funny how you didnt answer my questions again...Originally Posted by bob_ly
When the british opened fire on bloody sunday it was people like you who defended their actions as legimate military actions .![]()
funny how you didnt answer my questions again...Originally Posted by bob_ly
When the british opened fire on bloody sunday it was people like you who defended their actions as legimate military actions .![]()
hmmm - flick back and read the orginal thread - its a question not an invitation to start your own little discussion centred on your perceived assessment of the situation in Iraq.
Care to actually comment on the thread Marko instead of hiding behind pictures of dead children that you dont know who they were killed by?
Your actually lambasting marco for not engaging your opinion and not what the thread is actually about ......reading back through your posts you do not even mention the original thread once .
Yes I am not answering your question - This post is about a video you havent even watched ...but you stick to your guns(pun intended) on the US military.
Bob_lyOriginally Posted by bob_ly
I responded to this
saying they didnt want pity - then the discussion progressed as they often doI agree with the above but i also feel sorry for the solders as we...l
I think the Video shows young Americans joining the Army out of nationalism, poverty, or desire to travel. Once they're in Iraq they are forced to do things that has devastating psychological consequences on them, when they come home they are not given the care they deserve. While they are in Iraq they kill people who do not deserve to die of which there is no accurate estimation, and when they get injured this is not properly documented either.
I conclude from this that the US does not want the true consequences of the war to be known, because on the one hand, it would lead to further evidence against them for a war crimes tribunal and secondly public opinion would force them to pull out. Secondly, I conclude that the American government has little respect for human life that either of its own troops or that of Iraqis.
The pictures I put in of US injured and dead Iraqis' kids are visual examples of the wasted lives that this war has claimed
...and an activist video proves that point? I dont think so - what was that they say about anecdotal evidence...?Originally Posted by Marko
There was no talk of proof, just my conclusions.
This is a picture of some Kurds who died under Saddam, to counter balance Marko's picture. I'm just making the point that Iraqi's were killed under Saddam as well and in larger numbers. I'm giving a link to make Libero happy.
http://www.bobbyshred.com/images/Kurds.jpg
"Give us the future, we've had enough of YOUR past, Give us back our country, to live in, to grow in and to love..."
Fair enough, I have friends who are over there - my conclusions are differentOriginally Posted by Marko
Says who? The source for those numbers seems pretty authorative. Looks like you could challenge some of them if you have anything to back up your claim.Originally Posted by Rocky
Perhaps you mean the majority of the possible 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths were killed by insurgents (and tertiary effects of war) and not the US. Some might say there wouldn't be insurgents if there hadn't been a war of course, but this is not the issue. The number Bob_ly quoted is one that has careful attribution to specific coalition attacks.
As for the Jessica Lynch rape story I'm quite dubious about it. She doesn't remember this at all. The Iraqi medical staff claim that there was no obvious evidence of rape when they examined her shortly after the attack and they claim that her clothing was not dissarrayed as would be typical in a rape. The rape allegation is built on supposed medical evidence found at least nine days later. Evidence which is not in the public domain. This came out in the biography, the same one that said there was no way to tell if her broken bones resulted from the car crash she was in or if her Iraqi attackers pulverised them after she was unconcious. It is of course possible that she was raped, if she didn't remember this why would she be told? 'By the way you were brutally soddomised and raped while unconcious, thought you should know' and why was this broadcast far and wide. If she wasn't raped this 'revelation' is utterly, utterly despicable.
Agreed - the first casualty of war springs to mindIf she wasn't raped this 'revelation' is utterly, utterly despicable.