guns and bombs.
we can talk about that again...

This post has been edited by cmac: May 20 2008, 01:18 PM

god it's warm in here..... so many Blanket Statements....

yeah, guns and bombs from iraqi insurgents


bwahaha

the u.s. soldiers get their guns and bombs from iraqi insurgents?

Guns and bombs fired from iraqi insurgents is what I meant to say. I guess I have to keep in mind who I'm chatting with and spell out the obvious

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/77064/
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=3716
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=55793...ionid=351020201
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=47129
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3102920.stm
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=53050...ionid=351020201
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/...in3933530.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/civi-j17.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/world/mi...;pagewanted=all
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/mid...amily_in_Kirkuk

u.s. soldiers. u.s. weapons.
innocent lives
need some more articles?
there's tons of 'em.

link 1: 1 death, soldier responsible was convicted by military court and sent to prison for 10 years

link 2: "a group of what appear to be civilians" - how could this be determined by the antiwar.com people that posted it? that video is so terrible, and they have no idea the context of how or why those people were there, or why the pilot was called to that location. You can't determine these were civilians. +0.

link 3: Second hand information from some "officials from hospitals" that were "unauthorzed to speak to the media" Let's assume it's true though. So +8.

link 4: "An error seems to have occurred. Please try again later."

link 5: Iraqi police were chasing a car in an unmarked pickup with a rear mounted machine gun. The car and unmarked pickup blew through a US checkpoint and was fired upon. One Iraqi officer died. +1. Legit friendly fire incident, but understandable IMHO.

link 6: Another medical official claims "At least eleven Iraqis, including women and children, have been killed." Article also says "US-led forces have been launching attacks against mainly Shia neighborhoods which are believed to be stronghold of supporters of moqtada sadr. "US-led forces" implies that there were other forces, most likely Iraqi police, involved. Also is it really the US's fault that these cowards hide in civilian neighborhoods? Should we just ask nicely for him to come out so we can kill him? Pathetic. I'll even give you this one though. +11.

link 7: A terrible accident. "In its statement, the military said that "coalition forces fired a warning shot into a berm near a suspicious woman who appeared to be signaling to someone while the soldiers were in the area. A young girl was found behind the berm suffering from a gunshot wound." +1.

link 8: A bunch of anecdotes cobbled together by "World Socialist Web Site". . I'll keep giving you the benefit of the doubt though I suppose, just to prove my point (which is coming). "US military has officially admitted to killing or wounding 429 Iraqis." This says kill or wound. Usually there are far more wounded than killed, but hey like I said, benefit of the doubt. +429. No way of knowing really how many of the 429 were already included by one of the other statements, but whatever.

link 9: Exact same story as #7. +0.

link 10: Extremely vague story from "monstersandcritics.com". And it says "Iraqi family" who had previously attacked U.S. helicopters. It doesn't mean they were civilians. +0.

So, 451 in your examples here (most likely nowhere near that, but again, benefit of the doubt here). Your other dramatic, terrible, omgzwarisbad link, iraqbodycount.com shows between 84,040 and 91,703 documented civilian deaths. Who killed the rest of em? Is a 0.5% civilian bad to you?

Keep tryin though Mr. Armchair. I'm not impressed by your google search and copy/paste. The fact that you posted the same story twice proves you didn't read any of them. I guess I'm not that surprised though, because it seems all too often the people who take your view don't ever look into anything. They take what the media hands them at face value without any regard for its meaning.

its easy to find articles that support the view you take, but the fact of the matter is while some people have been killed by US soldiers others have been killed by suicide bombers and insurgents not related to the US.

I'm not trying to excuse the actions of the US, but you often try to show only the side of the arguement that you support and then criticize others when they try to introduce the other sides of the issue.

i'll criticize my side too, where it's deserved. michael moore is an idiot. and the democrats in office couldn't implement any decision, no matter how great.
and why did i know you're micro analyze every link.

1. so what if he was convicted. he killed an innocent person. that doesn't excuse it.
2. civilians/people/group/superman. whatever. iraqis died at the hands of u.s. troops.
4. yeah, i based it off the title of the article.
6. innocent iraqis died at the hands of u.s. troops. i don't care how or where.
10. family. iraqi. dead.

2 civilian deaths are bad to me. if they were doing that shit to us on our soil, killing our families, you guys would be up in arms literally. but it doesn't matter when we play world police, because its the terroists families and children that are dying.

i don't have to read any of them. i watch the news enough to know that this occurs all too often. and a simple google search is flooded with articles pages deep. the headlines seem to explain enough. i don't have to read each article to confirm what i already know.
and you seemed to give me a lot of "points" for having "irrelevant" articles.

i understand that iraqis have died from suicide bombers and insurgents. i'm only discussing the ones killed by u.s. troops though. it's unnecessary. if they want to blow up themselves, fine. but i don't live in iraq, so i can't be embarrassed of their country like i am this one. (waiting for "if you don't like it, leave" response)

Just found out this morning my husband has been attached to an infantry unit in Georgia. While he is medical, this does increase the likelihood of him being sent to Iraq sometime in the next year or two. He will be in the green zone the entire time working in a hospital, but it still sucks. I told him this morning I'm voting for Obama (of course, I was kidding) so that we can pull out of Iraq so he doesn't have to go. Honestly, Obama has no real solutions to the issue in Iraq though and I still would vote for McCain any day of the week over him. The fact that most of our troops support McCain has to say something about Obama. I mean, they are the ones being sent over there; yet, people who safely sit at home and watch and read liberal biased media are the ones saying vote for Obama because he has solutions to the war in Iraq... he will bring us home. Yeah, sure *rolleyes* That's why I support McCain on this issue...because friends in Iraq and friends that have been there and soldiers that have potential to go there still support the conservative agenda on the war. In my opinion, they would know better than anyone else.

And the fact that Obama refuses to put his hand over his heart is a GIGANTIC red flag for me. Seriously, when will people open their eyes?

I'm not so concerned about his lack of experience to be honest with you. Sure, McCain has a hell of a lot more experience in politics and the military, but I'm gonna give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one. I mean, Bush was just a lawyer before becoming governor of Texas, which is largely a ceremonial position in our state. That isn't what I would consider a lot of experience. Yeah, there have definitely been a lot of mishaps during his presidency, but I attribute that more to policy-making decisions as opposed to lack of leadership experience. Plus, I feel Bush has had a very difficult run as president because of the incidents that have occurred (Sept. 11th of course beginning it all). I don't know how anyone would have handled that any better. Plus, after having been attacked by a terrorist, I can see how the Bush administration would want to eliminate a past and potential future threat to our security (Saddam Huessin).

In summary, Obama is a moron...not because of his lack of leadership/political experience; but more because of his policy on Iraq, his failure to display patriotism toward a country he wants to lead, and his racist comments toward people who "cling to their guns and religion" aka backwoods Pennsylvanians.

i also like barack's technology policies.
just putting that out there....

and to stay on topic, If barack is not putting his hand over his heart to show some sort of protest, then i applaud him for it.
citizens don't have to support this country by default. our freedom gives us a right to voice displeasure and speak out when things aren't correct. if also gives you guys a right not to vote for him. so yay democracy.

ps: if elected, mcain will die in office.

I didn't excuse it.


uh... it doesn't matter if it was civilians? that was the whole point you were making was that the US is killing iraqi civilians.


How do you derive that from the article? How do you know it wasn't Iraqi police that killed them?


Unknown whether they're civilians or insurgents. What is known (at least by your own link) is that they'd previously shot at a U.S. helicopter.


You talk as if we're over there seeking out Iraqi civilians and murdering them. Virtually every example you've given is either wrong or was an accident. Accidents happen.


LOL.... and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? So daddy decides to go join a terrorist organization, murder and car bomb innocents, and then hide behind his family and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them!?!?


Funny, I didn't see any of your articles come from any of the major news sources. Which news do you watch? When was the last time it occured? If it happens "all too often" it should be easy for you to find some kind of source of our murderous troops rampaging the Iraqi elementary schools like you seem to think.


All the articles you posted were bullshit! And yet you think the headlines are explain enough.


I gave you the benefit of the doubt to show you the real point. That the civilian casualties from US troops are negligible in comparison to how much worse they could be, or how bad they were in previous wars.


Well no shit it's "unnecessary". Any human being's death short of passing away in bed at age 105 is "unnecessary". What point are you trying to drive home here? All your doing is your armchair bitching and not even looking at the circumstances. You've been brainwashed into believing every headline you see without question.


Why would you be embarrassed of our country for going over there and surgically striking well enough to have only had a few hundred civilian casualties in a war that's claimed 151,000 (according to iraqi health ministry). That is freaking amazing if you ask me.

1. Bush does not have a law degree...
2. Im just glad cmac isn't in power... we'd be a poor defenseless sheep country.
3. Anyone see McCain on SNL? It was hilarious. I'll vote for the moderate over the know nothing idealistic idiot any day.

Oh, and bitching based off of civilian deaths is retarded to me. Saddam didn't murder plenty of civilians for you? Is it because we are trying to make a better country that bothers you? I suppose if Saddam was merely murdering still you'd be ok because its not a "world police" doing it...

Unfortunately, I want a president who can work with other members of leadership. Not someone who is going to pout because he didn't get his way.

It's simple: He's a fucking COMMUNIST.

Look at his "plans" and whatnot. Listen to his wife talking. The guy is a fucking communist, period. That's his statement.