Iraq-O-Meter
Ranger_X
04-06-2003, 02:34 PM
Not sure of the accuracy, cause its all US media sources, but kinda neat:
http://www.iraqometer.com/
http://www.iraqometer.com/
taranaki
04-09-2003, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Ranger_X
Not sure of the accuracy,
Accurate reporting goes out of the window in times of war.It's a good site to start people thinking of the hidden costs of this invasion.
Here's a similar British site,but it's very biased.If the figure for Iraqi military casualties was proven correct,I'd be deeply concerned.
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/links/wwe_iraq_bodyclock_about.html
Not sure of the accuracy,
Accurate reporting goes out of the window in times of war.It's a good site to start people thinking of the hidden costs of this invasion.
Here's a similar British site,but it's very biased.If the figure for Iraqi military casualties was proven correct,I'd be deeply concerned.
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/links/wwe_iraq_bodyclock_about.html
NSX-R-SSJ20K
04-09-2003, 05:09 AM
they put the cost of the war into perspective the other day by comparing it to the running of the NHS
one week of running the NHS is what it has cost so far to pay for the war on Iraq (UK)
its not alot in the bigger picture
one week of running the NHS is what it has cost so far to pay for the war on Iraq (UK)
its not alot in the bigger picture
YogsVR4
04-09-2003, 09:15 AM
The data presented by Iraqometer is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
:apoke:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
:apoke:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
supratuner
04-10-2003, 03:55 AM
thats kinda stupid
taranaki
04-10-2003, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
they put the cost of the war into perspective the other day by comparing it to the running of the NHS
one week of running the NHS is what it has cost so far to pay for the war on Iraq (UK)
its not alot in the bigger picture
The principal difference,of course,is that the National Health Service
is a British government run facility that provides free health care to some 50 million citizens.It makes peoples lives better.It's not perfect,but I don't think that even the NHS could kill some 14,000 people in the space of two weeks.
they put the cost of the war into perspective the other day by comparing it to the running of the NHS
one week of running the NHS is what it has cost so far to pay for the war on Iraq (UK)
its not alot in the bigger picture
The principal difference,of course,is that the National Health Service
is a British government run facility that provides free health care to some 50 million citizens.It makes peoples lives better.It's not perfect,but I don't think that even the NHS could kill some 14,000 people in the space of two weeks.
YogsVR4
04-10-2003, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
The principal difference,of course,is that the National Health Service
is a British government run facility that provides free health care to some 50 million citizens......
Free huh. I wonder how they supply the hospitals or pay the people who work there.....
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
The principal difference,of course,is that the National Health Service
is a British government run facility that provides free health care to some 50 million citizens......
Free huh. I wonder how they supply the hospitals or pay the people who work there.....
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
taranaki
04-10-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
Free huh. I wonder how they supply the hospitals or pay the people who work there.....
I'd rather my taxes went on radiotherapy treatment for cancer patients than depleted-uranium shells.
Basra already has one of the highest cancer rates in the world,thanks to the weapons used in 1991.Lordonly knows how many Iraqis will die a slow and miserable death from the effects of this last round of WMD'S used by their 'liberators'.
Yes,they are weapons of mass destruction,only difference is that these victims take much longer to die.
Free huh. I wonder how they supply the hospitals or pay the people who work there.....
I'd rather my taxes went on radiotherapy treatment for cancer patients than depleted-uranium shells.
Basra already has one of the highest cancer rates in the world,thanks to the weapons used in 1991.Lordonly knows how many Iraqis will die a slow and miserable death from the effects of this last round of WMD'S used by their 'liberators'.
Yes,they are weapons of mass destruction,only difference is that these victims take much longer to die.
Pick
04-10-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
I'd rather my taxes went on radiotherapy treatment for cancer patients than depleted-uranium shells.
Basra already has one of the highest cancer rates in the world,thanks to the weapons used in 1991.Lordonly knows how many Iraqis will die a slow and miserable death from the effects of this last round of WMD'S used by their 'liberators'.
Yes,they are weapons of mass destruction,only difference is that these victims take much longer to die.
Yeah, and no people suffered at Saddam's hands.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I'd rather my taxes went on radiotherapy treatment for cancer patients than depleted-uranium shells.
Basra already has one of the highest cancer rates in the world,thanks to the weapons used in 1991.Lordonly knows how many Iraqis will die a slow and miserable death from the effects of this last round of WMD'S used by their 'liberators'.
Yes,they are weapons of mass destruction,only difference is that these victims take much longer to die.
Yeah, and no people suffered at Saddam's hands.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
CAptynCrunch
04-10-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Yeah, and no people suffered at Saddam's hands.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Eye for an eye?
But the whole point of this war was supposed to make the lives of the iraqi people better. To liberate them, give them a chance at a better life. I fail to see how a slow agonizing death is better. Hell, I'd rather be shot in the head than spend 10 years rotting from the inside out.
Yeah, and no people suffered at Saddam's hands.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Eye for an eye?
But the whole point of this war was supposed to make the lives of the iraqi people better. To liberate them, give them a chance at a better life. I fail to see how a slow agonizing death is better. Hell, I'd rather be shot in the head than spend 10 years rotting from the inside out.
taranaki
04-10-2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Pick
Yeah, and no people suffered at Saddam's hands.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
There is no disputing that Saddam was a bad leader,and that many people suffered under his regime.That on its own,however is not sufficient argument to justify the suffering of the iraqi people at the hands of another nation,however well-meaning.Saddam is gone- the suffering caused to Iraqis by sanctions,bombing,and depleted uranium has gone on for years and will continue for decades.
Yeah, and no people suffered at Saddam's hands.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
There is no disputing that Saddam was a bad leader,and that many people suffered under his regime.That on its own,however is not sufficient argument to justify the suffering of the iraqi people at the hands of another nation,however well-meaning.Saddam is gone- the suffering caused to Iraqis by sanctions,bombing,and depleted uranium has gone on for years and will continue for decades.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025