Iraq war isn't that bad.

[TNT]

Let me first state this:

When it comes to death rate only, which is around 3000 to 4000 american troops, it may look bad, but consider this.

On D-day, 15,000 deaths were in that day alone. And the people back at home thought it was a successful one, we won the battle(USA did). Now please do understand, every single death is terrible, and the death rate in Iraq is always bad because you know that they died. But comparing to D-day in one day, and Iraq war in 4 years, don't you think we should cut some slack on the republicans when it comes to americans dying?

I hope you read the WHOLE thing so we don't a major fight over misunderstanding.

[MortifiedPenguins]

In WW2 we were fighting against an organised enemy, with infrastructure, a clear chain of command and it was as it was stated, a war, not an occupation.

Plus the fact that your comparing battles that have happened 60 years ago with today, with major changes in tactics, technology and hardware has simply made past wars no longer relevent to today.

It's like comparing statistics and tactics from the US Cival War with WW1, it's not a logical comparison.

[Engelsman]

At 4/2/07 10:25 PM, T-N-T wrote: On D-day, 15,000 deaths were in that day alone. And the people back at home thought it was a successful one, we won the battle(USA did). Now please do understand, every single death is terrible, and the death rate in Iraq is always bad because you know that they died. But comparing to D-day in one day, and Iraq war in 4 years, don't you think we should cut some slack on the republicans when it comes to americans dying?

Ignoring the fact that you're another American who thinks D-Day was fought just by Americans, a battle to help bring victory to Europe and liberate many countries under Nazi control was seen as more important then some oil war in the Middle East.

[Memorize]

At 4/2/07 10:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

It's like comparing statistics and tactics from the US Cival War with WW1, it's not a logical comparison.

I could compare it to Vietnam, then you'd be SOL.

[TNT]

At 4/2/07 10:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: In WW2 we were fighting against an organised enemy, with infrastructure, a clear chain of command and it was as it was stated, a war, not an occupation.

Plus the fact that your comparing battles that have happened 60 years ago with today, with major changes in tactics, technology and hardware has simply made past wars no longer relevent to today.

It's like comparing statistics and tactics from the US Cival War with WW1, it's not a logical comparison.

Its not so much about technology and new tactics as it is with conflicts, I don't know everyone is freaking about the war being so "it was retarted" and everything, this is a completly different war you know, we are fighting terrorism, TERRORISM, and I may sound silly, but I am surprise the death rate isn't really high.

[Memorize]

At 4/2/07 10:34 PM, Engelsman wrote:

Ignoring the fact that you're another American who thinks D-Day was fought just by Americans, a battle to help bring victory to Europe and liberate many countries under Nazi control was seen as more important then some oil war in the Middle East.

He's comparing the American death toll of both wars to Americans you little dimwitt.

I expected this from an underage foreignor.

[maxamas64]

At 4/2/07 10:34 PM, Engelsman wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:25 PM, T-N-T wrote:

Ignoring the fact that you're another American who thinks D-Day was fought just by Americans, a battle to help bring victory to Europe and liberate many countries under Nazi control was seen as more important then some oil war in the Middle East.

you sir, are ignorant. this is NOT an oil war. all of the oil coming from the middle east is being purchased, not taken. we are fighting terrorists, and the people who support terrorism.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/2/07 10:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I could compare it to Vietnam, then you'd be SOL.

With Iraq and Vientam, that would be a better comparison but still not close enough.

Vientam was just a complete fuck up. But in Vientam they weren't dealing with religion.

[Engelsman]

At 4/2/07 10:35 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:34 PM, Engelsman wrote:

Ignoring the fact that you're another American who thinks D-Day was fought just by Americans, a battle to help bring victory to Europe and liberate many countries under Nazi control was seen as more important then some oil war in the Middle East.

He's comparing the American death toll of both wars to Americans you little dimwitt.

I expected this from an underage foreignor.

I'm not questioning what he's comparing. I'm pointing out the sentence "On D-day.... we won the battle(USA did)." In any context that suggests that Americans were the only ones present at the Normandy Invasions.

That's like me saying the British death toll in Iraq is bad but at least we won the war (Brits did).

Next time say Omaha and Utah.

At 4/2/07 10:41 PM, maxamas64 wrote:

you sir, are ignorant. this is NOT an oil war. all of the oil coming from the middle east is being purchased, not taken. we are fighting terrorists, and the people who support terrorism.

We all have our opinions. As for me, it's 3:48am and are not willing to argue over it.

[Memorize]

At 4/2/07 10:48 PM, Engelsman wrote:

That's like me saying the British death toll in Iraq is bad but at least we won the war (Brits did).

Considering you technically did win the war. Do you not say "we won" to other persons when talking about WWII or WWI?

[Memorize]

At 4/2/07 10:42 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Vientam was just a complete fuck up. But in Vientam they weren't dealing with religion.

Yet we technically "won" Vietnam while we were there. So what makes Iraq so "unwinnable" other than those filthy liberals who we call congressmen, want to lose?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/2/07 10:57 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:42 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Yet we technically "won" Vietnam while we were there. So what makes Iraq so "unwinnable" other than those filthy liberals who we call congressmen, want to lose?

And we also technically were winning Korea before we settled for a peace.

If you look at the end, we lost Vientam, It went communist. That went against the reason for our involement in it.

[Engelsman]

At 4/2/07 10:56 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:48 PM, Engelsman wrote:

That's like me saying the British death toll in Iraq is bad but at least we won the war (Brits did).

Considering you technically did win the war. Do you not say "we won" to other persons when talking about WWII or WWI?

I didn't really understand what you meant, but I do say "we did" as a collective term for the Allies or coalition forces, but wouldn't finish the sentence with "(Brits did)" when talking about an event that involved thousands of other troops from other countries.

[cellardoor6]

At 4/2/07 10:42 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I could compare it to Vietnam, then you'd be SOL.

With Iraq and Vientam, that would be a better comparison but still not close enough.

Vientam was just a complete fuck up.

No it wasn't. Vietnam was actually an entirely legitimate war. We were protecting South Vietnam from North Vietnam, and we had our hands tied behind our backs the whole time unable to fight the way they fought against us. Yet STILL the war initially ended in a peace treaty. The US actually won initially considering the goal was to protect South Vietnam from the Communists, not to take the capitol of North Vietnam. We succeeded in that, and a condition of our victory was that we withdraw from Vietnam, which we did.

But then, 2 years after US troops were almost entirely withdrawn, the North Vietnamese broke the ceasefire and invaded South Vietnam, then the US was prevented from going BACK INTO Vietnam to do anything about it by the UN and Americans were unwilling to go back in defiance of the UN because they were demoralized by the coverage via the liberal media. So technically, the UN and the media lost the Vietnam war, it wasn't the US who lost, and it certainly wasn't the US military.

There was nothing wrong with the Vietnam war. It's just that, like Iraq, it was during an age where the media was much more rapid and the moment troops died, or civilians were killed, it filled the TV screens and radio transmissions all over the world immediately. The war was disproportionately dramatized and tainted with partisan motives.

There is nothing even remotely pessimistic about the Iraq war compared to previous wars the US has won. It's just that now the media has such control over how the situation is presented, people are given an overly-negative view of a war that 60 years ago would have been entirely winnable in the minds of Americans.

In Iraq right now, the US military isn't losing at all, casualties are lower than any counter-insurgency in military history. Hell, the Germans lost over 100,000 troops in France by the tactics of the French resistance in a smaller amount of time... think about it. It's just that now, the media that is overwhelmingly liberal is intentionally engineering the coverage of the war to make it as negative and as hopeless seeming as possible.

If we lose in Iraq, it won't be because of the mistakes of the US military, it will be because the media turned Americans into frightened, demoralized little sheep who are willing to vote for politicians who will cause a premature withdrawal from Iraq that will ENSURE defeat.

The US isn't losing in Iraq, the media is causing us to want to lose as an alternative to a difficult victory. Because as long as we are there, we can't lose. The insurgents can't take ground, they can't reclaim power, they can't actually kick the US out or dissolve the Iraqi government when US troops are there. The only way we will lose is if we withdraw before the Iraqi government gains the ability to protect itself.

End rant

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/2/07 11:03 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:42 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

No it wasn't.

Cellardoor.

Tell me when I care.

Kay.

[Memorize]

At 4/2/07 11:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Tell me when I care.

I take it, you lose.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/2/07 11:08 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I take it, you lose.

Fine, believe what you want.

Doesn't change what has happened.

[Engelsman]

At 4/2/07 11:08 PM, Memorize wrote:

I take it, you lose.

Haha, ironic how earlier I was the underage foreigner.

[cellardoor6]

At 4/2/07 11:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:08 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I take it, you lose.

Fine, believe what you want.

Doesn't change what has happened.

I just love how you work. You claim something, someone gives a compelling argument to the contrary, and when it appears that you weren't exactly correct, you just say "believe what you want".

Excellent.

[TNT]

Well this is intresting, now we are talking about the vietnam war, and debating on whoes opinion is better. Ah well...I thought this would be a good topic.

[toraneko1]

but war is still morally wrong, your making people lives a statistic and thats not right. I hate wars altogether. plus these peoples lives effect there familly.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/2/07 11:18 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:08 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Excellent.

Yes, quite.

Or it could mean that I am currently procrastinating a history paper and don't really want to go out for a full argument.

But I like your idea better. It's just smacks with arrogance and idiocy.

[cellardoor6]

At 4/2/07 10:59 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:57 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 10:42 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Yet we technically "won" Vietnam while we were there. So what makes Iraq so "unwinnable" other than those filthy liberals who we call congressmen, want to lose?

And we also technically were winning Korea before we settled for a peace.

If you look at the end, we lost Vientam, It went communist. That went against the reason for our involement in it.

I love it how you completely ignore the intricacies of reality.

We actually did win the military war in Vietnam because our goal was to protect South Vietnam from North Vietnam. We succeeded in this when a peace treaty was made with North Vietnam in which they promised not to invade South Vietnam again, and in return, the US promised to withdraw troops. Any breaching of these agreements would have meant an immediate validation of continued US military presence.

We upheld our end of the bargain and withdrew from Vietnam. 2 years after... the Communists broke their agreement, and invaded a defenseless South Vietnam in our absence. Instead of recommitting troops to Vietnam, we decided to puss out for fear of another 10 year war.

So we didn't lose, we just didn't fight again after we already won, which ruined our previous efforts.

The US military won in Vietnam, pussy liberals lost it.

[cellardoor6]

At 4/2/07 11:23 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:18 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:08 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Excellent.

Yes, quite.

Or it could mean that I am currently procrastinating a history paper and don't really want to go out for a full argument.

Excuses now huh?

But I like your idea better. It's just smacks with arrogance and idiocy.

Haha you're so utterly pathetic. You can't even argue your point anymore. You lost, you couldn't really elaborate on the UNTRUTH that you claimed as fact. Then once you realize it, your only way of coping with is resorting to what you think are intelligent rebuttals.

"smacks of arrogance and idiocy"

I wonder how well you're going to do on that "history paper" of yours when your teacher asks for some elaboration or logic for your claim and you just say "Tell me when I care. Kay" or "Believe what you want"

You are one silly little child.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/2/07 11:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:23 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:18 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:08 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Excuses now huh?

Apparently.

Well, anyways it's been fun, but I gotta fly.

The best that I can promise is that I can play tommorow.

So, I'll see you then.

[Memorize]

At 4/2/07 11:16 PM, Engelsman wrote:

Haha, ironic how earlier I was the underage foreigner.

You are a mentally underage foreignor. *setting the record straight/No spin zone*

[Engelsman]

At 4/2/07 11:35 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:16 PM, Engelsman wrote:

Haha, ironic how earlier I was the underage foreigner.

You are a mentally underage foreignor. *setting the record straight/No spin zone*

Dude, you can't even spell foreigner.

[Memorize]

At 4/2/07 11:38 PM, Engelsman wrote:

Dude, you can't even spell foreigner.

And yet, it changes nothing.

[cellardoor6]

At 4/2/07 11:38 PM, Engelsman wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:35 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/2/07 11:16 PM, Engelsman wrote:

Haha, ironic how earlier I was the underage foreigner.

You are a mentally underage foreignor. *setting the record straight/No spin zone*

Dude, you can't even spell foreigner.

When in doubt, attack the simple spelling error of your opponent.

How to cope when you lose an argument 101.

[toraneko1]

except that you haven't been hooked on phonics.