I was very young at the time, but from what I recall, Walkmans (or should it be Walkmen?) were all the rage at the time. They were the stylish, popular accessory. A walkman with bright 80's colors and design probably would stick out a bit today.
The "stereobelt" was invented seven years before the Walkman, but the well-styled Sony product vastly outsold it even coming out seven years later.
Geeks always underestimate style in marketing and mass adoption.
Projectors need a good surface, need controlled light around them, and need to be free of dust in the air, etc. Projectors are rarely a solution for most scenarios, but great for very specific scenarios.
You hollow out rad-scorpion carapaces to house a fire, which you then use to send smoke signals. No, wait, the sky will be filled with black ash. Dammit!
Google makes Android. Google is making Chrome OS. Google could make it extremely easy for your "desktop", email, voicemail, Waves, IM, etc. is all easily accessed from basically the same interface from multiple devices.
No, it is practical to put a time piece in your pocket. It weighs next to nothing, didn't need a huge battery pack, they look nice, and they provided a clear function. They didn't get in the way when they weren't needed.
The SixthSense kit gets my geek sensibility excited, but you'd be laughed at for wearing anything resembling it. Right now there is already backlash against Bluetooth ear pieces (note the latest cover from Wired magazine).
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply stating the obvious problem with the money gained from the selling the oil.
You said the US was controlling the oil, and forcing Iraq to take their oil money and give it to us. The article you linked said Iraq was profiting from the oil, and the US is paying for most of the reconstruction. Again, the article states the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
And you may repeat 1000 times that the iraq is totally in control of itself but I just can't believe that.
But there are no facts to support your claim. You just simply state that you can't fathom someone "conquering" and walking away. The US didn't conquer Iraq. We liberated Iraq, just like we liberated Liberia is 2003.
We helped liberate countries in WWII. We spent our dollars, as well as spilled out blood to give freedom to other nations, and then walked away. Better yet, we spent more of our dollars to help rebuild.
You keep insisting that no country would ever possibly do this, except the US has done this numerous times. England also simply handed back countries it helped liberate in WWII, effectively dismantling a small empire it had built up. Russia meanwhile held onto the Eastern Block, which you are undoubtedly familiar with.
The media would rather spin opinion that we're still bloodthirsty imperials with conspiracy theories on Iraq, rather than report stories such as our involvement in Liberia in 2003 (same time we were going into Iraq).
What really gets me is how naive Americans are in this. We think the world loved us before Bush, and hated us solely because of Bush. Americans are routinely cast as villains around the world. (As a small aside, the CIA did so some awful things in its past, which I won't discount).
I can't imagine the perception of America being evil is going to change anytime soon. Despite that, we do shed blood for the rest of the world. We do give more financial relief to other nations than any other country in the world. We give away money when we're hurting financially ourselves. We give away money even to nations who hate us (like Palestine). It is what we do.
If you want proof of our intentions in Iraq, simply pull up transcripts from Congress. When Congress debated publicly about whether or not to go into Iraq, a major deciding factor was nation-building. Everyone in Congress wanted to be in agreement that we had an obligation to rebuild, but we didn't want to stay there forever. We wanted to rebuild and walk away.
Never mind that it isn't practical to walk around with a huge projector on your chest, it isn't fashionable. There is certainly utility to a good web-enabled phone with plenty of apps, but I think people get sold initially on the style of an iPhone specifically. If people adopt new technology and new features in their next phone, style has to help sell it.
Otherwise, I think we're hitting a breaking point. What more functionality do we really want from our phone? How much more can you accomplish on a small screen? How much more money are you willing to pay for the device and the data plan? If anything, the pendulum might swing backwards as competitors try to ape 80% of the iPhone's functionality at half the price.
There have been others here who posted that they did searches and found countless anti-Bush images, but hardly anti-Obama images. I trusted those posts to be true and counted that as evidence here. Maybe they aren't.
Regardless, I think suppressing political expression is not cool, regardless of what political view is being expressed. I think Fred Phelps is an absolute scumbag, but I think he should have the right to express his opinion.
First off, I said that I could be mistaken because I may have missed something. But the article you linked basically says exactly what I did.
Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by yearâ(TM)s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
You suggested we're stealing oil and funneling it into US companies. In reality, Iraq decides of their own accord where to spend their money, and most of the reconstruction cost is being paid for by US dollars, not Iraqi oil.
Next time, when linking to an article to prove your point, please read the article first.
Your story about conquering the country is anecdotal third-party opinion that US companies have some control over infrastructure. US companies are there making money as part of the rebuilding to be sure, but that doesn't mean we control the government.
By your logic, the United States controls China because Cisco controls the Great Firewall of China.
A little off-topic here, but in the US we're having quite a bit of debate and discussion about cocialism and why it is wrong. I'm certainly not a fan of socialism myself, but if you wanted to point at one example where it worked (even if briefly) it would be under Tito in Yugoslavia. I'm curious what your view point would be coming from Croatia.
Congress may say they don't support it, but they don't have much control. The President can't deploy troops for more than 90 (?) days without Congressional approval. Congress has the authority to officially declare war, or bring the troops home.
That being said, the President is effectively a PR person. Their words somewhat become policy that Congress often follows. If Congress buck's the President's words, then it makes the country look weak. It happens (such as the past two years with a Democrat controlled Congress not listening to Bush for instance) but perhaps sometimes Congress does feel compelled to listen to a president just to keep face.
Can you please cite a source? It is possible I missed something, but Bush's initial proposed plan (it may have changed) was to create a welfare system where Iraqi oil sold would literally directly go to all Iraqi citizens. The rebuilding of Iraq is coming out of US taxpayer's pockets, not Iraqi pockets last time I checked. This is what gets me when people said Bush went to war for financial gain. The way has cost us immensely from a financial perspective.
Iraq is also no longer a conquered country. We deposed the previous leaders, and handed control back over. The Iraqi government has not agreed to everything we've asked of them. They aren't a puppet government. They express their own views, which sometimes disagree with our own.
Conversely, people use to suggest that every time in history when the US deposed a leader that we were secretly imperialists who controlled all these countries. Well, since we put Saddam in power, did that mean we controlled Iraq previously? Clearly, we did not.
The inspectors were denied access time and time again for 12 years. The UN passed security resolutions finding Iraq in violation for refusing access to the inspectors. When Iraq did allow inspectors, they were only allowed on certain days and to certain sites. You call that free run.
Every browser uses javascript and plugins. Saying that Chrome isn't secure because of these things is silly.
Chrome places each process in a jail and prohibits access to the HDD to make changes to your system.
Will there be Acrobat exploits that can also be accessed via Chome? Yes, until Chrome figures out how to fully sandbox plugins, but Google said they are working with plugin vendors to make them play nice within Chrome's security concepts. Chrome is still more secure than IE and Firefox, not just because it is new, but because of how it is designed.
Webkit itself has been around in usage for years. But Google's use of Webkit is more secure than Safari, Konqueror, Arora, etc. because of its security model.
First off, I'm not claiming that Obama is anti-free speech. I'm claiming Flickr is. And for the record, I'm a liberal. I care about protecting rights, no matter who is infringing them.
Actually anyone even remotely joking about assassination has been arrested. If you think people with loaded guns near Obama have mentioned assassination weren't arrested, then you're clearly nuts.
Obama ran on a platform of "Yes, WE can" and grassroots marketing. He told people that they would be involved. The second he became president, suddenly you couldn't leave comments or feedback on his sites. Some of this he has no choice in because of federal law (Wired had a great article on this) but it is also intentional. His administration has said they don't want feedback (again, see the same Wired article).
And didn't Obama make a statement last week that he doesn't care what popular opinion is on healthcare?
If you want to argue that Obama is this huge proponent of free speech, then why did Obama tell people to shut up and get out of the way? Why did he back Pelosi on saying critics who disagree are un-American?
Bush was admittedly an idiot and too stuck in his ways. But he never attacked his critics. He never went down to Congress to berate Democrats. He never responded to all the criticism levied at him. He invited a satirist who hated him to do the White House press correspondents dinner. He joked at his own expense. And when Obama was blasting him, he never fired back. He spent his last day in the White House buying presents for the Obama family before they moved in.
Protestors were often gathered in "free speech zones". This is the truth. But those spots were often only 100 yards removed from an area, not miles. Fred Phelps and his hate brigade are told the same thing. They have a legal right to protest, but must stay 100 yards away. Phelps has a legal right to say whatever he wants. He doesn't have a legal right to attack and disrupt other people though. The tactic or herding protesters together and keeping them at a safe distance has existed for years. It isn't solely a Bush tactic.
Contrary to the lies of the Bush administration: the UN inspectors did their job as they claimed and there are no WMD in Iraq during the invasion. Hows that for facts for you?
Seriously? Iraq routinely refused to allow inspectors to view certain sites, and kept kicking them out of the country. Iraq told inspectors what they could look at, and when they could look. Should I be shocked that you consider this a valid and absolute inspection?
You have no basis in reality. I am entirely done with you.
If he cherry picked intel, why did Kerry, both Clintons, Gore, etc. all support the same intel? Bill Clinton said he looked at the same intel for 8 years and came to the same conclusions.
You can nitpick the Lancet all you like but all studies float aroudn the same ballpark: HUNDREDS of thousands of lives. Ok, lets say they are off by 100k, its still around 400 to 500k lives killed. All civilians. Incredible!
I've never said the death toll wasn't that high. What I'm saying is that Saddam had embargoed food from major cities, shut off water, etc. 30 million people's lives were in jeopardy.
And unless someone stabilizes the situation, how many generations of people die or live in constant fear for their lives?
Wake me when you make a single statement supported by logic and/or facts.
I really hate it when people spread lies. Abreu blamed Bush singularly for a war, when Bush never had authorization to go to war. No president does. Congress voted to go to war. Those are facts. I'm just clarifying facts.
If you want to dispute me on facts, you are welcome to try. But since I deal in facts, I'm really not worried about your possible retort.
Even then Bush invaded Iraq because of WMD that he knew were there.
Bush was stupid to stake such a large claim on WMD, and then give Iraq advance warning before invading. Powell mentioned that he thought all the WMD were being transported out of the country into Syria before the invasion began.
However, Bill Clinton did come to Bush's defense saying he saw first hand plenty of intel on WMD. Clinton also said that perhaps his bombing tactics were perhaps more effective at destroying Iraq's WMD, so that there were fewer to find later on.
We did find manuals and storage facilities that suggest WMD were there, but later moved.
...but there's no oil there, so we dont go there.
US involvement in Iraq began in 1991 because the UN demanded it. When we went into Iraq in 1991, we didn't take oil. And we went into Iraq in 2003, we didn't take oil. Bush was very adamant that Iraqi oil should be protected by military forces, but all oil belonged to Iraq. He wanted to ensure that when it was sold, it was sold by Iraq, and that Iraqi citizens profited directly from it.
If Bush was such an oil lover, why did he go after the automotive industry demanding they improve fuel-economy? (People forget that Obama and Bush were pushing for far tougher standards, and Congress passed a much weaker version). Why did Bush give tax breaks to hybrid owners? Why did Bush increase funding on fuel cell research? Why did Bush repeatedly say he was against depending on foreign oil?
Oh wait, it is easier to make simplistic lies that we were interested in oil rather than look at the facts.
As for death tool, the Lancet study was based on performing a survey of households. I can't see how this would be really relevant. If I was oppose to one side, I could merely claim that side killed X people.
From Wikipedia:
The Lancet surveys have triggered criticism and disbelief from some journalists, governments, the Iraq Body Count project, some epidemiologists and statisticians and others, but have also been supported by some journalists, governments, epidemiologists and statisticians.[5]
Some support the study, and some oppose it. I don't claim to have accurate numbers, but I think the basis of their study is a bit suspect.
Regardless, even the Lancet study claims that only 31% of the casualties were caused by Coalition forces (again according to survey which just boggles the mind) but people want to place the blame for the entire death toll on Coalition forces.
If the opposition weren't using car bombs, using human shields, hiding in civilian locations, etc. we'd have a very different situation.
Perhaps we should place some blame of opposition forces that target civilians primarily. By placing that blame on coalition forces, you're validating the tactics of terrorists.
But when Obama was in Congress, he was talking about pulling out by 2008, which would have been before the Surge.
Thankfully, Obama has not called for an immediate pull-out. You are right in that since we are in there, we have a responsibility to try and secure Iraq as best we can before we pull out.
I wasn't suggesting that Obama should pull out immediately. I was just trying to point out potential flaws in Abreu's logic.
Slashdot Mirror
I was very young at the time, but from what I recall, Walkmans (or should it be Walkmen?) were all the rage at the time. They were the stylish, popular accessory. A walkman with bright 80's colors and design probably would stick out a bit today.
The "stereobelt" was invented seven years before the Walkman, but the well-styled Sony product vastly outsold it even coming out seven years later.
Geeks always underestimate style in marketing and mass adoption.
Projectors need a good surface, need controlled light around them, and need to be free of dust in the air, etc. Projectors are rarely a solution for most scenarios, but great for very specific scenarios.
You hollow out rad-scorpion carapaces to house a fire, which you then use to send smoke signals. No, wait, the sky will be filled with black ash. Dammit!
Google makes Android. Google is making Chrome OS. Google could make it extremely easy for your "desktop", email, voicemail, Waves, IM, etc. is all easily accessed from basically the same interface from multiple devices.
Microsoft is terrified for a reason.
No, it is practical to put a time piece in your pocket. It weighs next to nothing, didn't need a huge battery pack, they look nice, and they provided a clear function. They didn't get in the way when they weren't needed.
The SixthSense kit gets my geek sensibility excited, but you'd be laughed at for wearing anything resembling it. Right now there is already backlash against Bluetooth ear pieces (note the latest cover from Wired magazine).
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply stating the obvious problem with the money gained from the selling the oil.
You said the US was controlling the oil, and forcing Iraq to take their oil money and give it to us. The article you linked said Iraq was profiting from the oil, and the US is paying for most of the reconstruction. Again, the article states the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
And you may repeat 1000 times that the iraq is totally in control of itself but I just can't believe that.
But there are no facts to support your claim. You just simply state that you can't fathom someone "conquering" and walking away. The US didn't conquer Iraq. We liberated Iraq, just like we liberated Liberia is 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia
We helped liberate countries in WWII. We spent our dollars, as well as spilled out blood to give freedom to other nations, and then walked away. Better yet, we spent more of our dollars to help rebuild.
You keep insisting that no country would ever possibly do this, except the US has done this numerous times. England also simply handed back countries it helped liberate in WWII, effectively dismantling a small empire it had built up. Russia meanwhile held onto the Eastern Block, which you are undoubtedly familiar with.
The media would rather spin opinion that we're still bloodthirsty imperials with conspiracy theories on Iraq, rather than report stories such as our involvement in Liberia in 2003 (same time we were going into Iraq).
What really gets me is how naive Americans are in this. We think the world loved us before Bush, and hated us solely because of Bush. Americans are routinely cast as villains around the world. (As a small aside, the CIA did so some awful things in its past, which I won't discount).
I can't imagine the perception of America being evil is going to change anytime soon. Despite that, we do shed blood for the rest of the world. We do give more financial relief to other nations than any other country in the world. We give away money when we're hurting financially ourselves. We give away money even to nations who hate us (like Palestine). It is what we do.
If you want proof of our intentions in Iraq, simply pull up transcripts from Congress. When Congress debated publicly about whether or not to go into Iraq, a major deciding factor was nation-building. Everyone in Congress wanted to be in agreement that we had an obligation to rebuild, but we didn't want to stay there forever. We wanted to rebuild and walk away.
Never mind that it isn't practical to walk around with a huge projector on your chest, it isn't fashionable. There is certainly utility to a good web-enabled phone with plenty of apps, but I think people get sold initially on the style of an iPhone specifically. If people adopt new technology and new features in their next phone, style has to help sell it.
Otherwise, I think we're hitting a breaking point. What more functionality do we really want from our phone? How much more can you accomplish on a small screen? How much more money are you willing to pay for the device and the data plan? If anything, the pendulum might swing backwards as competitors try to ape 80% of the iPhone's functionality at half the price.
There have been others here who posted that they did searches and found countless anti-Bush images, but hardly anti-Obama images. I trusted those posts to be true and counted that as evidence here. Maybe they aren't.
Regardless, I think suppressing political expression is not cool, regardless of what political view is being expressed. I think Fred Phelps is an absolute scumbag, but I think he should have the right to express his opinion.
First off, I said that I could be mistaken because I may have missed something. But the article you linked basically says exactly what I did.
Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by yearâ(TM)s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
You suggested we're stealing oil and funneling it into US companies. In reality, Iraq decides of their own accord where to spend their money, and most of the reconstruction cost is being paid for by US dollars, not Iraqi oil.
Next time, when linking to an article to prove your point, please read the article first.
Your story about conquering the country is anecdotal third-party opinion that US companies have some control over infrastructure. US companies are there making money as part of the rebuilding to be sure, but that doesn't mean we control the government.
By your logic, the United States controls China because Cisco controls the Great Firewall of China.
A little off-topic here, but in the US we're having quite a bit of debate and discussion about cocialism and why it is wrong. I'm certainly not a fan of socialism myself, but if you wanted to point at one example where it worked (even if briefly) it would be under Tito in Yugoslavia. I'm curious what your view point would be coming from Croatia.
Congress may say they don't support it, but they don't have much control. The President can't deploy troops for more than 90 (?) days without Congressional approval. Congress has the authority to officially declare war, or bring the troops home.
That being said, the President is effectively a PR person. Their words somewhat become policy that Congress often follows. If Congress buck's the President's words, then it makes the country look weak. It happens (such as the past two years with a Democrat controlled Congress not listening to Bush for instance) but perhaps sometimes Congress does feel compelled to listen to a president just to keep face.
Can you please cite a source? It is possible I missed something, but Bush's initial proposed plan (it may have changed) was to create a welfare system where Iraqi oil sold would literally directly go to all Iraqi citizens. The rebuilding of Iraq is coming out of US taxpayer's pockets, not Iraqi pockets last time I checked. This is what gets me when people said Bush went to war for financial gain. The way has cost us immensely from a financial perspective.
Iraq is also no longer a conquered country. We deposed the previous leaders, and handed control back over. The Iraqi government has not agreed to everything we've asked of them. They aren't a puppet government. They express their own views, which sometimes disagree with our own.
Conversely, people use to suggest that every time in history when the US deposed a leader that we were secretly imperialists who controlled all these countries. Well, since we put Saddam in power, did that mean we controlled Iraq previously? Clearly, we did not.
Google UN Inspectors in Iraq and take the first result.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123
The inspectors were denied access time and time again for 12 years. The UN passed security resolutions finding Iraq in violation for refusing access to the inspectors. When Iraq did allow inspectors, they were only allowed on certain days and to certain sites. You call that free run.
You are a flat out liar.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
Every browser uses javascript and plugins. Saying that Chrome isn't secure because of these things is silly.
Chrome places each process in a jail and prohibits access to the HDD to make changes to your system.
Will there be Acrobat exploits that can also be accessed via Chome? Yes, until Chrome figures out how to fully sandbox plugins, but Google said they are working with plugin vendors to make them play nice within Chrome's security concepts. Chrome is still more secure than IE and Firefox, not just because it is new, but because of how it is designed.
Webkit itself has been around in usage for years. But Google's use of Webkit is more secure than Safari, Konqueror, Arora, etc. because of its security model.
Time parody covers are all over the web. Time has never once asked for any of them to be removed. Nor has anyone stated that Time did in this case.
First off, I'm not claiming that Obama is anti-free speech. I'm claiming Flickr is. And for the record, I'm a liberal. I care about protecting rights, no matter who is infringing them.
Actually anyone even remotely joking about assassination has been arrested. If you think people with loaded guns near Obama have mentioned assassination weren't arrested, then you're clearly nuts.
Obama ran on a platform of "Yes, WE can" and grassroots marketing. He told people that they would be involved. The second he became president, suddenly you couldn't leave comments or feedback on his sites. Some of this he has no choice in because of federal law (Wired had a great article on this) but it is also intentional. His administration has said they don't want feedback (again, see the same Wired article).
And didn't Obama make a statement last week that he doesn't care what popular opinion is on healthcare?
If you want to argue that Obama is this huge proponent of free speech, then why did Obama tell people to shut up and get out of the way? Why did he back Pelosi on saying critics who disagree are un-American?
Bush was admittedly an idiot and too stuck in his ways. But he never attacked his critics. He never went down to Congress to berate Democrats. He never responded to all the criticism levied at him. He invited a satirist who hated him to do the White House press correspondents dinner. He joked at his own expense. And when Obama was blasting him, he never fired back. He spent his last day in the White House buying presents for the Obama family before they moved in.
Protestors were often gathered in "free speech zones". This is the truth. But those spots were often only 100 yards removed from an area, not miles. Fred Phelps and his hate brigade are told the same thing. They have a legal right to protest, but must stay 100 yards away. Phelps has a legal right to say whatever he wants. He doesn't have a legal right to attack and disrupt other people though. The tactic or herding protesters together and keeping them at a safe distance has existed for years. It isn't solely a Bush tactic.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=time+magazine+parody&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&num=50&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Contrary to the lies of the Bush administration: the UN inspectors did their job as they claimed and there are no WMD in Iraq during the invasion. Hows that for facts for you?
Seriously? Iraq routinely refused to allow inspectors to view certain sites, and kept kicking them out of the country. Iraq told inspectors what they could look at, and when they could look. Should I be shocked that you consider this a valid and absolute inspection?
You have no basis in reality. I am entirely done with you.
If he cherry picked intel, why did Kerry, both Clintons, Gore, etc. all support the same intel? Bill Clinton said he looked at the same intel for 8 years and came to the same conclusions.
You can nitpick the Lancet all you like but all studies float aroudn the same ballpark: HUNDREDS of thousands of lives. Ok, lets say they are off by 100k, its still around 400 to 500k lives killed. All civilians. Incredible!
I've never said the death toll wasn't that high. What I'm saying is that Saddam had embargoed food from major cities, shut off water, etc. 30 million people's lives were in jeopardy.
And unless someone stabilizes the situation, how many generations of people die or live in constant fear for their lives?
Wake me when you make a single statement supported by logic and/or facts.
What is weak?
I really hate it when people spread lies. Abreu blamed Bush singularly for a war, when Bush never had authorization to go to war. No president does. Congress voted to go to war. Those are facts. I'm just clarifying facts.
If you want to dispute me on facts, you are welcome to try. But since I deal in facts, I'm really not worried about your possible retort.
Even then Bush invaded Iraq because of WMD that he knew were there.
Bush was stupid to stake such a large claim on WMD, and then give Iraq advance warning before invading. Powell mentioned that he thought all the WMD were being transported out of the country into Syria before the invasion began.
However, Bill Clinton did come to Bush's defense saying he saw first hand plenty of intel on WMD. Clinton also said that perhaps his bombing tactics were perhaps more effective at destroying Iraq's WMD, so that there were fewer to find later on.
We did find manuals and storage facilities that suggest WMD were there, but later moved.
...but there's no oil there, so we dont go there.
US involvement in Iraq began in 1991 because the UN demanded it. When we went into Iraq in 1991, we didn't take oil. And we went into Iraq in 2003, we didn't take oil. Bush was very adamant that Iraqi oil should be protected by military forces, but all oil belonged to Iraq. He wanted to ensure that when it was sold, it was sold by Iraq, and that Iraqi citizens profited directly from it.
If Bush was such an oil lover, why did he go after the automotive industry demanding they improve fuel-economy? (People forget that Obama and Bush were pushing for far tougher standards, and Congress passed a much weaker version). Why did Bush give tax breaks to hybrid owners? Why did Bush increase funding on fuel cell research? Why did Bush repeatedly say he was against depending on foreign oil?
Oh wait, it is easier to make simplistic lies that we were interested in oil rather than look at the facts.
As for death tool, the Lancet study was based on performing a survey of households. I can't see how this would be really relevant. If I was oppose to one side, I could merely claim that side killed X people.
From Wikipedia:
The Lancet surveys have triggered criticism and disbelief from some journalists, governments, the Iraq Body Count project, some epidemiologists and statisticians and others, but have also been supported by some journalists, governments, epidemiologists and statisticians.[5]
Some support the study, and some oppose it. I don't claim to have accurate numbers, but I think the basis of their study is a bit suspect.
Regardless, even the Lancet study claims that only 31% of the casualties were caused by Coalition forces (again according to survey which just boggles the mind) but people want to place the blame for the entire death toll on Coalition forces.
If the opposition weren't using car bombs, using human shields, hiding in civilian locations, etc. we'd have a very different situation.
Perhaps we should place some blame of opposition forces that target civilians primarily. By placing that blame on coalition forces, you're validating the tactics of terrorists.
The very first image that pops up is a modification of a copyrighted image.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/375592641/
And the first page of results includes an image calling Bush the God of Death. You're saying that isn't being critical?
Abreu was giving Bush sole credit for the war.
Actually, you should know that parody is allowed under copyright laws.
And if you read anything in this thread, you'd see Flickr has no qualms with similar images regarding Bush. So they're lying about copyright concerns.
The original author did make their parody over political concerns. However his political concerns differ from those spreading it now.
Don't attempt to correct people when you're wrong on every point.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=george+bush
Heck, tons of people have been linking images from Flickr searches in this thread.
But when Obama was in Congress, he was talking about pulling out by 2008, which would have been before the Surge.
Thankfully, Obama has not called for an immediate pull-out. You are right in that since we are in there, we have a responsibility to try and secure Iraq as best we can before we pull out.
I wasn't suggesting that Obama should pull out immediately. I was just trying to point out potential flaws in Abreu's logic.