Wwii And Iraq Recruitment.

[Buffalow]

In December of 1941, America was attacked. Young men and women faced up to their duties, although for women it was more for the homefront then actual foreign battlefields, they all did their part to make sure that America was ready to defend their homeland from foreign invaders.

In September of 2001, America was attacked. But, oddly, no one wanted to join the military just like in WWII. What happened? They aren't allowed to physically hurt you, like in Vietnam, the pay probably has adjusted with the changing times.

So what was it that stopped Americans from joining the Military in the numbers that they had in WWII?

[SolInvictus]

aren't recruitment numbers actually up?

[conno30001]

I don't understand what you mean Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 if anything the Iraq war should have never happened,

[Begoner]

When America was attacked in 1941, we declared war against Japan -- we did not declare war on Belgium, for example. When we were "attacked" in 2001, we declared war on Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Thus, people did not sign up in droves to support a bogus fiasco.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 9/13/06 02:38 PM, Begoner wrote: When America was attacked in 1941, we declared war against Japan -- we did not declare war on Belgium, for example. When we were "attacked" in 2001, we declared war on Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Thus, people did not sign up in droves to support a bogus fiasco.

We declared war on Afghanistan first, leading up to the Iraq war. Intel gathered from forces that were deployed in Afghanistan contributed to the Iraq war, not 9/11.

wtf

I'm willing to bet some Americans won't join the armed forces because their countrymen won't stand for them when push comes to shove, giving them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

They get to watch their brethren get mutilated and dragged through the streets to cheering crowds, while being hampered dinking around with trivial investigations in a war-torn country.

Drop more bombs, kill more rats.

[Begoner]

We declared war on Afghanistan first, leading up to the Iraq war. Intel gathered from forces that were deployed in Afghanistan contributed to the Iraq war, not 9/11.

And recuitment was indeed up when we declared war on Afghanistan. When we declared war on Iraq for no reason, recruitment dropped. Of course, Bush did connect 9/11 and Iraq several times despite an utter lack of proof until recently.

Drop more bombs, kill more rats.

Who exactly are you referring to as rats? The hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians whom we have killed? The only "rats" in Iraq are the secratian terrorists and the American troops.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 9/13/06 02:55 PM, Begoner wrote:

Drop more bombs, kill more rats.

Who exactly are you referring to as rats? The hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians whom we have killed?

Funny the first people you would associate with "rats" are the onnocent ones. Bigot.

The only "rats" in Iraq are the secratian terrorists and the American troops.

Anyone who dances around a corpse and cheers is a rat. Our soldiers are soldiers, authorized to use deadly force (under a STRICT legal/moral code).

Do America a favor and cut us some fucking slack once in awhile.

[Begoner]

Funny the first people you would associate with "rats" are the onnocent ones. Bigot.

Obviously you didn't score to high on any reading comprehension tests. With the bombs we dropped, we killed innocent civilians, not "rats." In fact, we killed hundreds of thousands civilians.

Anyone who dances around a corpse and cheers is a rat. Our soldiers are soldiers, authorized to use deadly force (under a STRICT legal/moral code).

Ah, yes, that strict legal/moral code. It was explempified in Haditha and at Abu Ghraib. It was brilliantly showed off when the US refused to submit to the ICC. It was evident when we broke international law in the invasion of Iraq. Anybody who joins a military force that is involved in the slaughter of innocents in a rat -- those who fight against an occupying force are not.

[sKeLeToN-ChRiSt]

Mabe it's because people are lazy and don't care anymore.

[ReiperX]

At 9/12/06 11:55 PM, Stolzer-Amerikanisch wrote: In December of 1941, America was attacked. Young men and women faced up to their duties, although for women it was more for the homefront then actual foreign battlefields, they all did their part to make sure that America was ready to defend their homeland from foreign invaders.

In September of 2001, America was attacked. But, oddly, no one wanted to join the military just like in WWII. What happened? They aren't allowed to physically hurt you, like in Vietnam, the pay probably has adjusted with the changing times.

So what was it that stopped Americans from joining the Military in the numbers that they had in WWII?

Actually from what I read recruitment went up after 9/11. Its the Iraqi invasion that the recruitment dropped dramatically. A lot of people are against the Iraqi war, and a lot of people compare Iraq to Vietnam as far as its not your typical war.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 9/13/06 03:34 PM, Begoner wrote:

Funny the first people you would associate with "rats" are the onnocent ones. Bigot.

Obviously you didn't score to high on any reading comprehension tests. With the bombs we dropped, we killed innocent civilians, not "rats." In fact, we killed hundreds of thousands civilians.

Surround yourself with innocents and wonder why people get pissed when they die. Stand up for your own innocent civilians dying, but don't help or even try to assist those who wish to bring justice to the same? THAT'S a connection between Iraq and 9/11 . . . poetic justice.

Anyone who dances around a corpse and cheers is a rat. Our soldiers are soldiers, authorized to use deadly force (under a STRICT legal/moral code).

It was brilliantly showed off when the US refused to submit to the ICC.

I mention dead bodies mutilated and your "innocent" civilians dancing around cheering, you bring up international courts who care more about the treatment of live prisoners than the injustices of the dead. I understand that the ICC doesn't have the balls to investigate anyone who'd rather see them dead (the enemy), so to validate their existence they do whatever they can to whoever they can, ignoring the rest.

Sometimes ya gotta bite the fucking bullet and pick sides. If you can't be consistant, don't be a thorn in the ass of the good guys. Okay?

It was evident when we broke international law in the invasion of Iraq.

INTERNATIONAL LAW? Excuse me? Show me the document we're held liable to. Show me, and how it fits with our Fuck-Europe Constitution. Can you do that?

[Begoner]

Surround yourself with innocents and wonder why people get pissed when they die. Stand up for your own innocent civilians dying, but don't help or even try to assist those who wish to bring justice to the same? THAT'S a connection between Iraq and 9/11 . . . poetic justice.

No, poetic justice would be you suffocating to death because your head was so far up your ass, your shit clogged your airways. Well, maybe not that poetic -- maybe it would be poetic to Dante, though. Who was surrounding themselves with innocents? What the hell are you talking about? What is this elusive conncetion to which you refer?

I mention dead bodies mutilated and your "innocent" civilians dancing around cheering, you bring up international courts who care more about the treatment of live prisoners than the injustices of the dead.

Obviously, you do not know the function of the ICC. It was founded to prosecture those who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Guess what? Dancing is not illegal. Torturing and killing prisoners is. We don't acknowledge the ICC because we want to go on committing war crimes with impunity, without anyone to stop us.

Sometimes ya gotta bite the fucking bullet and pick sides. If you can't be consistant, don't be a thorn in the ass of the good guys. Okay?

The good guys? The comedy tour was last week, I'm afraid. You've missed the boat. The "good guys" are not the imperialist, hegemonic forces which want to continue to occupation of another country which has done nothing to warrant that kind of treatment. Even Saddam was a better ruler than than the current US occupation. More Iraqis died during 1 week of US occupation than under a decade of Saddam's rule. The "good guys" are the resistance fighters.

INTERNATIONAL LAW? Excuse me? Show me the document we're held liable to. Show me, and how it fits with our Fuck-Europe Constitution. Can you do that?

No, we don't have a "fuck-Europe" constitution. We have a "fuck-world" constitution. International law says that a war is illegal unless it is approved by the UN or there are mitigating factors (ie, a defensive war). You're right, though -- the US is not held liable to any document. Being the sole superpower, we can use the UN as our pawn -- we can listen to them when it suits us and disregard them if we feel like it. No matter what we do, we cannot be prosecuted because we're too strong. The Nazis weren't prosecuted until after the war was over, for example, and Germany lay in ruins. Hopefully, America won't be in ruins before the war criminals leading it are brought to justice.

[SolInvictus]

At 9/13/06 04:47 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote: Surround yourself with innocents and wonder why people get pissed when they die. Stand up for your own innocent civilians dying, but don't help or even try to assist those who wish to bring justice to the same? THAT'S a connection between Iraq and 9/11 . . . poetic justice.

this wasn't Lebanon, there were no terrorists hidden in with civilians when "shock&awe" was used. at that time the US wasn't fighting a hidden enemy, thats why they won so quickly, yet heavy bombings of cities still happened.

[Demosthenez]

At 9/13/06 02:55 PM, Begoner wrote: The hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians whom we have killed?

Do we have to go over this again? Stop making shit up.

[Begoner]

Do we have to go over this again? Stop making shit up.

You don't need a bullet in your head to be considered killed. You can also die because of lack of proper health care due to the American occupation, for example:

http://www.commondre../views05/1217-29.htm

[Demosthenez]

Hmm, did we kill those people? No. We didnt. We didnt kill them. That was tough, wasnt it?

[SolInvictus]

wait, why are you two arguing over body count, is one false, exaggeration, etc..?

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 9/13/06 09:49 PM, Shihuangdi wrote: wait, why are you two arguing over body count, is one false, exaggeration, etc..?

Begoner seems to think it's our duty to keep them alive. It's not.

[Memorize]

Because the American people have become weak.

[SolInvictus]

At 9/13/06 10:40 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote: Begoner seems to think it's our duty to keep them alive. It's not.

well its generally your duty not to blow them up, after that im not sure if helping provide adecquate is.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 9/13/06 10:45 PM, TimeTrials wrote: Because the American people have become weak.

Tired of the bullshit.

[JMHX]

At 9/13/06 10:40 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

At 9/13/06 09:49 PM, Shihuangdi wrote:

Begoner seems to think it's our duty to keep them alive. It's not.

We're the occupiers, of course it's our duty to keep them alive. If they start to die all over the place, that doesn't really help the master plan, does it?

[LazyDrunk]

At 9/13/06 10:47 PM, Truthiness wrote:

At 9/13/06 10:40 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

At 9/13/06 09:49 PM, Shihuangdi wrote:

Begoner seems to think it's our duty to keep them alive. It's not.

We're the occupiers, of course it's our duty to keep them alive. If they start to die all over the place, that doesn't really help the master plan, does it?

Selective dying is the key!

[Memorize]

At 9/13/06 10:47 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

Tired of the bullshit.

Considering what happend during and after Vietnam and how the media (once supporting the government like WW1 and WW2) has now condemned any government action because ratings about who were killed are more important to them.

Afterwards, the American people are more cynical against any government involvement because of deaths, regardless of how many less we have than previous wars (Iraq, lowest US solder Death toll than any other "war" like Korea, Vietnam, even the Gulf War-montly death toll average). Churchill once called the States as a Global Protector, now that we have become more selfish for our own needs, half of the US don't care about oppressed people being ruled by a murderous dictator like Saddam because we get killed altho we're rebuilding the Iraqi's future for the better.

So in short, America (or at least half of it or so) has become weak.

[Togukawa]

Well, if you blow up water purification plants and sanitation, and surprise surprise cholera breaks out and people die because of it, then YES, you're at fault.

Of course it isn't the duty of the US to keep Iraqi's alive, but if the US takes away all drinkable water and people die of thirst or because of drinking poluted water, that's directly the US' fault.

If the US felt that bombing water sanitation installations was necessary for the war effort, then they should also have provided the people with drinkable water. Or at least not be surprised if people start getting pissed off and not greeting them as the great liberators.

[ReiperX]

At 9/13/06 10:51 PM, TimeTrials wrote:

At 9/13/06 10:47 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

Tired of the bullshit.

Considering what happend during and after Vietnam and how the media (once supporting the government like WW1 and WW2) has now condemned any government action because ratings about who were killed are more important to them.

Afterwards, the American people are more cynical against any government involvement because of deaths, regardless of how many less we have than previous wars (Iraq, lowest US solder Death toll than any other "war" like Korea, Vietnam, even the Gulf War-montly death toll average). Churchill once called the States as a Global Protector, now that we have become more selfish for our own needs, half of the US don't care about oppressed people being ruled by a murderous dictator like Saddam because we get killed altho we're rebuilding the Iraqi's future for the better.

So in short, America (or at least half of it or so) has become weak.

I'm sorry, I'm willing to bet more Iraqis have been killed since our invasion that Sadaam had killed. By doing the invasion it stretched our troops out, hurt recruitment, cost billions and billions of dollars, destabalized the region by attracting terrorists into Iraq, put Iraq on verge of a possible civil war. Plus I'm willing to be Iran would be a little easier to work with with their nuclear ambitions if it wasn't for the Iraqi invasion. So yeah, it was a bad thing.

[Begoner]

Begoner seems to think it's our duty to keep them alive. It's not.

Actually, the Geneva Conventions would disagree with you there. It is the duty of the occupying power to provide all the necessities of life. A failure to do so which results in a death should then logically be chalked up to the fault of the occupying power.