Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
Iraq Puts Civilian Toll at 12,000What!? Nothing from Amnesty International!?
BAGHDAD, June 2 -- Insurgent violence has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqis over the past 18 months, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said Thursday, giving the first official count for the largest category of victims of bombings, ambushes and other increasingly deadly attacks.
At least 36 more Iraqi civilians, security force members and officials were killed Thursday in attacks that underscored the ruthlessness and growing randomness of much of the violence. The day's victims included 12 people killed when a suicide attacker drove a vehicle loaded with explosives into a restaurant near the northern city of Kirkuk.
In Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on a market area crowded with civilians, killing nine, the Defense Ministry said.
What about Iraqi Body Count!? Lights are on but nobody's home...?
Well surely there will be some sort of 'outrage' from those upstanding people from Indy Media....what? Out to lunch!?
Figures....
Which they now claim we lost...
They? Who are they?
Long range missiles
Read more in Outrage on Aisle Four...
Yogimus said:
Which ones were they? I think smarter men than you or I who were in Iraq looking for those wea
Read more in Outrage on Aisle Four...
scroff said:
fired on our no fly zone craft
The no fly zones which were installed by who? Can y
Read more in Outrage on Aisle Four...
Yogimus said:
that would make the invasion illegal, wouldn't it?
- No it wouldn't. The invasion was leg
Read more in Outrage on Aisle Four...
scroff said:
Is that why OOOIIIILLLLL is hitting $55 a barrel
Sure is. You don't get it. It's n
Read more in Outrage on Aisle Four...
Yogimus said:
Yes, General, Laura Cohn with Business Week Magazine. It sounds like you've made some good progre
Read more in Outrage on Aisle Four...
Comments on Outrage on Aisle Four...
It is because we are there for the OOOIL! I am sure if we pulled out TOMORROW the country would instantly stabilize.
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 3, 2005 07:27 PM ||below are my thoughts on the matter.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/yogimus/2935.html
OOOOIL is only part of it, and it isn't oil, it is control of the market price of a barrel of OOOOOOIIIL. He who has the most influence over the price of a barrel of OOOOOIIIL influences the development of China, India, Russia and the old Soviet countries as well as any other country that depends on oil for their economy (can you say commerce?). I love how easily some people can dismiss OOOIILLLL'S importance. What do you suppose would happen if oil production was cut in half, but only for the US? Or if the second largest oil reserve was made available to only countries that 'behaved' while others had to get it from the usual, overpriced suspects? Who do you think would have the better economy?People obviously forget the lessons learned in the 70's) Why else do we so blatantly kiss Saudi Arabia's ass?
The other, perhaps bigger reason is to make the middle east safe for our good buddy, back stabbing Israel.
There are many other reasons, some simply Bush's own psychosis, but I can assure you none of them had to do with liberating Iraqis.
As far as the response to this information, we've been saying for months that there is a civil war going on in Iraq, while the Administration and neocons have been saying it's all peachy.
|| Posted by scroff, June 3, 2005 07:55 PM ||Seems the right wing media is finally figuring out the house is on fire while the flames lap their toes. To me this is one for the "no-shit" hall of fame. I also think it's interesting how 'believable' Interior Minister Bayan Jabr is compared to those waful people at the International Red Cross who had the civillian casualty around 100,000.
Iraq will stabilize no faster with or without us. Problem is that we seem to be able to only think with our guns.
Is that why OOOIIIILLLLL is hitting $55 a barrel? It looks like the U.S. isn't the B-A-D guy where this is concerned....
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, June 4, 2005 02:07 PM ||I don't really give a poop about israel one way or the other, but it's mere existence in the region provides stability, if for no other reason than to give the surrounding countries a common enemy.
REGIONAL STABILITY is why we are there.
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 4, 2005 05:28 PM ||Yes, General, Laura Cohn with Business Week Magazine. It sounds like you've made some good progress on the oil fields in the south but that you might have a problem once you get to Baghdad. Could you tell us what your plan is to secure the oil fields?
GEN. RENUART: I don't think there's any oil fields in Baghdad.
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 4, 2005 11:08 PM ||Is that why OOOIIIILLLLL is hitting $55 a barrel
Sure is. You don't get it. It's not so we pay less for a barrel of oil, it's so the price can go up. Once again be reminded that nobody gives a crap what you or I pay for anything, and if oil were to drop to $40 a barrel, it would still be over $2 a gallon. the oil companies are not going to lower the price, let's not all be silly now.
But if it's $55 a barrel here, it's also $55 a barrel in Europe, China, India, Vietnam, South Korea, North Korea, etc etc etc ad nauseam. In the UK gasoline is about $5 a gallon, in Canada it's about $4 a gallon... I wonder how much driving they do in China or Uzbekistan, how much it costs to ship stuff to the ports where those big old diesel ships float them to our shores. OOOOOOIILLL is the one way to level the playing field economically... we can't beat their labor costs, so we'll raise their shipping, production, and transportation costs. It's really simple.
REGIONAL STABILITY is why we are there.
Well, actually, if you go back and look at the reasons we went there, regional stability was not one of the two reasons outlined by Congress for Bush to invade, so, if that is the reason why we're there, that would make the invasion illegal, wouldn't it?
I suppose the bases in Saudi Arabia were there for REGIONAL STABILITY too... fat lot of good they did.
I would love for one person to tell me how, without reverting to vague ideology, our invasion of Iraq will lead to or contribute to REGIONAL STABILITY. Start with telling me what threat Iraq posed to REGIONAL STABILITY.
|| Posted by scroff, June 5, 2005 12:51 AM ||that would make the invasion illegal, wouldn't it?
- No it wouldn't. The invasion was legal the FIRST time saddam fired on our no fly zone craft.
Then why didn't bush say THAT?
- because he used the BEST of many reasons.
Then why no weapons of mass destruction?
- You mean OTHER than the ones we found?
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 5, 2005 07:18 PM ||fired on our no fly zone craft
The no fly zones which were installed by who? Can you show me where it says that we are allowed to maintain no-fly zones over a sovereign nation? Please, be specific. And can you show me the UN resolution that said we could invade without the OK of the UN Security Council if he fired on one of our aircraft? Please, I'm so curious. But I suppose you're going by the Bush law that says we don't have to obey any laws that are Inconvenient.
because he used the BEST of many reasons.
If those were the best, the rest must surely suck. Like... REGIONAL STABILITY! But I guess I do have to give you credit for admitting there were unemphasized, shall we say, reasons, like, maybe OOOOOIIIIILLLLL and Israel?
You mean OTHER than the ones we found
Which ones were they? I think smarter men than you or I who were in Iraq looking for those weapons have formally declared that there were no weapons or programs, but I'll bite. Spell it out for me. What weapons? please, do tell...
BTW, you still haven't told how Iraq was a threat to the region or how our invasion will help regional stability...
|| Posted by scroff, June 11, 2005 02:35 AM ||Which ones were they? I think smarter men than you or I who were in Iraq looking for those weapons have formally declared that there were no weapons or programs
Which they now claim we lost...
Ok, let's list a few:
Long range missiles
Dual purpose equipment forbidden under the sanctions
Chem warheads
BTW, you still haven't told how Iraq was a threat to the region or how our invasion will help regional stability...
Common enemy, Libya, voting in Saudi Arabia, and the ever popular show of overwhelming force.
|| Posted by Yogimus, June 11, 2005 04:42 AM ||Which they now claim we lost...
They? Who are they?
Long range missiles
Dual purpose equipment forbidden under the sanctions
Chem warheads
What long range missles? The ones that were found and declared before the war? What dual purpose equipment, and where in the sanctions were they forbidden? What chemical warheads? You mean the shell they found along the road in one of the earlier IEDs? You have to give me more than that. Those, even if they existed, are not enough reason to invade another country... hence talk of a mushroom cloud and an immediate threat.
Common enemy, Libya, voting in Saudi Arabia, and the ever popular show of overwhelming force
Common enemy? Not sure what you mean by that. Whose common enemy and with whom? Iraq was no threat to anybody, except maybe Israel in the form of payments to Palestinians.
Voting in Saudi Arabia???? Oh yea, they had some municipal elections. So we had to blow up Iraq to obtain that? That's the best we could do? We had to invade a helpless country to persuade Bush's buddies the Sauds to have some local elections??
Libya??? Libya wasn't even in the Axis of Evil
And oh that ever popular show of overwhelming force is working so well isn't it? What it showed is that the US isn't the great war machine everybody thought it was. What did we do? Beat up a nothing army in a basically third world country. Gee, maybe for an encore we can invade Zimbabwe. You know what really sucks? We're a one trick pony, that's all we have now is that good old overwhelming farce... and when you're up against people who believe you're doing them a favor by killing them, it doesn't do much good, and turns out it doesn't do much good when you try to use it to keep everybody else in line, either...
|| Posted by scroff, June 13, 2005 12:58 AM ||