.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to PatMeebles.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="PatMeebles:426854"]HailTheLeaf said:[QUOTE]PatMeebles said: [QUOTE] And the vietnamese comparison for reporters killed conveniently leaves out a seriously important fact: there were barely any reporters in vietnam compared to Iraq. The first war, I think, that received widespread media coverage on the actual battleground was the first gulf war in the early 90's.[/QUOTE] Barely any reporters in Vietnam? you've gotta be kidding me, that war had more coverage in this country than the current war. [QUOTE]And stop saying 100,000's or Iraqis dead. It's not true. The lancet study (the only that's said, 100,000) said that it was 95% certain that the death toll was between 8,000 and 196,000. they chose 100,000 just because the number was in the middle. How... scientific.[/QUOTE] How do you know? I've heard 150,000. No one is keeping count because apparently dead people in other countries don't matter unless they're American. That statement was ment to be all inclusive anyways, not just Iraq, so I probably should've said millions... [/QUOTE] Your first claim is ludicrous. Nobody in the general public had any real knowledge and, therefore, scrutiny of the vietnam war until Walter Cronkite said anything about it. There just wasn't any serious widespread coverage like there was today. And the Iraqi Bodycount site puts the toll around 30,000-40,000. But most of those casualties are caused by insurgents attacking their own people; not the US military. The ONLY study to ever put the Iraqi casualty number anywhere near 100,000 was the Lancet study, done by John Hopkins University. Any increase in that number is just because the study was done a while ago, so naturally anybody who uses that number would add on to it. Not to say they're just making up numbers like 120,000 or 150,000, but the Lancet study is the only one that would make it logical to make estimations that high today.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][