Saddam's toll - 160 people per day

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Defended Bravely???

*Coughcoughcough*

Saddam's men got slaughtered like cattle, even though they were the defenders and had full terrain advantage.

I would say they're more worse than the weakest country on Earth.

And the free 'Health care' isn't really that great as well.

It's like entering a Indonesian hospital, you can expect bad treatment, but they still help you.

Besides, this is part of his 'propaganda'

"Look people, I am a very good person because I build Hospitals for you all! ENJOY!"

In the same manner of Bush, promising things.

While he is a liar.

[exatreide]

slaughterd? i doubt it. they put up a hell of a stronger fight this time then the last war....even though that isnt saying much. They were the first forign nation to destroy a m1 tank in war time. They may have folded, but they put up a fight atleast....better than the first time..

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Yeah, they got larger sticks.[jk]

But I've got to congratulate the soldiers for shooting those Assault Helicopters with a mere Ak47.

But still, Saddam's soldiers got slaughtered, you can try and change it, the facts are the facts.

It's still foolish why they fought for Saddam in the first place, if I was a Iraqi, I would just shoot down the Iraqi Officers and help the Americans.

[SurlyPIG]

Ex the reason they seem to have put up a better fight is because the coalition's strategy is completely different. They've done far fewer air strikes and have used a lot more foot soldiers. Less flash, more zing. As a result, Iraqi (both military and civillian) casualties are way down, and coalition casualties are proportionally up.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Most casualties is actually caused by friendly fire.

They've stated that on the news.

Iraqi did kill some Americans in sneak attacks or using regular civilian clothes.

(Which they have the right to do, after American's so called 'precision' bombing.)

Americans call them cowards, they should take a look at themselves.

[Dude_Doc]

Try to shoot a spider with a pistol 100 meters away and you will experience precision.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

I don't know if that is a positive or a negative comment.

But Americans has the best Hi-tech technology(I guess)

Right now, they have smart bombs and other bombs that can accurately hit their targets. And these things actually killed innocent humans and destroyed buildings that weren't even in the bombard list. (Maybe they was)

Now, if they gonna make a excuse of "We are killing important officers" then they should blow their own heads off instead.

[Dude_Doc]

And you suppose that in a crowded city, where people has been WARNED that an attack is going to take place, there won't be any civilian deaths? Would you stay in your city, on the street, when you know that another country will attack at any time?

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Two things.

I haven't heard from the news that the Americans, actually warned the Iraqi people.

So, I don't know where you get this from, but oh well.

Second, they probably warned the MILITARY and not the civilians, but once again I doubt that America warned the people.

[SurlyPIG]

Obviously, Kirov, you've never been told that even the most precise multi-million dollar smartbombs still make errors. The percentage is many times lower than human error but still exists. One of dozens of factors from launch can cause a smartbomb to stray from its target.

With that in mind, and given the history of the last war, the coalition's military strategy involved far less bombing, no more than absolutely necessary, and more troop and armour deployment.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

And those ships didn't bomb the country? Oh no, wait, they've used 'rubber' bombs.

Correct if I'm wrong, but the smart bomb is so accurate it can actually hit a guy on top of the head.

If you watch Discovery channel much or watch some clips of smart bombs on the net, you can see that they precisely hit their targets, isn't it odd?

I don't care what you say about this, I've stated my opinion and point of view, no comment can change that.

To me, Bush is just a cousin to Osama bin Laden, Bush uses politics to try and gain control over the country.

While Osama uses religion(Like he can conquer the world *rolls eyes* )

[Dude_Doc]

I haven't heard from the news that the Americans, actually warned the Iraqi people.

Actually, it was written in the newspaper, already in 2002: "Iraqis expects invasion". So, this must say something to you: Iraq knew it was going to be attacked, sooner or later. Saddam knew, and he urged his people to be ready and fight at any costs. And yes, I know that the Coalition didn't exactly say "Iraq: here we come!" right before the first bomb, but still, they knew, and that has to be sufficent for them to understand. If I read in tomorrows newspaper that Sweden is going to be attacked, or is threathened by any force, I would at least be aware that an attack can happen at any time. That has to be enough for me to understand that the risk of dying when I'm walking to school or going anywhere else would increase. I suppose you and everybody else as well understand this.

[SurlyPIG]

Correct if I'm wrong, but the smart bomb is so accurate it can actually hit a guy on top of the head.

If the pilot doesn't activate the seeker head of the guidance unit on the bomb in time, (overestimates time of impact from launch), then you might as well launch unguided bombs.

If you watch Discovery channel much or watch some clips of smart bombs on the net, you can see that they precisely hit their targets, isn't it odd?

At best. The bombs still malfunction, if the laser hits something reflective, if the guidance unit confuses its path, there's any number of things that can go wrong. I think the miss rate was 3% for the average bomb have.

I don't care what you say about this, I've stated my opinion and point of view, no comment can change that.

So you don't care about the truth? The bombs are just like other machines; they fail sometimes.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Actually, it was written in the newspaper, already in 2002: "Iraqis expects invasion". So, this must say something to you: Iraq knew it was going to be attacked, sooner or later.

Oh come on, once again, you believe what media has to say. They make you believe what they say, maybe they didn't do a thing in Iraq and just let the people be bombarded on the head by tomahawk missiles.

As for the Smart bombs.

Odd, I suppose the bombs get smart and does exactly what America's say?

Hit the innocent targets or malfunction and fall right into a school with children.

And I suppose, that the pilot makes a mistake at such a time, while it was TRAINED to make not any mistakes and fight efficiently in the war.

It's really odd how America makes mistakes when there is war, mistakes that is deadly for the innocent people, but they won't make any mistakes, if it has to do with cash.

And how do I know if the Americans are speaking the truth, how does the world know if America speaks the truth? Everybody HATES America and no, not because of their wealth and power.

[Dude_Doc]

Oh come on, once again, you believe what media has to say. They make you believe what they say, maybe they didn't do a thing in Iraq and just let the people be bombarded on the head by tomahawk missiles.

Did I say that I lived in Sweden? And as for the newspaper of lying, I should mention that I read another Swedish newspaper, and CNN. I also watch the TV for other news.

Anyways, that is not the point. The point is that the Iraquis knew there was going to be an attack, and if you call that a lie "manufactured by great [insert bad word here] corporations to keep the public/viewers under control, and eventually control the world itself", you are more paranoid than Edric.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

No, it's not called Paranoid, it's called logical thinking and using your own brains, instead of getting misleaded by all these liars in the Media and Politics.

And I'm sure of it, if the goverment ordered you to jump off from a 100 story high building, you would still do it and call the newspaper and politicians good persons.

And Iraqi civilians would flee without doubt, if they heard about a bombardment on their city.

But no, I suppose the media is true that Iraqi's are stupid and ignorant people. *rolls his eyes*

And to make things more realistic, they use sticks to defend themselves. *rolls eyes again*

[Phage]

Sard, you need to understand the US is trying to help these Iraqis. Just as it helped the French get rid of Hitler during ww2.

We took out Saddam because it is our moral duty to do so. We had momentum in the ME and some incentive but the US (FINALLY) took on its moral duty nonetheless. By Moral duty I mean a countries obligation to help poorer neighbors when it can, within practical constraints.

Sure the US screwed up in the past but that was during the Cold War. When the US tried reform through espioinage, which failed. Now the US is getting militaristic and serious.

The only reason this hasn't been done before is because the government has feared flack from people who think we were just out to conquer.

I mean can't you at least give the US the benefit of the doubt? I mean in a couple years, if Iraq and Afghnanistan are still screwed up, I will agree that the US just did it for expediency and oil. And will join you in condemnation.

But can't we just give the US a chance? To prove itself at least? I mean you know as much as I do that nations do not improve overnight. And that the US finally deciding to help other nations is a Godsend(btw I don't believe in God, its an expression), that we should embrace. Not confront with suspicion.

Most people I know that supported the war did so under the pretense of helping the Iraqis improve their lives, under the pretense of reforming a section of the ME in these delicate times, not under the threat of WMDs(most pro-war advocates I know did not care much about this), is that really such a bad thing?

I mean if Clinton did this I woould have supported him all the way. I'm nota Republican.(I know republicans screwed Clinton over when Clinton wanted to get rid of Osama, and that is to their shame). But can you not see how this can serves the greater good?

I mean does it matter if its a Democrat or Republican that takes out an evil tyrant as long as he is taken out? Personally I'd prefer a liberal, but if a Republican will do it, I'll support him all the way. Because ultimately I care for humanity more then I do politics.

[Egeides]

I mean can't you at least give the US the benefit of the doubt?

Time of doubt have passed. Cheney's money went up recently when Bechtel got the contract and when all companies that got contract were Republican supporters (lobby). Do you know from where W.Bush got his first profit (lots of deficits before)? When he got a contract from his father's administration about oil in Iraq, in 1991. I don't believe American are bad people, but I believe their administration is wicked and the population doesn't know it because of the not very impartial corporate medias. You remember Afghanistan? Well the population didn't prefer the Talibans but doesn't like the US neither. Anyway, it was the US who had pushed the Talibans to power.

I don't believe in militarism. I believe in a fair balance between diverse elements.

About your medias, here's a three week study from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting):

"Official voices dominate: 63% of all sources were current or former government employees. US officials alone accounted for more than half (52%) of all sources.

Pro-war chorus: Nearly two thirds of all sources ? 64% ? were pro-war.

Anti-war voices missing: At a time when 27% of the US public opposed the war, only 10% of all sources, and just 3% of US sources, were anti-war. That means the percentage of Americans opposing the war was nearly 10 times higher in the real world than on the news.

Soundbites vs. interviews: When anti-war guests did make the news, they were mostly relegated to man-on-the-street soundbites. Not a single show did a sit-down interview with a person identified as being against the war.

International perspectives scarce: Only 6% of sources came from countries other than the US, Britain or Iraq. Citizens of France, Germany and Russia ? the countries most vocally opposed to the war ? constituted just 1% of all guests."

[Birdfolly]

US is trying to help these Iraqis.

We took out Saddam because it is our moral duty to do so.

I mean can't you at least give the US the benefit of the doubt?

But can't we just give the US a chance? To prove itself at least? And that the US finally deciding to help other nations is a Godsend that we should embrace. Not confront with suspicion.

I think I'm getting ill. Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand when he was gassing his own people. He knew this but said nothing. I believe that you care about Iraqis but lets get this straight: The US government and the corporations that are interwoven with it do not care about brown people abroad any more than they have to to stay in power and in business. Of course some individuals do but they can't act on it in the current system. All of their actions must be questioned and analyzed IMO.

I mean does it matter if its a Democrat or Republican that takes out an evil tyrant as long as he is taken out? Personally I'd prefer a liberal, but if a Republican will do it, I'll support him all the way. Because ultimately I care for humanity more then I do politics.

If you really care about humanity you might want to take a more critical look at US policy and see who really benefits and who gets forgotten.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Sard, you need to understand the US is trying to help these Iraqis. Just as it helped the French get rid of Hitler during ww2.

We took out Saddam because it is our moral duty to do so. We had momentum in the ME and some incentive but the US (FINALLY) took on its moral duty nonetheless. By Moral duty I mean a countries obligation to help poorer neighbors when it can, within practical constraints.

Yeah, and I drink some soda because I am hungry and exhausted.

You don't get it, do you? If they were so concerned about the Iraqi people, why didn't they help them before?

If they helped them, why did the Americans whine about Iraq having illegal weapons?

It's odd how Bush changes topic, first he wanted to Iraq to get rid of illegal weapons, now they say they wanted to get rid of the eeeeeeevil Saddam and it's suprising how they call other COUNTRIES evil now.

I can see it now, America the police man of god. *Oil vans with 'America's oil' riding in the background and schools with printed words stating 'America's slave colony of valuable products'

Now, I wonder what will become America's next target, Brazil? So they can control of S.America?

The problem is with America, the politics brag about themselves being a savior of god and brag about Freedom this, liberty that.

But they never did such things, did they?

It's freedom and liberty for them, but no freedom or liberty for US.

Only if we listen to the 'wise' words of America, sounds nice, I guess..........?

[Dude_Doc]

You don't get it, do you? If they were so concerned about the Iraqi people, why didn't they help them before?

They never had any reason to. Do you think the UN would just let anyone do so? After 9/11, War on Terrorism began. The United States Government targeted the countries that possesed terrorists/fundamentalists. Iraq, because of Saddam Hussein and the probability of him having WoMD's, which will probably be found in the (hopefully) near future.

Iran, because of it's fascist-fundamentalic government, enslaving people. North Korea, because of it's threaths and suddenly nuclear plans.

It's odd how Bush changes topic, first he wanted to Iraq to get rid of illegal weapons, now they say they wanted to get rid of the eeeeeeevil Saddam and...

Saddam ruled Iraq. He ruled the Iraquis. He had "illegal weapons", controlled by Saddam. Logically, getting rid of Saddam means getting rid of his weapons. Anyone understands this.

Now, I wonder what will become America's next target, Brazil? So they can control of S.America?

The problem is with America, the politics brag about themselves being a savior of god and brag about Freedom this, liberty that.

Obviously, you don't understand that freedom is unbearable hard to achieve. Stop playing Civilization 2 and take a look on the real world.

[SurlyPIG]

Got to love the gross statistical manipulation here. You're not getting away with it though.

About your medias, here's a three week study from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting):

"Official voices dominate: 63% of all sources were current or former government employees. US officials alone accounted for more than half (52%) of all sources.

What would you rather they do? Go out and ask people on the street? LOL. In any issue you talk to both sides. Obviously in this issue, one side is the governments of the US, UK. The other side includes people such as the Iraqi Information Ministry (an official source), the UN (of course it's an official source), the French government, German, Russian etc. Of course official sources are going to dominate correspondance coverage. Whatever paranoid, manipulative anti-media agency made this is trying to play off this stat as an indicator of bias.

Pro-war chorus: Nearly two thirds of all sources ? 64% ? were pro-war.

In the US, that is about what the % of pro-war people is. All that this proves is that the media is a reflection of the people, and in this case, almost a perfect one.

Anti-war voices missing: At a time when 27% of the US public opposed the war, only 10% of all sources, and just 3% of US sources, were anti-war. That means the percentage of Americans opposing the war was nearly 10 times higher in the real world than on the news.

And the remaining 26% of sources were neutral? BS. Your stats don't even add up. And I'd like to know exactly how this statician defines a 'source' and the state of being 'pro-war' or 'anti-war'.

Soundbites vs. interviews: When anti-war guests did make the news, they were mostly relegated to man-on-the-street soundbites. Not a single show did a sit-down interview with a person identified as being against the war.

First of all, BS. I saw not only many interviews of people opposed to the war, but panels where they were un the majority. Not a single one my foot. But it is correct that there were many 'man-on-the-street' sound bites because protesters typically protest in the streets.

International perspectives scarce: Only 6% of sources came from countries other than the US, Britain or Iraq. Citizens of France, Germany and Russia ? the countries most vocally opposed to the war ? constituted just 1% of all guests."

Funny how they didn't tell you that the source coverage for the UK was just as low as France, Germany, or Russia, despite the fact that the latter three speak different languages than the former. It's odd that they would group them like that ::). Here's general rule of successful media 101; localize. Whatever you cover, put a local spin on it. Even when it's not local news. Pfft, it's no wonder so much of the coverage was American. I mean, if you are an American living in the US, why on Earth would you watch media where they refer to sources from Iceland or Azerbaijan? No, you want to hear locals talk about it. For international coverage, you'd want to hear that nation speak about it too. Hence the high coverage coming out of sources in Iraq.

What does this little report prove? That the author lacks common sense.

[zamboe]

In the US, that is about what the % of pro-war people is. All that this proves is that the media is a reflection of the people, and in this case, almost a perfect one.

There is no worst blind than those who refuse to see.

What does this little report prove? That the author lacks common sense.

Can't reply with reasons, atack the author. Not really smart.

[SurlyPIG]

"There is no worst blind than those who refuse to see."

Well there's one for the grammar books. ::)

"Can't reply with reasons, atack the author. Not really smart."

LOL. wah wah wah. Ok fine I'll play it your way.

The author overlooked obvious reasons for the composition of the numbers he collected in his analysis. He jumped conclusion of unfair or biased media coverage while completely ignoring simple and perfectly proportional social factors that explain all of the statists collected.

I would categorize all of those things under the term 'common sense'. But next time I post, I'll make sure I write out a paragraph instead of four words.

Happy now?

[Gobalopper]

I heard yesterday some Iraqi group claimed that Saddam killed 6 million people. They were probably overdoing it though.