AndyVocoustic Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Woah!!!!!!!!!! 8O 8O Good decision Blair!!!!!! Every MP who voted for the War in March 2003 has a fair amount of blood on their hands! http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1842559.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 And anyone who votes for Labour this next election is letting them get away with it. There are lots of sensible alternatives: Lib Dem, Green, SDLP, SNP, etc. Please make sure to use your vote to show Labour what you think of their atrocious job of runnishing this nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 655,000 out of a population of 26,000,000 is about 1 in every 39 people dead. Thats pretty good going, at this rate there will be no-one left to take part in the democracy we are trying to be establish No sign of an end either: no exit strategy, and the trigger happy yanks still shooting the shucks out of anything that moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Its not us killing many of them now, its insurgents. I say let them fight their civil war and just make sure we have access to the oil as we wanted all along. After all truthfully in the UK a few more dead Iraqis wont make any difference but the cost of fuel at the pumps will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 How many of the 655,000 are dead because of a bullet or explosives with "Made in the USA" stamped on it, and used by US enlisted personnel, and how many of the 655,000 are dead because some Afghan/Pakastani/Saudi/Iranian/Egyptian/whoever/whatever using whatever hellery of killing materials he could scran from wherever/whoever wanted for no other cause or reason than for the hell of it, just to keep the melting pot bubbling? As with all "surverys" asking a randon sample of 1849 from an estimated 26 million (less that 0.01%) is hardly to be considered even remotely as accurate science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Its not us killing many of them now, its insurgents. According to the report, 31% of the 655,000 deaths were caused by US/UK forces. I say let them fight their civil war and just make sure we have access to the oil as we wanted all along. After all truthfully in the UK a few more dead Iraqis wont make any difference but the cost of fuel at the pumps will.Is the wrong answer. We won't have access to the oil until the security situation in Iraq has vastly improved. When we kill Iraqis, we simply create more insurgents, making the security situation worse, not better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 As with all "surverys" asking a randon sample of 1849 from an estimated 26 million (less that 0.01%) is hardly to be considered even remotely as accurate science. The sample was 1849 households, not 1849 individuals. The authors of the Lancet report have also produced estimates for the numbers of deaths in Darfur, and the Congo, but nobody seems to be questioning those results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFly Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 After all truthfully in the UK a few more dead Iraqis wont make any difference but the cost of fuel at the pumps will. That is one of the most vile and despicable things anyone has said so far on this forum. And there have been some truly vile and despicable thing said........ 8O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 After all truthfully in the UK a few more dead Iraqis wont make any difference but the cost of fuel at the pumps will. That is one of the most vile and despicable things anyone has said so far on this forum. To be fair, he's not saying that this is the correct view, nor how it should be... just the sad truth; most people can't or wont see past the end of their noses. Folks look out for themselves and the price of fuel is going to have a more noticable effect than the number of casualties in a distant war. Knowing something is not the same as it having a direct and recognisable effect on your life. It is wrong but Styles isn't the only one promoting this situation - we're all guilty of it. Have you stopped driving your car in protest? It is for the same reason that we allow children to starve in far-off places and yet all rush out to purchase the latest Wii, or PSP3 on our credit-cards... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Its not us killing many of them now, its insurgents. According to the report, 31% of the 655,000 deaths were caused by US/UK forces. Define "caused". Also, what were the victim's own role(s) as regards culpability for their own demise, what did their personally define their status as at thier time of death? eg. "Freedom Fighter" or "innocent passer-by" etc etc. I say let them fight their civil war and just make sure we have access to the oil as we wanted all along. After all truthfully in the UK a few more dead Iraqis wont make any difference but the cost of fuel at the pumps will.Is the wrong answer. We won't have access to the oil until the security situation in Iraq has vastly improved. When we kill Iraqis, we simply create more insurgents, making the security situation worse, not better. Very curious how you got from A to B with that cause/conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distortio Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 war in large oil producing country = high oil prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyVocoustic Posted October 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 After all truthfully in the UK a few more dead Iraqis wont make any difference but the cost of fuel at the pumps will. That is one of the most vile and despicable things anyone has said so far on this forum. And there have been some truly vile and despicable thing said........ 8O Here Here! Dispicable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 After all truthfully in the UK a few more dead Iraqis wont make any difference but the cost of fuel at the pumps will. That is one of the most vile and despicable things anyone has said so far on this forum. And there have been some truly vile and despicable thing said........ 8O I know its a horrible thing to say, but the reality is that people I know only moan about the price of fuel and dont care what happens to Iraqis. To most people in the UK the death of Iraqis has no impact in their day to day lives while the price of fuel does. The whole operation was to secure the oil that the US and UK need anything else is a smoke screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 As with all "surverys" asking a randon sample of 1849 from an estimated 26 million (less that 0.01%) is hardly to be considered even remotely as accurate science. The sample was 1849 households, not 1849 individuals. A team of Iraqi doctors asked heads of households how many members had lost their lives in the year before the invasion in March 2003 and then in the three subsequent years. The head of a household is one individual. How reliable and unbiasied are Iraqi Doctors asking "random" Iraqi citizens anyway? The authors of the Lancet report have also produced estimates for the numbers of deaths in Darfur, and the Congo, but nobody seems to be questioning those result Because nobody is posting said results on this board and insinuating 100% of the culpability for that alleged victim total lies with only one entity, when in reality multiple entities and circumstances actually share that culpability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Its not us killing many of them now, its insurgents. According to the report, 31% of the 655,000 deaths were caused by US/UK forces. Define "caused". As in "shot or blown up by".Also, what were the victim's own role(s) as regards culpability for their own demise, what did their personally define their status as at thier time of death? eg. "Freedom Fighter" or "innocent passer-by" etc etc.I don't know without the report in front of me, but you could try googling for it. I say let them fight their civil war and just make sure we have access to the oil as we wanted all along. After all truthfully in the UK a few more dead Iraqis wont make any difference but the cost of fuel at the pumps will.Is the wrong answer. We won't have access to the oil until the security situation in Iraq has vastly improved. When we kill Iraqis, we simply create more insurgents, making the security situation worse, not better. Very curious how you got from A to B with that cause/conclusion. I can only speak for myself, but if some soldiers killed a member of my family, I would probably hold a less favorable opinion of those soldiers as a consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.