Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/1/07 06:56 PM, JMHX wrote: Awesome, 3,000 to go until I win that bet with Proteas.

Few more years and I will have you killed.

At 1/1/07 05:32 PM, Begoner wrote: The thing that bugs me, though, is that we're spending money on slaughtering people and destroying countries instead of helping people and rebuilding countries.

Yep, and there's another way to view it; even taking inflation into account, the original cost of the Twin Towers that were destroyed in 2001 is thought to have been about $4 billion dollar mark. Meanwhile, in the 5 years since 9-11, the cost of the Iraq war has risen to over$2 billion a week ($9.8 billion a month in 2006, up from $6.8 billion a month in 2005) so for that kind of money you can afford to build 1 brand new tower each and every week in any city of your choosing. In fact, for the money already spent on Iraq's destruction and chaos you could have already paid for the construction of about 100 towers!

Furthermore.. back in May 2006, when construction for the Twin Towers Memorial began, it was disclosed that the estimated construction costs for the Memorial had risen to over $1 billion. The New York Daily News condemned the $1bn figure as "unaffordable, impractical and rather shocking". Interestingly, the cost of the World Trade Center itself (completed in 1970) was thought to have been around $1 billion. And the Washington D.C. black granite Memorial to the US soldiers who died in Vietnam cost only about $7 million.
.

At 1/1/07 06:30 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/1/07 03:16 PM, AapoJoki wrote: You're forgetting that the Bush administration itself desecrated 3,000 deaths of Americans by taking advantage of a horrible terrorist attack, and using it as an excuse to start a pointless war that only serves the interests of their campaign financers and themselves.

A pointless war? We took out the Taliban in Afghanistan!! What'd you expect the president to do, not retaliate on 9/11 for fear of peoeple saying the war would only serve "their own interests".

Seriously, you have a skewed way of viewing reality.

Afganistan is a war in which much of the public supports, and had a legitimate reason to go to. Iraq on the other hand was not. You seem to be getting the two confused. Afganistan, the people in power attacked the United States, killed 3000 people. Temporarily hurt our economy. Yet the US doesn't even have close to the same amount of troops there than in Iraq. While Afganistan is relatively more stable it isn't all that stable.

Iraq on the other hand was stable prior to the invasion. Now its possible that there is going to be a major civil war breaking out in Iraq that the US cannot do anything about, yet we are one of the underlying causes of it. So there would be a lot more innocent people alive today if we had not invaded Iraq in the first place. And if we kept a decent amount of troops in Afganistan then maybe it would be closer to stable by now and maybe we would have already found Osama Bin Laden, you know the guy that was behind 9-11. The guy who we pretty much gave up on looking for.

Oh right, and the difference between those examples you gave, and the Iraq war is that the examples you gave were actually wars. The Iraq war is a fabrication of lies and political bullshit, that is better summed up as a massacre.

At 1/1/07 03:16 PM, AapoJoki wrote: You're forgetting that the Bush administration itself desecrated 3,000 deaths of Americans by taking advantage of a horrible terrorist attack, and using it as an excuse to start a pointless war that only serves the interests of their campaign financers and themselves. You're saying that 3,000 is not a big number... well apparently it's big enough to start a war that together with its aftermath has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths already.

1) There is a HUGE difference between 3,000 CIVILIANS being attacked out of the blue as they go about their daily lives and 3,000 SERVICEMEN on the battlefield.

2) As I've talked about previously this war was NOT about capturing oil reserves, that would be plain stupid. I mean who would invest in a plan that gave you $500 in returns; but cost $1,000 just to invest? If we were after the oil, it would take about 20 years for us to get enough oil barrels out of Iraqi oil fields to replace the amount of gas we've spent on the invasion/peacekeeping mission. Also, you have to remember that the US has been at war with Iraq since 1991. Our Air Force was bombing Iraqi military targets, and had its SpecOps people on the ground in country for 15 years! Clinton almost went to war with Iraq because Saddam was going to sell oil in Euros that would really cause the value of the US dollar to bottom out. It would've probably happened even if Gore (whose family wealth came from oil) won in 2000...

At 1/1/07 07:13 PM, animehater wrote:

At 1/1/07 06:56 PM, JMHX wrote: Awesome, 3,000 to go until I win that bet with Proteas.

Few more years and I will have you killed.

Awfully big words for a General bitch. And if you want JMHX dead, you'll have to wait in line.

3,000 deaths is significant, but practically nothing. More than 168,000 civilians have died from car crashes alone in those four years; nearly 10 million Americans died in that same time. How many of those deaths are mourned to this degree in the media? By anyone not close to the individuals, even?

3,000 deaths is significant because any death is significant, but it is actually a very small number considering the situation. It is something to be proud of, even though we mourn it.

At 1/1/07 03:16 PM, AapoJoki wrote: You're forgetting that the Bush administration itself desecrated 3,000 deaths of Americans by taking advantage of a horrible terrorist attack,

9/11 = triple death toll of Pearl Harbor

At 1/1/07 07:09 PM, Begoner wrote: Is the life of an American worth more than that of an Afghani? Due to our intervention in Afghanistan, we have imposed the equivalent of several 9/11s on the country. We have caused death and destruction at every juncture, and the Afghanis have suffered as a result. 9/11 pales in comparison to the travesty we unleashed on Afghanistan. He should have retaliated, but a reprisal attack is not only unjustified, but morally abhorrent. The Taliban were partially responsible for the attack, yet we also hurt Afghani civilians who were not complicit in the plot.

Do you have any idea what life was like for an Afghani before we went into Afghanistan? If a woman's husband was killed the Taliban would kill her if she tried to go to work to feed her children. Five years has passed since we invaded Afghanistan and progress is slow, but what can we expect to accomplish in only five years in a country that has known nothing but war? The Soviet campaign in the 1980s totally destroyed all of Afghanistan's infrastructure.

Furthermore, you are overexaggerating the loss of civilian life in Afghanistan. And you have probably been misled in your beliefs. In 2001 I saw footage a 'dud bomb' that was dropped by an American fighter in the middle of a civilian village. The problem is, it was NOT a bomb! I immediately recognizied it as an external fuel tank from an F-16 that was probably punched off because a Talibani launched a stinger at the jet. It was NOT however a bomb. Furthermore, I doubt you realize just how much care the military goes to severely limit civilian and cultural suffering. I mean we had a perfect of shot on Talibani leaders who were attending a funeral; but we passed because it is a violation of international law to bomb a cemetary...

At 1/1/07 05:32 PM, Begoner wrote: 3000 soldiers dead is 3000 too much for such a pointless squander of human life. Ironically, however, we were willing to go to war over a meager 3000 civilians dead in a terrorist attack, yet some pro-war advocates make light of the 3000 troop deaths. Are soldiers worth less than other people? Why do you say that so few lives have been lost in Iraq when the same amount of lives had been lost on 9/11? It's a disgusting double standard which doesn't even take into account the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died as a result of the war.

There are many things wrong with your logic here:

1) I was an Honor Guardsman while I was on active duty. I have helped bury war dead, and these funerals will never leave me. I AM NOT MAKING LIGHT OF THIS NUMBER.

2) It is a fundamental reason why the military exists is to protect and serve the country. This is a duty we take very seriously and is similar to the ideals behind EMTs, Police and Fire Fighters. There is a double standard in that it is the service member who is to die in an attack and NOT a civilian. May I remind you that this opinion comes from a servicemember? (I'm in the Air National Guard now.) It is a duty that we share with our brothers and sisters in arms. There is a saying that is applicable here: If you haven't been there shut the fuck up. If you do not feel the pull of a sense of duty or honor to serve in the military do not talk about a soldiers life and what it is worth ESPECIALLY when comparing it to the life of civilian victims of a terrorist attack; you do not have the necessary basis from which to form a valid opinion.

3) It is not that those of us in the miltary are war-mongers. A military member abhorrs war on a level much deeper than an activist who has never served. I myself am a pacifist; however I understand that war will happen and is sometimes necessary. That is why I serve in a military that uses symbols of peace (the olive wreath) on our uniforms. I am not a war-monger, but I understand what war is and understand that in a war like the one in Iraq we are lucky that ONLY 3,000 have died thus far.

4) Yes hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died since the invasion. However, only 30,000 have come from US military actions. In a war (you have to remember these terms are relative to the situation) this is a surprisingly small number and is a testament to the skill and ethics of the US military (inclusive of civilian leadership in the Executive and Legislative branches). Furthermore, the majority of post-invasion deaths were going to happen regardless...do you not remember what happened in Yugoslavia after Tito died?

At 1/1/07 03:48 PM, Nuggs wrote: Wait wait wait... 3,000 dead americans isn't a lot. What are you smoking!?!?

My point is that in a war situation 3,000 KIA is not much and is a sign that we are doing things right.

At 1/1/07 05:14 PM, bcdemon wrote: You think us anti-war people are like the war mongers celebrating death and destruction? Hell no.

Who is a war-monger? Since VIetnam the US military has been the last to promote a military solution over a diplomatic one. The reason is simple: we are the ones who do the dying.

Furthermore, and the core of why I started this topic, we worry that once committed will we have the support of the government and people to see our mission completed?

I would love to go into Darfur and stop the genocide and do more in Africa and throughout the undeveloped world. However, Somalia and Iraq are demonstrating that the public and the government will not be there for us when things do not go according to plan or fast enough. Shit happens, especially in war and people die, get hurt and things get broken. However, the average American who hasn't served watch movies and TV and base their opinions on military science on what they see on the tube which is very rarely accurate. If I'm sent in I want to be in there until the job, even if it takes a long time and the going gets tough.

At 1/2/07 01:15 AM, Techware wrote: 9/11 = triple death toll of Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor:
KIA: 2,403 military 68 civilian
Wounded: 1,178

9/11: 2,973 plus 24 still missing.

Not quite triple there...

At 1/2/07 01:24 AM, TheMason wrote:

Not quite triple there...

Sorry, when I was thinking about it, it somehow got into my head to add the wounded (one of those random 'brainfart' moments).

Still, you get the point, on top of 9/11 it being civilian instead of servicemen.

At 1/2/07 01:28 AM, Techware wrote:

Sorry, when I was thinking about it, it somehow got into my head to add the wounded (one of those random 'brainfart' moments).

I mean "add the wounded only". Wow, another one, haha, would ya look at that.

At 1/1/07 07:13 PM, animehater wrote:

At 1/1/07 06:56 PM, JMHX wrote: Awesome, 3,000 to go until I win that bet with Proteas.

Few more years and I will have you killed.

Comintern of the Blitzkreig Blintzes.

At 1/2/07 01:19 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/1/07 05:14 PM, bcdemon wrote: You think us anti-war people are like the war mongers celebrating death and destruction? Hell no.

Who is a war-monger? Since VIetnam the US military has been the last to promote a military solution over a diplomatic one. The reason is simple: we are the ones who do the dying.

I would say Bush is a war monger for starters. 1 country invaded for each term in office, I would say that depicts a war monger.

3,000 is 3,000 too many regarless of the benifits.

At 1/1/07 04:02 AM, TheMason wrote:: :

is probably why history will judge his actions in Iraq as a resounding success.

That's your opinion. I'm willing to go on record as saying he is likely to rate amongst the least popular American leaders ever after Iraq.

Will we be weak and craven and hide behind the casuality count like the anti-war movement is doing in Iraq?

I think there is a difference between losing 3000 lives in a war you support, and losing 3000 lives in an unwanted war. It also seems to me that there are other sound reasons to oppose the war in Iraq, not just the body-count.

and 30-40,000 Iraqi deaths due to US military actions;

www.iraqbodycount.org gives that many insurgents dead, but a staggering 60,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. I don't mean to cheapen the US troops sacrifice, but it seems that that many innocents dying is not really something to be proud of.

Also, could you source the number you give - it seems a bit high to me, but I'm not certain.

However, the hand-wringing anti-war movement cares not about my sacrifice.

That's blatently untrue - why would anti-war activists have any interest at all in stopping the war if they didn't care about your sacrifice? They claim that your life is too important just to throw away on a misguided cause.

At 1/2/07 09:30 AM, Goldensheep wrote:

www.iraqbodycount.org gives that many insurgents dead, but a staggering 60,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. I don't mean to cheapen the US troops sacrifice, but it seems that that many innocents dying is not really something to be proud of.

He's going by the enormous toll count which was conducted to have the iraqi deaths set at around 350,000 to 600,000 (which every other source (yahoo, CNN, Fox ect) says is completely outrageous as they have the iraqi death toll around 60,000-80,000).

Btw, it's kind of hard not to have huge civilian deaths if you can't specifically see the enemy and they keep suicide bombing.

But like I said, 60,000 after 4 years, is very very low.

Have we found those WMD's yet?

At 1/1/07 07:09 PM, bcdemon wrote: Maybe you should re-read my last post on page 1 of this thread, the one about Powell and Rice saying Iraq has no WMD in 2001.

Colin Powell has already explained himself:

"MR. DAVIDSON: Now, back in February of 2001, when you were speaking of Saddam Hussein, you said he has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors; six months later, Condoleezza Rice made a similar statement. I guess you were apparently right then, but I guess, not wrong -- but wrong on certain items, when you spoke to the UN in February of 2003.

So what happened in the interim between the correct statement and the incorrect information?

SECRETARY POWELL: You're judging whether -- what was correct and what wasn't correct. In early 2001, when we first came in, I said, among other things, that I didn't think he had the ability to project conventional power. That's never changed and it's accurate, perfectly accurate. He couldn't have done in 2001, 2002, 2003, that which he did back in 1990, when he invaded Iraq. I don't think there is any question about that. At that time, I was working on making sure the sanctions regime didn't fall apart --

MR. DAVIDSON: Right.

SECRETARY POWELL: -- because the international community was getting very soft with respect to sanctions. And I thought he had the intention and capability and that we had contained. Now, I don't think that I said he had no stockpiles.

MR. DAVIDSON: No, the quote was, "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

SECRETARY POWELL: Right, but he was -- he had a capability. "Significant" is the key word here. I had never had the impression that he had no weapons of mass destruction stockpile, but I believed that it was essentially not of a significant quantity yet. But over the next year and a half, the intelligence community kept coming up with more information, and then something rather significant happened on 9/11, when the whole equation changed. The President was not going to war based on Saddam Hussein's actions in early 2001. The President was not looking for any war, anywhere in 2001. "

Thus, he did believe that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's when he made the comment. He was also swayed to believe by faulty intelligence reports (after his initial comments) that Saddam's WMD capabilities were greater than he had originally assessed. You (1) put words in his mouth to make it sound like he was saying that he believed Saddam had no WMD's and (2) did not allow for change in his opinions by various intelligence over the next 2 years.

At 1/2/07 01:09 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Have we found those WMD's yet?

The occupation isn't about WMD's.

A simple comment to the OP...

You're the smartest person on this board.

At 1/1/07 05:26 PM, Grammer wrote: 3,000 dead soldiers = 3,000 ruined families.

though its tragic and horrible for a family to lose a loved one people die all the time and generally families aren't ruined by such a loss (i'm not saying they aren't affected though).

At 1/1/07 07:09 PM, Begoner wrote:

Is the life of an American worth more than that of an Afghani? Due to our intervention in Afghanistan, we have imposed the equivalent of several 9/11s on the country.

Get me statistics.

We have caused death and destruction at every juncture, and the Afghanis have suffered as a result.

And they didn't cause us death and destruction? They tried to tear down the towers once in the early 90s and they finally succeeded on 9/11. God forbid we stand up for ourselves. Stop complaining about the Afghanis and look at what they did to our country. Yea their lives are important and valued equally, but you don't fuck with something bigger than you are.

9/11 pales in comparison to the travesty we unleashed on Afghanistan.

And what do you suggest we do here? Ask nicely for the guerilla fighters, terrorists, and insurgents to come out of their caves and spider holes and turn themselves in? Perhaps a slap on the wrist would suffice? We need to find the terrorists by any means necessary. It also doesn't help that the civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq are aiding the insurgents and terrorists. The peopel that are fighting against us are their brothers and sisters and fathers and sons and daughters. Civilian involvement and casualty is inevitable. The best we could do is to minimize collateral damage where ever possible.

He should have retaliated, but a reprisal attack is not only unjustified, but morally abhorrent.

Again, what would you have us do? Sit on our hands and grin like a retard? For christ's sake man, wake up! The whole basis of war is reprisal attacks. Do more damage to the enemy than they can do to you. Victory only comes when you cripple them so much that they can no longer retaliate. 9/11, Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania, etc. all resulted in attacks made by the United States that were meant to destroy the enemy. (Do I even need to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki???) And as far as unjustified goes, don't make me laugh. I'll give you 2,974 reasons why we're justified for blowing the shit out of Afghanistan.

The Taliban were partially responsible for the attack, yet we also hurt Afghani civilians who were not complicit in the plot. Employing your justification, the Afghani people would be perfectly entitled to assault the US as retaliation for what we did to them

They are, it's called insurgency. The insurgents are also being kept safe by the civilians. These civilians are the families of the insurgents so naturally they wouldn't want harm to come to them, would you? Guess what, these civilians are now criminals. They need to be dealt with accordingly.

If you punish an entire country for the act of a few individuals, you will suffer dire consequences as a result. We have massacred the Afghani people (collateral damage, sure), and we have reaped and will reap the reward for our actions in American blood.

Wow, I don't even know what to say here. If you and a group of your friends went and blew up a Sacred Mosque in the Middle East, causing thousands of innocent people to die, do you think they would just try and find the 'few people responsible?' You'd be out of your fucking mind to think that. They would throw whatever they could at us and kill as many Americans as possible all because of the actions of the 'few responsible.'

At 1/2/07 12:39 PM, Techware wrote: He's going by the enormous toll count which was conducted to have the iraqi deaths set at around 350,000 to 600,000

Sorry? I said the death count was 60,000, which is a very LOW estimate. I reckon 100,000 is probably closer to the truth

Btw, it's kind of hard not to have huge civilian deaths if you can't specifically see the enemy and they keep suicide bombing.

I don't dispute that. I'm just saying it isn't just.

But like I said, 60,000 after 4 years, is very very low.

But still, in my opinion 60,000 too many, given the justification for going to war.

At 1/2/07 03:44 PM, random8982 wrote:

At 1/1/07 07:09 PM, Begoner wrote:

Is the life of an American worth more than that of an Afghani? Due to our intervention in Afghanistan, we have imposed the equivalent of several 9/11s on the country.

Get me statistics.

Took me a couple of seconds to Google

We have caused death and destruction at every juncture, and the Afghanis have suffered as a result.

And they didn't cause us death and destruction? They tried to tear down the towers once in the early 90s

That was Isreali terrorists Get your facts right before you proslyite.

God forbid we stand up for ourselves. Stop complaining about the Afghanis and look at what they did to our country. Yea their lives are important and valued equally, but you don't fuck with something bigger than you are.

That's pretty much what America stands for with its free, democratic elections, freedom of the press and unrestricted association. Also, you can't possibly claim that the Afgani civilians who died were in any way responsible for 9/11.

The whole basis of war is reprisal attacks.

War as a policy tool maybe. But that's barbaric.

Guess what, these civilians are now criminals. They need to be dealt with accordingly.

Every Afgani civilian is a criminal? That's a retarded overgeneralisation. By your logic, some poor people comit crimes, therefore all poor people should be treated as criminals

Wow, I don't even know what to say here... all because of the actions of the 'few responsible.'

Arguing from possibilities is the lowers form of rational debate. You should try to address the moral issues behind the bile you're spewing. Just because x would react in y way does not make that the moral course of action. As you said yourself, as America is the biggest, (and I'm now paraphrasing) and the most influential country in the world, it should be a world leader in ethical foreign policy. It is not.

I feel sorry for the families.

3,000? So much for the 21st century being better eh?

At 1/1/07 04:02 AM, TheMason wrote: I am willing to give my life in Korea, Afghanistan or Iraq for a country that will honor my sacrifice. However, the hand-wringing anti-war movement cares not about my sacrifice. I have a bright future and a child I would like to see grow-up. However, where I to shed my mortal coil in combat for my country, I pray to God that the anti-war movement and Nancy Sheehan will not desicrate my death by using it as an argument that we need to leave Iraq or Korea or wherever. I would rather they spit, piss or shit on my grave. That would be more honorable.

I completely agree, we would be able to do so much more as a nation if we had the support of the [people at home.

I feel for Nancy Sheehan's son, She disrespects him , and the rest of our fallen brothers. Dying sucks, no one wants to give there life , but if it happens you hope that you will be honored for your bravery and for the fact that you were doing it for the people at home so they may not have to.
Yet people who don't give us that are in some ways worse than the person that took the soldiers life because they take our memory, and honor, spirit..

Do you have any idea what life was like for an Afghani before we went into Afghanistan?

Indeed, life was horrible in an authoritarian state controlled by warlords and religious fundamentalists, not to mention that the infrastructure was barely functional and the economy was in the trash. So, what do you think the solution to such a problem would be? To bomb the country into oblivion and completely eradicate even the semblance of good works there? Or to begin a determined international aid campaign to improve the life for the Afghanis? Hint: one action would destabilize the situation and wreak havoc upon the country while the other would have the opposite effect.

Furthermore, you are overexaggerating the loss of civilian life in Afghanistan.

A report in 2001 placed the death toll due to US action at approximately 4,000 over a period of 2 months. That is a conservative estimate that only takes into account the amount of Afghanis who were directly killed by the US military; the real death toll because of the conflict is most likely much higher. To extrapolate that data at a constant rate, it would mean that a total of 168,000 civilians have died in Afghanistan to this point, and that is a conservative estimate. However, all of this is really guesswork and there is a wide margin of error. However, the number is certainly above 100,000, which is a lot.

And they didn't cause us death and destruction?

Who is "they"? Did the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Afghani civilians who died as the result of the war ever cause you death or destruction? No, they did absolutely nothing to harm you, yet they are dead. Tens of people hatched up a plan to destroy the World Trade Center; they should be punished, not 10,000 times that many innocent civilians who have suffered.

Again, what would you have us do?

5 times the number of people who died in 9/11 die each year because of car accidents. Maybe we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on saving their lives instead of pointlessly taking lives? 30,000 people die each day because of poverty-related causes. Just a single billion dollars would be enough to save all their lives. But what do we do? Waste billions of dollars on slaughtering people. Terrorism is a statistically insignificant problem in this country; we should take care of more urgent matters first.

Do more damage to the enemy than they can do to you.

Who do you think the enemy is? All those whose skin color is different from yours? We massacred innocent civilians because of the actions of a small group of people. We did the same thing to Iraq and Afghanistan as they did to us, only we did tens of times over to them. Everyone who voted for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan is just as guilty as those who conspired with bin Laden, and perhaps more so.

At 1/2/07 01:09 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Have we found those WMD's yet?

Actually, we have.

Actually, we have.

Actually, we're dealing with a little thing called "reality" here. You're welcome to enter if you wish.

At 1/2/07 05:46 PM, Begoner wrote:

Terrorism is a statistically insignificant problem in this country; we should take care of more urgent matters first.

Uh, at the moment it is, but once terrorists acquire nuclear arms (which I admit won't be for maaaaany years) they will not hesitate to use them, and therefore it's a significant problem. What we should have done is dropped 500,000 troops into Afghanistan after 9/11 and swept out any terrorists.

Of course I exaggerate.