Another day in "Stable" Iraq

[Momus--]

Originally posted by bunch
fact: nobody has ever changed their mind about politics or religon because of something someone else said.
 

That is patently false.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by GScholz
Fact: The terrorists have been killing people in Iraq for more than two years now.

Much more than two years. In fact, hundreds of thousands were killed long before any American troops were in that country.

Fact: It is getting worse; more people are being killed than ever before.

Than ever before?? You need to check your facts.

Fact: It is getting worse; there are more attacks than ever before.

Ever before? How long does your knowledge of history go back? You seem to be emphatic on your data.

Fact: Morons on this BBS thinks the terrorists will lose support because they're killing Shiites and "collaborators" ... they have already done this for two years; there are more attacks and more people are getting killed now by terrorists than ever before.

"Morons on this BBS thinks the terrorists will lose support"

There are many 'morons' in this world."Norge/Norway/Norwegen/ Noruwee/Norvegia" They seem to have at least one.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Lazerus
Much more than two years. In fact, hundreds of thousands were killed long before any American troops were in that country.
 

Are you referring to the hundreds of thousands that died in the US backed Iran-Iraq war?

Perhaps you refer  to the hundreds of thousands(?) that died in the post-Desert Storm rebellions that were initially encouraged by the US who then later withdrew support leaving them at the mercy of the Iraqi regime?

Either way, your mock outrage is a little late, if not slightly misplaced.

[WMLute]

Originally posted by Flit
The Iraqi people are already turning over more tips then ever before.

unfort. many of you overlooked this tidbit, and what it means.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by GScholz
Really? Terrorists killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq before American troops were in that country?

Like I said: Morons on this bbs. Some of them can't even read.

Terrorist is a term that seems to be self defined. Obviously you don't consider the killers that were employed by the Iraqi government as terrorists.

Like I said:There's at least one. Perhaps many more

Originally posted by Momus
Are you referring to the hundreds of thousands that died in the US backed Iran-Iraq war?

Perhaps you refer to the hundreds of thousands(?) that died in the post-Desert Storm rebellions that were initially encouraged by the US who then later withdrew support leaving them at the mercy of the Iraqi regime?

Either way, your mock outrage is a little late, if not slightly misplaced.

Starting at the end, I have exhibited no "mock outrage". I'm sorry you interpret that emotion in my typed response to a poster that seems unable to free himself from his self created stereotype.

You ask what deaths I was refering to? You can take your pick of the time, motivation, political backers, method, etc. You only reinforce my position by pointing them out.

The executioners have been employed by the recently deposed leader for many many years though. The recent revelations seem to show that the current violent death rate in Iraq is far less than it was before we got there. Physically at least.

[oboe]

Originally posted by Lazerus
You lost all credibility in the discussion with that statement. Stick to the topic at hand.
 

I brought up the debt and deficit again to address Liz's statement that we have more resources than the 'handsomehunkes'.
Liz believes the handsomehunk pool to be of finite size and shrinking, if it could be measured.    I believe our nation's financial resources are roughly in the same situation.

Someone one previously mentioned it will be ten years before Iraq begins to show stability in the Western sense.   That sounds pretty plausible to me.   At 275 million per day, 10 years and more adds up to quite a bit of borrowed money.   How do you think the debt can grow?

[Momus--]

You ask what deaths I was refering to? You can take your pick of the time, motivation, political backers, method, etc. You only reinforce my position by pointing them out.

I'm sorry, I thought you were pointing to the deaths resulting from the 1980's war or the post-1991 rebellions as some kind of retrospective justification for the 2003 invasion, despite the fact that your government at the time was at least tacitly supporting the Iraqi regime's behaviour and at worst actively encouraging it.

Silly me.

So hows does pointing out that you can't in any conscience use those past occurences as some kind of measure of todays mess reinforce your point?

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, the famous "bait and switch". Not biting, you lose.

No bait but yours. I only answered your attempt to justify your statement. The link was something I read just before coming back to this thread. I thought it pertinent only in the context of your constant degradation of my countries motives and performance in foreign affairs. It is satisfying to see that you don't answer any of the responses, but only try to justify a single position by italicizing a word and claiming poor reading comprehension. Only to have that rebuke discounted and responding with some absurd accusation.

Originally posted by oboe
I brought up the debt and deficit again to address Liz's statement that we have more resources than the 'handsomehunkes'.
Liz believes the handsomehunk pool to be of finite size and shrinking, if it could be measured.    I believe our nation's financial resources are roughly in the same situation.

Someone one previously mentioned it will be ten years before Iraq begins to show stability in the Western sense.   That sounds pretty plausible to me.   At 275 million per day, 10 years and more adds up to quite a bit of borrowed money.   How do you think the debt can grow?

I see your point. I thought the post was an attempt to move the discussion to another area. Sorry.

I do agree that our countries debt is a problem that deserves attention. Quickly.

I don't agree that we will run out of resources before the supply of 'handsomehunkes' that are willing to blow themselves up for whatever-the-hell it is they think is worth doing that declines.

Both positions are opinions though.

Originally posted by Momus--
I'm sorry, I thought you were pointing to the deaths resulting from the 1980's war or the post-1991 rebellions as some kind of retrospective justification for the 2003 invasion, despite the fact that your government at the time was at least tacitly supporting the Iraqi regime's behaviour and at worst actively encouraging it.

Silly me.

So hows does pointing out that you can't in any conscience use those past occurences as some kind of measure of todays mess reinforce your point?

Well, how about we get down to the reason I responded to GS.

Do you believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam Hussein's reign than they are now?

Do you believe that more Iraqi's are being killed now than were under Saddam Hussein's reign?

Do you believe that more Iraqi's are happy with the current state of affairs versus the living conditions under Saddam Hussein's reign?



If so, why and from where do you get your information?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by WMLute
unfort. many of you overlooked this tidbit, and what it means.

it is that they are blinded by their desire to see America and her allies fail in this historic attempt to establish peace in the middle east

History will bare it out, not the narrow minds on this board

[bunch]

Originally posted by GScholz
I'd like to see the supporting evidence of this "fact". I think you're greatly mistaken. We wouldn't even have religion or politics at all if what you say were true.

Originally posted by Momus--
That is patently false.

the two of yuz is obviously very convinced your point of view is correct.  i'm quite positive nothing i could write could convince yall otherwise

[Momus--]

Do you believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam Hussein's reign than they are now?

Do you believe that more Iraqi's are being killed now than were under Saddam Hussein's reign?

Do you believe that more Iraqi's are happy with the current state of affairs versus the living conditions under Saddam Hussein's reign?

Since none of this has a bearing on why you invaded, no matter how much the neo-cons and the murdochian press desperately squawk otherwise, it is pretty irrelevant one way or the other.

But no matter.

You cited the thousands of deaths prior to 2003 as some kind of example of how the situation has improved. Now maybe it has for some, but you (the USA) had a hand in the preceding bloodshed, so it's pretty disingenous to hold them up now as some kind of favourable comparison.

Note that this is not expressing an opinion on the current intensity or otherwise of the conflict; things may well hopefully be calming down over there despite the rash of recent bombings; one can only hope.

i'm quite positive nothing i could write could convince yall otherwise

That probably says more about you than it does about me.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Lizking
Oboe, the actual size of the handsomehunk pool is irrelevant.  The fact is that they are killing way more innocent Iraqis than they are Americans, and the Iraqis both realize this and realize that they will not be rid of the Americans until the handsomehunk pool is eliminated.

The fact remains:

handsomehunk terrorists are dying in Iraq, not the US, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the logical course of ation to take.  Plus, anyway you look at it, we have more resources than the handsomehunk pool, so unless the US loses it's nerve, ala Vietnam, we, and Iraq (to say nothing of the world), win.

Something about your post sounds vaguely familiar....

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=105513&referrerid=3203

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nope, no WMD, but from a tactical point of view, militaristically speaking, it was a brilliant move to take Iraq in the war against terrorism.  Think of it as a "Neighborhood Block Watch" on countries like Syria, Iran, and dare I say...Saudi Arabia..

WTG Bush, brilliant stategist he is!

[moot]

"That probably says more about you than it does about me."
Of course, you can say that about anything anyone says.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by GScholz
So you're back Rip, or just another "drive by"?

Btw. you were wrong about the 787 and India.

I thought you were banned?  Oh well.

Btw. you were wrong about the 787 and India.

I'm often wrong, Gsholtz, and I will admit when I am.  Thats a key difference between you and I. But in this case I was not.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by GScholz
I'm afraid you were. The 787-8 is the longest ranged version of the 787, and the A340-600 has a 500 mile longer range.

How many current commercial planes do that?

And a Singapore Airlines A340-500 took the official world record for distance and duration for a commercial flight more than a year ago with its Singapore-LA non-stop daily service.

Doesn't sound "current" to me Gsholtz. Can I book a flight on that route today…currently?