English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

650,000 iraqi civilians are dead since we got in!!..
No one talks about that!!
Dont get me wrong;
I am not saying US troops killed all of them...
But you cant deny this;
They died because of the after-war politics of USA.
That country will be f***ed up for the next 25 years I think..

2007-12-17 10:26:23 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

I am seeing typical republican answers!!
First of all, I did not add a zero that number is real!..
And for that jack*** who said they re terrorist not civilians; there are thousands of childen in that number. But for you they re potential terrorist right? You guys need to stop watching CNN...

2007-12-17 10:55:31 · update #1

Fair elections???
God you people are brain washed!
President is Kurdish for f*** sake!!
80 % of country is Arab!!...

2007-12-17 11:00:46 · update #2

For the a****** who dont believe the number:
That number is from Lancet...
I am sure you have no idea what it is!..
Google it!..

2007-12-17 11:12:45 · update #3

14 answers

i wonder how many service men and women have been depolyed and how many have survived. of course we would have to count multiple deployments as well .... ive been four times and survived so thats at least four i know of.

when will cnn cover the survivability of IRAQ?

2007-12-17 10:32:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

unhappy for the families left in the back of. finished admiration that a guy or woman can love this usa and defend the rest people to the quantity of the terrific sacrifice. Frustration we did not have an go out physique of strategies as quickly as we went in to Iraq. Anger that some politicians use this for political benefit. Disbelief that an analogous those that blamed the government for not doing adequate and contributing to 9/11 or a number of an analogous individuals desiring a straight away go out from Iraq, and could be an analogous individuals bitching while oil costs circulate to $two hundred a barrel while the Shiites and Iran take over.

2016-10-11 12:02:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

The politics of Iraq is Iraq's doing, not ours. They have a freely-elected democratic government. Also, you added a "0"... the actual death toll is closer to 60k-65k. Most of those have been at the hands of other Iraqis or foreign fighters in the country for some carnage. That's still less than the amount of Iraqis dead at the hands of their former president. That wasn't because of our "politics", either--that was entirely Saddam's doing. Far more Iraqis are likely to die if our "politics" get in the way and we prematurely pull out before that country has stabilized. Or don't you believe in cleaning up the messes you've started?

EDIT: Yes, you did add a "0". If your death toll estimate is "real", as you say, please cite your source, and where they got that information from. Also, you are jumping to conclusions if you think that anyone who doesn't agree with you blindly is a Republican. If you don't want to hear differing opinions from yours, don't bother asking.

EDIT: Take note as to which one of us is resorting to childish profanity and name-calling to underline our points. It should go without saying that it only hurts the point you're trying to make, not help it. Also, believing everything you read on the internet is about as sensible as believing everything you see on TV, as is getting all your information from only one source instead of cross-referencing it and using multiple sources based on reliability and accuracy. The only people who really know what's going on in Iraq are those who have BEEN to Iraq, period. Your alleged death count is wrong.

2007-12-17 10:32:25 · answer #3 · answered by ಠ__ಠ 7 · 6 0

And who says that all the so-called civilians were in fact civilians? Can you point out a terrorist? Especially when they look like everyone else. The same happened in Vietnam. All of these supposed innocent civilians were killed, but the facts were that a lot of these innocents were actually killing Americans too. I don't deny that innocent civilians get killed in every war, but what matters most to Americans, IS Americans. And it was SO much better when Sadam was killing them for fun.

2007-12-17 10:43:29 · answer #4 · answered by Glenn T 3 · 2 0

Yes I do. I wish they would tell us how many enemies we are killing and I hope it's a whole lot of them. When we get them all I'll be happy and we will all be safer. God bless America!
Funny how you complain about a Kurd being Iraq's President when only 20% of the Iraqi people are Kurds. About 20% of the United States is black, but my guess is you would love to see Obama elected here. What a joke this question is. You want to blame America for everything because you hate the people who protect you.
Wake up and smell the jihad...

2007-12-17 11:01:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Facts are that most presidential candidates are not talking about Iraq any more than they have to. The Democrats had decided months ago that they would be the anti war party but now that we seem to be winning and making progress they want to back away from that issue as much as they can.

And your numbers of 650,000 are nothing more than the old propaganda, they quit using those bogus numbers a while back too.

2007-12-17 10:53:05 · answer #6 · answered by SFC_Ollie 7 · 4 0

Well, the candidates seem to all be running for popular opinion.. Hillary Clinton.. is doing a lot of that, but the war thats going on now.. is going to be one of they're major focus once they are in office.. iraq will have american warfare in it till april 2009 i believe.. Some Candidates want to take all of the forces out.. such as Obama.. where his strategy is to take them all out, an most likely tell Iraq to ask for help, pay for our forces to be there.. which is not that bad.. Several candidates want it to be over with, Hillary being one of them.. where she has that blank approach sure she wants all the parents, an peoples children that are American forces out of war and conflict.. but thats ALL she revolves around... it is how i mean she has a blank.. or mother like approach.. which is not bad.. but its not that strong either.. she needs to be more crucial in the appitude towards the war, an not just be trying to benefit the people, that is more gimmicy, motherly then a president stance.. If she was to just give a better strategy of what she could do that would benefit troops, tax payers, and limit Iraqi's/pakistan war power.. she would have a better stance...
Another thing is how popular it is to sit there an say bush is a idiot on national broadcast.. thats just wrong.. he's the president.. there is no easy way to solve drugs in america.. there is no easy to push a war down to over..
But all the candidates are really using popular opinion.. everyone hates the war.. so they all hate the war.. i don't think i heard one candidate trying to dig deeper into the war to figure out prime reason for the war.. they all wanna end it..
Everyone hates Bush.. so each president is hateing bush.. i have heard most all of them say.. bush is a fool... didn't know what he was doing.. was absolutly wrong... what did they all say they would do better....... nothing..
all stated-- "Well, we will just do better then what he did" very blank.. an no key stand points... LAMMMME

So i'm iffy on all the candidates.. Al Gore is pretty head strong on environmental issues.. which is a concern that is needed to be monitored heavily.. cause of all the global warming.. an pollution global warming does'nt just affect one nation.. or plant life or the ocean.. IT EFFECTS EVERYTHING.. so if Al Gore decides to run.. i might vote... but I was going to Vote for Hillary but.. she has no key statements that are just unique.. like Obama strategy for war.. make Iraq fund America, and ask for Americans to be there..
If Hillary doesn't start having strong statements or just better strategy of what she can change.. other then just using popular opinion to get around.. then i'm just not going to vote.. or even care for this next election..

2007-12-17 10:49:07 · answer #7 · answered by anvil_tix 2 · 0 2

No, that doesn't disgust me at all, it tells me that they appropriately care more about Americans than Iraqis. If they were running for President of Iraq I would expect the reverse.

2007-12-17 10:35:55 · answer #8 · answered by Beardog 7 · 4 1

Death at a place other than own bed is disgusting.

2007-12-18 05:48:20 · answer #9 · answered by eematters 4 · 1 0

And what are YOU doing to improve the world?? Oh, I guess your sissy little comments expressing your "freedom of expression" here is all you got!

Go to the middle east and knock yourself out kiddo! We don't need your kind here.

2007-12-17 10:35:29 · answer #10 · answered by Useful Idiot 6 · 5 1

fedest.com, questions and answers