him credit for every school built and every Iraqi who voted.

I have never said that Bush was always right. But you've never said that he was *ever* right.

Until you can start dispensing that righteous indignation more evenly, you will only be taken seriously by your fellow Second Lefties.

-Kiamat Dusk
On the Right side of History

That is not true. Maybe I just think that most folks are intelligent enough to be able to see for themselves the evils of terrorism and dictatorships whereas I find that some have chosen to blind themselves to the problems at home. Would you rather be warned of a hurricane 8000 miles away from you or the flooding occuring in your own backyard?

*standing ovation*

Terrorists are bad. Satisfied?

Awesome assumptions! I can now take an educated guess on what you feel strongly about based solely on what you DON'T CHOOSE TO POST ON THE FORUMS? I haven't seen a thread about rape in a long time, but that is probably because SL is full of rapists, right?

As we saw in December-the earthquake that took place off the coast of Indonesia had a devastating effect on the people on the other side of the ocean in Thailand and Sri Lanka. So, yeah, I'd want to know about what's going on 8000 miles away because in this day and age, you never know when it's going to catch up to you.

-Kiamat Dusk

I also haven't seen a thread talking about how awful rape victims are or how dubious their testimony might be or how they might have actually deserved it, either.

-Kiamat Dusk

oops, thought you were talking to me!

I demand a link for this !!!

So to extend your analogy:

1. Awful rape victims = Awful victims of terrorism?
2. Dubious testimony of rape victims = Dubious testimony of terror victims?
3. Rape victims deserve it = Terror victims deserve it?

Well, I have yet to see the forums being flooded with people who express these things about terror victims.

See how easy it is to make an analogy seem foolish by totally missing the point???

If you are always reading between the lines, at least grow up and assume that you are speaking to fucking human beings. Nobody here supports terrorism. Only an insulting wastebag would imply such a thing.

but

Just because a person is intelligent does not mean that the person will be "good" or "bad." Most of the worlds most heinous criminals were and are extremely intelligent people. Many of the worlds most kind and giving individuals would be considered less than intelligent.

On your responce to my analogy....stating that one would like to know about a devastating event thousands of miles away is fine but if while doing so one is blind to that which is occuring in one's own backyard then that person is a fool.

If a person is to be critical of others he/she must first be critical of his/herself. We cannot tout the glory of democracy and freedom when those living within the democracy allow freedoms to be eroded. The common man is the most fundamental aspect of democracy, not the governing bodies. It is the gov-co's job to worry about the goings on in other countries as they relate to the safety of the homeland while it is the common man's job to keep their gov-co in check at every turn. Although the state of affairs of other countries remains in my mind, it is secondary to the state of affairs at home.

HAHA.... pinko