Andkon is the shining bacon of the 21st century, single-handedly leading humanity out of the uncertain present. Apart from managing the world's best arcade, he writes daily to cultivate the ignorant masses 
2500 Americans and 250,000 Iraqis Dead
Jun 16, 2006 @ 19:38In typical ironic fashion, the US Congress held a moment of silence after the announcement of military deaths reaching 2,500. This is nothing new, as the Congress has been holding a moment of silence for almost four years concerning the Iraq war.
And of course, who cares about the Iraqis themselves? According to a new study, 250,000 of them might have died since the occupation began. With American-mandated sanctions that led massive starvation and malnutrition among children after the first Gulf War in 1991, total Iraqi deaths thanks to America topples perhaps 1,000,000. Saddam Hussein managed only 8,000 per year.
red meat on Jun 16, 2006 @ 21:42 wrote
Here here!
Nate-Dawg on Jun 17, 2006 @ 05:50 wrote
Stop blaming the US for civilian casualties. You can't stop every single terrorist in the world. The 250,000 estimate is 100 percent bogus, your source is extremely liberal and trying to jack up the numbers to make the US and Bush look terrible. The terrorists purposely have done more bombings to try to put more blame on the US. Also the 8,000 a year dead under Saddam Hussien is 100 percent bogus too. Get a real reliable source. Not just some liberal-idiot who wants to blame the US for every little bad thing but doesn't mention all the great things that go on in Iraq. The reason the killing of Zarqawi wasn't so publicized is because it was something good that happened, and of course the media and liberals have to put a spin on the killing and say it was only "one man." Give me a break, if Zarqawi would have been killed when Clinton was president, the media would be worshiping him.
andkon on Jun 17, 2006 @ 11:10 wrote
The source is the Lancet, an indepent British medical journal. So you got your facts *wrong*. It's as liberal or conservative as a cardboard box or a bucket of paint. You just completely *made up* that these sources were liberal because you cannot except that independent reality confirms the view that Iraq is a big failure full of people who *rightfully* hate us like hell.
An Oxford study in 2004 said 100,000 died and they used the same methods as used in other war zones. Yet another study released a year back said troops were responsible for almost 40% of the killings, insurgents for 9%, and the rest caused due to violence thanks to the lawlessness created by a lacking authority to govern the country.
The Iraqi people just *HATE US* and see us as occupiers because they know we're there for only for their oil. As far back as 2003, only 5% of the Iraqis thought the US invaded to help: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27979-2003Nov11
A secret military poll leaked says that 45% of the Iraqis see attacks on soldiers as completely justifed and 82% strongly oppose troops presence, and 2/3 say the occupation has made the security worse. The poll is discussed here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1023-01.htm
As far as Zarqawi, are you serious? Go to Google News and I'll you won't be able to find a SINGLE NAME THAT HAS MORE RESULTS. You really need to wake up and not let ideological blindness get to you.
You claim my stats are bogus, yet you don't cite anything yourself. Your problem with my stats is they don't conform to reality you've been sold by the corporate media.
So yeah, the liberal media is an absolute myth. The media is a corporate institution that strives on creating as little as humanely possible, so by default they're going to be conservative and not rock the boat. NBC is owned by General Electric, which made most of the weapons for the Gulf War in 1991. You have to be rather well indoctrinated, like yourself, to believe they're going do any critiques that's more than superficial. Here's some good examples of anti-liberal bias that spews forth on TV every single day: http://mediamatters.org/
If you want to find out more about Iraq, here's two good places that both have video feeds and plenty of material:
http://democracynow.org/
http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm
An Oxford study in 2004 said 100,000 died and they used the same methods as used in other war zones. Yet another study released a year back said troops were responsible for almost 40% of the killings, insurgents for 9%, and the rest caused due to violence thanks to the lawlessness created by a lacking authority to govern the country.
The Iraqi people just *HATE US* and see us as occupiers because they know we're there for only for their oil. As far back as 2003, only 5% of the Iraqis thought the US invaded to help: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27979-2003Nov11
A secret military poll leaked says that 45% of the Iraqis see attacks on soldiers as completely justifed and 82% strongly oppose troops presence, and 2/3 say the occupation has made the security worse. The poll is discussed here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1023-01.htm
As far as Zarqawi, are you serious? Go to Google News and I'll you won't be able to find a SINGLE NAME THAT HAS MORE RESULTS. You really need to wake up and not let ideological blindness get to you.
You claim my stats are bogus, yet you don't cite anything yourself. Your problem with my stats is they don't conform to reality you've been sold by the corporate media.
So yeah, the liberal media is an absolute myth. The media is a corporate institution that strives on creating as little as humanely possible, so by default they're going to be conservative and not rock the boat. NBC is owned by General Electric, which made most of the weapons for the Gulf War in 1991. You have to be rather well indoctrinated, like yourself, to believe they're going do any critiques that's more than superficial. Here's some good examples of anti-liberal bias that spews forth on TV every single day: http://mediamatters.org/
If you want to find out more about Iraq, here's two good places that both have video feeds and plenty of material:
http://democracynow.org/
http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm
Nate-Dawg on Jun 17, 2006 @ 16:34 wrote
31,818 - 35,747, thats civilian casualties estimate up til now in the Iraq War... This 250,000 as I was saying is completely bogus. Heres my source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project
andkon on Jun 17, 2006 @ 16:59 wrote
Iraq Body Count provides an *extremely* low estimate because, as Wikipedia says, their method is "by sampling news stories." They add up all deaths that were *reported* by newspapers from stories they gather on the ground. There is no guarantee that a death will be reported.
Also remember that the US military since the very start has said they don't count civilian casualities.
Wikipedia links to this criticism, it looks spot-on: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9660
Also remember that the US military since the very start has said they don't count civilian casualities.
Wikipedia links to this criticism, it looks spot-on: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9660
Nate-Dawg on Jun 17, 2006 @ 17:56 wrote
Then if my estimate is extremely low, then isn't yours absurdly high? I mean if you are so certain that yours is close to accurate then go to Iraq and dig up the graves yourself, you'll find not even close to 250,000 dead since the Iraq Invasion.l
andkon on Jun 17, 2006 @ 19:00 wrote
Why is mine absurdly high just because yours is extremely low? That's not logical.
You have to look at the methods used by studies. The method of sniping newspaper columns to count the dead is clearly going to give a very low-estimate. The statistical analysis of fieldwork and interviews done by the Lancet study is not perfect either, but that type of work is used to assess civilian deaths all the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Your problem is that you can't accept that higher mortality rates because that undercuts the ad hoc, after-the-fact justification that we went to Iraq to bring democracy to the country, which according to another study, 1% of Iraqis believed in 2003: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27979-2003Nov11
The exact number of dead is actually beside the point. The majority of Iraqis, since late 2003 and rising ever since, see the US forces as illegitimate occupiers who make the security problem worse.
You have to look at the methods used by studies. The method of sniping newspaper columns to count the dead is clearly going to give a very low-estimate. The statistical analysis of fieldwork and interviews done by the Lancet study is not perfect either, but that type of work is used to assess civilian deaths all the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Your problem is that you can't accept that higher mortality rates because that undercuts the ad hoc, after-the-fact justification that we went to Iraq to bring democracy to the country, which according to another study, 1% of Iraqis believed in 2003: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27979-2003Nov11
The exact number of dead is actually beside the point. The majority of Iraqis, since late 2003 and rising ever since, see the US forces as illegitimate occupiers who make the security problem worse.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 17, 2006 @ 19:29 wrote
If the Iraqi people hate democracy so much, then why did they pass a democratic constitution?
andkon on Jun 17, 2006 @ 20:45 wrote
When did I say they hate democracy? They hate *us* because we're killing them and establishing long-term military bases there: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=2132
Incidentally, the United States *DID NOT* want democracy, that's pretty clear from what the administration wanted to take place after Saddam. They wanted tightly-controlled caucuses without any direct vote. However, the religious leader Sistani protested and there were demonstrations.
And look up the story before the current elections in Iraq. Remember, the "viceroy" of Iraq before Paul Bremer was a no-nonsense general named Jay Garner who announced that 1) elections would be held 90 days after the toppling of Saddam and 2) coalition troops would be pulled out to desert bases to ease tensions with the population. The Iraqis did not object, they loved it. But because that would have meant that Iraq's oil and the whole country would have been controlled by the Iraqi people very soon after, the neoconservatives shit their pants and promptly replaced General Garner: http://tinyurl.com/zr7cy (very good read)
You make the mistake of associating democracy with American intentions, just because His Majesty Bush II and the mostly parrot media say so.
Incidentally, the United States *DID NOT* want democracy, that's pretty clear from what the administration wanted to take place after Saddam. They wanted tightly-controlled caucuses without any direct vote. However, the religious leader Sistani protested and there were demonstrations.
And look up the story before the current elections in Iraq. Remember, the "viceroy" of Iraq before Paul Bremer was a no-nonsense general named Jay Garner who announced that 1) elections would be held 90 days after the toppling of Saddam and 2) coalition troops would be pulled out to desert bases to ease tensions with the population. The Iraqis did not object, they loved it. But because that would have meant that Iraq's oil and the whole country would have been controlled by the Iraqi people very soon after, the neoconservatives shit their pants and promptly replaced General Garner: http://tinyurl.com/zr7cy (very good read)
You make the mistake of associating democracy with American intentions, just because His Majesty Bush II and the mostly parrot media say so.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 17, 2006 @ 20:55 wrote
If the Iraqi people hate democracy so much, then why did they pass a democratic constitution?
Nate-Dawg on Jun 17, 2006 @ 20:57 wrote
I dont know why that posted 2 times lol
andkon on Jun 17, 2006 @ 21:05 wrote
If you refresh the page directly after commenting, it will do that.
Harpoon on Jun 18, 2006 @ 02:50 wrote
I'll try never to make the mistake of trying to debate with Andkon on political matters...
He has hiw shit sorted.
He has hiw shit sorted.
alex9 on Jun 18, 2006 @ 17:27 wrote
do you have a myspace, andras?
andkon on Jun 18, 2006 @ 17:52 wrote
Yes, but I don't use it. Isn't this site better than a myspace site anyways? Please say yes.
alex9 on Jun 18, 2006 @ 17:56 wrote
if it'll make you happy, then yes
red meat on Jun 19, 2006 @ 01:50 wrote
Hell yea it's better. And I agree, I can debate pretty well, but Andras would probably kick my ass. Don't think I'll ever want to meet him in a debate.
andkon on Jun 19, 2006 @ 19:38 wrote
Where did Nate-Dawg go?
red meat on Jun 19, 2006 @ 23:04 wrote
You scared him off dude
Nate-Dawg on Jun 20, 2006 @ 02:33 wrote
He didnt scare me off, I have a life you know.
andkon on Jun 20, 2006 @ 15:23 wrote
And so much for Zarqawi being dead and all: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3985386.html
red meat on Jun 20, 2006 @ 23:53 wrote
A life out of the greatness that is andkon.com?!?!
*gasp*
*gasp*
andkon on Jun 21, 2006 @ 01:48 wrote
Some more fun polling from 18-months ago: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957
Nate-Dawg on Jun 21, 2006 @ 03:12 wrote
Haha, who cares what this poll says... the Iraqi people have passed a democratic constitution, meaning the majority of them are for this new government. Also, I bet you'll be complaining even more if Israel nukes Iran. If Israel doesn't do it then the US should sometime soon, that place is crawling with even more terrorists than are in Iraq who are threatening to nuke Israel if they get their hands on a nuclear weapon. Most of the Arab nations hate Israel unjustly, so the US should make it a huge proirity to help protect them if they come under a major threat, even if it means nuking that country until the threat is silenced.
andkon on Jun 21, 2006 @ 03:39 wrote
What does a democratic constitution have anything to do with the fact that the people of Iraq want the US out of there so bad that about half of them support attacks against the US troops?
As far as Iran: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty states that Iran has a right to nuclear technology for civilian use and that nuclear states like the United States have an *obligation* to give it the Iran. It's the United States that's stalling in that regard. Of course, the media likes to ignore that.
Why should the US, aka my tax money, help Israel? What the hell have they done for the US recently?
As far as Iran: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty states that Iran has a right to nuclear technology for civilian use and that nuclear states like the United States have an *obligation* to give it the Iran. It's the United States that's stalling in that regard. Of course, the media likes to ignore that.
Why should the US, aka my tax money, help Israel? What the hell have they done for the US recently?
Nate-Dawg on Jun 21, 2006 @ 03:58 wrote
So if its for civilian use, would Iran ever use a nuke on Israel?
andkon on Jun 21, 2006 @ 04:04 wrote
Iran *DOESN'T* have a nuke and is technologically years away from developing it according international agencies.
Why exactly would Iran use a nuke on Israel?
Why exactly would Iran use a nuke on Israel?
Nate-Dawg on Jun 21, 2006 @ 04:07 wrote
Becuase Iran hates Israel... Arabs hate Jews....
andkon on Jun 21, 2006 @ 04:38 wrote
Do you realize that Isreal is the *only* country with nuclear weapons in the Middle East, funded by your tax dollars? Could you tell us again why they need our protection? I didn't think so.
And certainly the Israelis just love Arabs. After taking land that has been Arab for close to 1000 years, the Israelis allow some to live in the comfort of squalid refuge camps with no running water.
Let me guess: suicide bombers arise because a population is so well-treated by its neighbor that out of boredom it has nothing better to do. Give us a break please.
And certainly the Israelis just love Arabs. After taking land that has been Arab for close to 1000 years, the Israelis allow some to live in the comfort of squalid refuge camps with no running water.
Let me guess: suicide bombers arise because a population is so well-treated by its neighbor that out of boredom it has nothing better to do. Give us a break please.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 21, 2006 @ 05:36 wrote
Iran is going to have nuclear capability soon thanks to North Korea http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/21/iran.nuclear/index.html So you are lieing... And what are you going to say if Iran nukes Israel... "Oh it was Israel's fault"... And by the way, Israel is our ally and is supporting the War in Iraq, so don't you think we should support our allies? Or support our enemy terrorists by pulling out of Iraq so they can have more terrorists attacks on the US and her allies? Seems to me you want the terrorists to be successful.
andkon on Jun 21, 2006 @ 06:09 wrote
Do you bother reading links or not? The source for this is the ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER HIMSELF, hardly an unbiased source. Every international agency that has a clue says Iran is years away from developing nuclear weapons.
How is Israel even supporting the War (on) Iraq? How many troops does it have in Iraq? Zero?
How is leaving Iraq going to increase terrorism for the United States? It's going to have the exact opposite effect: if you remove the the reason for terrorism (US occupation), there won't be terrorists to have a reason to attack.
How is Israel even supporting the War (on) Iraq? How many troops does it have in Iraq? Zero?
How is leaving Iraq going to increase terrorism for the United States? It's going to have the exact opposite effect: if you remove the the reason for terrorism (US occupation), there won't be terrorists to have a reason to attack.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 21, 2006 @ 06:24 wrote
"There won't be terrorists to have a reason to attack." - did you forget 9/11?... they attacked the US for no reason... why won't they do it again?
andkon on Jun 21, 2006 @ 06:49 wrote
No reason? You really think the US is just an innocent little country that does nothing bad around the world?
Here's a partial list of *DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED* governments the United States overthrew in the last half-century:
1949, Syria (Result: Syria was plunged into military coups and is still a dictatorship.)
1953, Iran (Result: Mossadegh overthrown, brutal US-endorsed dictatorship under the Shah ensues, so bad that Iranians supported religious bigots to overthrow the monarchy, which directly leads to the current mess in Iran.)
1954, Guatamala (Result: Guzman overthrown, Guatemala is ruled by tyrants for decades, economic ruin, etc.)
1973, Chile (Result: Pres. Allende killed in a CIA-orchestrated coup, Pinochet comes to power, thousands "disappeared")
1980's, Nicaragua. The support of the Contras against a democratically-elected government.
These are just the most blatant examples without any ambiguity. As far 9/11, the US funded the very same people who carried out 9/11 to bog down the Soviets in Afghanistan. After the Soviets left, money and supplies still remained. These people turned their attention against the United States, after they realized the US was just using them for American goals.
That doesn't justify 9/11, that's not the point. The point is that what goes around, comes around. It'd be nice if more citizens were aware of what our government does in our name. "Why do they hate us?" is a really stupid question.
Here's a partial list of *DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED* governments the United States overthrew in the last half-century:
1949, Syria (Result: Syria was plunged into military coups and is still a dictatorship.)
1953, Iran (Result: Mossadegh overthrown, brutal US-endorsed dictatorship under the Shah ensues, so bad that Iranians supported religious bigots to overthrow the monarchy, which directly leads to the current mess in Iran.)
1954, Guatamala (Result: Guzman overthrown, Guatemala is ruled by tyrants for decades, economic ruin, etc.)
1973, Chile (Result: Pres. Allende killed in a CIA-orchestrated coup, Pinochet comes to power, thousands "disappeared")
1980's, Nicaragua. The support of the Contras against a democratically-elected government.
These are just the most blatant examples without any ambiguity. As far 9/11, the US funded the very same people who carried out 9/11 to bog down the Soviets in Afghanistan. After the Soviets left, money and supplies still remained. These people turned their attention against the United States, after they realized the US was just using them for American goals.
That doesn't justify 9/11, that's not the point. The point is that what goes around, comes around. It'd be nice if more citizens were aware of what our government does in our name. "Why do they hate us?" is a really stupid question.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 21, 2006 @ 19:42 wrote
You didn't answer the question... Why would the terrorists stop attacking the US if we pulled out of Iraq? Can you bet your life there wouldn't be another major attack on US soil by terrorists if the US pulled out of Iraq? I didn't think so.
andkon on Jun 21, 2006 @ 20:39 wrote
It would stop the cycle of violence whereby if you want to train against the United States, you go to Iraq. Iraq today is a breeding ground for terrorists. If the US leaves, there won't be a need for terrorism IN Iraq which means there won't be terrorists trained FOR the United States in the future.
Try think one step ahead.
Can you again tell us why we need Israel as allies considering they do anything for us, except to buy our weapons that they use to kill civilians?
Try think one step ahead.
Can you again tell us why we need Israel as allies considering they do anything for us, except to buy our weapons that they use to kill civilians?
Nate-Dawg on Jun 21, 2006 @ 22:01 wrote
You still didn't answer the question... Would there ever be a major attack on US soil again if we left Iraq? Yes or No?
andkon on Jun 21, 2006 @ 23:51 wrote
There would be fewer attacks because new terrorists wouldn't be created, we'd just have to deal with the ones that already were before the Iraq invasion. If we stay, we're increasing the chance that we'll get hit because Iraq is a terrorist-creating cesspoll.
Considering Iraq wasn't producing *any* al-Qaeda members since the Baathist Party was secular and nominally socialist, it's a rather obvious choice if the US government was even remotely concerned about the safety of its citizens.Unfortunately, Bush and Pals are more interested in furthering short-term profit for their cronies, so sucks for us.
Considering Iraq wasn't producing *any* al-Qaeda members since the Baathist Party was secular and nominally socialist, it's a rather obvious choice if the US government was even remotely concerned about the safety of its citizens.Unfortunately, Bush and Pals are more interested in furthering short-term profit for their cronies, so sucks for us.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 22, 2006 @ 02:15 wrote
How do you know new terrorists wouldn't be created? The al-Qaeda is recruiting new terrorists all of the time, and as for Iraq there are al-Qaeda members there including Zarqawi who was the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq before he died. Also, al-Qaeda is still active in Iraq and threathing to get back for Zarqawi's death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi and http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/11/al.qaeda.threat/index.html
andkon on Jun 22, 2006 @ 03:22 wrote
Terrorism has legitimate grievances: this doesn't mean appease the terrorists, it simply means prevent the conditions which give rise to them. In the case of Iraq, the best solution is to stop the US military from destroying the country so we don't give the terrorists a reason to hate us and therefore this stops recruiting of new members.
That only leaves the current terrorists. And you deal with the same way you deal with any other criminals: law enforcement. Unless you'rname is Israel or United States, you don't catch serial killers by bombing the entire neighborhood they happen to be in. You track them down, but don't alienate the people they happen to be surrounded by.
The US policy of bombing the shit out of whatever and then saying "Oh geez, we're sorry that killed another dozen children!" is dangerous because it 1) rarely eliminates the intended target (think of the all false Zarqawi deaths over the years) and 2) usually alienates the people who were accidentally (or rather carelessly) bombed.
Another example: how do you deal with poverty? You can imprison 12-year-olds for stealing bread and then wonder why poverty never goes away or you can give people jobs, etc.
The current policy of bombing anything and everything creates an escalating cycle of violence. You can't cure terrorism with more terrorism.
That only leaves the current terrorists. And you deal with the same way you deal with any other criminals: law enforcement. Unless you'rname is Israel or United States, you don't catch serial killers by bombing the entire neighborhood they happen to be in. You track them down, but don't alienate the people they happen to be surrounded by.
The US policy of bombing the shit out of whatever and then saying "Oh geez, we're sorry that killed another dozen children!" is dangerous because it 1) rarely eliminates the intended target (think of the all false Zarqawi deaths over the years) and 2) usually alienates the people who were accidentally (or rather carelessly) bombed.
Another example: how do you deal with poverty? You can imprison 12-year-olds for stealing bread and then wonder why poverty never goes away or you can give people jobs, etc.
The current policy of bombing anything and everything creates an escalating cycle of violence. You can't cure terrorism with more terrorism.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 22, 2006 @ 03:34 wrote
So you are saying the US military is fighting with terrorism? Accidental innocent civilian deaths happen in all wars... deal with it...
andkon on Jun 22, 2006 @ 03:45 wrote
So, if a serial killer happened to be in your neighborhood, it'd be okay for the police to indiscriminately launch missiles into your neighborhood? Would it be okay for them to drop 500lb bombs on houses?
There's a big difference between ACCIDENTAL and CARELESS. Accidentally running over someone with a car is not murder, but even that's usually called manslaughter. If you do it 200000 times, what would you call it? If there was a driver who ran over 200000 people would you tell everyone to "deal with it" since accidents happen all the time?
So why can't terrorists be hunted down with minimal amount of violence against civilians if equally dangerous serial killers are? Is it because then terrorism could not be used as a *pretense* to invade countries with favorable geographic positions and natural resources we want for ourselves?
The facts are simple: 1) War is an ineffective way to fight against terrorism. As your link shows, al-Qaeda is actually emboldened and in no way put back by death of its leader in Iraq. 2) Regular means of catching criminals are not used because such ways do not require massive invasions that could overtake an entire country and its resources.
There's a big difference between ACCIDENTAL and CARELESS. Accidentally running over someone with a car is not murder, but even that's usually called manslaughter. If you do it 200000 times, what would you call it? If there was a driver who ran over 200000 people would you tell everyone to "deal with it" since accidents happen all the time?
So why can't terrorists be hunted down with minimal amount of violence against civilians if equally dangerous serial killers are? Is it because then terrorism could not be used as a *pretense* to invade countries with favorable geographic positions and natural resources we want for ourselves?
The facts are simple: 1) War is an ineffective way to fight against terrorism. As your link shows, al-Qaeda is actually emboldened and in no way put back by death of its leader in Iraq. 2) Regular means of catching criminals are not used because such ways do not require massive invasions that could overtake an entire country and its resources.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 22, 2006 @ 20:30 wrote
Terrorists are worse than serial killers and you have to do more to stop them, such as bombing until they die, you can't just send in minimal forces and let them get wiped out by the terrorists. Also as I have said before civilian deaths happen in every war and there isn't even close to 200,000 yet in this war. That number is way to high with no realistic evidence. Whatever Bush does you'll say he should have done the opposite no matter what, thats so true about liberals, they can't accept the truth! Also if civilian casualties is such a huge thing to you, you Anti-Semitism freak, you would care more about the millions of Jews who were murdered in World War II. So stop bashing the people who are just trying to survive all the hatred of them around the world, especially now by Arabs.
andkon on Jun 22, 2006 @ 21:01 wrote
Nate, can you stop foaming at the mouth like some rabid dog? Thanks. Just because facts shatter the fantasy reality as presented by the "liberal" media (owned by some of biggest weapons manufacturers in the world) does not mean you have to be completely irrational. You're merely asserting things like a bigot repeating lies that were told to him. You're no different than the overpaid talking heads on TV spouting their bullshit without any evidence.
Why are terrorists any different than other criminals? Why should an ineffective strategy be pursued against terrorists that ends up creating more terrorists? Why is the 200,000 too high? If bombing terrorists works, why are over 2500 soldiers dead and over ten thousand injured? Why should we stay in Iraq despite the fact that Iraqis don't want us there?
If there was a serial killer loose in NYC, you would not bomb the state he came from. You would not bomb the neighborhood he hides in. You would not indiscrimantely kill those around him. So why do that to terrorists know that it will create MORE TERRORISTS?
These are of course questions you won't answer and just continue on with spouting your pre-canned responses that you've lapped up like a good doggie from your mindless CNN, Fox News, and all that bullshit. Tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of soldiers will die, but surely you'll still be waving your flag and screaming "BOMB BOMB BOMB IT WORKS!!!"
And what does the Holocaust have anything to do with Iraq, me or even Arabs? Have you blown a fuse in your brain or something? And instead of smearing me as anti-Semitic, could you tell us how Israel is a good ally? You've avoided that question for a while now.
Why are terrorists any different than other criminals? Why should an ineffective strategy be pursued against terrorists that ends up creating more terrorists? Why is the 200,000 too high? If bombing terrorists works, why are over 2500 soldiers dead and over ten thousand injured? Why should we stay in Iraq despite the fact that Iraqis don't want us there?
If there was a serial killer loose in NYC, you would not bomb the state he came from. You would not bomb the neighborhood he hides in. You would not indiscrimantely kill those around him. So why do that to terrorists know that it will create MORE TERRORISTS?
These are of course questions you won't answer and just continue on with spouting your pre-canned responses that you've lapped up like a good doggie from your mindless CNN, Fox News, and all that bullshit. Tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of soldiers will die, but surely you'll still be waving your flag and screaming "BOMB BOMB BOMB IT WORKS!!!"
And what does the Holocaust have anything to do with Iraq, me or even Arabs? Have you blown a fuse in your brain or something? And instead of smearing me as anti-Semitic, could you tell us how Israel is a good ally? You've avoided that question for a while now.
andkon on Jun 22, 2006 @ 21:02 wrote
Here's a good page answering 9/11 and "why do they hate us":
http://www.isometry.com/usahate.html
http://tinyurl.com/m6jyy
http://www.isometry.com/usahate.html
http://tinyurl.com/m6jyy
Nate-Dawg on Jun 22, 2006 @ 22:50 wrote
Israel is a good ally becuase they have always been on our side and they share nuclear and other bomb intelligence with us. They also have a good record for never threating to attack an Allied country, or actually attacking an allied country like other Middle Eastern countries have including Iraq, Iran, Syria, and others.
andkon on Jun 22, 2006 @ 23:03 wrote
The Israeli ally stuff is total nonsense: they don't send troops to anywhere and the intelligence they share is godawful, the whole WMD and dubious al-Qaeda links in Iraq. The only reason the US is allied with Israel is because they buy our weapons, which in turn produces more terrorists for them. It's that simple.
And get your facts straight, or preferably not from CNN/Fox News/Bullshit:
Iraq has never threathened to attack the United States: Saddam was our dear ally until 1991, including when the US government turned a blind eye to his genocide. Even after a brutal sanctions regime that has killed hundreds of thousands through starvation after the Gulf War according to the UN, Iraq has not threathened America. That's the real surprise.
Syria has never threathened to attack the United States, although we did overthrow their democratically elected government in 1949, which is the reason why they have a hostile government today.
Iran has never threathened to attack the United States, even though we overthrew their democratic government and installed a dictator which then led to Islamic Revolution. The President of Iran has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map, but that's not America and that's an altogether different story. Stop conflating and confusing things.
And get your facts straight, or preferably not from CNN/Fox News/Bullshit:
Iraq has never threathened to attack the United States: Saddam was our dear ally until 1991, including when the US government turned a blind eye to his genocide. Even after a brutal sanctions regime that has killed hundreds of thousands through starvation after the Gulf War according to the UN, Iraq has not threathened America. That's the real surprise.
Syria has never threathened to attack the United States, although we did overthrow their democratically elected government in 1949, which is the reason why they have a hostile government today.
Iran has never threathened to attack the United States, even though we overthrew their democratic government and installed a dictator which then led to Islamic Revolution. The President of Iran has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map, but that's not America and that's an altogether different story. Stop conflating and confusing things.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 22, 2006 @ 23:49 wrote
So are you saying all 3 of those countries are totally harmless and innocent and had no one linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Thats far-fetched to say the least!
andkon on Jun 22, 2006 @ 23:59 wrote
No, I'm not saying that all are harmless (although NONE OF THEM had connections to 9/11), but that's beside the point. The United States likes to use the evil of others as a pretense to invade countries for its own selfish purposes. Yeah, Saddam is a bad guy, but that doesn't mean invading his oil-soaked country is the only option.
I'm merely correcting your *completely* inaccurate statements. I find it frustrating that this discourse follows this basic trend:
Nate: Hitler liked to murder puppies by suffocating them.
Andkon: No, he didn't.
Nate: Are you saying the Holocaust never happened?
Here's a fun video for everyone: http://tinyurl.com/qf9wv
And here's a list of arguments that don't work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
I'm merely correcting your *completely* inaccurate statements. I find it frustrating that this discourse follows this basic trend:
Nate: Hitler liked to murder puppies by suffocating them.
Andkon: No, he didn't.
Nate: Are you saying the Holocaust never happened?
Here's a fun video for everyone: http://tinyurl.com/qf9wv
And here's a list of arguments that don't work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
red meat on Jun 23, 2006 @ 02:55 wrote
Anyone who is reading this argument can see that Andras is right. Nate's word's are no more than completely innacurate. And you should've listened to us when we said don't debate with Andkon, unless you have everything sorted and it's factual, from actual sources.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 23, 2006 @ 23:47 wrote
You can shut up red meat, I have actual sources... and Andkons sources are liberals who bend and stretch the truth... And my sources are factual if you would actually read them... idiot
Nate-Dawg on Jun 23, 2006 @ 23:55 wrote
Also, Andkon, if you are so certain you are right, go make a call to Michael Savage, he tells the truth, unlike you... I agree with almost all of his political views
andkon on Jun 24, 2006 @ 02:10 wrote
There's a difference in sources: there's sources like Michael Savage (who was fired from MSNBC for telling a gay listener to go die from AIDS) which are merely opinions and sources which are actually facts. People can use these facts to make an honest interpretation or forego that part and just use old biases.
It's unfortunate so many in America just want someone to reinforce their preconceived conclusions: a first-world country with a miseducated third-world population.
It's unfortunate so many in America just want someone to reinforce their preconceived conclusions: a first-world country with a miseducated third-world population.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 24, 2006 @ 02:15 wrote
I guess you support gays... or am I wrong?
red meat on Jun 24, 2006 @ 02:59 wrote
Did I direct that comment toward you? No, I didn't. What I said was in a general sense. (the sources part)
Nate-Dawg on Jun 24, 2006 @ 03:01 wrote
Then how come you said that Michael Savage was fired for telling a gay to die from AIDS? Theres nothing wrong with him saying that.
Nate-Dawg on Jun 24, 2006 @ 03:14 wrote
Sorry i thought Andkon said that last comment so diregard the last post, and red meat shut up! You did direct that comment towards me u idiot and you know it, you even said my name!
andkon on Jun 24, 2006 @ 04:05 wrote
Savage belongs to a special class of small-minded bigots. He has called for the arrest of politicians based solely on their opinions, the murder of a 100 million Muslims, and said hundreds of thousands of Americans need to go internment camps for having the wrong beliefs.
Of course, he's a millionaire from all the garbage he has sold.
Of course, he's a millionaire from all the garbage he has sold.
red meat on Jun 24, 2006 @ 20:46 wrote
Which is why I said only the sources part was directed toward you in my post. The other half wasn't.
andkon on Jun 25, 2006 @ 05:49 wrote
By far, this is the most commented entry ever. Considering how there's at least 100 readers every single day, I'm not sure why this doesn't happen everyday.