news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...440664.stm<
>
<
>
I would say the types of weapons it's used in depends entirely on how the weapons are used. There have been many reports that it was used offensively. <
>
<
>
And once again, hard number
<i></i>

Yeah, and? It's basically a quick easy form of napalm. It is used in thermabaric weapons(which can result in extremely powerful explosions), and often times in mortar form. It can be extremely effective in clearing fortifications.<
>
<
>
In our very own little country here it took us 11 years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the ratification of the Constitution. I'd say Iraq is well on it's way.<
>
<
>
You want a hard number for what? <
>
<
>
The amount of infrastructure left standing in Iraq compared to any country in Europe after WWII would be another reason to call this tame compared to that. The fact of the matter is this went more quickly, with less deaths, and with far more infrastructure left standing than any war we've been involved in. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Quote:You would refuse the poor and the weak shelter and saftey.<
>
<
>
ummm no? I don't even understand what your point is anymore.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Quote:It can be extremely effective in clearing fortifications.<
>
And even more so against people... <
>
<
>
Quote:The amount of infrastructure left standing in Iraq compared to any country in Europe after WWII would be another reason to call this tame compared to that. The fact of the matter is this went more quickly, with less deaths, and with far more infrastructure left standing than any war we've been involved in.<
>
<
>
You are indicating that you consider 30k and the current situation acceptable. That isn't my question, as it's already been indicated previously that that number and current result is considered tame. <
>
<
>
I'm asking at what number of deaths, and what amt of destruction are the result not acceptable. Basically, I'm asking where the warhawks draw their line in the sand, if at all.
<i></i>

I really don't think they do. When the 100,000 death figure came out a year ago they really didn't seem to care. People in America have no clue what it's like outside our own little haven. We are an insulated people ignorant to the realities of war. War for us has been a TV news
ief, not a reality. 30,000 dead people can be shrugged off with ease. There's no conscience. There's no empathy. <i></i>

So now can you answer me how non-violence is going to stop the murder and rape of innocents in Darfur? What about the lawful use a violence by the state? Is that wrong? Is forcing men and women, violently if required, who have harmed another to have restricted access to society when it is belived that they will harm more people if let free wrong? <i></i>

<
>
There is no magic answer that will satisfy you, Karthun. Everything we do, whether through your violent ways or my non-violent ones, are imperfect attempts to better our world. <
>
<
>
And your questions about such concepts as prison are answered differently by different people. There are different degrees of non-violence out there, just like pretty any other political or religious position you can take on any subject. For me, prison is perfectly acceptable, allthough I would like the primary purpose of prison to be rehabilitive, not punitive. Non-lethal force in general seems acceptable to me, allthough I prefer actions which do not induce permanent damage, or introduce unnecessary pain and suffering. Torture, of course, would not be acceptable. <
>
<
>
I've never sat down and written out a set of rigid rules as to exactly what is ok and what isn't. Like everything else in this world, it's a big fat gray area that is dependant on circumstance and conviction. But, there's a few
oad outlines off the top of my head. Go ahead and reply about how I'm going to let everyone around me die again, thus showing once again that you haven't bothered to read my posts. It's fun! Throw in some random hate, too; it warms my heart .<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

But doing what it takes to stop genocide is wrong. <i></i>

How about this line of thought;<
>
<
>
It's not a question of acceptability.<
>
<
>
The fact of the matter those that are dead are dead, we can't do dick about it now. That's just something we'll have to live with, it's unfortunate but that's the way it is.<
>
<
>
The question about how many of those "civilians" were Iraqi army(or more importantly the FedaIm sp?) sans uniform is also a rather legitimate question. The same thing also happened in Germany post WWII, we had a lot of trouble finding ex-Nazi's on the run for that very reason. That's probably a good part of why Israel is still finding former Nazi's around the world.<
>
<
>
As far as I'm concerned Saddam should have been knocked off 14 years ago, and yes I know what all that entails, my
other was a Marine grunt right in the middle of the attack, and lost guys in his unit in Kuwait City. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Quote:There is no magic answer that will satisfy you, Karthun. Everything we do, whether through your violent ways or my non-violent ones, are imperfect attempts to better our world. <
>
<
>
Cool, thanks for making so many people who're posting in this thread points for them, seriously. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I've never met a Quaker Fibur. I've been wanting to ask this for a while, but I figured you would think it was sarcastic. The only time I ever heard about them really was in relation to a General under George Washington. I think his name was Nathanael Greene. Also wasn't Nixon a Quaker? Ok, looked up Nixon and yes he was. A few Presidents were apparently.<
>
<
>
This
ing up some questions. I am sure you know them. Signing the budget etc. How is those things resolved with Quaker beliefs? <
>
<
>
Anyhow. If we want to talk about pacifism and religion you still need to deal with why some thing is wrong... or right. I find the position of pure pacifism untenable with the way the world is currently run. <i></i>

I'm aware I'm late to the thread, but I think this link...<
>
<
>
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/a...03840.html<
>
<
>
...is a valid nonbiased writeup of the history of Iraq from 1979 -2003, including all the problems that we had with them from 1990-2003.<
>
<
>
No propoganda, just facts and quotes.<
>
<
>
You read it, and then tell me it wasn't a good bet that Saddam was a problem that needed to be removed(and LIKELY had WMDs). Duke Zachen McKracken, 65 Lord Protector of Brell Serilis on Lanys T'Vyl (retired)<
>
<
>
Flaric, 60 Undead Priest, Light
inger<
>
<
>
Proud Member of Oryx<
>
<i></i>

Quote:30,000 dead people can be shrugged off with ease. There's no conscience. There's no empathy.<
>
<
>
Ray... How exactly can anyone empathize with that many deaths? Where is your conscience and empathy for those who suffered HORRIBLE attocities under Saddam's Regime? Where is your cele
ation of how signifcantly that reality has been reduced? Just because I call the scale of what happened tame in a historical perspective does not imply that the process itself is anything but a horrible thing. Nor does it imply that I don't have empathy for the suffering this type of conflict
ings. Being able to put historical perspective to a situation automatically can seem "unfeeling and "uncaring." It is immature and stupid to say that I don't have conscience and/or empathy for those that suffer through this process.<
>
<
>
At least I try to cele
ate the successes as well. You
ing nothing but negativity. <i></i>

I see nothing to cele
ate. <i></i>

Just because Anna agrees with what we are doing in Iraq does not make her/him (you never know these days) an unfeeling black heart. You act like the world is all black and white with no shades of grey.<
>
<
>
I can look at what we are doing in a way that is positive because of the elections and the real possibility I see for a form of democracy in Iraq. At the same time I can cringe at the losses being taken by everyone. Then again I also cringed and felt horrible for the Iraqi people when I heard the stories of what Saddam’s own children were doing. (Remember the plastic shredders). <
>
<
>
No one will EVER convince you that the progress we have made there justifies the cost. Anyone who disagrees as strongly as you do will never agree with that. Besides I can't honestly say it is justified because we won't really know the full impact for 5 to 10 years. What I can say is that at this moment it looks like it will succeed and that (to me) justifies the cost. 10 years from now I may look back and see the total opposite. <
>
<
>
It MIGHT have been a huge mistake. It is impossible for me, or anyone, to look 10 years in the future. We can only do what we believe is the right choice, right now. Right now I believe we are doing and have done the right thing.<
>
<
>
Every death is sad. Just because someone says that the losses are "acceptable" for the time in country and the progresses made doesn't mean they don't give a shit that people have died. <
>
<
>
You can cele
ate achievements and mourn losses at the same time without being a hypocrite in anyway.<
>
<i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

I hate that any civilian dies in war. It's horrible.<
>
<
>
Civilian is an interesting word however. Technically, it means anyone who isn't a member of a country's armed forces. This description could be used to describe many of the terrorists shooting at Americans in Iraq. <
>
<
>
How are these civilian numbers being counted? Are civilians who were actually killed by the terrorists for a percieved apostasty being counted in the 30,000 number? That doesn't make sense. How many civilians have been killed by the terrorists?<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________

Quote:How are these civilian numbers being counted? Are civilians who were actually killed by the terrorists for a percieved apostasty being counted in the 30,000 number? That doesn't make sense. How many civilians have been killed by the terrorists?<
>
Don't ask smart questions like that, it makes those opposed to the war for back in the pathetic "But but but...there are 2000 American dead and we are killing Iraqi civilians!!!1111!!!!" stance rather than looking at the big picture. I know you are far from "for this war", Bobo, but more people should look at the
oad picture like you do. Kudos for that. <i></i>

I would count any Iraqi civilian that dies as a result of any foreign national's actions in Iraq as a civilian death. The foreign terrorists currently waging war in Iraq would not be there if we had not
ought the war there.<
>
<
>
More than one person has posted on this board that they would rather wage the War on Terror in Iraq than in the United States. The location of the fire fight doesn't change the fact that civilians die. It only changes their nationality. <i></i>

How about this as a way to count.. if counting deaths is so damn important.<
>
<
>
For Iraq - We count the number of civilians who would have died as a result of any foreign national's actions in Iraq MINUS the number of civilians who would have died as a result of no intervention due to actions from the governement that was removed.<
>
<
>
For the US - We count the number of soldier who have died in the conflict MINUS the number of sodiers who die in daily maneuvers and practices normally in the same given time period.<
>
<
>
IMO, counting bodies insults the dead. One dead is too many, but the reality that so many people are missing is that it might actually be possible that FEWER deaths might be occuring than if we never went (or pulled out early) in the first place.<
>
<
>
I can just see the headlines now if Bush did not go into Iraq and Saddam commited some heinous act. <
>
<
>
"The apple doesnt fall far from the tree - Bush Jr. Wimp too"<
>
"Saddam scares another US President into inaction"<
>
"Thousands die, Bush does nothing"<
>
<
>
Alternate realities in this are not hard to find, nor are they hard to imagine. <i></i>

Rayvenn wrote<
>
<
>
Quote:We are an insulated people ignorant to the realities of war. War for us has been a TV news
ief, not a reality. 30,000 dead people can be shrugged off with ease. There's no conscience. There's no empathy. <
>
<
>
Do you know the realities of war? Have you ever had to take the life of another human one who was trying very hard to kill you? War for you is what you see on TV because if you had ever experienced the horrors of mortal combat you would not say anything about conscience or empathy.<
>
<
>
I can bet you have never lay in bed at night and as soon as you close your eyes you see the 12 year old you killed because he was the one who blew you buddy to hell with a rpg. Nor felt the pain that comes from having shrapnel rip through your shoulder. Do you really think that soldiers lack a conscience and that is what makes them kill? Nobody wants peace more than a soldier who has fought in a war.<
>
<
>
I am glad you can talk about empathy, I have empathy for the innocents who become the unfortunate victims of war, but war is never clean. You almost make it seem like they military intentionally targets civilians because of what you see on the boob tube.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

You're a dumbass if you think that quote was in any way directed at soldiers. Nice try though. I love when rightwingers play the soldier-card. <i></i>

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE (CHILDREN/SOLDIERS/CORPORATIONS)?!? <i></i>

_________________

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.

The biggest enemy of freedom is a happy slave.

A hard number line in the sand is absurd. As long as US forces are in Iraq, the number will increase. This could be for another year or another twenty years. The point of any such discussion is to elicit a nugget to
ing up again when the tally is reached, much like discussion of a hard withdrawal date.<
>
<
>
If we want to be pragmatic about things, I assume the question is how many civilian casualties are acceptable when our military engages the enemy. Of course the answer is zero, and a lot of work goes toward making it zero. In a perfect world, our precision would be good enough to eliminate collateral damage. But this is reality. Soldiers and civilians both die in war. Knowing this and entering into a conflict anyway does not mean the people on the ground or signing the papers do not care.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Haha. You might want to replace "rightwingers" with soldier playing the soldier-card, but I guess that's somehow bullshit too. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Whatever you want to call him he has shit for reading comprehension. <i></i>

Quote:Knowing this and entering into a conflict anyway does not mean the people on the ground or signing the papers do not care.God. NO ONE is saying that soldiers do not care about civilian casualties. I think everyone realizes, or should realize, that civilian casualties hit the soldiers the hardest. I was specifically referring to Americans inside America who shrug off death counts as being acceptable for the cause. I would also include policymakers. <i></i>

Quote:God. NO ONE is saying that soldiers do not care about civilian casualties. I think everyone realizes, or should realize, that civilian casualties hit the soldiers the hardest. I was specifically referring to Americans inside America who shrug off death counts as being acceptable for the cause. I would also include policymakers.<
>
<
>
So I guess that I am not the only one with shit for reading comprehension. <i></i>

Quote:I was specifically referring to Americans inside America who shrug off death counts as being acceptable for the cause. I would also include policymakers<
>
<
>
I don't see anyone doing this, then again maybe I just view their comments much differently then you do. I am the wife, daughter and niece of military and I guess that makes it easier for me to see that calling the losses acceptable and shrugging them off without a thought or care are two different things. <
>
<
>
I agree there is a disconnect between most Americans and any war because none of us have every had to have one fought in our back yard. I see the disconnect more coming from people who have never been in combat. When Anna says the words "acceptable losses" it does not mean he doesn't give a shit that people have died. That assumption by you or leap in logic is wrong.<
>
<
>
There is no exact number that can be given to say "this is to much" because I think most people believe that even one death is to many. Anna made a good point with his last post on this subject. <
>
<
>
Quote:How about this as a way to count.. if counting deaths is so damn important.<
>
<
>
For Iraq - We count the number of civilians who would have died as a result of any foreign national's actions in Iraq MINUS the number of civilians who would have died as a result of no intervention due to actions from the governement that was removed.<
>
<
>
For the US - We count the number of soldier who have died in the conflict MINUS the number of sodiers who die in daily maneuvers and practices normally in the same given time period.<
>
<
>
IMO, counting bodies insults the dead. One dead is too many, but the reality that so many people are missing is that it might actually be possible that FEWER deaths might be occuring than if we never went (or pulled out early) in the first place. <
>
<
>
<
>
Every single death under Saddam was a horrible senseless loss. Every death at the hands of his generals and family members were a horrible loss. Yes every death now is a loss.<
>
<
>
I believe there would have been MORE deaths in Iraq if we had NOT removed Saddam. Does that justify the current death toll? To you, I'm sure it doesn't. But to the vast majority of people in my little corner of the world it does. <
>
<
>
I think counting bodies and saying "Okay well this is too much now lets leave, sorry guys you are on your own" Is sick and stupid. What is the value of a democratic Iraq? Placing price tag on the future of a country is ing. If we did that we'd still be a colony or possibly speaking German right now. What price do you believe that the Iraqis place on their freedom from Saddam?<
>
<
>
I shutter to imagine what the death toll would be in Iraq if we pull out right now. I can picture Iran invading from one direction and the terrorists invading from the other direction and Iraqi's caught in the middle.<
>
<
>
Seriously Rayv what exactly do you think would happen if the US pulled out right now. Do you honestly believe there would be an end to violence in Iraq? No deaths? I don't think you do believe that but I also don't think you realize the full ramifications of your "plan"<
>
<
>
<
>
Rosetta's WoW Profile Rosebud's WoW Profile<
>
Coin and Cleavage<
>
"My Give a damns busted" - Jo Dee<i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

If you really want something to be digusted about and to send letters to your congressmen over. <
>
<
>
Try this<
>
<
>
Now this will make your point about how some of our leaders might not "give a shit" about the deaths but I doubt you can make the same case for the average american. <i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

agree rosetta, and if you polled most troops, you would find that about 90 percent agree, even a lot of wounded guys. I have about 4 or 5 wounded friends that would say the same and i did a tour there myself, even if it was only floating off the coast <i></i>

I wasn't saying the contrary, and the statement includes policy makers. Americans are desensitized to a whole lot more than body counts on foreign soil. They are also sheltered to a point that reality is a novel concept.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Me and you agree on something? Unusual. <i></i>

Well said, Rose.<
>
<
>
Since "body counts" are more important than what the deaths buy for people, I guess it's just unthinkable that we ever got involved in any war; and if we did, we should've immediately cut and run when things weren't easy. As Rose said, we never would have gotten anywhere as a country with that attitude. Yes, it would've been easier, safer, and (possibly) less bloody; but would there be as much freedom around the world?<
>
<
>
Let's look at a couple battles from previous wars fought to free people from oppression, and see where the Iraq operation stands in comparison to just those two battles, not the two wars or American military operations in toto.<
>
<
>
http://www.historylearningsite.c..._beach.htm<
>
<
>
Quote:The Americans suffered 2,400 casualties at Omaha - and this is principally why the attack is remembered. It is easy to overlook the fact that despite the casualties, 34,000 troops had been landed by the end of the day on this blooded beach.<
>
<
>
That's a 7% casualty rate -- nowhere near as high as we'd think from watching movies and documentaries, but still far higher than what we've suffered in Iraq. It was the true beginning of the end of Hitler's Reich, though there was still almost a year of combat left to go. Even then, many Nazis held out for years, conducting guerilla operations against Americans. So, America topples a dictator, frees a country, and loses soldiers to enemy combatants after the war is officially over -- sound familiar?<
>
<
>
http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm<
>
Quote:#5 <
>
Battle of Antietam <
>
Date: September 17, 1862 <
>
<
>
Location: Maryland <
>
Confederate Commander: Robert E. Lee <
>
Union Commander: George B. McClellan <
>
Confederate Forces Engaged: 51,844 <
>
Union Forces Engaged: 75,316 <
>
Winner: Union <
>
Casualties: 26,134 (12,410 Union and 13,724 Confederate) <
>
<
>
That's over 20% killed, wounded, or missing. Those are FAR higher losses (in both percentage lost of personnel engaged and in raw numbers) in ONE DAY than have been lost in two and a half years in Iraq -- and that was in one battle! This was the battle that gave Lincoln the opening to release the Emancipation Proclamation. While that did nothing for slaves in the Confederacy, it essentially ended the possibility of other countries coming to the South's aid. It also gave blacks hope that their days as slaves might soon be ended. Do you think that might've had a positive impact on how they saw their lives?<
>
<
>
Finally, there's always Cold Harbor, the ugliest half hour of fighting you can imagine: Between 3,000 and 7,000 Union men and less than 1,500 Confederates went down, out of approximately 31,000 of 108,000 (US) and maybe 20,000 of 62,000 (CS) men engaged. As the article states, Quote: The battle caused a rise in anti-war sentiment in the Northern States. Grant became known as the "fumbling butcher" for his poor decisions. It also lowered the morale of his remaining troops. Yet despite those losses and others, and constant criticism in the press, Lincoln refused to deal with the South. Bush obviously isn't Lincoln, but he realizes that leaving now would both destroy America's credibility and cause the end of democratic experimentation in the Moslem world. <
>
<
>
This isn't to minimize losses in Iraq. I've said all along that one American death is one too many. But to say, "OMGZ, two thousand of our soldiers are dead! This is a senseless slaughter! We have to surrender and come home!!" is just mind-boggling and hypocritical. Defend your rights with a lawyer, a protest rally, and a constant drumbeat of propaganda disguised as news, I guess, but to hell with protecting your country from a possible threat or freeing other people from oppression.<
>
<
>
Lincoln, FDR, and Harry Truman must be up to about 5,000 RPM in their graves. <i></i>

Every war you've cited is a war with at least some self-defense involved, or a civil war. Do you think your point stands up under the fact that we engaged in a pre-emptive war based on bad intel?<
>
<
>
That fact kinda sorta changes the equation a bit, but that's just my opinion. If you want to divorce the Iraq war from any sort of context, feel free, but your point really suffers when you do so. - joxur<i></i>

Quote:war based on bad intel<
>
<
>
It's nice that we can all agree again. <i></i>

Comparing wars 60 or 140 years ago isn't fair. The nature of the beast is different today than it was at those times.<
>
<
>
Those wars were tame. A hundred thousand died in Caesar's siege of Alesia.<
>
<
>
No, not fair at all.<
>
<
>
The question isn't, "how does it compare to past wars?" You should be asking whether or not the sacrifice has been or will be worthwhile. - Leo<i></i>

That's nice Jox, it really is, but the discussion going on at the moment has nothing to do with why it started, it's purely based on bodies. After all, everyone wants to take a shit fit everytime the count nears a round number, like 1800 and 2000. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

You can't take into account the effects of war if you divorce it from context.<
>
<
>
You want to know why people have a shit fit about 2000 deaths? Because it's a bullshit war. That's why.<
>
<
>
The average American tolerated WW2-level deaths because they knew if we didn't do something, we would be living under an Axis flag. Is it that so fucking hard to understand? - joxur<i></i>

Quote:Comparing wars 60 or 140 years ago isn't fair. The nature of the beast is different today than it was at those times.<
>
<
>
No the comparison is not unfair because in the end war comes down to one fact and one fact only and that is the ability of the individual soldier to kill his enemy. The only difference may be that instead of using a Roman short sword, or a muzzle loader to kill with we now use F-16's and SAW's to do the job.<
>
<
>
War hasn't changed just the methods of killing have changed, still boils down to one man killing another man wheter it is by dropping a bomb on him or stabbing him with a sword. <i></i>

War has changed. If we followed the same rules of engagement that the Romans did, we probably would have simply leveled Iraq with bombs, saving the lives of our troops.<
>
<
>
We no longer value our own lives so much more than the lives of foriegn citizens. That's why war is different: how we fight it has changed.<
>
<
>
The difficulty with the type of war we're currently engaged in is that the enemy doesn't adhere to the same rules. In order for us to stick to our morals, we have to risk more to fight. - Leo<i></i>

Leo is right it is an unfair comparison and wasn't what I was trying to make a point on. (which is why I didn't really include it in my post to a large degree).<
>
<
>
The point I was trying to make is in my opinion the sacrifice is and will be worthwhile. But that does not mean I don't feel for the loss that is occuring. <i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

Quote:Because it's a bullshit war<
>
<
>
You can debate up to high heaven whether or not we should have or why we did, but it doesn't change the here and now.. We ARE there, and in my opinion we can't leave it unfinished. Maybe we would lessen the American and ally death toll but In my opinion we would GREATLY increase the Iraqi death toll and would open it right up for a modern day Persia.<
>
<
>
side comment to Leo. Please make sure you make this same statement when they start compairing this to Vietnam again. While there are a few parallels (the gov getting way to involved in the politics of it instead of fighting it, the press... etc...), the way war is fought has changed greatly even in that short of period of time. <i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

Quote:her/him (you never know these days)<
>
<
>
Anna = Bob, right? Or am I thinking of someone else? Masteraen/Wulolen<i></i>

_________________
"Be glad there was a keyboard, monitor and miles of fiber between us when you typed that."

"State that opinion in my presence, you fucktard, and I'll show you how valid it is when I'm kicking the shit out of you."

Quote:Seriously Rayv what exactly do you think would happen if the US pulled out right now. Do you honestly believe there would be an end to violence in Iraq? No deaths?Try asking more intelligent questions next time. <i></i>

Thats as good as when you to the pot shot because I didn't stay on the main topic of a post that had 5 different topics running through it.<
>
<
>
I scoff in your general direction.. scoff scoff HAHA <i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

Anyone who would answer that and say all would be better would be saying it just to say yes, without really meaning it. He's convinced we've started a civil war, which (imo as well) we did, there's no way in hell violence is going to stop anytime soon.<
>
<
>
I think the major difference is I believe it was worth it, because I feel if the initial reason to go to war had turned out to be true it would've been worse for us to sit and ignore it. I can't answer for him and it's doubtfull I'd do it correctly anyway, nor would I really desire to. <i></i>

My turn to take a shot. /clap /clap<
>
<
>
Grats to you on selective quoting. It's call a rhetorical question with an obvious answer (that I provided right after it). I think I'll just go back to calling you a jackass. You came up with much more interesting commontary when I did.<
>
<
>
Quote:Seriously Rayv what exactly do you think would happen if the US pulled out right now. Do you honestly believe there would be an end to violence in Iraq? No deaths? I don't think you do believe that but I also don't think you realize the full ramifications of your "plan" <i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

The point is: don't ask questions you already know the answer to. <i></i>

Quote:rhetorical question Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

That would be the definition of a Rhetorical question rayvenn. Statements in the form of a question used to make a point. <i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

Yeah, and? I repeat, don't ask questions you know the answer to. Rhetorical or not, that was not the point. Questions like that make you sound like half your
ain is missing. It was a rhetorical question, that makes it ok! No. <i></i>

<
>
<
>
What a silly thing to argue about. The whole point of using a rhetorical question is to MAKE a point.<
>
<
>
Sorry hun you are the one making yourself look like an idiot, arguing about and getting generally annoyed over whether I should use a rhetorical question in the way it's suppose to be used.<
>
<
>
That's as good as you arguing the definition of the word tool<
>
<
>
Keep going this is fun!!<
>
<i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

Quote:The question isn't, "how does it compare to past wars?" You should be asking whether or not the sacrifice has been or will be worthwhile.<
>
<
>
Good to see that someone get it. The thing is, being as isolated from the suffering of the average Iraqi citizen, he can not empathize with why this change may be a positive thing. <i></i>

Quote:I think the major difference is I believe it was worth it, because I feel if the initial reason to go to war had turned out to be true it would've been worse for us to sit and ignore it.<
>
<
>
Quote:The thing is, being as isolated from the suffering of the average Iraqi citizen, he can not empathize with why this change may be a positive thing.<
>
The thing is, you refuse to see the global, far-reaching consequences of our actions.<
>
<
>
The U.S. thought it was prudent to support the Shah of Iran and help him stay in power because he was pro-American. Unfortunately, he and his wife were living extravagently at the expense of their poverty-stricken countrymen, not to mention torturing and killing them. The result of U.S. meddling was the takeover of religious extremists in Iran.<
>
<
>
The result of U.S. meddling in Iraq is a burgeoning alliance between Iran and Iraq, a growing civil war (this time, with atrocities being performed by the Shiites on the Sunnis), and a serious loss of U.S. power and influence as China and Russia continue friendly relations with the Arab governments. (Putin calling Russia "the best friend" that the Arabs have today.)<
>
<
>
Let's also talk about the massive deficits and the war as a huge distraction from China's
illiant financial, political and covert strategies
inging China closer every day to total domination of the U.S.<
>
<
>
Yes, Saddam = bad as far as the Iraqis were concerned, but he was a buffer that maintained the balance in the Middle East and possibly the world. That's gone now, and we get to live with what we let out of Pandora's Box. <i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

I'll argue anything, without shame, especially when sick and delirious with a fever. <i></i>

me to obviously since I argued it right along with you. <i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

What if, instead of invading Iraq, we quit enforcing the no-fly rule over the Kurdish north and mainly Shia south part of Iraq? How many of those people would have died at Saddam's hand? I'd venture to say it would be more than 30,000 given Saddam's track record. In addition, the torture that Iraqi prisoners received would be instead of having a female soldier hold a dog leash on them - would be replaced by the Saddam standbys, i.e. putting people into plastic shredders, cutting their body parts off, handcuffing them and pushing them off buildings, etc. etc. Let's let the Iraqi people vote on returning to that.<
>
<
>
Now I know people will say "That would be different. The US wouldn't be directly causing those deaths." While that may be true, those people would still be just as dead either way.<
>
<i></i>

_________________

Quote:"That would be different. The US wouldn't be directly causing those deaths." While that may be true, those people would still be just as dead either way.<
>
<
>
Wait wait wait.. so its better.. because we're the ones doing the killing?!?!?<
>
<
>
I had to <i></i>

_________________

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.

The biggest enemy of freedom is a happy slave.

So when do you propose we send our troops into Darfur, Bobolink? <i></i>

I seriously question the mental capacity of people who write posts like that. WHAT IF WE DID THIS COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC THING AND BAD STUFF HAPPENED OMG WOULD YOU LIKE THAT???! <i></i>