Death Toll Count

I think Bush garners most of his domestic support from a conservative majority in the middle of our country, and gains more from people willing to give him authority to fight terror. What concerns me is the religious authority Bush seems to grant himself, and much of the country seems in accord with. When religion and politics ride together, disaster is inevitable without some sort of control.

Amen to that.

You said that being anti-war was the default of the uneducated people, and I was questioning the grounds that you based that statement because it seems incorrect to me.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Misnomer [/i]
[B] What concerns me is the religious authority Bush seems to grant himself, and much of the country seems in accord with. When religion and politics ride together, disaster is inevitable without some sort of control. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with that. By claiming that God "has his bacK" Bush is able to use this self-righteousness to say that he is the world's saviour. In that aspect he is no different from Osama.

Well of course that was just a hypotheses, I mean, I'm not exactly a sociologist or anything even remotely resembling one. At best, that was a guess, just speaking from experience. I didn't mean it to be in any way authoritive.

This isn't EXACTLY what we're talking about, but at least 1,000 of my brain cells have been killed by this war via media oversaturation.

My country went to war with Iraq, and all I got was retarded.

Thanks a lot Mistah Bush! Thanks a whole bunch!

I would definitely agree with DNT on pro-war being the 'default'. I'm in Texas, though, so who knows... Most people here love Bush, and in my college classes where we bring up the subject, it seems like only the more intelligent people are against it, and we're pretty rare. Most people are just like "fuck it, kill all those dirty ragheads, who gives a shit, they shouldn't be terrorists."

I'm not even exagerating that, that's really what they say. The ignorance is [i]painful[/i].

It makes sense, though, that the 'default' of the uneducated is to just go with the war. The media is hyping it, Bush is the president, just follow along with what you're being fed, no? That's the uneducated thing to do, not that being pro-War automatically implies some sort of ignorance/stupidity/whatever, but you know what I mean...

On a side note, I just went to a concert for the band Saliva. Wow. Okay, let me explain. My friend's girlfriend won tickets, and I got dragged along. This band fucking blew. Christ, utter filth. And of course, half-way through their little gig, they have to yell about how they support the troops. Okay, that's cool. But then they go on about "squooshing out tyranny and faggot ass terrorism". Yeah, squooshing. Oh man, and he just went on from there. *groan* I can't stand this. Some people are so fucking retarded and ignorant. It hurts, it really does.

Not that any of you folks fall into this category... Even if you are pro-war, you guys seem to have at least some decent reasoning behind it. Somewhat.

Also, in regards to "stop protesting/bitching and DO something about it"...

Well, god dammit, I'm getting there. I'm going to college, trying to get a degree in Philosophy so I can teach. That will be a nice little way to influence people there. Then I just have to get good at this whole writing thing and write some neato stuff. =D

And then I have to find a specific cause that's really worth it. Really, really worth it. And then fulfill my title.

And fuck.

I had this all planned out before the Life of David Gale movie came out.

Bastards ripped me off.

Not that I'd die for the death penalty. That's a kind of crappy cause. I mean, okay, it's not crappy, it's noble, but.... It's just not big enough, I suppose.

Isn't "Death Toll Count" redundant?

Like saying PIN number?

objection...relevancy?

What I actually meant and want is a Death Toll COUNTER, like a hit meter on websites or the billboard in New York City that continually shows our nation's growing debt.

BTW, any casualty updates?

should we count those two fucking protesters who fell off the Golden Gate Bridge?

Just heard about one Marine who died while taking an oil field (? field may not be the right word). dunno if it's posted, so much to go through.

One helicopter was reportedly "destroyed" but we ended up fixing it and saving everyone.

One helicopter crashed from mechanical failure, did all those people die?

One civilian killed and 14(?) injured.

Not sure about their military.

The helicopter that crashed due to mechanical failure was carrying 8 british, and 4 american. All dead.

And we probably won't see a whole lot of wartime casualties till we get to Baghdad. Right now we're bum rushing the desert, and Saddam reportedly stuck his weakest troops out there so he could have the best ones with him. And we all know, Weak troops = surrender. Atleast most the time, anyhow.

So, at this point, it looks like 9 people killed (American), and 8 (British).

I think.

There is going to be a whole lot more because we are bombing the shit out of Baghdad right now.

According to an Iraqi ambassador in Moscow, Iraq has shot down 3 of our helicopters. No idea if that's true or not, but it doesn't seem too far-fetched. No word on what happened to the people in those helicopters, though.

Also claimed that there are 39 wounded in Baghdad, "mainly women, children, and elderly people."

*shrug*

I have a feeling we are going to have to wait until some humanitarian organizations get some data. The corporate news is not going report death because it will not help to boost war morale.

[QUOTE]Guys, seriously. Stop making it out like Bush is the scum of the Earth.

Talk about Saddam.

He uses his chemical weapons on his own people. Do you realize that? Do you think it's okay for him to kill his own people, but it's suddenly a mortal sin for us to do it to them?

God, I just don't care anymore. Bomb the whole fucking world. Kill everybody. Just as long as there's no more complaining about all of this.[/QUOTE]

why doesn't grade 5 find a young republicans board or something? i'm sure they're out there.

as far as protesting goes, protestors ended the vietnam war. i think that's where ppl get the idea that protesting will affect change.

however, bush has proven himself steadfastly able to ignore the protests even of the entire world. so i don't know what *would* be effective--when the leaders of other countries and the UN say "no" and bush's response is, "fuck you, we're going to do it anyway," then i haven't a clue what would work.

although NOT re electing him in 2004 springs to mind as a possibility.

I'm quite interested in what the voting turnouts will be come election... seeing as how everyone HATES Bush (With good reason), I would be extremely saddened if most of the people who think that, just sit on their ass and let the dice roll.

And on the flip side, I would love it if this insanity lately forces everyone to actually care about voting. As opposed to just letting democracy slip further and further away...

one possible thing that can be done is supporting amnesty international. This Nobel Peace Prize organization has had many successes in its history and hopefully can help with the humanitarian crisis that accompanies this war. [url]http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/pages/iraq_summary[/url]

I hoping that for the next election that the democrats get their act together and give the public a real choice for the president. I always feel like I am forced to vote for Nader because the democrats are so inept.

I've been researching a lot about this war lately, and I've concluded that I don't support it at all. I think there is so much wrong with it that I don't even know where to start. So I won't.

I was just surfing around and I found a thread on a separate message board about "supporting the troops" and I have to say that I agree with this guy one hundred percent. Rather than explain myself, here's a link where a guy (successfully?) defends the concept of not supporting the troops--I think he makes a lot of really good points, and quotes Bush in his own defense, which I found humorous. He goes on about anarchy, which I find a bit too idealist, but still. It's a good read if you have the time.

[url]http://discuss.princetonreview.com/forums/Thread.cfm?CFApp=6&Thread_ID=468547&mc=122#Message4579895[/url]

Pfah! That's gotta be some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard in my life. Tell you what, let's not even have a military. Let's just hand out guns to everyone over 17, let companies and corporations buy their own weapons, and release military power into the hands of the public. That way every indiviudal can make his own decisions of what he thinks is right or wrong. Let's see how long such an anarchistic military survives itself, much less international incidents.

But what the fuck do I know? I'm just some mindless automaton with no free will. Can someone please tell me what to do? I'm so lost without guidance.

Personally, I don't give a fuck about what some pampered kid thinks about my actions. I serve for my own reasons, and unlike some people, apparently, I have an idea what values like service mean and what ideals in general cost.

I agree that his ideas on anarchy are a bit idealistic and wouldn't work in the world we live in. But the point is, how much support should we give to people who carry out orders regardless of their meaning or implications? Tell me, what IS the value of service when you die for a cause you don't believe in?

Ok, let's say I get sent out to the gulf, and let's say my ship gets hit, and let's say I die, and that I hypothetically don't believe in the war in Iraq. Did I die for something I don't believe in? No. I died serving my country, and America itself is the cause I believe in. If I'm not willing to do that, no matter my personal beliefs, I shouldn't be in the military.

If you were in a fight and you went to punch a guy in the head, would you want your hand to turn aside on its own free will because it didn't want to hurt the guy or it didn't want to risk being broken against his forehead?

Read some Sun Tzu or some military history. Find out the correlations between discipline and victory, and then get back to me.

Bah, I sound like a flag-waving jarhead. I'm a realist, and serve in the military mainly to suit my own means, but I know the price I pay for that.

But if you didn't believe in the war in Iraq, I don't think you'd feel that you died protecting America.

I would feel like I died for some corrupt cause where I didn't belong in the first place. Because my country told me to.

I'm not arguing that you wouldn't die "serving your country", but that doesn't make it right. America is about freedom and the right to do what you want to do, and yet, in the military, you can die fighting in a war you don't believe in, because you no longer had the freedom to say no.

I read an article in US News & World Reports about a book written by a marine that served in the first gulf war. It is his autobiography and he explains how he went from being a proud, loyal, flag waving american soldier to a cynic who does not support this current war. I think the book is called "Jarhead: A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles." It is definitely a book I plan to pick up on my next trip to B&N. They are already classifying it with such anti-war novels as Catch-22, Slaughterhouse Five, and Johnny Got His Gun.

Well, well, that's how you'd see it, and for that reason, it's probably a good thing you're not in the military. I'm not saying that to put you down, either.

It's easy for me to talk about convictions, and duty, and such when I'm sitting here at shore. Perhaps I would feel differently I was out there right now, though I doubt it. I'm not espousing blind loyalty (if I was given what I perceived as an unlawful or immoral order, I would refuse, despite the consequence), but what I'm saying is that I believe in serving a cause that is greater than myself, and as such, is beyond my ability to scrutinize to the point where I can say my desires or personal beliefs are more important than the cause I serve. I've had better paying jobs with more personal freedoms, but I still felt there was something missing. A sense of purpose.

I could go on, but I don't think it's necessary. I'm content with my role, and despite my disagreements, I'm glad there are dissenters.

CNN had the father of a soldier killed in the war on. He was pretty much in Bush's face. He held up a photo of his son and said, "George Bush take a good look at this picture. You've taken my only son." They cut back to the anchors in the studio: dead silence.

"as far as protesting goes, protestors ended the vietnam war. i think that's where ppl get the idea that protesting will affect change."

Not really, the war was going terribly anyhow, the protests just coincided with the ending of the war. However, there is some quote by LBJ about how when he saw 100,000 protestors in DC, he knew the war was over... So maybe they had some impact, but I don't think they were really behind the ending of the war.

"then i haven't a clue what would work."

Revolution comes to mind.

"although NOT re electing him in 2004 springs to mind as a possibility."

Elections are rigged. 90,000 voters in Florida were blacklisted and not allowed to vote because they were supposedly felons, but they turned out not to be. The majority of them were black democrats.

Not that the democrats are much better. We don't get real options in this country, we get 2 sides of the same coin.

Anyhow... Apparently 2 British helicopters crashed into each other over the Persian Gulf.

Some Russian site claims that "several hundred" US soldiers have been killed, but it's pretty iffy whether or not that has any validity whatsoever...

Iraq's minister of information said that 207 Iraqi civilians have been injured. He is offering to take reporters to the Iraqi hospitals (that haven't been destroyed) to show 207 "military targets." He is also saying that the claims that a lot of Iraqi troops is false.

He also says that Iraq has destroyed 5 US tanks and shot down a bunch of helicopters. I don't know who to believe. Iraq could be giving propaganda, but I don't trust the corporate news sources. If Americans start hearing on the news about Americans dying, war support will go down. As long as its only Iraqi soldiers and civilians, Americans will keep supporting this murder.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]We don't get real options in this country, we get 2 sides of the same coin.[/B][/QUOTE]

I was in America for two weeks during the last presidential race (about three or four months before the elections). The thing is, it was only after I'd been home for several weeks that I even realised that there were more than two candidates. As far as I could see, and correct me if I'm wrong, the media didn't even [i]try[/i] to promote anyone else.

i'm libertarian, and although we have a few people in the public eye (like Bill Maher), you won't hear much about my party on the news.
i felt that Nadir had the most exposure of any previous independant that I remember though. So maybe that's changing just a hair.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by well [/i]
[B]But the point is, how much support should we give to people who carry out orders regardless of their meaning or implications?[/B][/QUOTE]

You know what? To some extent, that is every single person in this country.

It's a human reaction to trust that someone knows what they're doing, that they know something you don't. And every single person would carry it out, to some extent....not saying everyone would take it to the furthest extent though.

What I'm saying is, you can't change the fact the majority of humans will follow orders without thinking of the real consequences.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Not that the democrats are much better. We don't get real options in this country, we get 2 sides of the same coin.[/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly, twins - one wearing a red tie, one wearing a blue one.

It's pathetic, and it's why I've never voted. It didn't matter who I voted for because they were the exact same thing. Unless we get a horrible person for the Democrat side (lol, i accidentally/subliminally typed democrap right there...anyway) I'll vote for them even if I'm not absolutely in love w/ their ideas and all that, just to send the message to Bush, and people who may run for president and try to do the same thing, that you can't do this.

The most disturbing thing I've read in the past few days was about whoever the president was during the Vietnam war (i'm horrible at history) was asked about the protestors. He replied that he just doesn't pay any attention to them.

Isn't that his job? I doubt the president should be ignoring ANY american.

I think Bush has said the same thing, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm not completely sure if I've heard that or not.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by chosenJuan [/i]
[B]I was in America for two weeks during the last presidential race (about three or four months before the elections). The thing is, it was only after I'd been home for several weeks that I even realised that there were more than two candidates. As far as I could see, and correct me if I'm wrong, the media didn't even [i]try[/i] to promote anyone else. [/B][/QUOTE]

Bet ya can't guess why.

Money. Woo! It's behind everything.

There have bunch of updates on deaths recently and there are probably alot more than what is being reported. Apparently a few journalists were killed by a sucide bomber. The casualty numbers just keep rising, but war hawks will continue to shrug and say "collateral damage."

Yeah, the claim of 200 wounded Iraqi civilians has been backed up by Reuters.

Also reports that there are quite a number of Iraqi regulars standing up to our rush to Baghdad. Apparently it was pretty unexpected, but they were massacred nonetheless. One reporter's words were "There were dead bodies everywhere."

Gooooooooooo USA.

Also - Just saw a 75 year old lady protesting the war on CNN. Man, she was awesome.

check out this granny: [url]http://www.grannyd.com[/url]

2 grenades were just tossed into a commander's tent.. Injured 10 - 6 seriously. They were talking with a reporter there, line went dead though, last thing they heard before it went dead was gunshots... Heh.

Argh. Why do they keep calling it Triple A? Am I missing something here? I mean... It's Anti-Aircraft... That's AA, not AAA! Blah. Or are they thinking Anti-Aircraft Artillery? I dunno... I just always remember it being called AA, not Triple A... Blah. Bastages.

six american journalists killed today. at least three british.

pentagon officials chastened news agencies in a press conference, demanding that if they don't want any more journalists killed, they need to keep their people "embedded" with US troops, which essentially amounts to accepting the US company line. "embedded" reporters are kept away from the action, and are given little to no information.

so essentially, the response to the death of the journalists was: toe our established line, regurgitate our spoon-fed non-information, or die.

what. the. fuck.

I am so sick of the media just feeding us propaganda that the government and corporations tell it to. I wish news sources like alternet and tompaine.com had the resources that resources that the major media outlets did so we could get the full picture.

and we in the media are sick of people with political agendas who can't use us to support their claims with facts deciding, never having worked in news, never having experienced what goes on in newsgathering organizations, without any kind of true understanding of the *real* priorities of news workers and services, that we're feeding them corporate propaganda, or that we're liberally biased, or that we're controlled by the CIA, and on and on and on. please. spare me the whole "the corporate/liberal/american/international media is screwing everything up/to blame/feeding us propaganda/covering everything up" line of bullshit. if you want to talk facts about the war, that's fine. but don't shoot the messengers because you don't like what you hear, or don't hear what you need.

first of all, no one has ever blamed the media for being liberal. Major media providers like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc... are VERY conservative. I wish there were a few liberal media outlets out there. Whenever I turn on CNN, etc.. I see footage of how cool war is. They keep showing the neat-o technology and how cool Bush is. No one ever talks about what war is really like and it pisses me off. All the footage on CNN makes war seem like some playstation video game.

[URL=http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter.html]no one has ever blamed the media for being liberal.[/URL]

and if that's not enough for you, go [URL=http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html]here[/URL], or [URL=http://www.fair.org/media-beat/020321.html]here[/URL], or [URL=http://www.fightthebias.com/fight_liberal_media_bias.htm]here[/URL], or [URL=http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14789]here[/URL], or [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/34A7FOK9785DQ/ref%3Dcm%5Fbg%5Fguides/104-3616017-3659907]here[/URL].

i don't think i need to say any more. but if you STILL need more evidence, given the way the media slants EVERYTHING, do your *own* google search before you make a "never" or "always" statement, period. i'm a member of the liberal/corporate media, and even *i* know that.

"This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that journalists are to the left of the public." - FAIR

"On bedrock issues of economic power, what passes for liberal-conservative debate in news media is usually a series of disputes over how to fine-tune the status quo. In the process, the myth of "the liberal media" serves as a smokescreen for realities of corporate media. " -FAIR

I could go on.

Clearly you misinterpretted me. I am in no way shape or form criticizing the media for be too liberal. I actually wish it would shift to the left a bit. I know that conservatives like to claim that there is a liberal media bias when in fact it is the other way around.

P.S. I don't think liberal and corporate belong next to each other in the same backslash (liberal/corporate). They are definitely not interchangeable. Corporations are conservative.