The nazi bastard coming to NYC.

otheadp said:
don't you see the difference btwn Iranian and US interests?

don't you see that the US interests are better for Iraq (and the world)?

come on, i know you can do it, i know you can pass judgement on the mullah's that isn't favourable.
Click to expand...

US interests only favor the US, the Middle East has 60 years of proof. Go to Iraq and ask any Iraqi what he thinks about US interests in Iraq. His response would be similar to an Israeli who faced similar intervention from any of their neighbors.

Of course, they also protect Israel from any blowback for their atrocities, so I assume your "world" is limited to the US and Israel.

Neither the last 60 years of intervention nor the "free trade" policies adopted by the US endear its policies to the world.


Besides, if you favour destroying a country for "your interests" then its hypocritical of you to blame others for feeling the same way about yours, with much greater justification.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
Just the liberal mantry, as they bend over and take it,

Please Sir May I Have Another!
Click to expand...

Would that be before or after Ollie North gave you a reach-around?

Hey, maybe he and Ahmendinajad can give a symposium on secret wars of terror!
 
otheadp said:
are you fucken kiddin me?
Click to expand...

Not at all. You are promoting war, torture and illegal detention (are you American?) of a foreign head of state, and without providing any evidence calling that person a member of the nazi party or ideology.
 
LOOOOLLL

so much irony

the war monger who does torture (not just promote it), who kidnaps and otherwise illegally detains (e.g. British sailors) and who promotes genocide openly, who only 1 day before presided a military parade with signs "death to Israel" and "death to America", he gets a free pass, and i get an infraction?

if you want some evidence about him being a nazi (by, for instance, spewing the same talking pionts), there is google and there is the search function in sci - look at my previous posts.
 
The most dangerous country in the world. Poll after poll: the USA
The most dangerous man: George the moron Bush

More likely:

The USA invading it's 26th unprovoked country in this century?
or
Iran invading it's first?

The USA attacking Iran?
or
Iran attacking the USA?

One whacko leader believes in some Islamic prophecy and the US creationist President believes in the mythology of the anti-christ and the Apocalypse.

One of the above coutries has 6,000 nuclear weapons, condones torture and made up lies that led to the killing of killed of hundreds thousands of Iraqi civilians.
 
S.A.M. said:
Most of the "terrorism' in Iraq is from Sunnis and Saudi infiltrators. Including the ones that result in the death of US troops. Most of them are war criminals and are leftovers of Saddams troops. And they are armed by the US troops.
Click to expand...

Yes; just ignore the silly terrorism that we account for, evil US-type-people-whom-we-love. We only account for 5% of all deaths! Surely you can give us a measely 5%? That's nothing. It's not even significant!

The steps one will go to. :rolleyes: It isn't a game, you know.

Can you spell D-u-h?
Click to expand...

I can think of another three letters it might be replaced with at the moment.
 
oreodont said:
The most dangerous country in the world. Poll after poll: the USA
The most dangerous man: George the moron Bush

More likely:

The USA invading it's 26th unprovoked country in this century?
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, aside from Iraq, this time, how many countries has the U.S. invaded unprovoked?
 
GeoffP said:
Yes; just ignore the silly terrorism that we account for, evil US-type-people-whom-we-love. We only account for 5% of all deaths! Surely you can give us a measely 5%? That's nothing. It's not even significant!

The steps one will go to. :rolleyes: It isn't a game, you know.



I can think of another three letters it might be replaced with at the moment.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding! You don't do body counts, remember?:rolleyes:

You even malign established methods of counting, established institutes and scientists who use standardised methods. Obviously you are favoring the party line. Sorry. Bushwhacked people are not taken seriously.
 
Neither are pseudoscientists, actually; especially when they support disease-incidence models being misapplied to a disrupted system with an adversarial bent in response.

"Bushwhacked", indeed.
 
Ignorance is bliss

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions.
Click to expand...

You wanna decry the estimates from all conflict ridden regions?

The same methods are also used elsewhere. Can you guess?
 
Wow; the authors themselves feel their methods were just dandy. I guess ignorance really is bliss. Supporting references? Were these used as the definitive estimates in the Congo, Kosovo and the Sudan?

Can the authors guess why surveying a community to find out how many people were killed by bombings from an occupying power might result in upward bias of their estimates? Just for the sake of reference, that's 539 occupation-related deaths per day (654,935/~1215 days). Does this seem likely? And, just for the sake of reference, the 'estimate' includes that little thing known as the Iraqi war, while seeming to make no distinction between soldiers and civilians; seems likely some of the former died in the war.

Lastly, the estimate occurs in the Gilbert-friendly Lancet, which gave up its claim to fair reporting last year.
 
See the other thread for your personal contribution to the truth.

And its not just the authors' opinions:

Dr. Ben Coghlan, an epidemiologist in Melbourne Australia, writes: "The US Congress should agree: in June this year [2006] they unanimously passed a bill outlining financial and political measures to promote relief, security and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The bill was based in part on the veracity of a survey conducted by the Burnet Institute (Melbourne) and the International Rescue Committee (New York) that found 3.9 million Congolese had perished because of the conflict. This survey used the same methodology as Burnham and his associates. It also passed the scrutiny of a UK parliamentary delegation and the European Union."[64] Burnham is one of the authors of both of the Lancet studies.
Click to expand...
 
S.A.M. said:
See the other thread for your personal contribution to the truth.
Click to expand...

Seen; sorry if rationality doesn't fit your bill today. Any evidence of those 533 deaths/day?

And its not just the authors' opinions:
Click to expand...

Uh huh. And David Icke has how many followers? What is the relevance of your comment, if the sampling methodology is flawed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top