PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Ghettomath on November 26, 2005, 06:29:32 PM
-
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
-
there are no \'civilians\' over there
when thier army puts on a uniform, then you can distinguish them
in the meantime? don\'t lead them as far
-
Originally posted by mm
there are no \'civilians\' over there
when thier army puts on a uniform, then you can distinguish them
in the meantime? don\'t lead them as far
Oh? Uniforms are all there is to it eh?
I\'m going to go ahead and call..
BULLSHIT
...on that one.
-
bullshit?
ever hear of the gevena convention?
look it up, you might learn something
oh, from that site you linked
If you find the information presented at Iraq Body Count useful please consider making a donation.
:rofl:
-
Originally posted by mm
bullshit?
ever hear of the gevena convention?
look it up, you might learn something
oh, from that site you linked
:rofl:
Gevena convention? No.
I highly doubt, mm, if Iraqis were to simply slap on uniforms on the army it would solve the civilian casualities problem in Iraq.
And as for the site taking donations. Come on. So do most other non-profits. This site is as clean as I\'ve seen them come.
-
it sure as hell would help if they had uniforms. But why would they when they have the advantage of catching us by surprise when they dress like a civilian. Considering they are "civilians" and not an official organized army.
You cant say it would wipe out civilian casualties all together..sh*t happens in the midst of war, theres unfortunate collateral damage, theres enemies that put stuff in populated spots knowing that people like ghetto will go ape if any of those civilians around the targets are touched.
However, IF they did have a uniform, a lot of things would be black and white with who to kill and who to leave alone. But that will never happen so why bring up them having uniforms.
People in the military want to come home..if that involved having to kill a suspicious person, not being able to tell whose civilian and whose terrorist, theyd probably do it till the last moment they can wait to decide if hes holding a button under his sleeve or not.
-
I highly doubt, mm, if Iraqis were to simply slap on uniforms on the army it would solve the civilian casualities problem in Iraq.
bro what dont you understand about a fucking culture that uses small children and woman as suicide bombers?
how can you isolate civilians from enemy soldiers then?
:rolleyes:
-
But like Viper stated, getting insurgents to suit up in military garb is implausible and irrational - it\'s simply not going to happen.
That\'s why I called you on what a stupid statement it was.
-
So then you agree that the numbers for the civilians killed are skewed?
-
stupid?
bro, you\'re the expert on that
no uniforms + no distinction between civilians and soliders = civilians dying
the entire country is a potential enemy when women and children are suicide bombers.
skewed? it\'s propaganda and an outright exaggeration
-
An article that fairly well summarizes my POV (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0505/tobin_2005_05_13.php3/url)
This is an article I came across while surfing \'related\' literature on the net. Please give it a read.
At the end of the day, nobody realistically expects insurgents to suit up in BDUs, that would be akin to suicide, as they are fighting an overwhelmingly superior force. I generally don\'t have a problem even with suicide bombers - I would consider it a legitimate offensive weapon for the militarily outclassed, but they use it as such a weapon rarely (ie, targeting enemy army baracks, docked ships, etc). Generally, they use it for terrorism where they specifically target civilians, and use civilians as shields. Theirin lies the difference, while both sides ARE responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians, one side overwhelmingly (and overall) is trying to avoid civilian casualties, while the other is using their deaths as a tool. That\'s what keeps the military in the moral right on the issue - period.
I didn\'t like the reasons that the US went into Iraq, I still don\'t buy their excuses, but that said, it was IMO the right thing to do (and should be done by them and the rest of the world in a few other nasty places), and now that they\'re there, they have a job to do. Leave prematurely and they condemn far more civilians to a fate far worse than a bullet (Read oppression, rape, torture, followed by a bullet anyways).
-
Oh, we can\'t pull out. It\'s far too late for that now, given the state of things.
Who cares about Iraqi civilian casualties? That\'s right, I said it. Who cares?
Disregarding mm\'s statements (which I largely agree with) you have to remember that Saddam was killing his own people at a catastrophic rate anyway.
-
Originally posted by Blade
Who cares about Iraqi civilian casualties? That\'s right, I said it. Who cares?
Oh wow.
You\'re an asshole.
-
Originally posted by Blade
you have to remember that Saddam was killing his own people at a catastrophic rate anyway.
Yeah, with weapons of mass destruction he didn\'t have?
-
Originally posted by Ghettomath
Oh wow.
You\'re an asshole.
Which side are you on anyway? Liberal pie holes like you hope the "other side" wins for your own demented reasons. Every US soldier that dies over there you secretly cheer inside don\'t you ghetto? Admit it. You hate this country and everything about it. Fucking leave already.
-
Originally posted by Ghettomath
Yeah, with weapons of mass destruction he didn\'t have?
have you paid ANY attention to world events in the last ten years or just the MTV news headlines in the last few days
saddam has gassed 10\'s of thousands of his OWN people.
refusing to acknowledge that?
or did you just not know it?
:rolleyes:
please ghettomath, get a fucking clue
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
You hate this country and everything about it. Fucking leave already.
If you love it so much, go fight for it.
-
Originally posted by mm
have you paid ANY attention to world events in the last ten years or just the MTV news headlines in the last few days
saddam has gassed 10\'s of thousands of his OWN people.
refusing to acknowledge that?
or did you just not know it?
:rolleyes:
please ghettomath, get a fucking clue
Last TEN years is the key here. Saddam gassing his own people was pre 9/11. Post 9/11, when we decided to invade Iraq based on faulty intelligence, Sadaam was nothing. NOTHING. His empired has crumbled.
Didn\'t you watch how easily U.S. troops trampled Baghdad? Didn\'t you see how many missle silos/mobile chemical weapons trucks/Anthrax factories never turned up? Didn\'t you see Saddam after he was removed from his spider hole?
Saddam wasn\'t going to do shit.
He did shit and I thank god he\'s being held for it, but post 9/11 he was no threat. Ever think about why we focused on him instead of Bin Laden? Or have you forgotten about Bin Laden altogether?
-
your ignorance frightens me
please do not reproduce
-
Originally posted by Ghettomath
Saddam wasn\'t going to do shit.
....but post 9/11 he was no threat.
If he was a threat then, he is a threat forever.
-
I thought the guy behind the 9-11 tragedy is Osama Bin Laden. So, I don\'t understand why they fought on Iraq and Saddam Hussein when the guy we are really looking for to begins with was Osama Bin Laden...
Its a great thing that Saddam Hussein is caught. But what about Osama Bin Laden?
-
Sadaam was nothing. NOTHING. His empired has crumbled.
:rofl:
Its a great thing that Saddam Hussein is caught. But what about Osama Bin Laden?
He\'s still being hunted down...
...supposedly.
-
the US failed at catching hitler before he killed himself too
slackers
-
Has everyone forgotten that we are still at war in Afghanistan?
-
we are? I thought we are mainly at war in Iraq...I didn\'t know we are also at war in Afganistan too.
-
[ghettomath]we\'re not at war, we\'re just sending dead american troops over in exchange for oil[/ghetttomath]
-
Originally posted by mm
[ghettomath]we\'re not at war, we\'re just sending dead american troops over in exchange for oil[/ghetttomath]
Seriously. Its really good to see all that Iraqi oil we captured is really driving up my gas prices. Since the war started, it went up more than double. Atleast now its STARTING to come down due to HURRICANE KATRINA to pre-hurricane prices.
-
Originally posted by Ghettomath
If you love it so much, go fight for it.
Already put in my 4 years - and that was oh 15 years ago. So let me ask you what have you done for this country besides whine and freeload?
-
[tom petty]
aaaaaand I\'m free
freeeee-looooooooading
[/tom petty]
-
for probably the first time ever, jumpman
you made me laugh
:lmao:
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
[tom petty]
aaaaaand I\'m free
freeeee-looooooooading
[/tom petty]
-
Originally posted by mm
[ghettomath]we\'re not at war, we\'re just sending dead american troops over in exchange for oil[/ghetttomath]
Alright, enlighten me then. What are we at war for? Please explain - what are America\'s interests in Iraq?
Because, other than upholding America\'s already slagging reputation with the rest of the world, I don\'t see any reason why we should be sending troops to Iraq and costing billions of dollars to the American taxpayer.
-
I was told that one reason we are at war is to keep as many of the terrorists there, which seems to be working.
-
Originally posted by Titan
I was told that one reason we are at war is to keep as many of the terrorists there, which seems to be working.
heh..so you honestly believe that because we\'re fightin\' over there it\'s keepin\' them busy? :rolleyes:...as if ALL the terrorists of the world are right there in iraq?...sorry....it\'s only a matter of time before something tragic happens again...and trust i\'m not wishing that on anybody, but if those terrorists REALLY wanted to hit america again they would do it...it\'s just that now they want a disaster bigger than 911....
the heat has already been put on bush for the pullout of iraq,...the hurricane season has sidetracked the war for a minute, but as soon as that was done, it was back to iraq,...face it,...as long as bush is prez the troops aren\'t goin anywhere, and whoever the next prez will be, it would be highly unwise to pull the troops out even then, and the insurgents?..well we know that they aren\'t going anywhere...sure they blow themselves up,..but there are thousands...maybe even millions more waitin\' to sacrifice themselves,..compared to these american soldiers, who i won\'t say aren\'t afraid to die, but i\'m sure they value they\'re lives alot more than these insurgents...
so when all is said and done, who do you think will have more lasting power?...my opinion honestly? the insurgents....we saw what happened in vietnam, if the situation stays it\'s course in iraq, the u.s. will surely have to pull out at one point or another....
-
please don\'t compare iraq to vietnam
it makes you look ignorant
thanks
-
but there are thousands...maybe even millions more waitin\' to sacrifice themselves
:laughing: Erm... not quite.
Originally posted by Titan
I was told that one reason we are at war is to keep as many of the terrorists there, which seems to be working.
Tell me - how did you pull such a long sentence out of your ass?
-
Why America must stay
Nov 24th 2005
From The Economist print edition
America should keep its troops in Iraq until Iraqis ask them to go
WARS waged abroad are often lost at home; and that may be starting to happen with Iraq. Calls for American troops to withdraw are familiar in the Arab world and Europe, but in the United States itself such talk has remained on the fringes of political debate. Now, with surprising suddenness, it has landed at the centre of American politics.
On November 17th John Murtha, a hawkish Democratic congressman, suggested pulling the troops out of Iraq in six months, prompting an unseemly spat between the former marine colonel and the White House. Moves to set a timetable have been voted down, but the Republican-controlled Senate has voted 79-19 for 2006 to be “a period of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty” and the Pentagon is mumbling about troop reductions. Meanwhile, some hundred Iraqi leaders at a reconciliation conference in Cairo backed by the Arab League talked about setting a timetable for withdrawal.
There is some politicking in this. In Cairo, the Shias and Kurds, who dominate Iraq\'s new order, were offering an olive branch to the sullen Sunnis, who used to run the show under Saddam Hussein. In America, Republicans are looking nervously at the 2006 elections. Democrats sense that George Bush is vulnerable—and that Iraq presents the best way to hurt him now that most Americans regret invading the country. Yet there is plainly principle too: Mr Murtha and millions of others maintain that America is doing more harm than good in Iraq, and that the troops should therefore come home.
This newspaper strongly disagrees. In our opinion it would be disastrous for America to retreat hastily from Iraq. Yet it is also well past time for George Bush to spell out to the American people much more clearly and honestly than he has hitherto done why their sons and daughters fighting in Iraq should remain in harm\'s way.
The cost of failure
Every reasonable person should be able to agree on two things about America\'s presence in Iraq. First, if the Iraqi government formally asks the troops to leave, they should do so. Second, the argument about whether America should quit Iraq is not the same as the one about whether it should have gone there in the first place. It must be about the future.
That said, the catalogue of failures thus far does raise serious questions about the administration\'s ability to make Iraq work—ever. Mr Bush\'s team mis-sold the war, neglected post-invasion planning, has never committed enough troops to the task and has taken a cavalier attitude to human rights. Abu Ghraib, a place of unspeakable suffering under Mr Hussein, will go into the history books as a symbol of American shame. The awful irony is that the specious link which the administration claimed existed between Iraq and al-Qaeda in order to justify going to war now exists.
Two-and-a-half years after Mr Bush stood beneath a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished”, the insurgency is as strong as ever. More than 2,000 Americans, some 3,600 Iraqi troops, perhaps 30,000 Iraqi civilians and an unknown number of Iraqi insurgents have lost their lives, and conditions of life for the “liberated” remain woeful. All this makes Mr Bush\'s refusal to sack the people responsible for this mess, especially his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, alarming.
But disappointment, even on this scale, does not justify a precipitate withdrawal. There are strong positive and negative reasons for America to see through what it started.
Flickers of hope
Iraq is not Vietnam. Most Iraqis share America\'s aims: the Shia Arabs and Kurds make up some 80% of the population, while the insurgents operate mainly in four of Iraq\'s 18 provinces. After boycotting the first general election in January, more Sunni Arabs are taking part in peaceful politics. Many voted in last month\'s referendum that endorsed a new constitution; more should be drawn into next month\'s election, enabling a more representative government to emerge. That will not stop the insurgency, but may lessen its intensity. It seems, too, that the Arab world may be turning against the more extreme part of the insurgency—the jihadists led by al-Qaeda\'s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who blow up mosques around Baghdad and Palestinian wedding parties in Jordan (see article). Though few Arabs publicly admit it, Mr Bush\'s efforts to spread democracy in the region are starting to bear fruit.
So America does have something to defend in Iraq. Which, for Mr Bush\'s critics, leads into the most tempting part of Mr Murtha\'s argument: that American troops are now a barrier to further progress; that if they left, Mr Zarqawi would lose the one thing that unites the Sunnis and jihadists; and that, in consequence, Iraqis would have to look after their own security. This has a seductive logic, but flies in the face of the evidence. Most of the insurgents\' victims are Iraqis, not American soldiers. There are still too few American troops, not too many. And the Iraqi forces that America is training are not yet ready to stand on their own feet. By all means, hand over more duties to them, letting American and other coalition troops withdraw from the cities where they are most conspicuous and offensive to patriotic Iraqis. Over time, American numbers should fall. But that should happen because the Iraqis are getting stronger, not because the Americans are feeling weaker. Nor should a fixed timetable be set, for that would embolden the insurgents.
The cost to America of staying in Iraq may be high, but the cost of retreat would be higher. By fleeing, America would not buy itself peace. Mr Zarqawi and his fellow fanatics have promised to hound America around the globe. Driving America out of Iraq would grant militant Islam a huge victory. Arabs who want to modernise their region would know that they could not count on America to stand by its friends.
If such reasoning sounds negative—America must stay because the consequences of leaving would be too awful—treat that as a sad reflection of how Mr Bush\'s vision for the Middle East has soured. The road ahead looks bloody and costly. But this is not the time to retreat.
-
While I don\'t agree with some things in that article from the Economist - I do agree that we must stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for them to able to run their own internal security effectively and when they can they should ask us to leave.
In addition we should keep a small presence there as a deterent to countries like Iran and Syria that want to meddle in Iraq\'s internal affairs. Just as we have bases in Europe since the end of WW2, we will probably keep a small number of forces in Iraq for the next 20-30 years.
-
Hyper, Giga, are you aware that last week, for the first time, Iraq\'s political factions, represented by about 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, collectively called for a timetable for withdrawl?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_conference
-
Originally posted by (e)
Tell me - how did you pull such a long sentence out of your ass?
You don\'t read much, do you?
-
Right, Ghetto. The Economist article specifically mentions that Cairo conference:
Meanwhile, some hundred Iraqi leaders at a reconciliation conference in Cairo backed by the Arab League talked about setting a timetable for withdrawal.
There is some politicking in this. In Cairo, the Shias and Kurds, who dominate Iraq\'s new order, were offering an olive branch to the sullen Sunnis, who used to run the show under Saddam Hussein.
...
Nor should a fixed timetable be set, for that would embolden the insurgents.
The idea of a timetable was tossed around to pacify the Sunnis. I highly doubt the Kurds and Shias want the US pulling out completely any time soon.
Crucially, your article mentions that
Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time — reflecting instead the government\'s stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.
So yes, the Iraqis will call for a withdrawl, but only when they are ready. Also, it should be noted that Saddam\'s Sunnis are the ones most fervent about a timetable.
I am with you, Ghetto, in that this war is hard for all of us. However, if we pull out now, everything that we have sacrificed so far will be for naught.
Edit - My mistake. I misquoted Ghetto\'s article.
-
Ghettomath: Why two posts to reply to my one?
Anyway,
Yeah, with weapons of mass destruction he didn\'t have?
A. It\'s not 100% true that he didn\'t have them. It\'s possible that they were shipped out of the country before the UN inspections were ready to proceed.
B. It\'s been said that weapons and weapon components classified as WMD\'s have been found in Iraq. Nothing on the scale of "world dominating superbombs" but they found weapons.
C. You don\'t need WMD\'s to kill tens of thousands of people over 25+ years.
Iraq has a population of over 25 million, last I checked. You have to break some eggs if you want to make a freedom omelette, just like countless British and American soldiers had to die from 1776-1783 to make your freedoms possible here in America.
The jury\'s still out on my being an asshole.. but I\'m not an automaton. I\'m sympathetic to all human life. What I don\'t like is idealistic nonsense.. rubbing "LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE DEAD" lists in my face when I know that they\'re dead because of ignorance.
The same ignorance that social liberals are so adamant about dispelling.
You and I do not know which reason (of many possible) that this country decided to bring down Saddam\'s regime. What I know is that when the dust has settled.. and it won\'t happen in 3 years when starting a war in a country of 25+ million people.. this world and certainly Iraq will be a better place.
The Vietnam War was an atrocity and a mistake, greater in nearly every way to the Iraq War (certainly casualties) but the positive benefits? Half of my fucking town is Vietnamese people living the American dream.
Cut to 30 years from now, zoom out from same scene but in Iraq. Narrator: Thanks, America.
Fade to black.
-
Sexcellent post from a ravaging liberal residing in a blue state ;)
-
Adam Ant is also the name of a musician.
-
Originally posted by Blade [/]
A. It\'s not 100% true that he didn\'t have them. It\'s possible that they were shipped out of the country before the UN inspections were ready to proceed.
B. It\'s been said that weapons and weapon components classified as WMD\'s have been found in Iraq. Nothing on the scale of "world dominating superbombs" but they found weapons.
C. You don\'t need WMD\'s to kill tens of thousands of people over 25+ years.
this world and certainly Iraq will be a better place [/B]
blade you made some real logical statements,..but i gotta respond to a, b & c...
A...almost 2 1/2 yrs dowm the line and still no wmd\'s? y\'know the reason we went to war in tha first place?...and bush rushed the u.n. inspectors out before they could finish the job...yea bush truly wanted to resolve the matter "diplomatically" :rolleyes:...
B. bush to this day have been on record sayin\' "we\'ve haven\'t found the weapons yet, but EVEN if we don\'t the removal of saddam was in america\'s best interest and the world\'s"...all they\'ve found from what i remember were old missles from the 80\'s that\'s been buried somewhere...if weapons of any signifigance have been found, trust..we would\'ve heard about it...
C. so tru..you do not need wmd\'s to kill thousands of people, but guess what? the u.s. gave him those chemical weapons,...and yea he might\'ve done those things to his people, but again if the u.s. is so big on liberating the iraqi people they need to liberate about 100 african nations from the atrocities that are goin\' on over there,...oops!...i guess those people over there don\'t need to be "liberated" :rolleyes:...i say liberated because the theme of the war went from wmd\'s, to the liberation of the irai people.....keep in mind that even tho saddam was a bad person, and maybe he ruled with an iron hand..(but so does saudi arabia...our friend)..that country was kept in check...and saddam wasn\'t a threat to nobody....hell even him and osama hated each other....
-
almost 2 1/2 yrs dowm the line and still no wmd\'s? y\'know the reason we went to war in the first place?
O-kay. It\'s true that we have not found any large stocks of WMD\'s. You\'re replying to "A" in which I stated that they very well may have been removed from the country and the US has yet to discover where. We\'re good, but we\'re not that good. By the same token, maybe there were no WMD\'s in recent years. I\'ll keep an open mind on that.
In the meantime, I\'ll state that Saddam wouldn\'t comply with inspectors until the last freaking second. Plus, the US government gave him a deadline to peacefully leave the country and he declined.
...and bush rushed the u.n. inspectors out before they could finish the job
Also a reply to "A". I don\'t think they would have found anything anyway, if my point is true. The US and the UN were generally disgruntled at Saddam and his regime\'s ways regarding everything at this point.
...yea bush truly wanted to resolve the matter "diplomatically" ...
Heh, I won\'t argue that it was a forceful tactic and probably the wrong one. By the same token, I will repeat that Saddam was inherently bad and the US and their allies simply figured that enough is enough.
bush to this day have been on record sayin\' "we\'ve haven\'t found the weapons yet, but EVEN if we don\'t the removal of saddam was in america\'s best interest and the world\'s"...all they\'ve found from what i remember were old missles from the 80\'s that\'s been buried somewhere...if weapons of any signifigance have been found, trust..we would\'ve heard about it...
This is all hearsay, your word against mine since neither of us have the initiative to show some proof. Basically, I read reports about a year ago about some low-level WMD\'s (nothing too dangerous at all) being discovered but they flew under the media\'s typically picky eye since.. like you say.. they were insignificant. True or not? The link came from a reputable friend of mine.
so tru..you do not need wmd\'s to kill thousands of people, but guess what? the u.s. gave him those chemical weapons
I\'m not sure of the exact death tolls, but at their peak something upwards of 20,000 innocent or petty crime-committing Iraqis per year got the axe. By gun, knife, torture without killing, intoxication.. whatever..
if the u.s. is so big on liberating the iraqi people they need to liberate about 100 african nations from the atrocities that are goin\' on over there,...oops!...i guess those people over there don\'t need to be "liberated"
Taking that last line out of context makes you sound like more of an asshole than I am, heh. Anyway, you know that ideally.. everybody would be free. Iraq simply happens to be a bigger point of interest (with a large population) and the US government and the UN assumed that Iraq had WMD\'s.
saddam wasn\'t a threat to nobody
Except his own people, who will soon lead peaceful, prosperous lives without the fear of a fascist government. Since Ghettomath posted a site listing coalition/US troop and Iraqi civilian casualties, it\'s important to put emphasis on this.
even him and osama hated each other
Jesus Burger-Flipping Christ, everybody hates Osama. Even Osama hates Osama.
-
...and that\'s how to properly put someone in thier place
/cheer
-
Blade, thanks for your post. And although I disagree with you it\'s commendable. Instead of a short holier-than-thou statement or simply stating one as "ignorant" you provide a detailed and readable counter-argument.
While I no longer think you\'re an asshole, I still think you and those like you who are for the war in Iraq are contradicting yourselves.
You did state that you don\'t care about the abundent loss of civilian life in Iraq, yet you say you care about their future and their freedoms as a democratic nation. How can you condone the killing of the nation you wish to liberate?
I understand what your saying as it pertains to the bigger picture - but as for Vietnamese living in America - I think what the U.S. did in Vietnam is a greater blemish on America\'s history compared to your example of Vietnamese "living out the American Dream." Shouldn\'t they be living the "Vietnamese Dream?"
Your fade to black image of the future of Iraq is pretty rosy, quote:
"What I know is that when the dust has settled.. and it won\'t happen in 3 years when starting a war in a country of 25+ million people.. this world and certainly Iraq will be a better place."
Like in your debate with clips, this is as good as using hearsay. The counter-point is that Iraq may crumble after we leave and succumb to the vortex that is the Middle East. But neither of us have the facts to prove our argument and I think that\'s why this debate is so frustrating to so many.
I guess there is truth in the saying, "Only time will tell."
-
Ghettomath: I\'ve learned it\'s important in debate to argue your point or views without completely dismeaning your opponent. I know you\'re intelligent, I know clips and most everybody reading this thread are intelligent.. so I\'m not going to sit here and try to say that I\'m smart and everybody else is smoking chiba. I\'m not a concrete person, I have a "wait and see" attitude regarding many things. For example, religion.. I\'m an agnostic deist. I\'m a realist; I believe things when I see them.
Now to clarify some things..
While I no longer think you\'re an asshole
Well, thanks.. but.. it\'s too late for me.. son..
You did state that you don\'t care about the abundent loss of civilian life in Iraq, yet you say you care about their future and their freedoms as a democratic nation. How can you condone the killing of the nation you wish to liberate?
I made a rash statement later clarified by my overdue follow-up. It\'s not so much that "I don\'t care" that I was trying to get across, it\'s the point that it\'s irrelevant. It\'s irrelevant. I don\'t condone killing, but I have the mindset that understands and embraces the concept of threat detection/removal. Ignorance abounds in the souls of those who fought for Saddam and fascism, whether they realized what they were fighting or not.
Should civilians die? Should anybody really die in war, ideally? No, but idealism like this is unrealistic. If there were no insurgents that enjoyed their little male-dominated kingdom of sand, the death tolls would be microscopic. Idealistic.
History has taught us that war is hell, but the post-war dream often comes true. After we dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima (after they dragged us kicking and screaming into WW2) and made Hitler forfeit his life.. the trauma of their defeat was enough to keep America\'s shores safe until September 11th, 2001. Almost 60 years.
I understand what your saying as it pertains to the bigger picture
Bigger is better. I have some other catch phrases that could pertain to male genitalia if anybody\'s interested.
but as for Vietnamese living in America - I think what the U.S. did in Vietnam is a greater blemish on America\'s history compared to your example of Vietnamese "living out the American Dream." Shouldn\'t they be living the "Vietnamese Dream?"
You know, I agree with you on this. I don\'t know the status of N/S Vietnam today, but the idea that they can even come to the US is a freedom that Iraqis really didn\'t readily have available before the war. What is the Vietnamese Dream? By "American Dream" I refer to the idea that universally people should be allowed the freedoms that Americans have. Like the freedom to pick your leader, and have him not be a psychopathic Dorito-loving Super Mario Brother in a beret.. among many others.
Your fade to black image of the future of Iraq is pretty rosy
I really enjoy using the formatics of film scripts like that. It makes things sound iconic.
Like in your debate with clips, this is as good as using hearsay. The counter-point is that Iraq may crumble after we leave and succumb to the vortex that is the Middle East. But neither of us have the facts to prove our argument and I think that\'s why this debate is so frustrating to so many.
True. The sad fact is that even after Iraq is 95% on its feet and most insurgents finally come around (which could take nearly a decade..) we\'ll still be posted there. Just like we\'re still in Bosnia and everyplace else.
I guess there is truth in the saying, "Only time will tell."
One of my favorite sayings, coincidentally.
My belief is that it\'s more conducive to progress.. to work towards a goal.. as opposed to fighting it because there have been costs.
Sometimes you have to make sacrifices to reach the plateau.
The fact of the matter is.. people are biased. Either they want the war or they don\'t want it. The media are people too, and they don\'t report incontrovertible truth unfortunately. FOX News will tell you one thing, CNN will go the other way, and MSNBC will do something else. All I know is what I\'ve seen and read, and the vast majority of it indicates that the situation in Iraq is not nearly as bad as some people want us to think.
-
Originally posted by mm
...and that\'s how to properly put someone in thier place
/cheer
hardly...:p...we both just have a difference of opinions....i could\'ve responded to a couple of his posts, but it just would\'ve ended up with us mindlessly goin back and forth....
Plus, the US government gave him a deadline to peacefully leave the country and he declined. (blade)
blade we\'ve both stated what we had to say and i respect your feelings, but i just have a problem with that statement....didn\'t you think the u.s. was just bein\' just a wee bit ridiculous and arrogant asking saddam to leave his country? :p..that\'s like asking bush to leave the white house...and i know oil wasn\'t the ultimate goal here, but i know that it was a factor in the back of some in the bush adminstration, iraq is like the 2nd largest supplier of oil if i\'m not mistaken....but eh like you said, some people are for the war and some are not....
-
it just would\'ve ended up with us mindlessly goin back and forth
Well, not.. not mindlessly.. but yeah. Which is why you rarely see me in political threads.
didn\'t you think the u.s. was just bein\' just a wee bit ridiculous and arrogant asking saddam to leave his country?
Oh, definitely. :)
The difference between him and Bush (besides the mustache and the Doritos.. Bush likes Rold Gold..) is that Saddam broke UN rules involving weapons. He messed around with weapon inspectors. US intelligence (which has been "proven" faulty) insisted that he had weapons that to date we haven\'t really found.
That, and it\'s been known for a while that Iraq is a shithole to live in with very restrictive laws and a fascist dictator in office.
The US thought it was doing the right thing, and as Ghettomath said.. only time will tell.
-
Originally posted by clips
but again if the u.s. is so big on liberating the iraqi people they need to liberate about 100 african nations from the atrocities that are goin\' on over there,...oops!...i guess those people over there don\'t need to be "liberated" :rolleyes:...
You mean like this African country?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/051113184937.bl8o13wd.html
Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir threw cold water on US efforts to promote peace in his war-torn country, just two days after US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Zoellick left Sudan.
The US official spent four days in Sudan trying to shore up a January peace deal that ended more than two decades of north-south war and pressing for a solution to the devastating conflict in the western region of Darfur.
"We don\'t need Zoellick to resolve our internal problems," the official SUNA news agency quoted Beshir as saying.
The president made the comment after receiving proposals from members of his ruling National Congress for a regional conference bringing around the same table all the parties involved in Darfur.
"The solution to the root causes of the problem lies with the people of Darfur themselves," Beshir said.
Up to 300,000 people have died since ethnic minority rebels rose up against the Arab-dominated regime in Khartoum in early 2003, according to a British parliamentary report.
[/i]
We also tried that in Somalia didn\'t we Clips? Screw Africa - they don\'t want or deserve our help.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
You mean like this African country?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/051113184937.bl8o13wd.html
[/i]
We also tried that in Somalia didn\'t we Clips? Screw Africa - they don\'t want or deserve our help.
i read the article but i think it\'s a wee bit misleading...you can correct me if i\'m wrong. From what i\'m getting from the article is that it\'s an arab dominated country, meaning in my eyes that the arab\'s are runnin\' the show over there while the citizens themselves who are black are bein oppressed...as far as somalia is concerned, yea i agree with you on that, but the point i was trying to make is that yea even tho the u.s. does assist and give huge amounts of relief to african nations, all i\'m sayin is that even tho they see what atrocities are goin on over in those african nations, they are not forcefully kickin\' out those dictators over there(as compared to iraq)...that was the comparison i was tryin to make....i mean those countries over there are violatin\' human rights and breakin\' rules that both the u.s. and u.n. hold them accountable to correct?...
-
Saddam is a bigger fish and apparently had WMD\'s. Iraq is also part of the UN, as are Somalia and Sudan.
Not every country in the world wants US intervention. Certainly not every suffering country in Africa.
-
They have more Oil too :)
-
True.
Doesn\'t mean oil was our main reason for war, like the dirty hippies were saying. Clean your feet, people.
-
Originally posted by Blade
True.
Doesn\'t mean oil was our main reason for war, like the dirty hippies were saying. Clean your feet, people.
eh, but you can\'t say that it wasn\'t a part of it,..it\'s like buyin a brand new house, that comes with a benz...:fro:
-
That\'s a house I\'d want. :)
-
Clinton talks sense:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051130/D8E6QUUOD.html
-
Originally posted by hyper
Clinton talks sense:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051130/D8E6QUUOD.html
Talks sense? No more like politics as usual. This is nothing insightful or unique. Clinton and the Dems know the plan the adminstration has and are attempting to spin it as their idea.
What the Dems are trying to do is make our impending withdrawl as something that they forced so they can make even more mileage out of it. The other Dems like Murtha who are saying our military is broken etc, are briefed on the plan and are well aware of the current status of the Iraqi military and are willing to sell our soldiers short so they can gain more votes in the upcoming elections.
The truth is and has been for quite some time that we will withdraw once Iraqi forces are able to take control of the situation on their own. This has been the plan all along.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
The truth is and has been for quite some time that we will withdraw once Iraqi forces are able to take control of the situation on their own. This has been the plan all along.
That\'s exactly what Clinton is advocating, which is why I said she talks sense.
-
well i\'ve spoken my piece on bush and the republicans regarding the war, my thing is regarding some democrats is that, these same democrats that voted for the war are the same one\'s that are criticizing it. I\'m sure if everything went perfectly as planned, they would be basking in it\'s glory. Stand by what you voted for,...you can\'t have it both ways.....