Story Comments
Posted by: pc25 1 year, 3 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
61%
pc251 year, 3 months ago
-
60%
DaneL1 year, 3 months ago
-
60%
Candida1 year, 3 months ago
-
38%
Spinward1 year, 3 months ago
-
43%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spin, the Mukacy justice department has done nothing about the 2 dozen contractor women raped in the green zone or the Saipan sweat shops with forced prostitution and forced abortion!
Reply
Forget Bush's torture memos, Abu Ghraib, and McCain caving on his own Anti-Torture Bill?
American war profiteering has replaced sadam hording! How about that Florida company that got 32 million for a building they never even built... or the condemned police academy and barracks we did build? All the contracts to train the new Iraqi military and police failed and petraeus had to take it over as part of the surge!
You really are a repug sycophant idiot! -
57%
Sabretooth1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spinner, where is this country of which you speak, certainly not Iraq? I would just like to ask you where you get your propaganda from friend? It is ignorant folks like yourself Spinner that allow your government to be the world terrorists that they are.
Reply -
kobzikovComment removed: Spam
-
50%
kobzikov1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, there is no need for rape rooms, at least for raping women, because that kind of thing can be done behind the corner nowadays with Iraqi government doing nothing about it, which is why women need male escorts to get around.
Reply
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newsc...
Now if you are talking about something more exotic like rape rooms for men, something that even Saddam didn't have, then for that you gotta go to Abu Ghraib or similar "detention" facilities.
Women had more rights when Saddam was in power
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
If there is no murder of opposition why do Iraqi politicians live and gather in the Green Zone?
No torture of dissenters??? Really? I don't remember seeing any marches against Muqtada al-Sadr in Sadr City. Must be because of all that freedom that Iraqis have.
What concerns hoarding of revenues then can you remind all of us how much surplus billions that Maliki government is looking at for the end of the year? Was it $79 billion? How much of that are they spending? Or are you saying that if the hoarding is not done by a megalomaniac then it's perfectly fine?-
50%
Spinward1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I had no idea you were such a strong supporter of Saddam!
Reply
I stand corrected. Saddam was a just and wonderful ruler with a love for humanity who was doing a good job for his people. Surely the Iraqis are much worse off now than when they had the Obamessiah's champion, Saddam Hussein in power.
Please accept my apology.
Putz.-
-
50%
italymeetsdixie1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Given the many difficulties that our powerful military have encountered while occupying (liberating) this country, it seems to me that he really had no choice to rule with an iron fist.
Reply
I am not saying that he was right, but he wasn't any more vicious than we are with the people there. With the exception we have "trials" before we execute them.
-
-
-
-
SpinwardComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
54%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You ought to be at a loss for words for the 1.2 million Iraqis who are dead a
Reply
as a result of Dumya's lies to attack Sadam in the name of terrorism!
Disgusting to use this soldier for repug political gain! I can only wonder how much you disgraceful repugs paid him just to tell us his leg was lost for something while standing next to the American flag! You idiots wouldn't even let the Dems add an amendment for Sadam tortured soldiers to sue Iraq!
At least he is a testiment to you repugs of what happens to our fine soldiers when you don't even bother to think things out to conclusion, you idiots who should be in jail guilty of war crimes for your preemptive war and torture for which we helped hang Japanese and Natzis after WW2.
Then you end the video with patriotic music... how low can you sink?
The disgusting things you will do for your repug greed! If you want the truth out there, then release the Cheney Energy Meeting minutes with the likes of Ken Lay and all the big oil CEOS... and the world will see you greedy bastards for what you are... in creating this war in Iraq purely for greed. A war, where the Iraqis have given us a deadline and not given Dumya his guaranteed long term, oil deals!
How about the Georgia congressman trashed by you repugs who is even worse off from a Vietnam grenade he jumped on?
What pigs you are to use this soldier's loss for political gain - it just proves McBush is just as bad as Dumya once again!
-A retired US Army Officer-
33%
Spinward1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What's your source for the 1.2 million dead Iraqis?
Reply
Didn't one of you nuts post on here recently that we killed about 2 million innocent Iraqi children as we went on our nursery school bombing campaigns or something?
Political gain? This soldier made a video supporting McCain and taking Obama to the wood shed for his profound stupidity. That's all it is. A soldier exercising his right to free speech.
Go throw your medals over a fence, SIR!-
-
50%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
its a flagrant political abuse of a hurt soldier who wants to believe he lost his leg for something, nothing less!
Reply
You repugs want more good young men to come forward to become your cannon fodder! Heaven forbid you actually have some diplomacy in the future before you actually commit these fine young people!
Dumya and McBush's foreign policy consists of condemning from afar ("axis of evil" or "Bomb, bomb Iran"), then send in the troops and bomb, bomb away with no care whatsoever for collateral damage!
I, nor my son with a purple heart and medals for valor in Iraq, will never throw our medals away!-
50%
Spinward1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Collateral damage is terrible. I'm schocked to hear that you, a retired officer, would imagine a war without any collateral damage.
Reply
Why don't you go to the middle east and ask the nice terrorists to quit hiding behind women and children?
Maybe that would help, sir.-
50%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...one of the goals is to prevent collateral damage, if you want to win the "hearts and minds"... why we lost Vietnam and why until Petraeus we were losing Iraq, and may still lose Iraq. All fact beyond your comprehension spin!
Reply
The truth is that Bush doesn't give a damn about collateral damage ( he can't even guess how many Iraqis have died since he invaded), and most pilots with guns and bombs don't either - like McBush in Vietnam!-
50%
Spinward1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This might come as a shock, and again I'm amazed that you served in the military as an officer and don't know this, sir, but PILOTS DON'T CHOOSE THEIR TARGETS!
Reply
As a terminal air controller, I am the one that gives the targets to the aircraft. I am the one who decides what will be vaporized. The pilot follows the coordinates I give him and drops the ordinance I tell him to drop.
Here's another thing you should know, sir. We don't bomb schools, hospitals, or mosques... we bomb enemy combatants. We weigh the coward's hiding place with the target value and make a decision.
You already know that, don't you, sir?
-
-
-
-
40%
chuck-the-canuck1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What's your source for the 1.2 million dead Iraqis?
Reply
http://www.infoshout.com/#-
-
-
60%
Candida1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spinward,
Reply
Lancet, the respected British medical publication estimated the number of dead around 600,000 a couple of years ago if I remember correctly. Since nobody seems to count the Iraqi dead, it's hard to tell how many there are. Anyway, does it really matter whether the number is 100,000 or 1.2 million? Those were people who didn't have to die. They died for no good reason at all, just like the 4,000+ American soldiers, some coalition soldiers, and the ???? American contractors did.
-
-
-
50%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What's your source for the 1.2 million dead Iraqis?"
Reply
Cons care about sources now? Too bad they didn't ask for sources for those imaginary WMDs. I wonder if Cons had known the centerpiece of the WMD case was a LIAR if they would have been so gung-ho about sending our kids to the meat grinder. -
epiphannyyComment removed: Spam
-
-
57%
epiphannyy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lists the current Iraqi death count as 1,255,026
Reply
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.h...-
-
33%
Spinward1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I checked it out... and you're WAY off.
Reply
The website you named is getting their data from a survey published in The Lancet, a revered medical journal in the UK.
I went to The Lancet and they have revised the initial report and said, "First, according to Burnham and colleagues' results, there were nearly 600 war deaths per day—an unusually high number compared with almost any other armed conflict or indeed with other Iraqi mortality estimates. Burnham and colleagues' figure 4, in which cumulated Iraq Body Count deaths parallel their study's mortality rates, is misleading. Rates cannot be compared with numbers, much less with cumulative numbers. The correct comparison would be the one presented here (figure), in which the Iraq Body Count numbers are transformed into rates by period. In that case, there is no similarity between the trends in the study and Iraq Body Count."
In other words, Iraq's population is 27 million. We could not have killed 5% of the population and to say we did is PURE PROPAGANDA!
-
-
63%
epiphannyy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "official" body count is much less. It is estimated to number between 86,864-94,782.
Reply
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
The truth probably falls somewhere in between. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter what the exact number if. To those affected, any civilian death is too many. After all, what freedom is there in death?-
50%
kobzikov1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the number of casualties as a result of the conflict are much higher then even 1,255,026. Why? Because the estimate only relates to those who are victims of violence.
Reply
It doesn't factor in those who die because of poor sanitation, disease, lack of decent health care system, effects of DU, etc. Before we have information on any of the factors we can't even begin to fathom how deadly the war has been for the Iraqi people.
-
-
67%
italymeetsdixie1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.h...
Reply
Hope this enlightening for you.
-
-
-
43%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To understand this post you have to know that the source is from extremist zioncons who just love the idea of killing americans in the mideast to cover up zionist crimes against humanity.
Reply
You really should ask yourself if having israel-firster zionists running our foreign policy and military in the mideast is in our best interests. You might also ask yourself why they keep pushing the same old tired lies over and over and over.
General Petraeus: Zionism’s Military Poodle: From Surge to Purge to Dirge
.... In theory and strategy, in pursuit of defeating the Iraqi resistance, General Petraeus was a disastrous failure, an outcome predictable form the very nature of his appointment and his flawed wartime reputation.
In the first instance Petraeus was a political appointment. He was one of the few high military officials who shared Bush and the Zioncons’ assessment that the ‘war could be won’. Petraeus argued that his experience in Northern Iraq were replicable throughout the rest of the country. Moreover Petraeus, unlike most military analysts, was willing to ignore the heavy costs of multiple prolonged tours of duty on US troops. Petraeus willingness to ignore the larger costs of prolonged military engagement in Iraq has weakened the capacity of the US to sustain its world-wide imperial interests. For Petraeus, sacrificing the overall cohesion and structure of the US military in Iraq, the global interests of the empire and the US domestic budget were worth securing Bush’s appointment as ‘Commander of the Forces in Iraq’. Shortly after taking office and in the face of massive domestic, international and Iraq demands for the withdrawal of US troops, Petraeus took the path dictated by the US and pro Israeli militarists in the Bush Administration and their powerful ‘Lobby’. He escalated the war, by calling up more troops, what he euphemistically referred to as ‘the surge’ – a massive call-up of 40,000 more mission-weary infantry and marines.
An analysis and critique of the failure of military-driven imperialism and its militarily dangerous consequences requires an objective critical analysis of Petraeus’ media-inflated military record prior to taking command. Equally important Petraeus close ideological and political linkages with Israel’s militarist approach toward Iran (and the rest of the Middle East countries opposing it) dates back to his close collaboration with Israel’s (unofficial) military advisers and intelligence operatives in Kurdish Northern Iraq.
Petraeus’ Phony Success in Northern Iraq
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va=...-
40%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Turning the Tables on the Israel-Firsters
Reply
... The idea that there are U.S. citizens who have equal loyalties to the United States and Israel is passé. American Israel-firsters have long since dropped any pretense of loyalty to the United States and its genuine national interests. They have moved brazenly into the Israel first, last, and always camp. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Norman Podhoretz, Victor Davis Hanson, the Rev. Franklin Graham, Alan Dershowitz, Rudy Giuliani, Douglas Feith, the Rev. Rod Parsley, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Bill Kristol, the Rev. John Hagee, and the thousands of wealthy supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) appear to care about the United States only so far as Washington is willing to provide immense, unending funding and the lives of young U.S. service personnel to protect Israel. These individuals and their all-for-Israel journals – Commentary, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal – amount to nothing less than a fifth column intent on involving 300 million Americans in other peoples' religious wars, making them pay and bleed to protect a nation in which the United States has no genuine national security interest at stake....
... American voters must start using the democratic process to begin removing themselves from the religious war known as the Arab-Israeli conflict. Disengagement will take time, hard work, and a steadfast commitment to the rule of law. Three actions are well within the voters' capability...
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=13139
-
-
40%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So here we have the israel-firsters again trying to use the suffering of americans to justify their wars in the mideast!
Reply
Here is a more credible set of iraq veterans.
Iraq Veterans Against the War
http://ivaw.org/faq
Why we're against the war
Q: Why are veterans, active duty, and National Guard men and women opposed to the war in Iraq?
A: Here are 10 reasons we oppose this war:
The Iraq war is based on lies and deception.
The Bush Administration planned for an attack against Iraq before September 11th, 2001. They used the false pretense of an imminent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threat to deceive Congress into rationalizing this unnecessary conflict. They hide our casualties of war by banning the filming of our fallen's caskets when they arrive home, and when they refuse to allow the media into Walter Reed Hospital and other Veterans Administration facilities which are overflowing with maimed and traumatized veterans.
For further reading: www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/index.html
The Iraq war violates international law.
The United States assaulted and occupied Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council. In doing so they violated the same body of laws they accused Iraq of breaching.
For further reading:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtcons...
http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/-
hyperbolaComment removed: Spam
-
50%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Corporate profiteering is driving the war in Iraq.
Reply
From privately contracted soldiers and linguists to no-bid reconstruction contracts and multinational oil negotiations, those who benefit the most in this conflict are those who suffer the least. The United States has chosen a path that directly contradicts President Eisenhower's farewell warning regarding the military industrial complex. As long as those in power are not held accountable, they will continue...
For further reading:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-01.ht...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/ -
50%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Overwhelming civilian casualties are a daily occurrence in Iraq.
Reply
Despite attempts in training and technological sophistication, large-scale civilian death is both a direct and indirect result of United States aggression in Iraq. Even the most conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths number over 100,000. Currently over 100 civilians die every day in Baghdad alone.For further reading:
http://www.nomorevictims.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,133874... -
50%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Soldiers have the right to refuse illegal war.
Reply
All in service to this country swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. However, they are prosecuted if they object to serve in a war they see as illegal under our Constitution. As such, our brothers and sisters are paying the price for political incompetence, forced to fight in a war instead of having been sufficiently trained to carry out the task of nation-building.
For further reading:
http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/content/...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qa6ZHYcG_EM-
50%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you really believe in "supporting our troops" and american democracy, then have a closer look at the many other things these Iraq veterans say.
Reply
Q: Why do Iraq Veterans Against the War call for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
A: There are several reasons why immediate withdrawal is the critical first step toward solving the problems in Iraq.
http://ivaw.org/faq
-
-
-
loading ...
Spinward
Patience
Klarissa
GLee
nostalgia
Albmore
reasonable1
buckncindykill
Wolfie2007
White_Knight
corl64
miklkit
PsychoHosebeast
IneedIwantIgottahave
Simplicitas
NaturallyCurlyTop
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.