quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:
So what you are saying is you don't trust the numbers because they are Iranian - despite the fact that you Toronto Star backs up those numbers from various other sources. You clearly did not read the source in full.

I'm saying I find the fact you're quoting Iranian numbers a hypocritical thing to do. And I did read the whole article; people are saying "alleged". "Allegedly killed." But whatever. I honestly don't see the point of arguing anymore.

quote:

Please find me a credible estimate that says several hundred.

You won't appreciate whatever I give you because you'll just decide, off the top of your head, that it's not true. Actually I kinda can't remember where I got that one from; give me a few days to get it, since I'mma be busy for a while.

quote:

I admit, my original estimate was higher than reality.

That was brave.

quote:

So you are still grasping to ingornat arguement that all Arabs are the same so when an Arab attacks an Iraqi it is a civil war.

They're united as being Arabs, just as the Irish and the Scottish are united as being British. And I've lived there; I know.

quote:

The south left the Union, do you not understand that? They were united by the same country up to the civil war. Iran, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia were not the same country as Iraq prior to the US invasion. Based on you US civil war statement I don't think you have a firm grasp of what a civil war actually is.

Ah, but they were up until the Lawrence of Arabia incident. That'd be 1922, almost 90 years ago. Ever since then Arabs were divided-up, but I'll tell you that an Egyptian is treated like a brother in the, for example, Jordanian community (most of it anyways - and the government sucks).

quote:

In all honesty, I am shocked that you are taking this position which reflects a lack of intellectual competenace in this area. I suggest you drop this arguement that all Arabs are the same before you make a fool of yourself further.

Oh you know what, stop cherry-picking. I said that foreign insurgents - and we don't even know if they're all Arabs - play a role in bombings, but SO DO IRAQIS. And it's not a 90-10 split, either, since the Shi'a and Sunnis are at each other's throats..or what's left of them after the bombs go off. And another thing: there's been some attempts at Arab-Unity over the years, proving that Arabs are brothers at heart, even if the governments - and foreigners, like Americans or Canadians - wouldn't know about it.

quote:

Because I can't find one valid source that 100 Iraqis die a day in Iraq. Please provide one that says 100 Iraqis are dying a day and we can talk. Until then, there is no need to wast time discussing your radical numbers.

I don't suppose you'll discredit this, will you?

quote:

You numbers are based on 600 interviews - not death tolls. In the future, try to stay away from Wikipedia, it makes you look incapable of finding a credible source.

You seem to find Wikipedia more reliable than the stuff I provide, because the stuff I provide just doesn't agree with what you want it to say. Speaking of which, most of the sources I give you were taking from the "References" Wikipedia uses.

Oh, and since most people find them reliable enough, I do too. Please, CNN isn't the only good place. In fact CNN is downright terrible.

quote:

I'm still waiting for your proof that says I have denied Iraqi on Iraqi violence. Please provide it. Perhaps it is you that skims my posts and simply assume what you want. Before you make any future claims that I have denied Iraqi on iraqi violence please provide proof or you will be labeled as a liar.

I thought you said it was a minority? To quote: "the fact that the overwhelming majority of attacks in Iraq are coming from FOREIGN insurgents."

Now, I didn't say you denied the violence existed; I said you didn't think it adds-up to Civil War. Which it does. Like a trillion links I've used say.

quote:

Unfortantly, your lack of credibility to this point has forced me to not read the rest of your post. Please be more observant and make credible arguements for this discussion continue.

Blah blah blah, go find yourself a valid argument. And open-up your mind

quote:

Wikipedia is a great source for basic knowledge and understanding of a subject. It is not a good site for in depth research. You show me a peer reviewed article that uses wikipedia as a citation. Good luck.

What amazes me is that even when I use an article referenced in Wikipedia, it comes-off as being "uncredible". God.

quote:

Find me a school that lets you use wikipedia as a source for research papers and I'll be amazed. Are you really trying to argue that wikipedia is the most credible source?

I honestly do not know what you consider credible. Does it have to agree with your views for it to be?

quote:

That was just the start, canvas. Look at this:
Saddam was a killer

Oh hey, thanks. *reads*

Well, that's interesting. But I'm pretty sure the New York Times said it went overboard with its Iraqi war campaign later. I think I linked t oit somewhere. Still, though. I doubt it's that much but it's still quite a lot, eh? I wonder why he'd do that; this IS taken out of context.

Find me a school that lets you use wikipedia as a source for research papers and I'll be amazed. Are you really trying to argue that wikipedia is the most credible source?

Wikipedia is a collection of sources. It's not supposed to be a source itself. In other words, Wikipedia would use a peer-reviewed article as a source, not vice versa.

quote:

Did you even read what I said? I said I don't know if he killed "tens of thousands of people"; I didn't say he did not kill people. And keep in mind this happened during political. And also, please, keep this in mind: we do not know he killed 5000 people

That was just the start, canvas. Look at this:
Saddam was a killer

quote:

And your disdain of Wikipedia makes you look incapable of recognizing that information on Wikipedia is collected from reliable and verifiable sources. Try reading up on Wikipedia's policies before you immediately call it inaccurate.

Wikipedia is a great source for basic knowledge and understanding of a subject. It is not a good site for in depth research. You show me a peer reviewed article that uses wikipedia as a citation. Good luck.

quote:

notsojoey:
In the future, try to stay away from Wikipedia, it makes you look incapable of finding a credible source.

And your disdain of Wikipedia makes you look incapable of recognizing that information on Wikipedia is collected from reliable and verifiable sources. Try reading up on Wikipedia's policies before you immediately call it inaccurate.

quote:

Did you even read what I said? I said I don't know if he killed "tens of thousands of people";

Here is what you said

quote:

I don't know if he did kill tens of thousands of people, not if he killed at all; I also find it very ironic that you support Bush, and support what he stands for, when here you are quoting Iranian figures in the death of the 5000 Kurds who died during Iraq's political turmoil. You DO know that Iraq and Iran had a war, right? Iran doesn't really like Iraq.

So what you are saying is you don't trust the numbers because they are Iranian - despite the fact that you Toronto Star backs up those numbers from various other sources. You clearly did not read the source in full.

quote:

It's an estimate between several hundred and 5000 - which is very far-off from your "tens of thousands."

Please find me a credible estimate that says several hundred.

quote:

which is very far-off from your "tens of thousands."

I admit, my original estimate was higher than reality.

quote:

Apart from the fact that Iraqis ARE bombing Iraqis - and all you have to do is read the other posts to know that - Arabs are united

So you are still grasping to ingornat arguement that all Arabs are the same so when an Arab attacks an Iraqi it is a civil war.

quote:

But if I recall correctly, the USA's own Civil War was between two governments - the Union, led by Abe Lincoln, and the Confederate States of America, led by Jefferson Davis. They were two seperate entities, fighting, but they were the same country.

The south left the Union, do you not understand that? They were united by the same country up to the civil war. Iran, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia were not the same country as Iraq prior to the US invasion. Based on you US civil war statement I don't think you have a firm grasp of what a civil war actually is.

quote:

And Arabs consider themselves brothers, even if they're divided-up after the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

This is getting absurd. Do you honestly believe that when a FOREIGN country send insurgents into Iraq it is a civil war because of arab brotherhood? And yes, I've heard of the Arab league. If Italy invaded Germany would you call it a civil war because of the European Union. In all honesty, I am shocked that you are taking this position which reflects a lack of intellectual competenace in this area. I suggest you drop this arguement that all Arabs are the same before you make a fool of yourself further.

quote:

Why isn't it a valid number?

Because I can't find one valid source that 100 Iraqis die a day in Iraq. Please provide one that says 100 Iraqis are dying a day and we can talk. Until then, there is no need to wast time discussing your radical numbers.

quote:

I'm sure you'll find it easy to consider that the death toll estimate ranges from 130 000 to 1.2 million for civilians alone.

Unfortunatly for you I will not agree with you. You numbers are based on 600 interviews - not death tolls. Did you actually read your Wiki source? In the future, try to stay away from Wikipedia, it makes you look incapable of finding a credible source.

quote:

raqis are bombimg each other. You can't deny that. And I won't argue with you any further on that matter, because all you have to do is look it up.

I'm still waiting for your proof that says I have denied Iraqi on Iraqi violence. Please provide it. Perhaps it is you that skims my posts and simply assume what you want. Before you make any future claims that I have denied Iraqi on iraqi violence please provide proof or you will be labeled as a liar.

Unfortantly, your lack of credibility to this point has forced me to not read the rest of your post. Please be more observant and make credible arguements for this discussion continue.

Oh Joey, Joey, Joey.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:
Did you even read the links? You're Toronto Star brings up various news outlets that verify Saddam gassed 5,000 of his own Iraqi people. Perhaps you were talking about the other source, from the US Government.

Did you even read what I said? I said I don't know if he killed "tens of thousands of people"; I didn't say he did not kill people. And keep in mind this happened during political. And also, please, keep this in mind: we do not know he killed 5000 people. We ESTIMATE he killed a MAXIMUM of 5000 people. It's an estimate between several hundred and 5000 - which is very far-off from your "tens of thousands." Meaning that you're also being wrong with info.

I should also point-out that the US said Iran was partially responsible - a position they dropped right before the 2003 invasion; and one they've recently adopted once again.

quote:

History lessons from the person who didn't even know Saddam gassed his own citizens.

Permission to weep openly. Right above.

quote:

It is shocking and pathetic that you do not know that there are differences between Arabs. This is like saying that if South Africa invaded Kenya you would call it a civil war because they are all Africans. This road you are going down is very ignorant.

Ah. Let's see now.

Apart from the fact that Iraqis ARE bombing Iraqis - and all you have to do is read the other posts to know that - Arabs are united. See, m'dear, yes, they do have their differences; yes, m'dear, they do have different governments. But if I recall correctly, the USA's own Civil War was between two governments - the Union, led by Abe Lincoln, and the Confederate States of America, led by Jefferson Davis. They were two seperate entities, fighting, but they were the same country.

And Arabs consider themselves brothers, even if they're divided-up after the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Sure, Arabs have their differences; but that's because of their governments. But even those geniuses are trying to fix things. Haven't you ever heard of the Arab League?

quote:

It is very juvenile to ask a question and only allow two answers when the reality is that there are very more. It is even more juvenile to assume that people are dying and that is either because Americans or because of Iraqis killing each other. Are you unwilling to admit that there are combtants in Iraq who are not from Iraq? You're death count from People's Weekly Wolrd is not a valid number - especially when there are many different estimates very far off from 100 death a day.

Why isn't it a valid number? It hasn't been disproved; and it's studied in circles everywhere. Hun, look, just because CNN or MSNBC or even my CBC tell you it's 500 000 or 5000, you have to listen to other sources. Canada and America would not benefit at all if they said that the death toll reached a million. But hey, if you're willing to listen to the people who'll say the average death per day isn't 100, I'm sure you'll find it easy to consider that the death toll estimate ranges from 130 000 to 1.2 million for civilians alone. Since you're going to find Wikipedia more reliable than any source I give you, here you go.

And no, I'm not pretending there aren't any insurgents (what a word by the way, it's like saying "clear and sweep" instead of "search and destroy"), but the Sunni-Shi'a hatred in Iraq went kaboom after the war, and they're bombing each other - Iraqis are bombimg each other. You can't deny that. And I won't argue with you any further on that matter, because all you have to do is look it up. You know what, I'll get you started.

quote:

Yeah, I call it insurgency party. Once again, you seem unwilling to admit that there are other nationalites in Iraq combating against Iraqi people. You are so blinded by your socialist propoganda in Canada that you believe the second there is an Iraqi on Iraqi attack it means it is a civil war despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of attacks in Iraq are coming from FOREIGN insurgents.

You know, I don't even KNOW if insurgents are doing it more than the Iraqis themselves, and neither can anyone because if they did they'd have stopped it by now. And it doesn't more who's doing it MORE; they're still doing it. It's still a civil war. You hit me, I hit you. Civil, and war. If I marched down to Quebec right now, bombed one street, and then they bombed one in two weeks, all the while with Americans bombing us, would that not be considered Civil War even though we're being invaded by a third person?

quote:

Incorrect, you clearly lack an understanding on the definition of victory or failure. If, as you state, we had a flawed objective it would be impossible to ever achieve or fail to achieve that objective. Since we overthrew Saddam, we did not fail.

To quote Bush and Blair, the objectives were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people".

Right, so let's see. You haven't disarmed the weapons, because they never were there; you have stopped Saddam's support for terrorism, but you've created your own (remember, you said it first: INSURGENTS); and you're responsible for the death of 15 000 to 1 200 000 Iraqis, and thus FREEING them. Right. So hey, listen, I'm about to FREE a little girl in Darfur; should I shoot her in the head or should I just throw her in a well? No, wait, how about I rape her mother in front of her? American soldiers have done that, you know. It's FREEDOM.

quote:

Let's see:

Iraq has clearly defined boarders.
Iraq has commerce.
Iraq has a democratic government.
Iraq has a government infrastructure.
FOREIGN insurgents are attacking the dominate power - the UNited States and the Iraqi government.

Since you call acts of violence chaos, you will never be able to admit that Iraq has been conquered by the UNited STates.

Oh my God, you have to be shitting me. You're kidding, right? Please tell me that's a joke? If we started bombing the shit out Washington, killing families, with a good chunk of your children dying of malnutrition, with no law, and some foreign insurgents mixed in and the guys from Kentucky saying they're right, and they're killing your dad and mum even though they have nothing to do with it, and foreign soldiers you don't even want being there - you'd call that ACTS OF VIOLENCE? No, please, have some mercy. I'm sure you're less gullible than that.

quote:

And I bet your in the camp that thinks Iraq has nothing to do with that? You're probably right, the FOREIGN insurgents (terrorists) in Iraqi have enough time to come to America. Or the FOREIGN insurgents (terrorists) are not really concerned of another invasion of an Arab country because of an act of terrorism on American soil.

You know that your answer had nothing to do with my question, right? Like, at all. I asked you what the sum of 12 plus 2 is, you said zebra.

quote:

Prove it - where did I ever say that Iraqis are not killing one another? Please provide me a quote from a previous post of mine.

The role Iraqis play is nominal compared to the actions of FOREIGN insurgents. People were killed in Colorado on monday, do you call that a civil war? WHat is Mexico invaded Texas and a few Texans killed each other, would you call that a civil war instead of an invasion.

There's a difference between a street gang fight and bombing the shit out of each other with no one to protect you. The US is protecting them? Well if they are they're doing a pretty bad job of it.

And once again: insurgents are playing a role, but so are the Iraqi population; you're making it sound like it's 90% insurgents, and 10% Iraqis - which is still a lot, even though it's not true. Either way, great job America. I'm sure the world will love you even more when you shoot down another 2 year old.

quote:

No, and neither does anyone else outside of the Arab world. The only reason you watch it is to tell people you do so they think you are cultured.

There you go, accusing me things I don't even do. But no, actually, a lot of people HERE (in CANADA) read Al-Jazeera articles.

(I should probably add that, in Canada, cultural education is insignificant; you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who is from here. It's such a multi-cultural place.)

quote:

when here you are quoting Iranian figures in the death of the 5000 Kurds who died during Iraq's political turmoil

Did you even read the links? You're Toronto Star brings up various news outlets that verify Saddam gassed 5,000 of his own Iraqi people. Perhaps you were talking about the other source, from the US Government.

quote:

ou DO know that Iraq and Iran had a war, right?

History lessons from the person who didn't even know Saddam gassed his own citizens.

quote:

Oh, yeah, and since Al-Qaeda are the big evil Arabs and Arabs are fighting Arabs, it counts as a Civil War.

It is shocking and pathetic that you do not know that there are differences between Arabs. This is like saying that if South Africa invaded Kenya you would call it a civil war because they are all Africans. This road you are going down is very ignorant.

quote:

Unless you're implying that Al-Qaeda are Americans or that American soldiers are causing the 100 deaths a day - on average, I might add?

It is very juvenile to ask a question and only allow two answers when the reality is that there are very more. It is even more juvenile to assume that people are dying and that is either because Americans or because of Iraqis killing each other. Are you unwilling to admit that there are combtants in Iraq who are not from Iraq? You're death count from People's Weekly Wolrd is not a valid number - especially when there are many different estimates very far off from 100 death a day.

quote:

fine, acts of terrorism going on, bombs in cars and all that, considering that's the only way I'll get to you - what do you call it? A party?

Yeah, I call it insurgency party. Once again, you seem unwilling to admit that there are other nationalites in Iraq combating against Iraqi people. You are so blinded by your socialist propoganda in Canada that you believe the second there is an Iraqi on Iraqi attack it means it is a civil war despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of attacks in Iraq are coming from FOREIGN insurgents.

quote:

By definition, it means they've failed to win a war completely

Incorrect, you clearly lack an understanding on the definition of victory or failure. If, as you state, we had a flawed objective it would be impossible to ever achieve or fail to achieve that objective. Since we overthrew Saddam, we did not fail.

quote:

to gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms. "Secure control." Iraq isn't in sequre control; Iraq is in chaos. The US hasn't conquered it.

Let's see:

Iraq has clearly defined boarders.
Iraq has commerce.
Iraq has a democratic government.
Iraq has a government infrastructure.
FOREIGN insurgents are attacking the dominate power - the UNited States and the Iraqi government.

Since you call acts of violence chaos, you will never be able to admit that Iraq has been conquered by the UNited STates.

quote:

There's no one dying in the US from terrorist (hint: non-military) attacks, so that means -- oh, yes. No-one is running that show.

And I bet your in the camp that thinks Iraq has nothing to do with that? You're probably right, the FOREIGN insurgents (terrorists) in Iraqi have enough time to come to America. Or the FOREIGN insurgents (terrorists) are not really concerned of another invasion of an Arab country because of an act of terrorism on American soil.

quote:

And you're saying Iraqi civilians aren't walking around bombing and killing each other (hint: they are). Foreign insurgents are playing a role; so are Iraqi civilians.

Prove it - where did I ever say that Iraqis are not killing one another? Please provide me a quote from a previous post of mine.

The role Iraqis play is nominal compared to the actions of FOREIGN insurgents. People were killed in Colorado on monday, do you call that a civil war? WHat is Mexico invaded Texas and a few Texans killed each other, would you call that a civil war instead of an invasion.

quote:

ave you ever bothered to look at Al-Jazeera

No, and neither does anyone else outside of the Arab world. The only reason you watch it is to tell people you do so they think you are cultured.

quote:

BBC - mainstream media - say Iraq's descending into civil war.

I receive my news almost exclusively from the BBC. They have said Iraq is in civil war for about a year. I oppose the war but still recognize what the BBC does and has- the surge has stopped the progress of the insurgency. It is not dead, nor is it dying, but neither is it progressing.

quote:

originally posted by clpo13:
Iraq is certainly better off than it was immediately following our invasion

I disagree. At least back in the day you'd be all right if you just followed the law. Today there's a chance you'll never see your family again once you step out that door. Or maybe they'll never see you.

quote:

originall posted by Bushsupporter:
I don't even know what that is in reference to.

BBC - mainstream media - say Iraq's descending into civil war.

The independent media are all ready using the term.

There was infrastructure and order before we invaded...

Also, no murder any more? Gee, what do they call suicide bombers in a crowded market?

All right, jesting aside. I'll answer the question:

quote:

Tell me what you would have done to end the killing.

Absolutely nothing. Indeed, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a terrible place. But the Middle East was a lot more stable with him in power. He kept the violence between rival religious groups at a bare minimum and made Iraq a stable country. By keeping the government secular, he provided a counterbalance to fundamentalist Islamic states like Iran and Afghanistan. As long as he was kept in check, the Middle East wasn't going to devolve into chaos.

It's true that the Middle East isn't in chaos now. However, the overall situation is certainly worse than it used to be. The mere presence of insurgents in Iraq is proof enough of that. Iran has been flexing its muscles now that it has little opposition in the Middle East.

Iraq is certainly better off than it was immediately following our invasion (and our summary deconstruction of the entire governmental structure), but I wouldn't say it's much better than before the invasion. But I'm looking at the situation from a stability standpoint, not a human rights standpoint. I've always been a big picture kind of guy.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
I simply took one of the most controversial things I said to start the board, I also picked something that stood alone and was not a reply. Calm down.

Well the response was obligatory lol. If you're going to argue with me you might as well use some sources, y'know.

I simply took one of the most controversial things I said to start the board, I also picked something that stood alone and was not a reply. Calm down.

Yeah, BushSupporter, you'd know. You've been there and you've lost both your parents, a sister, you've been forced to dig up graves for your three year-old neighbour. Oh, yeah, you speak for all Iraqis. I present ye with the universal

:P Plus very nice of you to put-up a question in the original post that I all ready answered.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:

The whole world knows he gassed his own people. Even your socialists Canadian newspapers admit it.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm

Dude, did you seirously not know about this or are you just pretending to not know about to play devil's advocate?

Again, you skim over what I'm saying. I don't know if he did kill tens of thousands of people, not if he killed at all; I also find it very ironic that you support Bush, and support what he stands for, when here you are quoting Iranian figures in the death of the 5000 Kurds who died during Iraq's political turmoil. You DO know that Iraq and Iran had a war, right? Iran doesn't really like Iraq.

quote:

Yeah, AntiWar.com is real mainstream media.

And here's the gist of the matter that you weren't smart enough to see: "mainstream media are talking about it" links to a BBC article.

quote:

No, its a clash between Iraqis and Insurgents. By the very nature of the word insurgent you can not call it a civil war. So since the Socialist Canadian media calls it a civil war it must be one, right?

No. But it is when the a general from the Department of Defense does (edit >> find >> "four wars"). Oh, yeah, and since Al-Qaeda are the big evil Arabs and Arabs are fighting Arabs, it counts as a Civil War. Unless you're implying that Al-Qaeda are Americans or that American soldiers are causing the 100 deaths a day - on average, I might add?

quote:

Oh, I see. When the numbers reach 100 people a day (proof?), it is classified as a Civil War?

Sorry, but, if there's a Iraqi Sunni vs Iraqi Shi'a - uh, fine, acts of terrorism going on, bombs in cars and all that, considering that's the only way I'll get to you - what do you call it? A party?

quote:

Since when? No one has said that Israel is one of the greatest conquers of all time. Why do you continually change the subject?

I didn't. Again, you're not reading/understanding properly. I'll simplify: The USA set-out to destroy biological and chemical and possibly nuclear weaponry. The USA failed to do so. By definition, it means they've failed to win a war completely. Yes, they're on Iraqi soil and are benefiting - but they did not achieve what they set out to.

About conquering: it is to gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms. "Secure control." Iraq isn't in sequre control; Iraq is in chaos. The US hasn't conquered it.

quote:

So does Saddam still control the government? If not, then who? Perhaps the government we installed. By your own logic we are conquers. Who do you mean by they? Foreign insurgents (correct)? or Iraqi civilians (incorrect)?

Yes, joey, Zombie Saddam is out of his grave and controlling the government using his harnassed psychic powers and army of slave chipmunks.

Oh, yeah, wait: there's 100 people dying a day. There's no one dying in the US from terrorist (hint: non-military) attacks, so that means -- oh, yes. No-one is running that show.

And you're saying Iraqi civilians aren't walking around bombing and killing each other (hint: they are). Foreign insurgents are playing a role; so are Iraqi civilians. Fire-up any Arabic newspaper. For the love of God, actually, watch anything other than the mainstream Western media; have you ever bothered to look at Al-Jazeera? (Yes, I know it's a channel.) There's an English version to read on the internet, y'know.