|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Great Wall of Whiner
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Middle Land
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Cheers, Pluto. This is excellent news all around, first and foremost because I support McCain. Also, I anticipate announcing Ron Paul's withdrawal from national politics on this thread within weeks if not days. |
You warmongering scumbag. If you support McCain you have the blood of innocent Iraqis on your hands. |
No cause taking down Saddam saved more lives.
Had Saddam gone free he would have killed many more. and remember his sons would have come next.
Anyone who says they oppose the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds is either ignorant or disingenious. Which one are you. In your case though it could be both.
| Quote: |
Survey: Saddam Killed 61,000 in Baghdad
Associated Press ^ | 12/08/03 | NIKO PRICE
Posted on 12/08/2003 12:55:54 PM PST by TexKat
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.
The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.
The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population � 6.39 million � and average household size � 6.9 people � to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.
The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.
Without exhumations of those graves, it is impossible to confirm a figure. Scientists told The Associated Press during a recent investigation that they have confirmed 41 mass graves on a list of suspected sites that currently includes 270 locations. |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036417/posts
Beeye isn't anti war just anti US. |
So, 20+ years, 50k+ people died, because of Saddam's actions.
5 years, 100k+ people died, because of Bush's action.
Who did better?
Thanks and bye, |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
Well, the US is in a "real" recession. And this recession was caused, or at the very least, made MUCH worse by the Fed. And it will last a hell of a long longer than 2 quarters too. Though, I very seriously doubt the fed will use the word "depression". That is what it will technically be.
So, did you start learning about the Fed via wikipedia a few weeks ago? Like the rest of this site? |
We're not in a recession yet. Last quarter saw a 1.8% increase. Not a real recession, not a fake recession. Not a recession, and not a depression. A recession is two straight quarters of GDP decrease. We may be in one soon, but we're not now. That's all I was saying. I'm not saying that the Fed is a cure-all for the economy, it does tend to bail out people who should be forced to assume the losses when they take risks. But going back to gold standard will be quite traumatic, and for a presidential candidate to run on such a position is ludicrous. Nice job on the ad-hominem though. Maybe you should read more carefully next time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Great Wall of Whiner wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Cheers, Pluto. This is excellent news all around, first and foremost because I support McCain. Also, I anticipate announcing Ron Paul's withdrawal from national politics on this thread within weeks if not days. |
You warmongering scumbag. If you support McCain you have the blood of innocent Iraqis on your hands. |
No cause taking down Saddam saved more lives.
Had Saddam gone free he would have killed many more. and remember his sons would have come next.
Anyone who says they oppose the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds is either ignorant or disingenious. Which one are you. In your case though it could be both.
| Quote: |
Survey: Saddam Killed 61,000 in Baghdad
Associated Press ^ | 12/08/03 | NIKO PRICE
Posted on 12/08/2003 12:55:54 PM PST by TexKat
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.
The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.
The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population � 6.39 million � and average household size � 6.9 people � to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.
The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.
Without exhumations of those graves, it is impossible to confirm a figure. Scientists told The Associated Press during a recent investigation that they have confirmed 41 mass graves on a list of suspected sites that currently includes 270 locations. |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036417/posts
Beeye isn't anti war just anti US. |
So, 20+ years, 50k+ people died, because of Saddam's actions.
5 years, 100k+ people died, because of Bush's action.
Who did better?
Thanks and bye, |
You are way understating the amount of people Saddam killed.
| Quote: |
Secondary Level of Mass Murderers:
Obviously, we're going to run into the same vagueries and uncertainties when we try to rank numbers 4 through 10 on the list of the 20th Century's worst killers, but at least we can nominate the candidates. A pretty good case could be made that each of the following rulers (listed alphabetically) were responsible for over a million unjust, unnecessary or unnatural deaths by initiating or intensifying war, famine, democide or resettlement, or by allowing people under their control to do so:
Chiang Kai-shek (China: 1928-49 )
Enver Pasha (Turkey: 1913-18 )
Hirohito (Japan: 1926-89 )
Hirota Koki (Japan: 1936-37 )
Ho Chi Minh (North Vietnam: 1945-69 )
Kim Il Sung (North Korea: 1948-94 )
Lenin (USSR: 1917-24)
Leopold II (Belgium: 1865-1909 )
Nicholas II (Russia: 1894-1917 )
Pol Pot (Cambodia: 1975-79 )
Saddam Hussein (Iraq: 1969- )
Tojo Hideki (Japan: 1941-44 )
Wilhelm II (Germany: 1888-1918 )
Yahya Khan (Pakistan: 1969-71 ) |
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm
| Quote: |
Only at TNR Online| Post date 02.04.03
>
> It is by now a well-established fact that chemical weapons claimed the
> lives of over 5,000 Kurds in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja on March
> 16, 1988. It is equally well-established that responsibility for this
> atrocity lies with Saddam Hussein. Indeed, there is virtual unanimity
> among
> the dozens of journalists, government delegations, and international
> human
> rights groups who have investigated the matter that Halabja was the
> first
> frightful act of Saddam's Anfalcampaign, a genocide that consumed almost
> 100,000 Kurds in all. Yet according to a chilling and incoherent op-
> edpublished in Friday's New York Times,Saddam had nothing to do with the
> massacre after all. The author of this revisionist account is Stephen C.
> Pelletiere, a retired Army War College professor who served as a senior
> Iraq analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency during the Iran-Iraq
> war.
> Pelletiere is the co-author of the 1990 book Iraqi Power and U.S.
> Security
> in the Middle East,which concluded that Iranian gas, not Iraqi gas,
> murdered the Kurds at Halabja. In his Timesop-ed Pelletiere recycles
> this
> argument, only this time against the backdrop of a second war with
> Saddam.
> He's no more convincing today than he was 13 years ago. Pelletiere
> begins
> by reprising the usual facts--namely, that Halabja was the site of an
> intense battle between Saddam and the Iranians. He first concedes that
> Iraq
> did use chemical weapons, but argues that the Iranians did as well. The
> Kurdish victims of the chemicals "had the misfortune to be caught up in
> the
> exchange." Pelletiere then cites a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
> report, issued shortly after Halabja, to support his conclusion that
> Iranian gas killed the Kurds. His evidence? The Kurdish corpses
> "indicated
> that they had been killed with a blood agent," which the Iraqis, "who
> are
> thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have
> possessed."
>
> But this claim is wildly implausible. First, interviews by international
> human rights groups with scores of Halabja survivors reveal no such
> confusion about who deployed the chemicals. Kurds who were outside their
> houses during the mid-morning attack "could see clearly that these were
> Iraqi, not Iranian aircraft, since they flew low enough for their
> markings
> to be legible," concluded Human Rights Watch in its 1993 report Genocide
> In
> Iraq.In any case, the argument for Iranian culpability neglects the
> logistics of the Halabja battle itself. The Iranians, who controlled the
> town on March 15, would have no reason to use chemical agents against
> the
> Iraqi counteroffensive on March 16, since the Iraqis retaliated with air
> strikes and placed no soldiers on the ground against whom such weapons
> could be used. Second, even if the victims died of exposure to blood
> agents, this would be perfectly consistent with the claim of Iraqi
> responsibility. A 1991 DIA report, since declassified, concluded
> definitively, "Iraq is known to have employed ... a blood agent,
> hydrogen
> cyanide gas (HCN) ... against Iranian soldiers, civilians, and Iraqi
> Kurdish civilians." Nonetheless, it is far more likely, according to the
> standard accounts of the attack on Halabja, that mustard gas and the
> nerve
> agents sarin and tabun--and perhaps even VX and the biological agent
> aflatoxin, which the Iraqis were also known to possess--were the
> instruments of Kurdish murder. For example, Human Rights Watch noted
> that
> survivors excreted blood-streaked urine, "consistent with exposure to
> both
> mustard gas and a nerve agent such as Sarin." Third, the 1988 DIA report
> Pelletiere cites to pin Halabja on the Iranians was not the end of the
> DIA's inquiry. The DIA's April 19, 1988 cable--a month after
> Halabja--took
> note of the fact that the Iraqis were already forcibly resettling "an
> estimated 1.5 million Kurdish nationals," including "an unknown but
> reportedly large number of Kurds [who] have been placed in
> 'concentration
> camps' located near the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian borders." This in
> mind,
> the far more plausible story is that Halabja was part of a concerted
> effort
> to settle the Kurdish problem "once and for all," in the words of an
> October 24, 1988 DIA report--by wiping out the Iraqi Kurdish population.
> This
> brings us to the biggest problem with Pelletiere's argument: If the
> Kurds
> were legitimate battlefield casualties, why is it Saddam subsequently
> felt
> the need to slaughter nearly 100,000 more of them? Pelletiere writes
> that
> any otherexamples of Saddam's chemical deployment on Kurdish victims
> "must
> show that [the dead Kurds] were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerillas who
> died
> fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary guards." But even if Saddam's
> goal
> wasto root out traitors, it's inconceivable that all or even most of the
> residents of the dozens of Kurdish villages Saddam subsequently razed
> were
> treacherous peshmerga,or that Saddam believed this to be the case.
> Certainly the testimony of hundreds of Kurdish refugees, who have
> provided
> remarkably consistent accounts of the genocide despite being dispersed
> from
> Iran to Turkey, refute this. So does the fact that Saddam kept gassing
> the
> Kurds after signing the August 20, 1988 ceasefire with Iran, as Samantha
> Power points out in her 2002 book, A Problem From Hell.And in unguarded
> moments, members of Saddam's regime have given lie to this rationale as
> well. Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, entrusted to carry out the
> Kurdish slaughter, was caught on tape at a Ba'athist meeting in May 1988
> boasting about the Kurds, "I will kill them all with chemical weapons!
> Who
> is going to say anything? The international community? *beep* them!"
> (Human > Rights Watch believes the tape is mislabeled, recording a conversation
> that
> really took place in 1987--i.e., before Halabja.) What's perhaps most
> infuriating, though, is that Pelletiere is now reviving his decade-old
> hobbyhorse as a cynical argument against war with Iraq. "President Bush
> himself has cited Iraq's 'gassing its own people,' specifically at
> Halabja,
> as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein," Pelletiere writes. Considering
> the
> Bush administration's "lack of a smoking gun" in the U.N. weapons
> inspections, he continues, "perhaps the strongest argument left for
> taking
> us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights
> atrocities against his own people." Even if Pelletiere had his facts
> straight on Halabja, his would be a noxious and dishonest argument
> against
> war. To begin with, it is an insult to the principled antiwar critics
> who
> recognize and condemn Saddam's record of genocide but who still oppose
> an
> invasion of Iraq. One such critic is Maryland Democratic Representative
> Chris Van Hollen, who as a staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations
> Committee in September 1988 visited Kurdish refugees in Turkey to
> determine
> what had happened in Kurdistan. Van Hollen's team documented Iraqi
> chemical
> attacks on 49 Kurdish villages, leading him to conclude that "at the end
> of
> the Iran-Iraq war, all evidence pointed to the fact that [Saddam] used
> chemical weapons against the Kurds." More important, though, Van Hollen
> grasps the distinction that eludes Pelletiere, which is that while Bush
> invokes the Kurdish genocide in his brief against Saddam, the president
> does so to establish Saddam's willingness to use weapons of mass
> destruction, not to argue that, as Pelletiere ludicrously puts it, "we
> go
> to war over Halabja." The only one fighting a war over Halabja, it
> seems,
> is Stephen Pelletiere. And it's one he'd lost before it had even begun.
> Spencer
> Ackermanis an assistant editor at TNR. |
And not only that Saddam intended to kill off many more kurds maybe all of them and to invade Kuwait again.
Thanks and good bye. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
Well, the US is in a "real" recession. And this recession was caused, or at the very least, made MUCH worse by the Fed. And it will last a hell of a long longer than 2 quarters too. Though, I very seriously doubt the fed will use the word "depression". That is what it will technically be.
So, did you start learning about the Fed via wikipedia a few weeks ago? Like the rest of this site? |
We're not in a recession yet. Last quarter saw a 1.8% increase. Not a real recession, not a fake recession. Not a recession, and not a depression. A recession is two straight quarters of GDP decrease. We may be in one soon, but we're not now. That's all I was saying. I'm not saying that the Fed is a cure-all for the economy, it does tend to bail out people who should be forced to assume the losses when they take risks. But going back to gold standard will be quite traumatic, and for a presidential candidate to run on such a position is ludicrous. Nice job on the ad-hominem though. Maybe you should read more carefully next time. |
Thanks, I tried hard on it.
The United States is in recession.
| Quote: |
The U.S. economy is in a recession, David Rosenberg, chief North American economist for Merrill Lynch, wrote in a research note to clients this morning.
"Friday's employment report confirmed our suspicions that the economy was transitioning into an official recession towards the end of last year," Rosenberg wrote.
"At no time in the past 60 years has the unemployment rate risen 60 basis points (50 bps is the actual cutoff) from the cycle low without the economy slipping into recession, and here we now have the jobless rate hitting 5 percent in December vs. the March/07 trough of 4.4 percent." |
http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2008/1/7/key-economist-says-recession-has-begun
I would argue that the United States has been in negative growth for about 7 months, if you adjust for inflation (monetary expansion). Shadow Government Statistics (who use data from private economists and not the government) argues that the US has been in negative growth since late 2004 and has just been priming the pump with loose money to stimulate consumer spending and create the illusion of economic output.
Methodology here and justification here:
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/57
All the extra money distorted economic and financial statistics, created a housing boom and the employment that went along. Places like Las Vegas and Scottsdale/Phoenix, that are not exactly high-wage locals, have thousands of (currently empty) McMansions that were built. Those houses were counted as economic output (adding 800k to the economy) but are only worth about 300k in the market (what they can actually be sold for). If we remove all this asset-related price inflation then the USA is in a "D-word", by standard economic methodology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Chip in for the recount:
Go to www.grannywarrior.com.
It seems Ron Paul may have actually gotten 20% of the vote. If the recount results in him getting a delegate, under NH law the recount money is returned and so you may just get back your money.
This recount will be for all candidates. |
20%???  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| everyone go to Iamthewitness |
Why? |
He exposes many of Joo's buddies for what they really are  |
http://www.iamthewitness.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
