Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Who Said...?


"preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good
enough reason to keep
U.S. forces there."



No idea who did this photo shop, but it's brilliant.

Posted by Victoria Taft, 11am - 3pm KPAM 860 at 15:16

21 comments:

  1. I've seen one with Bush as Satan and that works too.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Whoever did the Photoshop obviously was not a Christian.
    ReplyDelete
  3. 1)There have been at least 150-200 thousand Iraqi deaths from the war itself(this is a conservative amount), not sure we have prevented genocide anyway.

    2)Is preventing genocide a reason to stay? It has been in other countries. Also will it happen anyway if we leave now or 10 years from now?

    3) Isn't this picture a violation of one of the ten commandments?
    ReplyDelete
  4. mintaka, please supply documentary evidence of your claims of Iraqi deaths.

    Will a genocide happen if we stay?

    SInce when does the left give a hoot about the 10 commandments?
    ReplyDelete
  5. But why haven't we intervened to stop genocide in Rwanda, if stopping genocide is our goal? Or Darfur?
    ReplyDelete
  7. Lew,
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/10/iraq.iraqtimeline

    150K already, depends on your definition of genocide is.

    Lew that is the second time that you have lumped me in with the left....I am a libertarian...not left. Also I am not a Christian. So actually I don't need the ten commandments for my morals. Although I will bet you this image shown was not made by a liberal or a libertarian. It was made by a right wing Christian and it appears to be against one of the ten main laws.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Mintaka, Since you are not a Christian, you probably do not read any part of the Bible. Therefore, you probably don't know that the Ten Commandments were written some 3000 years before the birth of Christ. That fact alone does not make the Commandments exclusively Christian, but rather Jewish, because Judaism was the primary religion in that time.

    Also, mintaka, since you cannot or will not supply documentary evidence of the "150-200 thousand Iraqi deaths from the war", are you saying that Saddam Hussein's killing of some 400+ thousand of his own Iraqi citizens prior to our getting there (this is documented) is okay with you? You really shouldn't put too much credence in anything the Guardian publishes. It seems to be the British version of our National Enquirer.
    ReplyDelete
  9. As for the Photoshopped version of Nobama, it was probably done by one of Nobama's fawning supporters.
    ReplyDelete
  10. mintaka, you trust the Guardian, as left leaning as they are, for truth? Rarely do they ever give an honest accounting.

    Another site claims between 86,000 and 96,000 Iraqi deaths from all causes.

    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

    As a Libertarian, I'm sure you realize that the party is coomprised of both left and right leaning people.

    Otherwise, when you portray a left stance, don't be surprised that people assume you are left.

    Now, specifically, which of the Ten Commandments do you assume was violated by the photo, if you don't mind.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Lew,
    The Guardian didn't create the number, the Iraqi government did.

    Scottie, don't assume that I am not knowledgeable about Christianity.

    Lew you are right as a libertarian I tend to be socially "liberal" as in I believe in people are free to do what ever they want as long as they do no harm to others. Fiscally I believe in the the free market as long as there is fair competition, the Government should stay out of way. Matter of fact I believe the smaller government the better...all around.

    So Lew my question to you is this. What liberal leanings have I shown? That I am against the war? Or is it that I think that trying to mock a candidate with photo shopped pictures showing him as Jesus is insulting to me as a voter. I am not an Obama supporter (nor McCain.) But is this really the best VT can come up with. Let's have an intelligent debate on real issues. Obama has a lot of flaws, but the fact that his supporters really believe in him isn't really going to change anyone's mind.

    Also Lew I guess 90,000 deaths is ok? That is about the same number of casualties that US forces lost in the Korean War (33,686) and Vietnam (58,000). I wouldn't say that is insignificant.

    The 2nd commandment.
    ReplyDelete
  12. "Also, mintaka, since you cannot or will not supply documentary evidence of the "150-200 thousand Iraqi deaths from the war", are you saying that Saddam Hussein's killing of some 400+ thousand of his own Iraqi citizens prior to our getting there (this is documented) is okay with you?"

    Scottie, no this is not ok with me, but I am not sure it is our job to police the world...as someone else pointed out we haven't in other situations. So if we are staying to prevent genocide...is that correct? As Lew pointed out at least 90K Iraqis have died already while we are there...this is not an easy issue. I am not sure how Obama derives his stance, but I tend to be in agreement. The only thing that makes me uneasy is that we created the scenario for genocide. Like I said it isn't an easy issue.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Mintaka, that old liberal bastion the Salt Lake City Deseret News in January 2008 is also reporting 151,000 Iraqi deaths for the first three years of the war referring to WHO and the Iraqi government for the numbers.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20080110/ai_n21191992

    Lew is allergic to facts.
    ReplyDelete
  14. iago, your link leads to an index of dozens of other links. Mind letting us know which one in particular you are referring to?

    mintaka, no one said any deaths were acceptable. But, care to break them down and compare them to the slaughter under Saddam?

    Collateral damage does happen with accidental deaths. Troops have to live with that and most don't handle it well.

    Of course, suicide bombings account for a lot also as did the sectarian violence that has been simmering for some time.

    Do I relish them? No. But do you understand what freedom costs? Perhaps the Iraqis do and are willing to pay the price today.

    Since you are playing number games, care to tell us how many Boat People died escaping Viet Nam? Or, how many South Vietnamese just disappeared, never to be heard from again? Or, how many millions did Vo Ngyuen Giap sacrifice waiting on America to capitulate?

    How many died in the Nazi Concentration Camps as the world felt they could appease Hitler?

    How many Jews have died in the past century all for living in their own homeland?

    How many died in Africa from senseless slaughter while the previous administration simply looked away?

    How many unborn babies have been killed since Roe vs Wade?

    You guys seem pretty selective about being upset over death, while ignoring several other incidents.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Lew, I am not the one saying we should be there to prevent genocide. I just pointed out we are inconsistent and I also do not think we would be be there at all if the original goal was to end genocide....sure it was tacked on but it wasn't the main selling point given to the American People. My only hesitation would be that we caused the situation for a Sunni vs Shiite civil war.

    By the way all the things you mentioned are bad...but what do they have to do with Obama's statement?
    ReplyDelete
  16. I'd point out to you, Mintaka, that the conservative estimate has not yet hit 100,000 although I've seen some whackjobs claim 600,000 (using the name of the more rational and serious Iraq Body Count to try and grab legitimacy). This number isn't "okay", although snidely asking Lew whether it was was a cheap shot, but since we always would prefer that fewer people die, 96,000 is better than 100,000 which is better than 150,000 which is better than 200,000. One death is always too many but the nature of war prevents a fight where no one gets hurt. The most important thing to note, however, is that unless we're vastly more expert than the British and Israeli governments (both of which have dealt with bombings from internal groups), we can't always stop the terrorists/paramilitaries from killing people. At least you're not following a fool like Dennis Kucinich off the cliff in claiming that the American military went out of their way to kill civilians.

    Oh, and a small note: "genocide" is a term that implies deliberate action to destroy a racial group. Unless you have secret evidence that someone is trying to destroy all Shiites or all Sunnis or all Kurds in Iraq, using the term "genocide" is irresponsible considering the extremely negative connotations of the word. Hitler rounding up Jews and gassing them was genocide. Turkey mass-murdering Armenians around the time of World War 1 was genocide. Unless you're alleging that what has happened in Iraq bears the hallmarks of a deliberate attempt to destroy a specific people, the word "genocide" is wholly inappropriate.
    ReplyDelete
  17. The topic of the post is who said:

    "preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good
    enough reason to keep
    U.S. forces there." ?

    Apparently you agree with the statement that there is no potential for genocide in Iraq and therefore not a reason to keep U.S. forcers there
    ReplyDelete
  18. Iraq Body Count only counts those reported in the media. One of the "whackjobs" claiming over 600,000 was the Lancet, one of the oldest published medical and scientific journals in the world.
    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes Iago. At which point IBC explained that Lancet's numbers were absurd. Lancet is a medical journal and a damn good one but it's run by humans who can make mistakes... and in this case, massively large ones. For the Lancet's numbers to be credible, we must assume that:

    1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms.
    2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment.
    3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq.
    4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued.

    By pure logical deduction, the Lancet's numbers border on the impossible and them publishing such numbers is an example of gross irresponsiblility and a lack of careful review of their material.
    At any rate, the whackjobs I was referring to were using the Lancet's numbers but stole the respectable name of the Iraq Body Count to try and make their numbers seem legitimate. They called themselves the Iraq Body Count Exhibit but ignored the numbers of the IBC in favor of the ridiculous numbers the Lancet put out that would score them political points. Before you attempt to defend Lancet, Iago, do something innovative and think before you speak.
    ReplyDelete
  20. Since I never regard "preventing genocide" as a legitimate reason to use the military, I regard the question as irrelevant. The reason for continued American military presence in Iraq is to stabilize it to the point that native soldiers can control their borders and security.
    ReplyDelete
  21. "Oh, and a small note: "genocide" is a term that implies deliberate action to destroy a racial group"

    Actually it could involve a national group, but no matter, point taken. I should have said mass destruction of lives...
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)