If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Iraq elections "a resounding success." You submitted this with a red-and-blue state headline   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 1432
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

15272 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jan 2005 at 3:45 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1432 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-01-30 08:18:30 PM
BillCosby

That second picture is the best I have seen all day. Really moving.

That's a keeper, thanks.
 
2005-01-30 08:18:34 PM
nerfball:

so you admit that your claim that we have killed 'hundreds of thousands' of civillians if entirely untrue? now, (without adding a zero or three to your numbers) go find out how many died each year at the hands of saddam, usay and odai. do you really want me to start offering posts as to what great wonderful guys usay and odai were? do you really think the iraqi people would rather they were still around?

Who gives a fark what the damn body count is. Innocent people have died and that sucks no matter what side of the debate your on.

Just leave it at that.

/please
 
2005-01-30 08:18:35 PM
Swindmill:

/tired of hearing people's baseless assertions

i repeat my contention that teddy kennedy is an embarrasment to the liberal left and the recent tack he has taken is utterly disgusting. this is not only my opinion, but the opinion of others (as i have supported). i will not waste my time to detail each disgusting speech he has recently given. ted kennedy is not worthy of my time.
 
2005-01-30 08:20:23 PM
Calvin Hobbes, Amnesty International puts it at "hundreds of thousands" since 1980. Disappearances, that is.

link

As for mass killings and executions, the numbers are understandably less specific due to lack of witnesses. Whether they constitute an accumulation of more hundreds of thousands, or whether the numbers inter-relate to some extent can't be known for sure.

link
 
2005-01-30 08:20:25 PM
Prospero424:

To be fair, the medical journal "The Lancet" did a study in Iraq and came up with the "over 100,000" number.

Then again, their method was highly suspect and I didn't buy it for a minute.


John Hopkins University did that study and the Lancet published the study
 
2005-01-30 08:21:53 PM
Swindmill

Duly noted.
 
2005-01-30 08:22:43 PM
2005-01-30 08:18:35 PM nerfball

i repeat my contention that teddy kennedy is an embarrasment to the liberal left and the recent tack he has taken is utterly disgusting. this is not only my opinion, but the opinion of others (as i have supported). i will not waste my time to detail each disgusting speech he has recently given. ted kennedy is not worthy of my time.


That's some funny shiat nerfball. Swindmill asks you for your analysis of one of Kennedy's speeches and you counter with someone elses opinion. Swindmill calls you on it and now you claim you will not dignify Kennedy's remarks by actually reading or listening to any of his speeches.

/Again, funny shiat...
 
2005-01-30 08:22:47 PM
First of all, the definition of a WMD:

The legal definition of a ''Weapon of Mass Destruction'' is from Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332 (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title; (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; (C) any weapon involving a disease organism; or (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life. Quoted from WithTheCommand


sarin nerve gas

More warheads
Used in Baghdad

And for those of you who want to say "well, sarin's not a REAL WMD, it doesn't count."

From Wikipedia:

Sarin or GB (O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate) is an extrememly toxic substance that is one of the world's most dangerous weapons of war. As a chemical weapon, it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687, and its production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.
 
2005-01-30 08:22:51 PM
GodsRightHandGimp:

Who gives a fark what the damn body count is.

i didn't start the body count debate. he claimed the americans have killed hundreds of thousands of civillians and it was patently untrue. in fact it was a lie. he made up the number to support a claim that the americans are despicable, disgusting, bloodthursty murders. i was merely proving that the claim was a lie. yes, people have died. are the americans disgusting bloodthirsty murders? hardly.
 
2005-01-30 08:24:20 PM
re: 'americans are despicable, disgusting, bloodthursty murders.'

Several million Vietnamese agree.
But we don't count them either.
 
2005-01-30 08:24:32 PM
nerfball

i repeat my contention that teddy kennedy is an embarrasment to the liberal left and the recent tack he has taken is utterly disgusting. this is not only my opinion, but the opinion of others (as i have supported). i will not waste my time to detail each disgusting speech he has recently given. ted kennedy is not worthy of my time.

Just freaking copy something from Michael Savage's website already - You obviously can't form your own opinion.
 
2005-01-30 08:24:44 PM
[indistinct laughter] - Show your Iraqi patriotism; go finger a smurf!


/hides in closet until '08
 
2005-01-30 08:25:12 PM
nerfball:

i repeat my contention that teddy kennedy is an embarrasment to the liberal left and the recent tack he has taken is utterly disgusting. this is not only my opinion, but the opinion of others (as i have supported). i will not waste my time to detail each disgusting speech he has recently given. ted kennedy is not worthy of my time.

What is it about the "tack" he is taking that is disgusting?
You seem to know very little, but you are great at shouting what others say, even when you don't know why they say it.
 
2005-01-30 08:25:32 PM
nerfball, et al

On a higher level, don't you find it amazing that on pretty much every issue of the day, the modern Dem leadership has positioned themselves so that anything that is bad for America is good for them?

As you pointed out, if you want to go back to the prior regime, you must defend the behavior of Uday and Qusay if you are against it today.

Same goes for the economy. A tanking economy would've meant better votes for Kerry, so they kept talking it down. Same goes for our own war casualties...how many times have we seen gleeful libs posting pics of flag laden coffins to make a point?

It's sad...why can't you say 'we can improve the economy better than Bush' rather than 'the economy is horrible, elect us'
 
2005-01-30 08:26:38 PM
Churchy LaFemme:

/Again, funny shiat...

again, teddy kennedy isn't worth my time. i won't waste my effort dissecting a speech of a guy who wouldn't save me if i were drowning.

follow him if you want to. he's emblematic of the cancer within the democratic party.
 
2005-01-30 08:28:28 PM
TheGoblinKing [TotalFark]

It's sad...why can't you say 'we can improve the economy better than Bush' rather than 'the economy is horrible, elect us'

Did they say that? Are you sure? Could it have been that the said something about the economy prior to Bush taking over? Are you making shiat up?
 
2005-01-30 08:28:28 PM
2005-01-30 08:26:38 PM nerfball

follow him if you want to. he's emblematic of the cancer within the democratic party.


Wow. You've pretty well demonstrated why you're on my 'silliest farkers' list today...

/Nitey-nite all.
 
2005-01-30 08:28:38 PM
OralB:

Just freaking copy something from Michael Savage's website already - You obviously can't form your own opinion.

it was hindraker, not savage. and my opinion coincides with the author's (and many, many others).
 
2005-01-30 08:29:06 PM
re: Lancet"

100,000 number:
Debate focused on whether a sample size of 7800 people used by a team of US and Iraqi academics was sufficiently large, and whether 33 neighbourhoods chosen were fairly representative of the rest of the country. Presidental Polls (Kerry Bush) usually have ~1200, and they were accurate. But I really don't know.

30,000 number:
Number comes counting casualties by using documents, such as press reports. Expected to be an underestimate.
 
2005-01-30 08:29:12 PM
I think I'm getting out of this logic/reason vacuum before my brain a splode.
 
2005-01-30 08:29:37 PM
There is a huge difference between *wanting our efforts to fail in Iraq* and *alerting people to the fact that our efforts are failing in Iraq*.

This conservative line that "whining liberals WANT democracy to fail so that Bush will look bad is crap.

It's like saying people who are watching a train wreck and screaming for people to get out of the way want the train to crash and are cheering for lots of people to die.
 
2005-01-30 08:29:46 PM
nerfball

again, teddy kennedy isn't worth my time. i won't waste my effort dissecting a speech of a guy who wouldn't save me if i were drowning.

Would someone email this dildo a summary of a Teddy speech so he'll stop making himself look like an ass. TIA.
 
2005-01-30 08:29:52 PM
Churchy LaFemme:

You've pretty well demonstrated why you're on my 'silliest farkers' list today...


i'll take that as a badge of honor.
 
2005-01-30 08:30:49 PM
a_cure_for_gravity, isn't that cool? We finally corrected our mistake!

Churchy Lafemme, thank you. Obviously, the decision wasn't as flippant as desiring to prove "the other side wrong", though. It's the best way I could think of to help my country: help our people in harms way to safely accomplish their objections in order to bring them home as quickly as possible. Right or wrong, I want us to pull through as best we can.
 
2005-01-30 08:31:00 PM
nerfball:

2005-01-30 08:22:51 PM nerfball

GodsRightHandGimp:

Who gives a fark what the damn body count is.

i didn't start the body count debate. he claimed the americans have killed hundreds of thousands of civillians and it was patently untrue. in fact it was a lie. he made up the number to support a claim that the americans are despicable, disgusting, bloodthursty murders. i was merely proving that the claim was a lie. yes, people have died. are the americans disgusting bloodthirsty murders? hardly.



It is not patently untrue or a lie. The real number is currently unkown.
 
2005-01-30 08:31:40 PM
OralB,

Did they say that? Yes.

Are you sure? Yes.

Could it have been that the said something about the economy prior to Bush taking over? Huh?

Are you making shiat up? No.
 
2005-01-30 08:32:39 PM
You're missing the point friend, our original reason for going was for the EMERGENCY situation of a rogue government possessing TONS of biological, chemical, and possible nuclear weapons. A country with strong allied ties to Al-Queda. A country desperate to use any weapons it could to bring genocide unto the United States.

Actually, Bush said we can't wait for an imminent threat. or it's too late.

Yeah, I'm sure that Saddam didn't move all the WMD's to Syria in the 13 month "rush to war" before we invaded.
 
2005-01-30 08:33:21 PM
nerfball,

You are obviously a little uptight tonight. Also, I find it incredible that you are able to type so much yet not read a darn thing. Its like you take every post, skim it, decided whoever wrote it is a damn dirty lying liberal, and procede to flame them.

The most accurate current of Iraqi civilians body count is, and I quote, and I quote myself as well, in the 10s of thousands. Where in the 10s of thousands it is cannot be known at this time.

What I do know is that the terror the US has inflicted in Iraq dwarfs the terror inflicted by 9/11. Now it is certainly true that Saddam Hussein inflicted an equal amount of terror on his own people. The US government taught him well.

Once again, so I am absolutely clear: I committed a typo in my previous post.

Fark off. If you want to get into a flame-war, send me an e-mail and I will return every bit of the angry, bitter, vindictive and self-righteous rhetoric you give out (with a little delay, because I am at work putting in doctor's orders) with one small difference: Mine will ALWAYS be backed by the facts and a methodical, reasonable, and empirical argument formed by using logic and reason.

Fark off.
 
2005-01-30 08:33:39 PM
I only read the first 15 comments or so, and I have just one request. If anyone knows or is in the vicinty of BuckShot please feel free to distribute an agressive UFIA to him. Buckshot stop your farking pansy ass liberal whining. Just be happy when something great happens to people who have been oppressed for three decades. Once again freedom chumps all and congrats to all Iraqis.
 
2005-01-30 08:35:02 PM
TheGoblinKing

Really? I could have sworn the Democrats kept pointing out how well the economy was doing prior to 2000. If you say they didn't mention the unemployment rate or the budget surplus I'll take your word for it but I swear I remember them mentioning it once maybe.

Wait a minute you are making shiat up! Damn!
 
2005-01-30 08:35:23 PM
SiON42X:

1:) Traces of Sarin does not make MASSIVE STOCKPILES OF WMD.
2:) Traces of- well, you get the point.
3:) Oh, it was an IED that had the sarin? That a terrorist could have obtained from anywhere? And this pertains to Saddam how?

And before you say it, yes Saddam had WMD. HAD. Meaning, it wasn't there when we invaded, and there isn't any now. I've seen some of the intel, and as I am fond of saying:

Dubya's a goddamn fool, he is. Other Presidents would have had the sense to order the CIA to plant some WMD by now.
 
2005-01-30 08:35:27 PM
Since Chimpy is now going around the world like Johnny farking Appleseed spreading peace and democracy to the barbarian hordes, does that mean that he is like, Iraqs 'founding father'?
Maybe some day Iraq will declare a national holiday in Chimpy's honor?
 
2005-01-30 08:35:39 PM
BillCosby:

It is not patently untrue or a lie. The real number is currently unkown.

if its unknown, he still shouldn't have been claiming definitively that the number is in the hundreds of thousands. again, if the number is unknown, any figure has to be estimated or fabricated. he posted his source that claimed the number to be 17789.

bottom line, he fabricated the casualty figure. much like dan rather, he lied.
 
2005-01-30 08:35:42 PM
What liberals (except Tony Blair) are against:

 
2005-01-30 08:37:41 PM
uclajd: Against what? Helping insurgents tell voters from non-voters?
 
2005-01-30 08:38:07 PM
BBanzai:

Now please stop waving your arms and bouncing up and down. The grown-ups have recognized your presence.

Considering you haven't exhibited much that would qualify as
coming from adult thinking, I find it strange that you could
figure out what adults recognize.

Any more pithy pearls of wisdom you want to share?

Yeah, yeah, my posts to you have been a little ascebic, but
I made quite a few points that really should be addressed. Unless, of course, you can't.

SiON42X:

Why is it that when a republican president does badly, it's always his fault; when he does well, it's credited to the democratic president before him or the democrats in congress. When a democrat does well they're praised; when they do bad it's blamed on democrats.

Holy Jeebus. Do you hear yourself? Do I need to remind you of the bullshiat the "conservatives" pulled when GWB's predecessor was in office.

It's pretty naive to think that the "liberals" have any corner on that kind of shenanigans.

Why? It's because liberals are complainers. You call conservatives 'idiots' because we can't debate your points?

Surely, you're not implying that all people with liberal leanings have the same exact opinion on every issue. I mean, you're not, right? I mean, I know you _are_, but I'm giving
you an option to weasel out from under it.
 
2005-01-30 08:38:33 PM
SiON42X:

2005-01-30 08:22:47 PM SiON42X

The legal definition of a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' is [...]

sarin nerve gas
More warheads
Used in Baghdad



Why did the WMD search end without anyone from the administration announcing discovery?
reputable news source
 
2005-01-30 08:38:52 PM
lexslamman:

Once again, so I am absolutely clear: I committed a typo in my previous post.

how is it a typo to misspell the word 'tens' as 'hundreds'?

it was a fabricated figure used to support a baseless contention. in short, you got caught in a lie.

/laughing hysterically at the moment
 
2005-01-30 08:38:59 PM
And people like uclajd are exactly who I was talking about in my 2005-01-30 07:36:56 PM post.

They don't care about Iraqi democracy. They just want to use this opportunity to once again biatch about "liberals". It's pathetic.
 
2005-01-30 08:39:36 PM
Congrats to Iraq. I thought heaps more would die standing in line to vote. 33 isnt that bad in the grand scheme of things.

I really hope this means a stable government will exist in Iraq, just like Bush said would happen.

However, i dont like the chances of this happening. I do not believe that all problems will miraculously be solved as soon as the new government is installed. There are too many other complex issues surronding that region, let alone that country which has issues that need to be resolved, and will not be resolved so easily.

Whats more, after so many years of lies and half-truths, I have no faith that the elections really were a "resounding success". Face it, this statement was made way too early.

Again, I really hope it all goes well, but lets just wait till we know the full story.
 
2005-01-30 08:40:12 PM
 
2005-01-30 08:40:22 PM
Since America was so gratious in going in there and creating a democracy in Iraq, I'm sure all of you agree the U.S. should be so kind as to invade 30 more countries to free those people...
 
2005-01-30 08:41:52 PM
*gracious*...

GRACIOUS*

I'm so disappointed in myself...
 
2005-01-30 08:41:58 PM
Steve French, what would you know of honor? One thing I quickly learned in persuit of service is that it is not a term to be cast lightly.

Seriously, what do you know about honor?
 
2005-01-30 08:42:04 PM
SiON42X:

By the way, everyone here DOES know that we DID find WMDs in Iraq, right? Even though it only made 3rd page news because it's not popular, with all the intellectual giants in here I know you must have noticed...right?

It made page three because it wasn't significant enough to make page 1. But you knew that.
 
2005-01-30 08:43:09 PM
uclajd

Gee, that brush is mighty big. I notice you're not in Iraq supporting the administration you blindly defend. But then again, as per the Neocon suckup portion of Fark, your actions will never truly match your words, you will post here and tell us liberals what we're against without ever truly knowing an original thought outside of the Message of the Day fed to you courtesy of Rove.

Sweet tasty Christ on a stick, you Bushbots get more annoying by the second.

/Pot, this is kettle.
//Blackness Confirmed.
 
2005-01-30 08:43:24 PM
Kuroyama, yeah I figured the argument would be, "Well, they didn't have a LOT of WMD, just a widdle."

Did you note the lines:

any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors

As a chemical weapon, it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687, and its production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

NOWHERE in there does it say it has to be a massive stockpile. Just because it's not a BIG ENOUGH pile of WMDs doesn't mean it's not a WMD. We DID, I repeat, DID find WMDs in Iraq.

As for "well, well, how do we know it was Saddams?" Insurgents had WMDs in their position, Saddam used to have a ton of WMDs. Saddam wouldn't comply with UN sanctions for the longest time. Where's the problem bridging the logical gap to see the result?

As for Other Presidents would have had the sense to order the CIA to plant some WMD by now., trust a liberal to rather a president that lies to the public than one who lets the results speak for themselves, for better or for worse.
 
2005-01-30 08:43:52 PM
LawrencePerson:

Here's Jim Geraghty's roundup of a few of the many liberals (this batch also on DU) who are devestated by the successful Iraqi election.

Hey, asshat: DU is not where you go to find out the opinions of liberal leaning people.

How many different ways do people need to tell you this?

Troll or Moron, you decide.
 
2005-01-30 08:44:27 PM
a_cure_for_gravity

What are all the neocons cheering about?

That they have prevailed and the paleocons have not.

I don't get it when liberals make this specious argument. Should we have stayed with cold-blooded realism, or changed to democratic realism? Which one are you for? Should we continue to prop up dictators?

News flash: George W. Bush was not president when that photo was taken. George W. Bush is not responsible for the realist polcies of previous administrations. The realist policies of previous administrations have no bearing on 2005's neoconservative policy.

Neo= "new". Why should those who have broken with the paleocons (and many realist Democrats) be responsible for the latter's mistakes?
 
2005-01-30 08:44:46 PM
Prospero424:

They don't care about Iraqi democracy. They just want to use this opportunity to once again biatch about "liberals". It's pathetic.

And they have the balls to call "liberals" whiny.

Pot meet kettle.
 
Displayed 50 of 1432 comments

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report