Striking similarity

[D_Raay]

This link shows an American propaganda poster from the 1940's.. It is eerily similar to a few photos we have right now...

http://www.realitybasednation.com/blog-archives/2005/01/we_sanction_wha.html

The painting in the poster is eerily similar to an image we're all too familiar with. Sadly, torture and brutality in places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo blurs the distinction between the war crimes of Nazi Germany and the torture sanctioned by our government.

America is now in the business of endorsing what we used to condemn. How in a million years is that not grounds for impeaching the regime who allowed it and, in fact, sanctioned it?

[EN[i]GMA]

This link shows an American propaganda poster from the 1940's.. It is eerily similar to a few photos we have right now...

http://www.realitybasednation.com/blog-archives/2005/01/we_sanction_wha.html

Yeah, having some Iraqis stand around naked is morally the same as killing 6 million Jews and 5 million foreigners in death camps.

Compare:

The Nazis killing 11 million people in death camps.

Saddam slicing out the tongues of political dissidents.

The US of A humiliating some people.

And this is coming from someone who doesn't even support the war in Iraq. You guys are dumbasses to even THINK of comparing anything the U.S. has done to Nazi Germany or even Saddam's regime.

It seems like you're part time humanitarians, bitching whenever the US commits the most minor of infractions and standing idly by as Saddam and other dictators murder thousands.

[Ace42]

Yeah, killing over 200,000 innocent citizens is such a minor infraction.

[Qdrop]

GMA']

It seems like you're part time humanitarians, bitching whenever the US commits the most minor of infractions and standing idly by as Saddam and other dictators murder thousands.

yep.

see: Noam Chomsky for another example of a "part time" humanitarian.




although i don't want to put words into D_Raay's mouth. he didn't actually say(write) those comparisons that enigma stated.
that isn't quite fair.

[Qdrop]

Yeah, killing over 200,000 innocent citizens is such a minor infraction.

wildly exagerated number....


but yes, many many innocents have been killed in Iraq.

[100% ILL]

Just wait till we fire up the ovens......Polls!!

[Ace42]

wildly exagerated number...

The Lancet puts the death-count at more than 100,000 for this war. That is a conservative estimate according to them, as it ignored taking into account Fallujah *before* the recent offensive.

The ICRC counted over 100,000 dead in the last week of the previous Gulf war, again they said that was a conservative estimate. Including death from disease, sanctions, DU poisoning, etc inbetween wars, the total of 200,000 is conservative.

[Qdrop]

The Lancet puts the death-count at more than 100,000 for this war. That is a conservative estimate according to them, as it ignored taking into account Fallujah *before* the recent offensive.

The ICRC counted over 100,000 dead in the last week of the previous Gulf war, again they said that was a conservative estimate. Including death from disease, sanctions, DU poisoning, etc inbetween wars, the total of 200,000 is conservative.

please investigate how those numbers are generated...i mean really investigate that, ace. you will be sorely dissapointed.

it is tactically impossible to generate accurate accounts....even in this day and age.

THAT IS NOT TO SAY that i don't think thousands of innocents have dies at our hands in this war.
that is grevious, i agree.


i see you have me off ignore....
yay me.
;)

[EN[i]GMA]

Yeah, killing over 200,000 innocent citizens is such a minor infraction.

Made up numbers aren't even worth responding to.

[Ace42]

please investigate how those numbers are generated...i mean really investigate that, ace. you will be sorely dissapointed.

The ICRC did a count based on reports made by their field operatives AFAIK. However, considering the country was in total chaos the week the war ended, I am not surprised if that makes them of questionable reliability.

However, as the US army's own press-released figures show over 20,000 killed in one day on the highway of death, that figure does not seem unreliable.

As for the Lancet, IIRC (it has been several months since the story was being covered) they used perfectly respectable statistical analysis on a test group of 33*30 households to establish birth and death rates. They even excluded (as I noted above) Fallujah calling it an anomaly. Something which some might contend is generous.

it is tactically impossible to generate accurate accounts....even in this day and age.

It depends how you define accurate. We will never know the precise figures, but that is no reason to doubt valid statistical methodology.

i see you have me off ignore....
yay me.
;)

Don't get used to it. It is only because I am phenominally bored and/or annoyed with most of the posters here.

As for the validity of the Lancet's estimations,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm#

There is the editor defending his findings. The Lancet has a very good reputation, so while that doesn't defend their workings for them, it does mean they are not exactly incredible.

[Qdrop]

The ICRC did a count based on reports made by their field operatives AFAIK. However, considering the country was in total chaos the week the war ended, I am not surprised if that makes them of questionable reliability.

However, as the US army's own press-released figures show over 20,000 killed in one day on the highway of death, that figure does not seem unreliable.

As for the Lancet, IIRC (it has been several months since the story was being covered) they used perfectly respectable statistical analysis on a test group of 33*30 households to establish birth and death rates. They even excluded (as I noted above) Fallujah calling it an anomaly. Something which some might contend is generous.



It depends how you define accurate. We will never know the precise figures, but that is no reason to doubt valid statistical methodology.



fair enough.
at least you are aware of the inherant flaws in the methodology.


Don't get used to it. It is only because I am phenominally bored and/or annoyed with most of the posters here.


well, i'm fuckin flattered.
let me put on my best tie.....

[STANKY808]

GMA']Made up numbers aren't even worth responding to.


Just a heads up -

200,000 is a real number it's not made up at all. It comes right after 199,999 and just before 200,001

[D_Raay]

although i don't want to put words into D_Raay's mouth. he didn't actually say(write) those comparisons that enigma stated.
that isn't quite fair.
Heh, thanks Q... Some testy peeps in here.. I was merely pointing out the similarities in the photos, the actual article that went along with the picture had their own opinion on the Nazi comparison. Not to say I don't agree somewhat, however it would be impossible (one would think anyway) for this administration to reach Nazi-like status in this, the information age.

[Ace42]

GMA']Made up numbers aren't even worth responding to.

Yah, the ICRC and Lancet both used the tried and tested "last week's lottery numbers" method to come up with their figures. And that comment is rather ironic, considering you felt the need to reply. Personally, I have given up on trying you educate you on the misrepresentations your arguments (RE: pro-capitalism) are based on, hence me not listing the numerous flaws in your puerile "labour laws were the product of capitalism, not trade-unionism" argument, based on what is apparently a conscience appeasing bed-time story.

Keep reading facile nonsense concocted to maintain the illusion that the reason that people think you are a nation of assholes is because they don't understand the complexities of the situation which make otherwise clear-cut vices and flaws into rose-smelling graces.

[ASsman]

Hmmm, hey both are related to Christianity. More or less, errr less.

[yeahwho]

hmmm, not your fathers conservatism.

Now go read your Bribles.