Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

51% = popular opinion = fact

The definition of "win" is about as subjective as it's going to get regarding Iraq. For example, many think Vietnam was "lost" by The United States, yet we can say we actually "won," (we might be really stretching the definition here) and I believe cellardoor6 mentioned it before on a topic entitled "Why Iraq will kick ass and chew" in which he said about Vietnam:

"What people don't usually know about the Vietnam War is that when we withdrew initially, leaving only a small contingent, we were doing it victoriously. We had almost completely destroyed the Communist NVA and Viet Kong, so the North Vietnamese government capitulated and signed a peace treaty specifically stating that they recognized South Vietnam and would no longer show any aggression towards them. Everything had calmed down and when we left it was peaceful for a while. Then 2 years after we left, the North built up their forces again with Soviet help and reinvaded the South in our absence."

So we can either say we "lost" or we "withdrew...victoriously." What cellardoor6 said is true, to me, considering how the South was invaded again anyway by the North with help from theSoviets, in terms of a "victory." In my opinion, "winning" the Iraq War will be just that: pulling out "victoriously." However, whatever happens afterward shouldn't be our concern. If we pull out "victoriously" without really having done much, which isn't true, then it would be losing and attempting to play it off by saying 'oh we pulled out with dignity' which in my opinion is a sentence euphemism for 'we were wrong.' Other countries who dislike the U.S. will call it a retreat, and we'll call it of course a dignified withdrawal. It all depends on someone's definition of a "victory" and a "loss."

Wow, haven't seen an argument over Iraq in a while.

We went to war based on the fact that the head U.N. weapons inspector (Hans Blix) stood before the UN Security Council in late 2002 and stated as follows,
"During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called, full, final and complete. Regrettably, much of these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.

Such was the situation at the end of 1998, when inspectors left Iraq. The many question marks are documented in a report to the Council early in 1999 (S/1999/94) and in the so-called Amorim Report (S/1999/356). To these question marks, nearly four years without any inspection activity have been added."

This doesn't show any violation of resolution 1441. 1441 was passed in 2002 and this is referring to 1991-1998.

Why would America go to war in 2003 based on the fact that Iraq probably had WMDs in the period 1991-1998? Seems a bit of a gap there.

This was in lieu of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 demanding that Saddam disarm or else action would be taken against him to force disbarment, the 11th such resolution.

But it doesn't justify actions taken outside the UN structure
"12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter."

Resolution 1441 puts the authority for deciding if Iraq is in breach in the hands of the UN Security Council, whereby they will stop being 'seized of the matter' and 'convene immediately on receipt of a report' concerning interference with inspectors and consider 'serious consequences' for Iraq.

The international community had no reason to believe Saddam had disarmed (it had not a damn thing to do with Al Queda or 9/11, no matter how often you liars repeat yourselves thinking it to be true), and we acted appropriately. Now get over yourselves.

Resolution 1441 was not about having disarmed, but allowing inspectors.
@UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof'

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N 02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

At 9/12/08 06:22 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/12/08 04:28 PM, Nitroglys wrote: I'll admit it is pretty liberal, but think about all the veterans with disabilites, mental problems, rebuilding what we deystroyed. How much money is going to rebuild? Its gonna cost alot.

The trick there is to stop giving away billions for PTSD. Soldiers throughout history have managed before it was diagnosed, I don't see why modern soldiers should be any different. I'd have to see the exact amount spent on this before I make any firm judgment though. If it's only a few billion, then why not?

Wow. That is big words coming from someone who has never experienced battle before. Who do you think you are telling these people they aren't sick. You are sick for thinking such. Wow. i really cant believe you said that. But it has been around forever, Just undiagnosed. Hell in WW1 they only treated the extreme cases. Its called shellshock.

How many more must die before we realize that we can't win. not when we are fighting every extremist group in the entire middle east. We have given a reason for so many Jihadist to go, fight, and die for their cause. We are creating our own problem. Terrorism is an undefeatable enemy. end of story.

Except you're making the mistake of believing there's some sort of Jihadist gene in all Muslims that is triggered by everything we do. Believe it or not, there aren't that many terrorists in Iraq. There aren't even that many insurgents, considering the country's size. Most people aren't despondent, living on the edge, one push away from joining Al-Qaida.

I didnt say their was a gene. But there is a religon. One that 90% of the region follow devoutly. and it may be a small percent who are active jihadist, but there are so many others flooding in from other countries. And these people are willing to die for their cause. That alone is dishearting. This has never been a conventional war. Dont you remember when the Iraqi gaurd all surrendered. Brigade after brigade. That was iraqis. now we have terrorist pouring in from every middle eastern country. Way more support than we have anymore.

I say let them join, see where it gets them.

Probably, killing some innocent people. or taking a few of our guys down with him. or her. Did you hear about that girl they found at the security check point with a bomb strapped to her chest. She said that she was forced somehow to take it across town, but they said she wouldnt be blown up. THese guys are sick, stop at nothing.

Im not saying that the war alone is the reason for our reccession(which we are in one), but it ceartinly isnt helping. too much money for such a little cause. Its another Vietnam. We cant win, and throwing money and lives at it won't solve the problem. Grow up and admit that the war is pointless, if not I dare you to sign up and join the army right now. If you dont you are a hypocrit. Now go. Fight for what you believe in. I have a friend shipping out in November. I sure hope Obama gets into office so his life can be spared. Its not worth it. None of it is.

1. We aren't in what is traditionally defined as a recession. If you want to use your own special definition, keep it to yourself.

Um. Yes we are In a Recession.
Most everyone knows it.
And its so bad it might hurt other countries.

2. One doesn't have to enlist to support the war. There was no draft; no one is dodging any responsibility by staying home. I would join the military, except that I have a college education bought and paid for, good job prospects, and I'm in terrible shape.

No, but you can't say that the lives of the troops were worth it.. Especially if you cannot clearly define their reason for dying.
Exactly, You can say these people are worth to die beacuse you have never experience the struggle to survive. You've had everything handed to you. You have to admit that there are a majority of people in the army that were low income and had few choices in life. Just beacuse they are low income doesn't sentence them to die for some profiteering campaign.

3. Life-saving is not an end in itself. Some things are worth dying for, some things are worth risking lives for. Giving the Iraqis support now is one of those, as 5 years of effort has been put into getting rid of an unstable influence and building an allied state.

Five wasted years, but ya, i'll admit it would be irresponsible of us to abruptly leave now. A pull out force maybe. Residule troops, i think thats the plan Obama is pushing. And i bet once we withrawl these people will start to rebuild. They've been doing it for years. We just need to realise that our pressence there is the reason we are getting there. A catch 22, why do you fight, when you know that you are fighting beacuse they just want you to move. And whats wrong with that. They obviously hate us, and we arent gonna change that by killing them. So why not withrawl, slowly?

But i commend you to go out and find 5 soliders who say after they got shot, wounded, or immobilzed by the war and ask them if it is worth it to them.

If only the dead could talk.

At 9/12/08 06:22 PM, adrshepard wrote:

:: The trick there is to stop giving away billions for PTSD. Soldiers throughout history have managed before it was diagnosed, I don't see why modern soldiers should be any different. I'd have to see the exact amount spent on this before I make any firm judgment though. If it's only a few billion, then why not?

You think soldiers in the past never suffered from PTSD and managed fine its just that this generation of soldiers are just pussies. Soldiers with lives ruined from PTSD in past wars did exist just it was a part of history that was simply not recorded. If you read old civil war history you do hear tales of soldiers going mad and old soldiers compensated PTSD with deserting. PTSD was not recorded in old history because it was not even considered a disease until recently. Have you ever seen a poor, homeless, and crazy vietnam vet begging for change? That what you get when PTSD goes untreated.

Except you're making the mistake of believing there's some sort of Jihadist gene in all Muslims that is triggered by everything we do. Believe it or not, there aren't that many terrorists in Iraq. There aren't even that many insurgents, considering the country's size. Most people aren't despondent, living on the edge, one push away from joining Al-Qaida.

Many are not but our actions do cause terrorists. When a family member is killed by Americans in a bombing attack that can create terrorists. If a family member that is a terrorist is killed that can turn a person to Al-Qaeda. People like Al-Qaeda prey on the poor and angry who need money and the promise of a paradise afterlife seems something worth dying for. We must fight the causes of terrorism like pverty and corrupt incompetent governments and help rebuild Iraq not just kill terrorists. The longer we stay more insurgents will come up to fight th e American occupation they view as evil. Just killing is not the solution because that can create more terrorists.

1. We aren't in what is traditionally defined as a recession. If you want to use your own special definition, keep it to yourself.

We are still in an economic downturn and on the verge of a recession. The economy does not look good.

2. One doesn't have to enlist to support the war. There was no draft; no one is dodging any responsibility by staying home. I would join the military, except that I have a college education bought and paid for, good job prospects, and I'm in terrible shape.

So you're to smart to enlist in a war you so religiously support? The out of shape thing? Get off your lazy ass. Also with the army lowering recruitment standards and letting in people like criminals I think unless your morbidly obese they will let you in. To all you young republicans who support the war. You are not helping by not enlisting and instead sitting on your asses debating the war over the internet.

3. Life-saving is not an end in itself. Some things are worth dying for, some things are worth risking lives for. Giving the Iraqis support now is one of those, as 5 years of effort has been put into getting rid of an unstable influence and building an allied state.

If it is worth dying for then why don't you enlist? Oh I forgot, its only worth dying for if you are poor and from the inner city or the country not for people with college diplomas and job prospects like you.

At 9/12/08 08:34 PM, Nitroglys wrote: I didnt say their was a gene. But there is a religon. One that 90% of the region follow devoutly. and it may be a small percent who are active jihadist, but there are so many others flooding in from other countries. And these people are willing to die for their cause.

So our actions cause terrorism because of the suffering we inflict, yet according to you the terrorists stem not from the people we hurt, but from those entirely uninvolved who decide to become militant. I agree. Let's not use violence, let's just make sure that every person in the world always gets his information in a way that is objective about US policies.

Probably, killing some innocent people. or taking a few of our guys down with him. or her. Did you hear about that girl they found at the security check point with a bomb strapped to her chest. She said that she was forced somehow to take it across town, but they said she wouldnt be blown up. THese guys are sick, stop at nothing.

Yeah, and at the moment they are being chased out of Iraq.

Um. Yes we are In a Recession.

Show me the sustained economic contraction, then.

No, but you can't say that the lives of the troops were worth it.. Especially if you cannot clearly define their reason for dying.

Their reason for dying is because they enlisted in an organization that makes people into tools of the state. The state decided that it was necessary to fight in Iraq. So, they all went. A few of them have died. That's it.
Whether you want to say these deaths were "worth" it is entirely subjective. The only certain thing is that if we waver in our resolve or abandon our objective, those lives will have been wasted.

But i commend you to go out and find 5 soliders who say after they got shot, wounded, or immobilzed by the war and ask them if it is worth it to them.

Again, the army is not the organization for them if they only wish to fight in wars whose purpose they agree with.

At 9/12/08 08:47 PM, aninjaman wrote:

You think soldiers in the past never suffered from PTSD and managed fine its just that this generation of soldiers are just pussies... Have you ever seen a poor, homeless, and crazy vietnam vet begging for change? That what you get when PTSD goes untreated.

I don't think they are pussies, I just think its not a wise use of resources. Past wars have been fought and veterans have suffered with undiagnosed PTSD, yet there were no crippling problems facing the country because of it. There was no epidemic of psychotic illnesses that destroyed the labor force after WWII. History has shown that societies can tolerate it. Why not tolerate it now?

Many are not but our actions do cause terrorists. The longer we stay more insurgents will come up to fight th e American occupation they view as evil.

Which explains why attacks on US soldiers are way down, and how the worst threat to Iraq was sectarian violence. Hmm, they don't seem to be united against us.

So you're to smart to enlist in a war you so religiously support? The out of shape thing? Get off your lazy ass. Also with the army lowering recruitment standards and letting in people like criminals I think unless your morbidly obese they will let you in. To all you young republicans who support the war. You are not helping by not enlisting and instead sitting on your asses debating the war over the internet.

I'm sorry, I thought I lived in America, where I actually have a choice in what I want to do with my life? If the country needs me, there will be a draft, and I will go and fight. I will hate every minute of it, but I will do it because it's my duty as a citizen.

This whole "why don't you enlist" bs is simply a tactic anti-war people use to redirect the argument away from ideas and towards personal attacks.

3. Life-saving is not an end in itself. Some things are worth dying for, some things are worth risking lives for. Giving the Iraqis support now is one of those, as 5 years of effort has been put into getting rid of an unstable influence and building an allied state.

If it is worth dying for then why don't you enlist? Oh I forgot, its only worth dying for if you are poor and from the inner city or the country not for people with college diplomas and job prospects like you

Tell me, how should my opinion change if I enlisted and served in Iraq? Would I get the "real" picture? Of course not. I could tell you about what an average Iraqi is like, what we do on patrols, what combat is like, etc. Anything broader in scope than that and I'm almost as ignorant as anyone else, save for what gossip I hear from others.

Debate the issues on an intellectual and abstract level, bud, or shut it.

At 9/12/08 08:47 PM, aninjaman wrote: We are still in an economic downturn and on the verge of a recession. The economy does not look good.

DISCLAIMER: This isn't completely directed at you...

"Economic Downtown" is newspeak. It's a semantic cluster-fuck devised to strip from the original term whatever undesired connotations the original term possessed. Same thing goes for a "hickups" and "slow downs".

We are in a recession. Recessions ARE economic downturns. What we don't know is if it will turn into a depression.

Newspeak doubleplusungood antereading student econref.

At 9/13/08 02:31 AM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: Newspeak doubleplusungood antereading student econref.

Wait whoops...

Newthink doubleplusungood antereading student econref.

There. Much better.

At 9/12/08 11:09 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/10/08 08:03 AM, bcdemon wrote: Umm, nope. Don't think I said that at all. The Oil Administration leading your country did not go to war for what Blix said in late 2002.

Just because you say it over and over again does not make it so, bc. I've presented fact, you've presented opinion.

Opinion? How is what Blix said in Feb 03 my opinion? "How much, if any, is left of the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons"

Your argument is pretty funny thoough"
Proteas: we went to war for what Blix said about Iraq WMD in Nov 02
bcdemon: but in Feb 03 Blix said they couldn't find any WMD in Iraq
Proteas: well, he first said Iraq had em, so were going in.

The funniest part though, you're still trying to justify the WMD angle.

At 9/13/08 07:24 AM, bcdemon wrote: Opinion? How is what Blix said in Feb 03 my opinion?

It's an opinion that we went in for oil, one that I question because we've spent upwards of 500 Billion dollars on going to war in Iraq for oil we could have bought legally without a single shot for decades to come.

"How much, if any, is left of the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons"

From you're article;
Another matter and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programs continue to exist. The U.S. secretary of state presented material in support of this conclusion.

Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. The inspectors for their part must base their reports only on evidence which they can themselves examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise.

Mr. President, in my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 and should be well known to Iraq. I referred as examples to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles and said that such use "deserves to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside."

Despite that little statement you took out of context, Blix still believed we should take Iraq seriously with regards to weapons inspections.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are dead, and it has cost the US over a trillion dollars.

I'm fine with tracking down terrorists, but the Iraq war has not done that. It is the most unjustified war ever and Bush will go under war crimes trials for it in the future. He will be given the death sentence for mass murder and be executed like Saddam Hussein. That is how bad Bush is.

At 9/13/08 10:36 AM, Mr-Money wrote: That is how bad Bush is.

Is this something you think will happen, or is it something you know will happen? Because they way I look at it, there's more people like yourself out there hoping and praying this happens than there are people out there in the international community moving for it to happen.

Because until moves are made to try Bush in the Hague for his crimes, this amounts to nothing more than another liberal wet dream. Like us going to war for oil.

At 9/13/08 11:27 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/13/08 10:36 AM, Mr-Money wrote:

Because until moves are made to try Bush in the Hague for his crimes, this amounts to nothing more than another liberal wet dream. Like us going to war for oil.

Why do you think we went to war, Proteas?

At 9/13/08 12:34 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/12/08 08:47 PM, aninjaman wrote:

:: I don't think they are pussies, I just think its not a wise use of resources. Past wars have been fought and veterans have suffered with undiagnosed PTSD, yet there were no crippling problems facing the country because of it. There was no epidemic of psychotic illnesses that destroyed the labor force after WWII. History has shown that societies can tolerate it. Why not tolerate it now?

Yes but we can't just leave people with crippling mental disorders with no help with your "Well your life well go to hell but my PTSD free life in normal society will not collapse because of it so no money for you" If we did not spend money helping sick people with disease like cancer or enforcing no murder laws of no rape laws our society will still probably not collapse but that doesn't mean its a waste of money to spend money on it.

Which explains why attacks on US soldiers are way down, and how the worst threat to Iraq was sectarian violence. Hmm, they don't seem to be united against us.

You really did not respond to what I said with that answer.
Also if you do not want to debate the whole you enlisting question but instead respond by calling me immature for personal attacks then fine. I still have a valid point there.

At 9/13/08 12:34 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/12/08 08:34 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

Whether you want to say these deaths were "worth" it is entirely subjective. The only certain thing is that if we waver in our resolve or abandon our objective, those lives will have been wasted.

How will they be wasted if they died for our objective and claim the "worth" of those deaths for said objective are subjective?

At 9/12/08 08:47 PM, aninjaman wrote:

I don't think they are pussies, I just think its not a wise use of resources. Past wars have been fought and veterans have suffered with undiagnosed PTSD, yet there were no crippling problems facing the country because of it.

That's because not all veterans suffer from PTSD and also because the whole country's population didn't fight, if they did, along with them all getting PTSD, THEN crippling problems would arise.

There was no epidemic of psychotic illnesses that destroyed the labor force after WWII.

See above comment.

History has shown that societies can tolerate it. Why not tolerate it now?

Because letting veterans suffer such a debilitating disorder is heinous. Why tolerate cancer? Schizophrenia? Both have been around the block quite a few times and we've tolerated it, no? "Tolerating" an illness is horrible; an illness is not like a belief system or opinion. Let's say you have PTSD and aren't able to sleep for days without nightmares, cold sweats, and being drained of energy. We'll just tolerate and make it seem like you're on your own and you're offically "banned" from being able to contribute to society because of our apathy. It shows you don't care that they sacrificed their sanity for you.

I'm sorry, I thought I lived in America, where I actually have a choice in what I want to do with my life? If the country needs me, there will be a draft, and I will go and fight. I will hate every minute of it, but I will do it because it's my duty as a citizen.

Funny how you claim to have a choice in America but if you're drafted you suddenly have a duty as a citizen.

This whole "why don't you enlist" bs is simply a tactic anti-war people use to redirect the argument away from ideas and towards personal attacks.

It's a personal attack so much as it is "calling you out" on why you don't enlist if it's your duty as a citizen.

3. Life-saving is not an end in itself. Some things are worth dying for, some things are worth risking lives for. Giving the Iraqis support now is one of those, as 5 years of effort has been put into getting rid of an unstable influence and building an allied state.

We put in five years of effort, lives, money, and time to help a country with a problem that many other countries have, but I bet they're next on the list for us to help, huh?

At 9/13/08 09:49 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 9/13/08 12:34 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/12/08 08:34 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

It's a personal attack so much as it is "calling you out" on why you don't enlist if it's your duty as a citizen.

I meant to say it's "not" a personal attack in so much as...citizen.

At 9/13/08 12:34 AM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/12/08 08:34 PM, Nitroglys wrote: I didnt say their was a gene. But there is a religon. One that 90% of the region follow devoutly. and it may be a small percent who are active jihadist, but there are so many others flooding in from other countries. And these people are willing to die for their cause.

So our actions cause terrorism because of the suffering we inflict, yet according to you the terrorists stem not from the people we hurt, but from those entirely uninvolved who decide to become militant. I agree. Let's not use violence, let's just make sure that every person in the world always gets his information in a way that is objective about US policies.

Yes and no. Yes just our pressence there is the reason we are getting attacked. This could be solved by a graduale withdrawl. No the people we hurt have no connection to the people who feed the anti-american movement. We are not fighting a formatable enemy. We cant sight a victory in one location, and push the enemy back. There are no front lines, its all one broken arrown in other words. We can't win in one place and call it ours, cells will just stem up and take root in that town. Causing hundreds of minute attacks and road side bombs. How do you fight a road side bomb. Thats the kind of war we are fighting.

Probably, killing some innocent people. or taking a few of our guys down with him. or her. Did you hear about that girl they found at the security check point with a bomb strapped to her chest. She said that she was forced somehow to take it across town, but they said she wouldnt be blown up. THese guys are sick, stop at nothing.

Yeah, and at the moment they are being chased out of Iraq.

With more just crossing the border. You can't simply say they are being chased out. Sure we are attacking them and killing them, but they'll never leave. There will always be someone to fight, especially on their own soil. (speaking in terms of middle east not iraqi, and we are the outside force)

Um. Yes we are In a Recession.

Show me the sustained economic contraction, then.

What were all those links for? Please show me some substantal evidence otherwise

No, but you can't say that the lives of the troops were worth it.. Especially if you cannot clearly define their reason for dying.

Their reason for dying is because they enlisted in an organization that makes people into tools of the state. The state decided that it was necessary to fight in Iraq. So, they all went. A few of them have died. That's it.

Ya, its their fault for dying in an unjust war. im sure they were happy. How does enlisting deem them expendable.

Whether you want to say these deaths were "worth" it is entirely subjective. The only certain thing is that if we waver in our resolve or abandon our objective, those lives will have been wasted.

But i commend you to go out and find 5 soliders who say after they got shot, wounded, or immobilzed by the war and ask them if it is worth it to them.

Again, the army is not the organization for them if they only wish to fight in wars whose purpose they agree with.

Huh, such wasn't thought in meaningful wars such as WWII. People were glad to enlist as their patriotic duty. But not this war. This is a shameful war stinking to high heaven of corruption.

At 9/12/08 08:47 PM, aninjaman wrote:

You think soldiers in the past never suffered from PTSD and managed fine its just that this generation of soldiers are just pussies... Have you ever seen a poor, homeless, and crazy vietnam vet begging for change? That what you get when PTSD goes untreated.

I don't think they are pussies, I just think its not a wise use of resources. Past wars have been fought and veterans have suffered with undiagnosed PTSD, yet there were no crippling problems facing the country because of it. There was no epidemic of psychotic illnesses that destroyed the labor force after WWII. History has shown that societies can tolerate it. Why not tolerate it now?

Many are not but our actions do cause terrorists. The longer we stay more insurgents will come up to fight th e American occupation they view as evil.

Which explains why attacks on US soldiers are way down, and how the worst threat to Iraq was sectarian violence. Hmm, they don't seem to be united against us.

So you're to smart to enlist in a war you so religiously support? The out of shape thing? Get off your lazy ass. Also with the army lowering recruitment standards and letting in people like criminals I think unless your morbidly obese they will let you in. To all you young republicans who support the war. You are not helping by not enlisting and instead sitting on your asses debating the war over the internet.

I'm sorry, I thought I lived in America, where I actually have a choice in what I want to do with my life? If the country needs me, there will be a draft, and I will go and fight. I will hate every minute of it, but I will do it because it's my duty as a citizen.

This whole "why don't you enlist" bs is simply a tactic anti-war people use to redirect the argument away from ideas and towards personal attacks.

Ya, personal attack against your personal beliefs. And its not even an attack really, just a change in perspective.

3. Life-saving is not an end in itself. Some things are worth dying for, some things are worth risking lives for. Giving the Iraqis support now is one of those, as 5 years of effort has been put into getting rid of an unstable influence and building an allied state.

If it is worth dying for then why don't you enlist? Oh I forgot, its only worth dying for if you are poor and from the inner city or the country not for people with college diplomas and job prospects like you

Tell me, how should my opinion change if I enlisted and served in Iraq? Would I get the "real" picture? Of course not. I could tell you about what an average Iraqi is like, what we do on patrols, what combat is like, etc. Anything broader in scope than that and I'm almost as ignorant as anyone else, save for what gossip I hear from others.

Umm. Lets see. you would be able to tell me if we are doing a good job there. If you, after perosnal experience, feel that we belonged there. If you believe we are welcomed as saviors to the land. O. and if you think the battle can be won. I bet if you did find the inner motavation to support the war personally you would quickly find it isnt as romantic as you thought. That all that is instore for the near future of that area is unstability. Afghanistan after the russian withdrawl is a great example. There will be a great struggle for power. And knowing that countries religous tendencies, if they are given any free chance to act as a country they will be and Islamic Republic. Like so many other nations in the middle east. Democracy is hard to flourish in such a state. Especially when everyone in any form of power in the region, religous or political, hates us. Its an unneccesary uphill battle.

Debate the issues on an intellectual and abstract level, bud, or shut it.

Ha, Ha. coming from the guy who would deny the PTSD paitents treatment. Real sensitive to key intellectual topics.

At 9/13/08 09:49 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: How will they be wasted if they died for our objective and claim the "worth" of those deaths for said objective are subjective?

Because there is an "official" objective that represents the end judgment of our government and all the representation, analysis, and procedures that it is involved in. How you yourself determine "worth" is entirely up to you and has no real legitimacy.

We'll just tolerate and make it seem like you're on your own and you're offically "banned" from being able to contribute to society because of our apathy. It shows you don't care that they sacrificed their sanity for you.

So we spend shitloads of money to give soldiers the best possible chance to survive, the most combat capability, the best medical care (save the paperwork aspect), life-long pensions, and a half-million dollar check to the family in case of death. Man, we don't care at all, do we?

Funny how you claim to have a choice in America but if you're drafted you suddenly have a duty as a citizen...It's a personal attack so much as it is "calling you out" on why you don't enlist if it's your duty as a citizen.

I have a choice until the government decides to invoke its right to draft me. I accept that prospect as a citizen, and it is my duty to respond when called upon. The government has not made that request yet, so I continue on as normal, just as I am supposed to.

We put in five years of effort, lives, money, and time to help a country with a problem that many other countries have, but I bet they're next on the list for us to help, huh?

I don't see what you are trying to say.

At 9/13/08 10:57 PM, Nitroglys wrote: Yes and no. Yes just our pressence there is the reason we are getting attacked.

To some extent you are probably right, and if there were no violence against Iraqis and government bodies, you might have a point. The problem is that the insurgents and terrorists have made it clear that we are not their only enemies in Iraq.

With more just crossing the border. You can't simply say they are being chased out. Sure we are attacking them and killing them, but they'll never leave. There will always be someone to fight, especially on their own soil. (speaking in terms of middle east not iraqi, and we are the outside force)

And where are they going? It isn't just us that is doing the chasing. Former Al-Qaida sympathizers are turning against them in droves. Jihadists need places to hide, and those are quickly becoming scarce.

Show me the sustained economic contraction, then.

What were all those links for? Please show me some substantal evidence otherwise

You showed me a poll, a headline from a european magazine, and two articles from the Economist. Both surmised what the effect of a POSSIBLE US recession would be. They did not state that the US was currently in one.

Ya, its their fault for dying in an unjust war. im sure they were happy. How does enlisting deem them expendable.

The amount of money the US spends for each soldier is evidence enough that they are not expendable.

Huh, such wasn't thought in meaningful wars such as WWII. People were glad to enlist as their patriotic duty. But not this war. This is a shameful war stinking to high heaven of corruption.

It's always different in a war of defense. There were a lot of enlistments after 9/11 as well. Less obviously-motivated wars like Iraq are naturally less stirring.

Umm. Lets see. you would be able to tell me if we are doing a good job there. If you, after perosnal experience, feel that we belonged there. If you believe we are welcomed as saviors to the land. O. and if you think the battle can be won...And knowing that countries religous tendencies, if they are given any free chance to act as a country they will be and Islamic Republic. Like so many other nations in the middle east. Democracy is hard to flourish in such a state. Especially when everyone in any form of power in the region, religous or political, hates us.

Those questions would have to be answered by analysts, scholars, and perhaps the higher echelons of command. These are not things that a foot soldier's experience would qualify him to answer.

I'm also confused as to why you think the merits of democracy wouldn't be self-perpetuating on their own, and that somehow representative government in Iraq depends entirely on Iraqis' goodwill to the US.

At 9/13/08 09:28 PM, aninjaman wrote: Yes but we can't just leave people with crippling mental disorders with no help with your "Well your life well rabble rabble rabble

Christ, would you type in a coherent sentence?

Which explains why attacks on US soldiers are way down, and how the worst threat to Iraq was sectarian violence. Hmm, they don't seem to be united against us.

You really did not respond to what I said with that answer.

You said US action against terrorists only causes more terrorism. The US has taken action against terrorists in Iraq. Terrorists have few places to hide in Iraq because of US and Iraqi efforts. Attacks from terrorists are down. Attacks on US troops are down.
And you say I'm not responding to your point...

Also if you do not want to debate the whole you enlisting question but instead respond by calling me immature for personal attacks then fine. I still have a valid point there.

No, your point is bullshit because it basically implies that anyone who doesn't serve in the military has no right to say anything about how it should be used. I am a part of the nation, too, you know. I have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the war just as much as anyone else. Those who would do the work do so of their own free will, having joined an all-volunteer army.

At 9/13/08 11:56 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Why do you think we went to war, Proteas?

I said it at the beginning of this topic (first response no less) and provided evidence to back up why I think the way I do, I'm not repeating myself because you're to damn lazy to read a topic less than two pages long.

And for those of you who think Bush will be tried as a war criminal and be executed for all this, I've got a question for you; what about Clinton and Operation Desert Fox? If Bush was unjustified for his actions, then Clinton is equally as guilty and be judged just as harshly for his indiscretions.

At 9/13/08 11:49 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/13/08 09:49 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

Because there is an "official" objective that represents the end judgment of our government and all the representation, analysis, and procedures that it is involved in. How you yourself determine "worth" is entirely up to you and has no real legitimacy.

Good point, but the reasons for seeking the completion of that "official" objective can still be subjective. You can say how such a decision is orchestrated by the government all you want, all I want to ask now is that is it true that however the government determines "worth," the reasons the Govt. has for engaging in the "official" objective still lack legitamacy?

So we spend shitloads of money to give soldiers the best possible chance to survive, the most combat capability, the best medical care (save the paperwork aspect), life-long pensions, and a half-million dollar check to the family in case of death. Man, we don't care at all, do we?

I stand corrected, although we should still try and treat PTSD, because it's not like as soon as they return they're forgotten, as that pension points out.

I don't see what you are trying to say.

What I'm saying is how far are we willing to go with other nations similar to Iraq. The Middle-East in general has been fighting each other for centuries, are we supposed to stop that? If so, why? How much are willing to sacrifice so a few nations in the Middle-East can experience peace for at best a few years?

At 9/14/08 12:03 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/13/08 11:56 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Why do you think we went to war, Proteas?

I said it at the beginning of this topic (first response no less) and provided evidence to back up why I think the way I do, I'm not repeating myself because you're to damn lazy to read a topic less than two pages long.

I wasn't being lazy, just eager to post a response to someone that I didn't think of scrolling back one page.

And for those of you who think Bush will be tried as a war criminal and be executed for all this, I've got a question for you; what about Clinton and Operation Desert Fox? If Bush was unjustified for his actions, then Clinton is equally as guilty and be judged just as harshly for his indiscretions.

I would have no problem with that. Hang 'em both high in the square!

Considering all the money and lives had been cost to stay there, and considering how most of the war is pointless as of now, i don't think this war, even if the americans won, will ever be justified.

At 9/13/08 09:35 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/13/08 07:24 AM, bcdemon wrote: Opinion? How is what Blix said in Feb 03 my opinion?

It's an opinion that we went in for oil, one that I question because we've spent upwards of 500 Billion dollars on going to war in Iraq for oil we could have bought legally without a single shot for decades to come.

My thoughts on US invading Iraq for oil are different from what you seem to think. I don't think the Bush / Cheney Group invaded Iraq so they could get gas for $1 a gallon for the civis of America. They went in so they could secure a huge oil resource, one that was no longer in reach with Saddam at the helm. Do you honestly believe that Halliburton (formerly run by Cheney) and KBR getting the majority of the Iraq contracts is just a fluke?
That $500 billion came from taxpayers, not that administrations pockets. So spending isn't really an issue for the Bush Adm, but I'm sure the kickbacks will be awesome.

"How much, if any, is left of the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons"

From you're article;
........
Despite that little statement you took out of context, Blix still believed we should take Iraq seriously with regards to weapons inspections.

I didn't take it out of context. Blix hadn't found any of the "hundreds of tons" of WMD that the US claimed Iraq had in its possession. He voiced this concern a couple times.
And I know he thought seriously about inspections, that's why he was so pissed that you guys went in even though nothing was found. He thought inspection should continue, but Bush and Blair (and their voters) wanted war. Regime change and securing resources was more important than some WMD.

At 9/13/08 11:51 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Christ, would you type in a coherent sentence?

What I was basically saying was that it is the governments that started the war that gave them PTSD and it should be the governments responsibility to taqke care of them. Im pretty sure you would not be saying "we will all live if they have untreated PTSD so why should I care" if you had PTSD.

You said US action against terrorists only causes more terrorism. The US has taken action against terrorists in Iraq. Terrorists have few places to hide in Iraq because of US and Iraqi efforts. Attacks from terrorists are down. Attacks on US troops are down.
And you say I'm not responding to your point...

Attacks in Afghanistan are up and attacks in Iraq are down but they are still rampant and new terrorists are still coming up no matter how many we kill. What I was sayinng is we are going at the war all wrong. To win we cannot just kill terrorists we have to go after the root of terrorism. :

thousands of lives huh? you mean the single digit thousands that are actually american soldiers? Why is it impossible for anyone to recognize that we have by our presence in Iraq caused the deaths of hovering around 1 million Iraqis ( in a country of some 30 million) that would not have been dead otherwise had we not invaded. The overwhelmingly vast majority of these people are not enemy combatants of any kind they were innocent bystanders. We've laced the entire country in radioactive dust, and decimated their infrastructure all the while insisting that they hand over 30 year contracts to our companies for the oil 70% of which would not need be shared whatsoever with Iraq. (Recently they finally had the cahonez to stuff that law up our ass) This was an evil war as all wars of aggression are. The purpose of a war of aggression is one: To get something for less than it's market price, to take it instead of bartering for it, to trade blood for money, anyone who doesn't get this by now is either not looking into it because they don't really want to know, are themselves totally nationalistic and unconcerned for people of other nations (and evil pricks if you ask me), or are completely braindead.

At 9/14/08 10:04 AM, bcdemon wrote: Do you honestly believe that Halliburton (formerly run by Cheney) and KBR getting the majority of the Iraq contracts is just a fluke?

When Cheney was Defense Secretary under George Bush Sr. he dealt with Haliburton subsidiary Brown & Root to study use of private military forces in War Zones alongside American Troops. He had personal experience with Haliburton prior to his becoming the CEO of the company, why would anyone be surprised that they'd get first option on contracts for rebuilding the country?

That $500 billion came from taxpayers, not that administrations pockets. So spending isn't really an issue for the Bush Adm, but I'm sure the kickbacks will be awesome.

Spending isn't an issue for politicians period, I don't know why you would treat the Bush Administration any different.

Except, $500 billion still doesn't justify a minute kickback that you can't prove for a finite amount of oil that hasn't lowered gas prices here in the states which you conveinently can't/won't figure into your little conspiracy claim.

I didn't take it out of context.

You did, as he went on to reaffirm his previous statement that he had no reason to believe Saddam had disarmed in accordance with UN resolutions passed against him.

Except, $500 billion still doesn't justify a minute kickback that you can't prove for a finite amount of oil that hasn't lowered gas prices here in the states which you conveinently can't/won't figure into your little conspiracy claim.

$500 billion for access to Iraq's oil reserves that are currently worth $11 trillion. Not a bad deal, considering America is already spending $1.3 billion on oil imports every single day and, if prices rise as expected, Iraq's oil will be worth a lot more in the future.

At 9/14/08 11:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/14/08 10:04 AM, bcdemon wrote: Do you honestly believe that Halliburton (formerly run by Cheney) and KBR getting the majority of the Iraq contracts is just a fluke?

When Cheney was Defense Secretary under George Bush Sr. he dealt with Haliburton subsidiary Brown & Root to study use of private military forces in War Zones alongside American Troops. He had personal experience with Haliburton prior to his becoming the CEO of the company, why would anyone be surprised that they'd get first option on contracts for rebuilding the country?

Ohh, KBR does an $8.5 million dollar job for the DoD under Cheneys watch and that should mean they get first dibs? NOPE. Bush, Cheney and Halliburton were in bed before Iraq Part 2 even started. Cheney negotiated the $7.7 billion sale of a company that Prescott Bush used to run and G.H.W Bush worked for to Halliburton.

Except, $500 billion still doesn't justify a minute kickback that you can't prove for a finite amount of oil that hasn't lowered gas prices here in the states which you conveinently can't/won't figure into your little conspiracy claim.

It's not like this is the first time I have ever stated that, I have said a few times before. It seems to be the defense of the pro-war side against the oil argument, "well if we went to war for oil then why am I paying $5 a gallon". Don't be so fucking proud to think your president would include YOU in his plan. Presidents do shit for lobbyists, not average civis.

I didn't take it out of context.

You did, as he went on to reaffirm his previous statement that he had no reason to believe Saddam had disarmed in accordance with UN resolutions passed against him.

I really can't believe that you're still defending the "war for WMD" bit. Blix said a few times that they found no evidence of WMD, and you still wanted war. Sure he was skeptical of Saddams declaration of WMD, but he wasn't willing to shoot the place up over some inconsistencies in paper work. The way you guys did.

At 9/15/08 07:51 AM, Slizor wrote: $500 billion for access to Iraq's oil reserves that are currently worth $11 trillion. Not a bad deal, considering America is already spending $1.3 billion on oil imports every single day and, if prices rise as expected, Iraq's oil will be worth a lot more in the future.

2 years and 3 months worth of oil, 5 years after the fact, with thousands dead for oil we could have bought legally without firing a single shot.

Sorry, I don't see how this adds up. Either Bush and co really are as stupid as people claim them to be or there's a flaw in this whole line of logic.

At 9/15/08 08:02 AM, bcdemon wrote: Don't be so fucking proud to think your president would include YOU in his plan.

Cherry Picking.

I really can't believe that you're still defending the "war for WMD" bit.

Somebody alert the media, someone on the internet holds an opinion that's different from bc's.

Blix said a few times that they found no evidence of WMD, and you still wanted war. Sure he was skeptical of Saddams declaration of WMD, but he wasn't willing to shoot the place up over some inconsistencies in paper work. The way you guys did.

He said he found no wmd's and he had no confidence to show that they had been eliminated EITHER. The UN Security Counddcil passed 11 resolutions demanding Saam disarm with the last one saying "disarm or else." They didn't believe he had disarmed either. We didn't have to make a case for war, it was made for us.