Read This: GW Bush By November 2008?

I think everyone's opinion in here is valid; just don't be name-calling and arguing like children! Jeez, aren't I like, one of the youngest here!?
I wouldn't doubt the mercenary thing; I just think its probably very rare, and done through puppets and only to people who the government consider a major threat.... like John lennon.

 

Not everyone is even posting an "opinion".

Post such as cadcruzers'

is not an opinion. It is drivel, meaning: a useless, worthless message.
Cadcruzer and wackyiraqi seem to be very fond of posting worthless messages and calling it their "opinion".

Posting useless messages is a tactic used by forum trolls.
Cadcruzer and wackyiraqi being the trolls that they are should be banned.

 

Could you show me the "flame" and the "personal attacks"??


I'm sure if you looked you would see who is responsible for 99% of the personal attacks, and its not me or wacky.

I usually let the first 10 -15 personal attacks slide before i respond with one, and of course you didnt see those.

 

NO, it's a FACT not an opinion. something you cant seem to deal with.

 

Worth every bit as much as yours.

Again thanks for the unprovoked personal attack.

Is this how it works you attack me , but i just have to take it?

I guess if you have no point to make , fall back on what your good at.

 

Would you be so kind as to point out the useFULL messages that you and Higherthanhell have posted in this thread.

Here are some excerpts from the two of you.

I'm sorry Cadcruzer and myself are not able to post the quality material that you guys are capable of.

I apologize. Two wrongs do not make a right and I should know better than to resort to personal insults like Higherthanhell and Stev90 do. I do have a question. Does this rule apply only to the warmongers? (Still waiting for someone to post proof of these allegations)

Kind of funny, last time the Lancet survey was brought up it ended the same way. Some people chose to ignore posted links and instead resorted to name calling which resulted in deleted or edited posts.

My sole purpose here is to discuss issues with so called "open-minded" people (though I am starting to question the open-minded part. No offense to most of you who can maturely discuss a topic). Sure, we may not all agree on the topics at hand, but isn't that what fuels a productive discussion? This whole quarrel started with someone asking another to post proof to back up a claim. Doesn't seem like too much to ask does it? It then continued with myself asking Higherthanhell for proof of me being a neocon or warmonger (neither of which has yet been proven). Again, doesn't seem like too much to ask does it?

Fedup, I do not believe for a second that you cannot see who the real insitgator is. You yourself have experienced the flaming by this individual. Remember? I for the life of me cannot understand why some people here are so offended by other members posts, but cannot come up with a rebuttle. They resort to namecalling and flaming. That simply tells me one thing. The funny thing is that Higherthanhell and myself are really not in disagreement. We both agree that the invasion of Iraq has caused the horrific deaths of innocent civilians, and that President Bush is ultimately responsible. Our difference of opinion simply lies in the actual number of these deaths.

I am not here to start any fights or offend people. Is it too much to ask to agree to disagree? Can't we do this with respect?

 

True, but there are times when the only difference is in the level of agreement. I think that it is probably easy to interpret my posts as defending Bush or the Iraq war, when in truth I am doing nothing of the sort. I just happen to believe that there are more than enough reasons to not like the Bush Administration, without having to exaggerate or use derogatory terms or names. The more extreme the rhetoric, the less likely you are to have an impact on someone of a different viewpoint.


By taking the middle ground and sticking as close to fact as possible, either side will be more willing to hear your opinion (Of course this doesn't work with the far right or the far left, you usually end up being labeled). Do you think Bush supporters like hearing me say he is responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqi civilians? No more than Bush haters like hearing that he is NOT responsible for 1.2 million deaths.

 

this thread is totally being hijacked...
these are my thoughts. Namecalling and saying "fuk" (reminds me of "Terrance and Phillip" from "Southpark") is just kind of immature... and poor spelling. WackyIraqi has made a good point about how Higherthanhell and Stev90 have been just cussing him out pretty much.
Anyway; I think we should get out of Iraq. We're killing innocent people, they don't want us here, and if we just leave them alone and don't piss them off anymore they won't bother us. They just want peace too.

 

lol

 

The truth is, wackyiraqi and cadcruzer are both trolls, posting worthless drivel, masquerading as their "opinions".
These trolls don't seem to know the difference between their ass from a hole in the ground.
Maybe you guys should form an ass- hram (ashram) commune.

Wow. You complain about people cussing and using the word fuk, in hipforum, while the killing of thousands of innocent people goes unabated.

You show some remarkable display of awesome priorities, kid.

 

That post was sloppy on my part, I did not even quote the Lancet number correctly. The 80,000 number is a count that the US government has come up with. There is an actual number, not rounded off perfectly to 80,000. It could be something like 83,324. I believe the actual number to be between 100,000-200,000 which is giving a large margin of error. The last time we discussed this, or attempted to discuss this, was in December and that is the number I stated then also.

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3934912#post3934912

Next you will probably note the discrepancy in the average death per day number I posted. This is simply due to taking the same death toll number is comparison to the number of days that the US has occupied Iraq. That was in December, now it is March. So again, the reason I believe this number to be more accurate is due to the numbers that I have seen from an ACTUAL count. Regardless of the public statement that the US government has made about not counting enemy dead or civilian casualties, that is simply not true. There is a government agency that keeps a count that is probably as close to accurate as possible. Numbers that are corroborated from several different sources to assure accuracy.

But you believe that over a million were killed in shock and awe alone?

You believe the number to be 1.2 million since the invasion, but also believe that there were over 1 million that were from a two day bombing campaign. Those numbers seem rather skewed to me.

 

lol

 

[/QUOTE]Would you consider these as stupid comments?

Sad we have to let comments like these slide, beings how this IS what the topic of the thread is about, correct?
Is asking for sources or links to these statements breaking forum guidelines?

He "guy" attempted to sell this half truth, i called him on it "because that pisses me off" and got butchered for calling him on it, why is it when i call someone out for selling half truths" wasnt even close to half truth, purely made up bs" you call it flaming?

 

The same way you can strike a tank under a bridge, and not destroy the bridge. Prescision guided munitions. I believe that the actual number is closer to 5,000.

I would be interested to see this report. In fact, I am surprised that you did not post it after reading it. Also, I wasn't aware the US was trying to block and interfere with any death toll investigation. It is not as if these deaths are secrets. Just about any day of the week you can read about bombings or shootings in Iraq. These are reported events. These events are treated as crime scenes. Casualties are reported. Civilian casualties resulting from military operations can be found in Action Reports. If you know the right people or right places to look, this information is readily available. I am perplexed that you seem to think nobody is actually COUNTING these deaths. Seems that the World Health Organization has more recently finished a survey whose numbers are more in line with the actual count. The thing to look at when analyzing a survey is the method in which the survey was conducted.

Here are a couple of links from the recent study that I found doing some very quick internet searching.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr02/en/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7180055.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/10/iraq.iraqtimeline

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10casualties.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26scpQ3D1Q26sqQ3DiraqQ2BdeathsQ2BsurveyQ26stQ3Dnyt&OP=385aa9a0Q2FQ2A9lQ3FQ2AQ5CcX@Fccr8Q2A8Q3EQ3EQ5BQ2AQ3E.Q2A.Q3EQ2A9cFYQ5CQ2AkQ3AQ5CQ5CYll2@rQ2A.Q3EX2@s2YrQ3Al@Q2BQ51rkY

 

You posted,

I replied,

Meaning that our differences do go beyond that, as in our general point of view. However, in this situation we essentially are in agreement, just not in the actual number. I don't know how many times I have to explain what my point is. I think you three are thinking that I am defending the war or Bush, I am not. What pisses people off here is that my beliefs are not as extreme as some.



I have made my point, you guys are going to believe what you're going to believe. As far as flaming, I guess I didn't realize I was doing so. Interesting that out of all the things people have said here, I am the one flaming. I guess my definition of flaming is much different than yours. You are a moderator here, you enforce the rules and I understand that. I think any reasonable thinking person can see what is going on here.

 

lol

 

Do you have evidence to support what you are insinuating at?
Or is trolling a forum, your idea of what a "reasonable thinking person" ought to be doing.

Not quite different from a George Bush insisting that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and therefore, any "reasonable thinking person" can see the Neo-Con justification for invading Iraq.

WackyIraqi, please defend your latest round of accusation and insinuation, otherwise, your post is but another attempt at flaming and even a direct attack at a moderator, consistent with your modus operandi for being a troll on this forum.

WackyIraqi, you have already been issued a FINAL warning.
Your trolling days may be numbered.

Who knows, we might yet see a wackyIraqi withdrawal from this forum, even sooner ...

 

the tactic amongst the war mongers is shock and awe

bombard forums with your opinion and pretty soon your opinion is the only one on it.

this is the main thrust of their "strategy", they see alternative opinion as weak and crying out to be conquered, they don't tolerate it on their own forums. this was another old trick of hitler - shout down your opponent.

the world is not black and white, shades of grey are confusing for them.

the more you waste your time on the warmonger, the more they win, they are robbing you of valuable time to simply do other things. i'd say that in light of the last 4 years these people have been given more than enough rope on these forums to give their unwavering unchanging opinion against reality.

the most irksome question for these people is why are they not fighting it out in the streets in baghdad instead of banging on about the righteousness of their cause here, in all places - hip forums?

 

This thread is mainly one of the most useless waste of posts I<ve seen, but go on people , blaming each other, after all it<s your freedom. But just so you know, it<s extremely boring.

 

Whoa, isn't it amazing when some 16 yr old punk who barely got out his diapers, posts some "profound wisdom", which basically translates into: "I'm fucking bored, gimme some fucking attention."

Did you realize that you were interested enough to add your own "useless waste of a post" in what you consider an "extremely boring thread".

Bugger off kid, go play some Guitar Hero, masturbate or something. :jester: