Now the death toll is 9/11 times two.
There will be many more.
PeakOil is You
U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from Sept. 11
U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from Sept. 11
by Zardoz » Sat 23 Sep 2006, 01:59:53
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
-
Zardoz - Expert
- Posts: 6323
- Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Re: U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from Sept. 11
by nwildmand » Sat 23 Sep 2006, 04:55:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', 'T')here will be many more.
boy you aint a kiddin there.
-
nwildmand - Coal
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Re: U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from Sept. 11
by budeone » Sat 23 Sep 2006, 08:03:58
This cant stop till this stops
Poll: Nearly a third of Americans still believe Saddam personally involved in 9/11
Poll: Nearly a third of Americans still believe Saddam personally involved in 9/11
A recent New York Times/CBS poll reveals among other things that nearly one-third of Americans still believe that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.
Last month, President Bush stated in a press conference that the former Iraqi dictator had "nothing" to do with the attacks, despite previous statements by Vice President Cheney. The Boston Globe in 2003 said Cheney asserted "that the administration is learning 'more and more' about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks," surprising analysts and officials at the time who had reviewed Iraq intelligence reports.
The White House also has a webpage which credits some of the confusion to former CIA Director George Tenet, to whom Bush awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004.
The lengthy Times/CBS survey of just over a thousand Americans featured over 80 questions covering a wide variety of political topics.
Some of the highlights of the poll, available in a full PDF file here, follow. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... ts_sub.pdf
Poll: Nearly a third of Americans still believe Saddam personally involved in 9/11
Poll: Nearly a third of Americans still believe Saddam personally involved in 9/11
A recent New York Times/CBS poll reveals among other things that nearly one-third of Americans still believe that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.
Last month, President Bush stated in a press conference that the former Iraqi dictator had "nothing" to do with the attacks, despite previous statements by Vice President Cheney. The Boston Globe in 2003 said Cheney asserted "that the administration is learning 'more and more' about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks," surprising analysts and officials at the time who had reviewed Iraq intelligence reports.
The White House also has a webpage which credits some of the confusion to former CIA Director George Tenet, to whom Bush awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004.
The lengthy Times/CBS survey of just over a thousand Americans featured over 80 questions covering a wide variety of political topics.
Some of the highlights of the poll, available in a full PDF file here, follow. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... ts_sub.pdf
- budeone
- Peat
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Police State
Re: U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from Sept. 11
by rwwff » Sat 23 Sep 2006, 10:39:59
Its a problem of discerning the difference between the following factual statements.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
Saddam sponsored terrorism outside of Iraq
Al-Qaeda was not supported by Iraq.
Al-Qaeda had contacts with Iraq.
That is further confused by the fact that Al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq now; so if you wanted to do battle with members of Al-Qaeda, Iraq is currently the right place to go. [Of course we made it this way, but cause doesn't change ground truth.]
Most people do not want to invest either the time or the energy to understand this matrix of details. This 1/3 group support the pres, or want him to ramp the action up more than just a little. They figure by believing that Saddam was involved in 9/11 they are voicing their support for the pres and providing support for him to increase the intensity of the battle.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
Saddam sponsored terrorism outside of Iraq
Al-Qaeda was not supported by Iraq.
Al-Qaeda had contacts with Iraq.
That is further confused by the fact that Al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq now; so if you wanted to do battle with members of Al-Qaeda, Iraq is currently the right place to go. [Of course we made it this way, but cause doesn't change ground truth.]
Most people do not want to invest either the time or the energy to understand this matrix of details. This 1/3 group support the pres, or want him to ramp the action up more than just a little. They figure by believing that Saddam was involved in 9/11 they are voicing their support for the pres and providing support for him to increase the intensity of the battle.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
-
rwwff - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: East Texas
Re: U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from Sept. 11
by Miki » Sat 23 Sep 2006, 12:08:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'I')ts a problem of discerning the difference between the following factual statements.
That is further confused by the fact that Al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq now; so if you wanted to do battle with members of Al-Qaeda, Iraq is currently the right place to go. [Of course we made it this way, but cause doesn't change ground truth.]
That is further confused by the fact that Al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq now; so if you wanted to do battle with members of Al-Qaeda, Iraq is currently the right place to go. [Of course we made it this way, but cause doesn't change ground truth.]
Also frther confused by the fact that:
1-Bush & co. lie. You call it confusion, but the rest of the world (except Blai & co) call it a lie.
2-American intelligence is far from infallible. Conflicting reports, insufficient evidence, evidence that is contradicted by intelligence from other countries, or even by other institutions within the US.
As for your second point: Al Qaeda is everywhere in the world. Kill them in Irak, they appear somewhere else. The more you kill, the more they recruit. The only reason why Al Qaeda is operating predominantly in Irak is that they can kill more Americans. They already doubled 9/11 and counting. You kill them, they kill you.
And spare me your insights on how more people die in traffic accidents. I know that. The fact is that American soldiers have achieved nothing in 3 years and they got killed and spent billions in the process. If your goal is to destroy Irak and kill Iraki civilians, you've more than accomplished your mission. Congrats. But if your goal was to achieve a regime change to get hold of the oil, you're still struggling to do that, and you've done a very poor job so far.
The Arabs are not as ineffective as you think. If they were, Al Qaeda would be long gone, their capacity to recruit would be greatly diminished, there would be a regime change in Irak, NATO would have control of Afghanistan, etc etc. Your army is way more ineffective if their large numbers and high tech weapons and better training can achieve nothing in 5 years.
-
Miki - Tar Sands
- Posts: 969
- Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Re: U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from Sept. 11
by qwerty » Sat 23 Sep 2006, 12:15:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '
')
The Arabs are not as ineffective as you think. If they were, Al Qaeda would be long gone, their capacity to recruit would be greatly diminished, there would be a regime change in Irak, NATO would have control of Afghanistan, etc etc. Your army is way more ineffective if their large numbers and high tech weapons and better training can achieve nothing in 5 years.
')
The Arabs are not as ineffective as you think. If they were, Al Qaeda would be long gone, their capacity to recruit would be greatly diminished, there would be a regime change in Irak, NATO would have control of Afghanistan, etc etc. Your army is way more ineffective if their large numbers and high tech weapons and better training can achieve nothing in 5 years.
Especially if you consider all the people in the US Army these days are only there for the free college money, GI Bill, and whatever diminishing fringe benefits /VA benefits that the gov gives them. The US Military is quickly turning into a mercenary, and quickly falling apart. You should see some of the DESPERATE recruiting gimmicks they have to use just to keep up with their montly quota, its so sad and pathetic its not even funny.
"...the US, Great Britain, and Israel; the real Axis of Evil..." - Michael C. Ruppert
-
qwerty - Peat
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Sun 03 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
