The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[Radar]

I think your question is fair Dana, but you should keep in mind it is impossible to prove that you helped avert something that never happened. One can not prove a negative.

It's like the morons who claim we've had major terrorist attack on U.S. soil due to the insane policies of George W. Bush. One can not prove such a statement and even making such a claim is logically retarded.

It is like me saying that the paint on my house repels Bigfoot and saying, "Well you don't see Bigfoot at my house do you?" as a means of proof.

UG obviously can't prove that he has helped avert genocide. He can only state that he has opposed gun control laws which have been used in the past to disarm people so they could carry out genocide. On the other hand, one could easily contend that UG and Merc have both supported a very real torture and genocide in Iraq at the hands of Americans. I'd say a million dead Iraqi people who never posed any harm to America and who died defending their own country from a hostile rogue nation who invaded (The USA), or who were imprisoned and tortured without charges or valid cause, or whose families were broken up when soldiers kicked down their door, and took their only means of defending themselves, and allowed a stream of murderers to come in to Iraq.

Each and every single death on both sides of the Iraq conflict are the fault of the Bush administration and none of them were the result of defending America.


So to summarize, UG can't prove that he helped avert a genocide, but you and I can easily prove that he supported carrying out genocide in Iraq. He'll most likely use the language that all tyrants have used when carrying out such atrocities like "liberating the people" or "killing a horrible dictator". But those are just empty words.

The invasion of Iraq was not done to "liberate" the Iraqi people or to kill a dictator who murdered his own people and rule the others with an iron fist. Even if it was to do these things, it still would not further libertarianism or freedom. Invading Iraq is nothing other than murdering those who were already victims of Saddam.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

I'd say a million dead Iraqi people

Speaking of knowledge pulled out of one's backside. More reliable sources say 93,067

So to summarize, UG can't prove that he helped avert a genocide, but you and I can easily prove that he supported carrying out genocide in Iraq.

If it was a genocide, it happened with an armed populace. The place is lousy with AK-47s.

[Radar]

More reliable sources according to whom? To you?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...25-401,00.html

THIS is the lancet study.

The Lancet study is the only existing study that uses the method accepted all over the world for estimating deaths due to large-scale violent conflict: a cluster survey.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_de...aspx?NewsId=78


The numbers used to determine that more than a million Iraqi deaths can be attributed to the unconstitutional 2003 invasion takes the lancet study and extrapolates from there. There is no doubt that when you include the unconstitutional 1991 invasion of Iraq, the 12 subsequent years of bombing Iraq daily and keeping them from life saving medicines, the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq in 2003, and those murdered by the flood of terrorists America brought into Iraq, those who were imprisoned and tortured (sometimes to death), etc. that well over a million Iraqi people are dead due to America's actions. More than double that amount of become refugees from their own country.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If it was a genocide, it happened with an armed populace. The place is lousy with AK-47s.

You mean the AKs that were quickly taken when Americans kicked down Iraqi doors and ransacked their houses to take their only means of defending themselves from a hostile rogue nation invading their country (USA)? Those AKs?