Where's my gun?

[Pekka]

Saddam card isn't really viable here, because he isn't in power. That's like FU Iraqi people, we know you're dying in thousands but hey, bigger numbers went down a decade ago..

You know, is that an argument?

Also I don't know why people get so tense and defend these figures. That's a whole lots of dead people. It would count for something more than 'Saddam killed more'. So what? Stalin killed more too, as well as Hitler. What is the connection? It's like the nationalist Russian claim to Balts, that at least they were less brutal than the nazis.. as in choose between being a gulag and death, and just plain death. This would mean, there is absolutely no argument here to throw around.

[SlowwHand]

Lees brutal? He gassed them. So how do you figure?

[Patroklos]

That arguement doesn't work Pekka, because there is a direct relationship between what is happening now (in Iraq and Saddam era Iraq.

You can't connect Shining Path and Hitler in any relevant manor.

In any case, how does this new method benefit the admin Aggie?

This 14,602 number makes me less concerned with terrorism, and puts Pakistani earthquakes, heart disease and traffic saftey squarely above worldwide terrorism.

[Pekka]

Pat, well you did miss my point completely, so what you are doing here is setting words to my mouth and then arguing them. Doesn't work.

Sloww, that wasn't meant to be taken literally.

And again, what is your position guys? Defending these figures because Saddam would have had supposedly worse figures today (which is an assumption, even though we know his tendencies)?

[Pekka]

So no, I'm not necessarily against you. I'm against the argument. THat's all I'nm against, it's that argument. I did support the war from the beginning, I doubted it, but I still support stronger action today.

My point is not that Saddam was a bastard. He was and is.

BUT, if the figures are lower than on Saddam's usual year, so what? How does it constitute being better? Less people died? No. Saddam is caught. Yes he created a lot of this earlier, but we can draw these lines as far as we want, who supported him against Iran? Stuff like that. I choose to not draw lines at all here but examine the first argument that is less people die so it is better.

In factual terms, maybe this year. What about next year? What about in 10 years, the people are dying in increasing figures and the trend is not looking good.

So, the fact of the matter is that less people could have died in period of 15 years if Saddam was still in power.

The other point is, if you wage yourself with Saddam and say well we're better.. so what? That is supposed to be trivial. So why are we comparing the results to HIM and the worst case scenario? It's not 'this is going great', it's supposed to be 'what is going wrong, what can we do to turn the tide'.

And if we talk about thousands of people being justified collateral damage, necessary evil, I think the least we should do is go there and see it with our own eyes, talk to people and do some researching other than just google.com.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Did you not read? WHO is doing the killing? Not the USA. USA is all response. They don't instigate anything. They don't round people up and kill them. That was Hussein. Remember Hussein? Who is the Arab world pissed off at? USA? No. The people killing their own.


And, I'm sorry, Ming. I'm sorry he's an idiot.

\

I think you should slow down and take a pill. What is it that you think I am claiming other than that the State Department are a bunch of nads who indulge in creative accounting.

But if you want to see idiocy, go back and look at the pre-war threads. Face it, my side was completely right, and you guys were completely wrong... again.

[Patroklos]

Face it, my side was completely right, and you guys were completely wrong

Are you what, three years old

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Are you what, three years old

Being three years old doesn't exclude someone from being right, when you were wrong... again..

Perhaps you should join a monastery to atone for your previous deeds.

[Patroklos]

Three years old it is.

[Ted Striker]

Agathon rules


Reactionary drools

ROFL DUH

[Cyclotron]

It seems likely that these numbers are largely inflated because of the failure to distinguish between resistance and terrorism; I wonder how many armed clashes between the insurgents and the US forces are considered terrorist acts?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Holy ****! 14,602 worldwide deaths from terrorism attacks in 2005?!?!?!?!



I wonder how many people in Iraq died annually from Saddam while he was in power. The number is probally still down...

If you put his death toll at 300k then its about 10-12k annually.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

One thought and thats it!!! Does it really matter how many are killed??? Does anyone here really give a dam?? And for that matter who the hell else has stood up to fight terriosm??? I guess the us is the big bad asses on the play ground that said **** it i am not gonna put up with this crap anymore... So what does anyone have to say what happens in another country??? Well Id say the us does since these countries, all of them have come to us for a freaking loan for billions of dollars to survive.
with all that being said i say, one death was one to many because of terrisom if ya dont agree who cares!!!

[Vince278]

Re: Where's my gun?

Originally posted by Agathon
11,111 attacks that caused 14,602 deaths in 2005 alone.

1.31 deaths per attack? They really suck big time. Idiots.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Whoha


If you put his death toll at 300k then its about 10-12k annually.

with no american deaths