ISIS already took down the Russian metro jet and now threatening more attacks against Russia in a new video. Since Putin is a great leader, and so tough, he will take more military action to eradicate them, right conservatives?
Putin will use ISIS as a boogeyman that allows him to pump more State money, tax revenue, into the military while spending less on infrastructure and social problems.
[Edited on 11/13/2015 by Muleman1994]
Putin will use ISIS as a boogeyman that allows him to pump more State money, tax revenue, into the military while spending less on infrastructure and social problems.
Sounds eerily familiar....
Putin will not put up with it. he will stomp on them like everyone else. i will say i think he is less concerned about civilian casualties than we are.
Putin will not put up with it. he will stomp on them like everyone else. i will say i think he is less concerned about civilian casualties than we are.
I don't know Hemp... we killed us a whole bunch of Iraqi civilians. In fact they are still dying from the depleted uranium we use in our ammunition.
As a country we just don't talk about that dirty little secret.
I guarantee the press will report a lot more truthfully about the civilians the Russians kill. The beautiful thing about our modern warfare is that we get to pretend it isn't really happening.
Billy I didn't mean to imply that we didn't or don't kill civilians, just that I believe that Putin is far less concerned about it. 😛
Billy I didn't mean to imply that we didn't or don't kill civilians, just that I believe that Putin is far less concerned about it.
I hear what you are saying but I think an honest review of the actions of the United States shows an enormous lack of concern for civilian lives. Our press just doesn't report on it. The reported Iraq body count is all over the place. A 2013 study completed by several different universities brings the number to about half a million. That's like... 500,000 civilians. That's a lot of dead women and children.
About 70% of those deaths were violent in nature. Many of the others were indirect meaning heart attacks, cancer, birth defects, etc. That number will only increase because of the depleted uranium contaminating the ground water and environment.
The United States is probably the only country who can kill 500,000 innocent civilians without being sanction by the United Nations.
So, Putin might not care as much about civilians but I bet he can't kill as many as the US.
After all - we are number one.
BS. Those university studies most certainly did not blame 500,000 civilian deaths on the US. They said there had been that many deaths since the start of the US invasion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html
This is the first paragraph from the article Tbomike:
Nearly half a million people have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an academic study published in the United States on Tuesday.
BS. Those university studies most certainly did not blame 500,000 civilian deaths on the US. They said there had been that many deaths since the start of the US invasion.
I'm confused. If it was the US that invaded who else would you "blame"?
But like I said the numbers are all over the place. I've seen the civilian death toll estimated at as little as under 200,000 to past a million. I'll stand by my point. I don't think Putin can get away with killing as many civilians as Bush and Obama killed.
My preferred language would be "I don't think the Russian government can get away with killing as many civilians as the United States government kills." But most folks insist on making it a Putin/Obama thing.
This site:
Puts civilian deaths from "violence" only at (appx.) 146,000 - 166,000.
Many experts have determined that the non violent deaths, deaths caused by sickness, lack of food, depleted uranium, etc are double those numbers. Yet they are still war dead.
Then you have this from Brown University:
Civilian Death and Injury in the Iraq War, 2003-2013
Professor Neta C. Crawford1 Boston University
Costs of War March 2013Summary
At a minimum, 134,000 civilians have been killed by war's violence since 2003 in Iraq. But, as described below, many deaths in Iraq were unreported or unrecorded: thus, this number, based on tallies of government and press reports, is an undercount. If a full recording of Iraqi violent deaths due to war were to be made, the toll could be twice as high, according to Iraq Body Count (IBC), the one organization that has attempted to document all the violent deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the initiation of war ten years ago. Thus, the toll of violent death due to war may be 250,000 or more people.
The number of Iraqi men, women and children who been seriously injured in the war is about the same as the number killed.
In addition, many times the number killed by direct violence have likely died due to the effects of the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure.
Some of these numbers are disputed: some officials might argue that this is an over-estimate of the effects of war on Iraqi civilians; many more would argue that these estimates are too cautious.But two facts are indisputable. First, direct violence continues to harm civilians in Iraq. In other words, Iraq is still at war. And, second, the continued parlous state of Iraq's physical infrastructure and public health system will lead to more indirect deaths over the coming years despite efforts by governments, international organizations, and international humanitarian organizations such as the ICRC and Handicap International, to repair Iraq's infrastructure. While much more research is needed on the health effects of war on Iraqi civilians, and on the causes of both direct and indirect civilian death, injury, and illness, the need to repair Iraq's infrastructure is urgent.
I salute your Nationalism tbomike but I'm confused as to who else might be responsible for those deaths.
Billy sites a “university study”. What study?
Do you have your numbers reported by any legitimate news source?
How many of those civilians you claim were killed by U.S. troops were actually victims of Shiite on Sunni or Sunni on Shiite violence?
How many of those civilians you claim were killed by U.S. troops were actually victims of Saddam Hussein’s troops?
How many of those civilians you claim were killed by U.S. troops were actually victims of Iranian IEDs?
How many of those civilians you claim were killed by U.S. troops were actually part of the over 3 million Iraqis that are unaccounted for?
Actual, factual numbers matter. Everything else is biased supposition.
You can salute my nationalism all you want but I am not nationalistic at all. I was vehemently opposed to the Iraq War and think it was a full scale disaster that will reverberate for years. None of which means the United States killed 500 k civilians. You want to say the US is indirectly responsible for x amount of deaths then have at it. You can't even find an accurate count so how in the world is the US responsible for 500 k deaths, a number which is not even provable. Further to suggest that we are one and the same as Putin is misguided at best.
Got it.
Like I said, many studies hit at different numbers but overwhelming agreement puts the violent dead at well over 100,000. There is also widespread agreement that the dead, and still dying is twice that number. Those are the conservative numbers, I've found much, much higher numbers.
I didn't suggest we are one in the same as Putin. I simply believe that Putin will not be able to get away with killing as many civilians as the United States got away with. Could Putin pull off anything close to the bombing of Baghdad? What do you think would happen if he pulled a "shock and awe"?
The fact there isn't an "accurate count" is not a reason to not question how many civilians were killed by the your tax dollars. There will never be an "accurate count". The depleted uranium is still killing and will continue to kill.
How many less dead women and children keep us kinder and gentler than Putin? I find that assertion ridiculous.
And as far as the actual number goes I believe the number to be higher but even National Geographic published the 500,000 number.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
Furthermore there are casualties that are being caused by the destabilization of the area. The destabilization is a direct cause of the US invasion of Iraq. How do you not blame the United States if we are the proximate cause?
That's how I see it. Just an opinion. No need to argue. I'm not changing my view. I've been a vocal opponent who actively protested against the war from the beginning. I'm sure not going to ignore the results of that war.
Got it.
Like I said, many studies hit at different numbers but overwhelming agreement puts the violent dead at well over 100,000. There is also widespread agreement that the dead, and still dying is twice that number. Those are the conservative numbers, I've found much, much higher numbers.
I didn't suggest we are one in the same as Putin. I simply believe that Putin will not be able to get away with killing as many civilians as the United States got away with. Could Putin pull off anything close to the bombing of Baghdad? What do you think would happen if he pulled a "shock and awe"?
The fact there isn't an "accurate count" is not a reason to not question how many civilians were killed by the your tax dollars. There will never be an "accurate count". The depleted uranium is still killing and will continue to kill.
How many less dead women and children keep us kinder and gentler than Putin? I find that assertion ridiculous.
And as far as the actual number goes I believe the number to be higher but even National Geographic published the 500,000 number.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/
Furthermore there are casualties that are being caused by the destabilization of the area. The destabilization is a direct cause of the US invasion of Iraq. How do you not blame the United States if we are the proximate cause?
That's how I see it. Just an opinion. No need to argue. I'm not changing my view. I've been a vocal opponent who actively protested against the war from the beginning. I'm sure not going to ignore the results of that war.
______________________________________________________________________
"How many less dead women and children keep us kinder and gentler than Putin?"
And how many have been murdered in the ghettos of Cities run by the Democrats?
ISIS already took down the Russian metro jet and now threatening more attacks against Russia in a new video. Since Putin is a great leader, and so tough, he will take more military action to eradicate them, right conservatives?
Who said he is a great leader and so tough? I reject your premise. No doubt he will take his revenge.
BS. Those university studies most certainly did not blame 500,000 civilian deaths on the US. They said there had been that many deaths since the start of the US invasion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html
A huge amount of those deaths were caused by the Islamist fanatics we were fighting there.
Doug, I don't recall who but I remember several threads that propped up Putin's "tough" leadership, as a means to tear down Obama for being weak. There were pics of each - Putin in the wilderness next to Obama in mom jeans. Funny pics, but there were also comments such as "If Obama was as tough as Putin...." Lots of it. Some even wished our President was more like Putin. Wasn't Fox News doing it too?
Putin will deal with ISIS directly where Obama refuses to engage Islamic Extremist Terrorism.
Looks like France will now kick it up too.
The U.S. has the capability, just not the will.
Leadership matters.
There are 2 countries fighting ISIS - the US and Russia. And I thank them both while all other countries do nothing. If you call the US leadership weak, then what do you call all the other countries that aren't doing anything? Blind biased criticism only leads to flawed logic. Shouldn't you be thankful we are 1 of 2 countries actually doing something? How about someone else steps up for a change?
