Idiots!! All of them! A pox of them! A POX!!!!

  • Thread starter 1X83Z
  • 50 comments
  • 1,392 views
Originally posted by M5Power
It's American lives, and your attitude is completely appalling. Please do not continue replying in any of my threads about Iraq.
You forget though, it is the lives of the American military. They aren't exactly the brightest group of people, so it doesn't matter as much.



















Just so you know, I'm joking...
 
Originally posted by neon_duke

danoff isn't taking anything lightly. As he said, he's putting it into perspective. I doubt there's a US seerviceperson in Iraq who doesn't want to be there, who wasn't aware that being in a war involves the possibility of being killed, and who wouldn't sign up to do it again if given the opportunity. So it's silly to act as if 300 casualties - remembering that no one wants any casualties at all - is a huge deal in terms of a war.
But danoff is attempting to parrot the views of much of the right-wing politicans, and he's doing it incorrectly.

NOBODY believes these casualties are insignificant. Danoff seems to believe that's what these conservative politicians are stating, but it is simply not true. In a war, yes, this is a small number of casualties, but it is absolutely idiotic, even stupid, to pass it off as if nothing.

It is significant that people are dying in Iraq due to President Bush's underestimation of combative pro-Hussein Iraqis.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
Did you not read vat_man's post? They were given the opportunity to surrender. They opened fire instead.


That's my point, but Tercel_driver responded to that with the same question he asked in the past, so I simply re-enforced it.
 
Originally posted by danoff
Um... no.

I find your attitude appalling. Is nothing worth dying for? Is enforcement of American policy (for greater diplomatic leverage in the future) not worth a few american's lives? It will quite possibly end up saving thousands and thousands of American lives when dealing with other countries (who take us that much more seriously).

By the way, these soldiers are not forced to go fight in Iraq. They get paid for it and they sign up on their own.

And by President Bush's idiotic underestimation of the rebel forces, they're dying needlessly.

Spin it any way you want - these people are getting killed EVERY DAY after the war has ALREADY ENDED. And President Bush only encourages Iraqis to attack troops.
 
No, actually, it's not irrelevant at all. He was attempting to highight the fact that more Americans are killed every year by the rare and random occurrance of lightning than have died in this WAR, war being a situation were the odds of getting killed generally seem higher than average.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
No, actually, it's not irrelevant at all. He was attempting to highight the fact that more Americans are killed every year by the rare and random occurrance of lightning than have died in this WAR, war being a situation were the odds of getting killed generally seem higher than average.

What? Do you think, this country was in a war? Well...lets compare the military equipment that both countries had. While the US military had the latest gadgets and technological equipment (By chance, did you see that news report in which explained how much does it cost to maintain a US soldier?), F18 bombers, satellite aid, while the Iraq army had Ak-74s, no military gear, they basically wore black clothes, basically outdated WWII battlegear.

I think it was more on an invasion of the United States of America to Iraq. The reason?, to free the Iraq citizens?, bull****! It was because of the oil and the lucrative interests. Now you can say that Iraq Hussein was a maniac, but why didnt this country invade Cuba instead, after all to the Americans, Fidel Castro is a maniac :rolleyes: Why not help the Cubans too?

Besides, who the hell has the right to invade other countries because of the president's will? Thats why I am totally in favor of the UN negative critics. That and on top of all, this campaign was so overreacted and tactically badly done. Do you need to bomb the place?, when intelligence already knew Hussein was underground?, Now, it was just to show that the US military was doing something, but instead they were doing NOTHING. Just to showoff that these idiots were doing something. So whats the idea...destroy a city to rebuild it again? with the same money. Lets add the cost of all the weapons plus the money to rebuilt it again. Isnt that stupid?

Even though I disagree with this invasion, I cant deny the fact that human lives were lost, from both sides. And I respect that. But for god's sake call this a war? :rolleyes: War was WWI, WWII. Basically a situation in which both sides are equally equipped, capable of destroying each other. The winner would obviously be the one who employs the best strategy and war tactics.
 
Originally posted by Tercel_driver
why didnt this country invade Cuba instead, after all to the Americans, Fidel Castro is a maniac :rolleyes: Why not help the Cubans too?


Maybe because Castro poses less of a threat than Canada.

Besides, who the hell has the right to invade other countries because of the president's will?

President Bush didn't just wake up one day and decide to attack; he actually did have intelligence about Iraq contrary to popular belief. Otherwise, why would we spend so much on the war to get oil?

Even though I disagree with this invasion, I cant deny the fact that human lives were lost, from both sides. And I respect that. But for god's sake call this a war? :rolleyes: War was WWI, WWII. Basically a situation in which both sides are equally equipped, capable of destroying each other. The winner would obviously be the one who employs the best strategy and war tactics.

This is the most ironic post ever.

Do you actually believe both sides of WWII were 'equally equipped' and 'capable of destroying each other?'

You're sadly, sadly in need of a history lesson.
 
Well, lets see. Why dont you think more.

Germany had control of half France and some other parts of Europe. So Hitlers idea was to invade his surroundings, then expand the invasion.

So what the hell are you talking about.

Germany had good planes planes, tanks (panzers), tactics, like Blitzkrieg. They basically created their own weapons. Good technology. Then the allies, had their own weapons too. Planes, the Britanic people helped too with their plane floats (I cant recall the special name they had).

So both sides, were equally dangerous. The Kremlin had control of parts of Europe and the Allies, were considerably more, but taking control of this, would be a hell of a task. Or maybe you call D-Day piece of Cake.

So please, dont base your conclusions so fast, and saying that I need a history lesson.
 
I think it has to be more with defeatness rather than giving it up. The chapter with Germany was "by foot" while the one with Japan, was a battle of Islands, Manchuria being one important reason too. Then the Battle of Midway came and this country won.
 
Originally posted by Tercel_driver
I think it has to be more with defeatness rather than giving it up. The chapter with Germany was "by foot" while the one with Japan, was a battle of Islands, Manchuria being one important reason too. Then the Battle of Midway came and this country won.

Care to edit this post into something coherent?
 
Instead, I'll write a letter to Sen. Joseph Lieberman informing him that, despite his best efforts, public schools in America are still sub-standard. Especially in Hartford, Connecticut.

Keep trying, Joe, you'll make a difference someday. Perhaps a better strategy would be focusing your efforts on a local level, as apposed to the national.
 
Originally posted by Tercel_driver
I think it has to be more with defeatness rather than giving it up. The chapter with Germany was "by foot" while the one with Japan, was a battle of Islands, Manchuria being one important reason too. Then the Battle of Midway came and this country won.

If you actually believe Japan gave up because we captured the Midway Islands, we DO need better schools and more funding.

To answer my own question, the atomic bomb is why Japan gave up.

Now, can you honestly say that we (who had nuclear weapons) were evenly matched with Japan (who did not)?
 
Well... guess what.

What happens when one side destroys the others naval fleet in the type of war that was the one with Japan. They were defeated, but still, they wouldnt abandon the invaded territory. Nuclear Power was something very very new, and nobody expected that a megabomb was gonna be used to end the war. In the end Japan was defeated.
 
Originally posted by Tercel_driver
Well... guess what.

What happens when one side destroys the others naval fleet in the type of war that was the one with Japan. They were defeated, but still, they wouldnt abandon the invaded territory. Nuclear Power was something very very new, and nobody expected that a megabomb was gonna be used to end the war. In the end Japan was defeated.

So? We still were far more militaristicly advanced than them just by that one device.

By the way, the naval fleet attack (Pearl Harbour) was a surprise attack, which is why it was defeated. That had little to do with military superiority.
 
nobody believes these casualties are insignificant. Danoff seems to believe that's what these conservative politicians are stating, but it is simply not true.

This is a key sentence for the reason we are not seeing eye to eye. I think that every single casualty that we suffer in Iraq is extremely serious. I don’t want any of our soldiers to die, but I believe in their cause. The cause that is to keep America strong. To keep our contracts enforced, so that other countries around the world take diplomacy with us seriously in spite of our Clintonian years.

In the next part you go off about how I’m just trying to tout the conservative line and I’m not even getting it right. You seem to have forgotten that I am libertarian. Perhaps the reason you think I didn’t get the conservative viewpoint right is because I wasn’t trying to mimic their view at all…

In a war, yes, this is a small number of casualties, but it is absolutely idiotic, even stupid, to pass it off as if nothing.

It is the smallest number of casualties of any war since the Persian gulf war which was quite possibly the smallest number of casualties in the history of war. That is definitely significant. The human cost of this war is much much less than anyone must have thought it would be before we went in… which isn’t to say that it is insignificant, but it does indicate that we justified this war even for a much higher cost… dare I say… an order of magnitude more cost. Which leads me to the next line quite nicely.

It is significant that people are dying in Iraq due to President Bush's underestimation of combative pro-Hussein Iraqis.

How is it an underestimation of the combative pro-Hussein Iraqis when it is perhaps the cleanest war ever fought in the history of the human species? In truth, I think President Bush probably estimated that we would suffer a much higher loss and the war would cost far greater. I know I did.
 

Latest Posts

Back