Why do right wing Americans?

Question

Complain about immigrants entering the US when they themselves illegally entered Iraq and destroyed everything in sight. They then massacred hundreds of thousand s of Iraqis and tortured prisoners at Abu Grahab and they have caused civil conflict between the Shia and Sunni communities. How can these people complain about immigrants entering the US when they are happy to enter other peoples countries themselves in order to steal natural resources like oil?

Answer 1

"Do as I say, not as I do."
*****************************************

Lancet study puts a number on Iraqi deaths
Eugene Robinson, Washington Post Writers Group
Monday, October 16, 2006
(10-16) 04:00 PDT Washington -- "NOT CREDIBLE" was President Bush's quick verdict on the new study, published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet, calculating that more than 650,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. invasion and its ensuing chaos. It is understandable that the president would be quick to dismiss such an explosive claim, but the rest of us should take the time to look a bit more closely.
The number of estimated deaths claimed by the study is inconceivably huge, and wildly out of scale with any previous figures we've heard. But it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the human suffering in Iraq has been far beyond our imagining.
The peer-reviewed study's named authors include three researchers from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University -- one of them Gilbert Burnham, co-director of the school's Center for Refugee and Disaster Response -- and a professor from Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University. Funding for the project was provided by MIT. These are not shabby credentials.
But academic degrees and prestigious affiliations alone do not establish truth. Bush said the problem is that the study's methodology has been discredited. But the team relied on a "cluster sample survey" technique that is frequently used for public-health research, especially in the developing world.
No one should find the basic concept unfamiliar, because it underlies such mainstays of modern life as public opinion polls and market research. The survey team picked what was deemed to be a representative sample -- in this case, 1,849 households scattered throughout Iraq -- and used that sample to draw conclusions about the population as a whole. That's the same method pollsters employ to predict who will win an election.
Ideally, the selection of respondents should be as random as possible. The process of choosing the 50 widely scattered neighborhoods in which the Johns Hopkins team did its work was not quite ideal, but The Lancet peer reviewers who cleared the study for publication could find nothing that would significantly skew the results. Interviewers went house to house, recording detailed information about deaths prior to the 2003 invasion and deaths since.
The researchers tallied 82 pre-invasion and 547 post-invasion deaths in those households. The death rate per year had nearly tripled following the invasion, they found, and a full 300 of the post-invasion deaths, or more than half, were the result of violence. (By contrast, only 2 percent of pre-invasion deaths were violent ones.) Of those killed by violent means, more than half died from gunshot wounds; the rest mostly died in bombings and air strikes. Victims were primarily young and middle-aged men. In more than 90 percent of cases, family members were able to produce a death certificate confirming what they told the interviewers.
Those may look like small numbers on which to base such large claims, but that's how the world of survey research works. Pollsters in the United States, a much larger country, routinely predict nationwide trends on the basis of fewer interviews.
Does this prove, as the study asserts, that precisely 654,965 Iraqis have died "as a consequence of the war," and that exactly 601,027 of those deaths were due to violence? No, it doesn't. The Johns Hopkins team reports being 95 percent certain that the true figure lies between about 400,000 and about 900,000 -- a large range of uncertainty that some critics have seized upon as discrediting the whole project.
But the exact number is not the point. Rather, it's the scope and scale of the carnage.
Late last year, President Bush gave an off-the-cuff estimate of 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths -- this after the administration had steadfastly refused to acknowledge even trying to count the Iraqi dead. Now the administration is willing to allow that perhaps 50,000 civilians have died. It is unclear whether any science at all has gone into these estimates or whether they were essentially pulled out of a hat.
But quite a lot of science went into the Johns Hopkins study. Even if you assume that the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the war began is at the very low end of the study's range, that's still a quantum leap from earlier estimates. We now have reputable evidence -- not proof, I'll allow, but science-based evidence from respected scholars, published in one of the world's most prestigious medical journals -- that the humanitarian tragedy in Iraq is much, much worse than anyone had suspected.
If the study's findings are flawed, then its critics should demonstrate how and why. But no one should dismiss these shocking numbers without fully examining them. No one should want to. “

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/16/EDG6PKDSLU1.DTL

Answer 2

Puhleeze ....Shia and Sunnis have been battling for 1300-1400 years....

All the other points have been addressed.. Take a history course...

ali is the central figure at the origin of the Shia / Sunni split which occurred in the decades immediately following the death of the Prophet in 632. Sunnis regard Ali as the fourth and last of the "rightly guided caliphs" (successors to Mohammed (pbuh) as leader of the Muslims) following on from Abu Bakr 632-634, Umar 634-644 and Uthman 644-656. Shias feel that Ali should have been the first caliph and that the caliphate should pass down only to direct descendants of Mohammed (pbuh) via Ali and Fatima, They often refer to themselves as ahl al bayt or "people of the house" [of the prophet].

Answer 3

Don't know where you got your info from (probably CNN or something of the sort) but you need to get your facts straight. The only ones "massacreing" Iraqi's are Iraqi's and Afghan's themselves. And show me where we have killed "hundreds of thousands" or INNOCENT Iraqi's? Let me guess, your a middleschool-highschool kid who's trying to make a difference?

Answer 4

OMG what freaking rock have you just crawled out from, bucko? It was your CONGRESS that OK'd this war and the suniis and shi'ites hated one another long before we ever set foot in that god forsaken thirld world. Bone up on what's really going on!!!!!!

Answer 5

Exactly how were the troops entering Iraq doing so "illegally"? Can you cite which law they broke?

Answer 6

Why are left wing Americans so willing to forget 12 years of UN imposed sanctions and repeated violations by a cruel dictator who gassed his own people? Why are left wingers so willing to manipulate facts and blatantly lie to promote their anti-american agenda?

Answer 7

How about you get more educated. Either you are a very stupid left-wing nutcase or a mediocre right-wing troll.

Answer 8

We don't want to steal oil It's the dates we want!

Answer 9

Wow. Maybe you should go to school and learn about fallacious reasoning and straw men so you don't sound so ignorant.

Answer 10

Wow, talk about a poor analogy and a stupid question.