What does it mean? That the war on terrorism is directed towards civilians?
Presumably 1675 were killed by al Qaeda, which would mean 100% were terrorism connected. Other than that, I do NOT believe that collateral damage was 3X the effective kill rate, not with our smart weapons, which means the data is incorrect of insufficient.
"presumably", is your source the servile jingoist's or the conspiracy theorist's? Because it makes the whole difference.
And, again, the appreciation of the data comes from a specialist.
A million people were killed in Iraq thanks to our mercenaries and their sophisticated weaponry does it fit your frame of contingency or not ?
Why did I know that eventually it would come down to "America either killed them or paid someone to kill them"? It always does, doesn't it?
Side note - did you know that our soldiers from Iraq are now coming down with diseases and damage from chemical weapons? The weapons that didn't exist there? Or did we herd them into a closed room and gas it ourselves?
I will answer your question by another question. Who is in Afghanistan? Who is Iraq? Who is training ISIS? Who trained the Nicaraguayan National Guard, the death squads in El Salvador...?
Another side note, did you know that Blackwater was paid $750 million for a 3 years contract? The only chemical weapons that were there were ours.
I see. We took the gas over there, buried it in the ground to rot for years and then instructed our soldiers to dig it back up. Got it.
Honestly I don't even know what you are talking about? A commission was sent there and nothing was found.
I was referring to the use of radioactive weaponry and probably gas too in our attacks over Iraq. It wasn't the first time that we consciously harmed soldiers. Our history speaks for itself.
"Probably gas"? From where do you get this opinion? Because America is intrinsically evil?
We gave soldiers X-rays as necessary, too - does that exposure to radiation make the country evil, too? We irradiate them with radiation from radar and radio waves, too. The point is that the radioactivity from uranium bullets is not that high, and not of much concern. They are dense and hard - a valid tradeoff as they kill more enemies trying to kill our soldiers.
A big article in my local paper indicates that our soldiers DID find WMD's in Iraq, and are coming down with injuries/illness from them now. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 … .html?_r=0
It is factual that since our invasions of Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq radioactivity is omnipresent there. It is factual also that the radioactivity concentration had affected the rate of birth defects. If soldiers are sick, it is because of our weapons not theirs.
Who would not defend their country? What will you do if suddenly the French army invaded the US, would you watch passively or would you act accordingly?
Sorry - our soldiers are sick from close proximity to chemical weapons; those WMD's that were never found. Not from a minute increase in background radiation.
And if you want people to believe we caused birth defects you're going to have to produce statistics from before and after, with radiation counts before and after, AND tie that radiation to uranium bullets in a meaningful, statistical manner. Then show that there is no other cause, by checking as many as can be thought up. Not simply assume that radioactivity is horrible and then claim we caused birth defects.
Like Fukushima, if we want to believe that it is polluting the vast ocean I have to bring data. No I don't have to bring data because people interested in the matter will find the appropriate data.
Your interventions are for the sake of intervening, you bring nothing to the plate but total denial of the wrongdoings of our foreign policies.
If I had to follow your logic, I would nail you. If Iraq had those weapons who would more likely be the arm dealer? It is common knowledge that Saddam Hussein was at a certain time of our history our friend.
by TimTurner7 years ago
Most of you know I am very critical of Obama but it looks like he is going to send about 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan which is what needs to be done. At least, that is the rumor on the street.For...
by Ralph Deeds5 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is...
by GA Anderson3 years ago
Whether we want to or not?Pres, Obama's announcement - we will engage ISSA!Hold on folks, before you jump...If I had my druthers, the Iraq war would not have happened - I think it was a dumb move.When we left Iraq...
by Evan G Rogers5 years ago
I'm sorry, but I have yet to find any evidence that Iran is building a nuke. Yet, the EU just condemned starvation and austerity to the people of Iran because it MIGHT be building a...
by Rudra8 years ago
Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a gun and bomb attack after a political rally in the city of Rawalpindi. Who do you think could be behind this?
by theirishobserver.6 years ago
President Barack Obama has announced that the mastermind of the September 11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people has been killed in Pakistan by U.S.-led forces.The following is the text of Mr Obama's statement to...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.