Drafted into the war in Iraq what would you do?

[repiV]

Wait, what? When has that EVER increased safety? I can only think of one possible case, and that was the Nazi regime. Attacking and occupying a country which the US has completely set-up for the task is NOT increasing safety.

[sarcasm]Sure, invading another country and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS is really going to make us safe.[/sarcasm]

Slaughtering?
Man, you do talk some right bullshit. Sure, we just went into Iraq and slaughtered civilians. There was a hell of a lot more "slaughtering" of civilians in World War 2 than there is here. Collateral damage is not a "slaughter".
Personally I'd say it's far more sensible to blame the continuing civilian casualties on the terrorists that wear no identifiable uniform (and are therefore not protected under the Geneva Convention, much as you would no doubt like to protest) and blend in with the general population. Also, the suicide bombers might have something to do with it.

By the way, try Afghanistan.

 

[repiV]

how does my comment tread on either side? I'm relating what happened

Your implication was that soldiers following orders are tyrants.

.. the occupation legalized the invasion but he was essentially correct ..the initial invasion was a war crime, specifically an act of aggression. By participating in the occupation and destruction of iraq you are just as culpable as those that gave the order to invade

Like Iraq was great before we got there.

 

[CptStern]

Your implication was that soldiers following orders are tyrants.

perhaps in your deluded paranoid mind ..again I was relating what happened

Like Iraq was great before we got there.

no actually it wasnt 12 years of crippling sanctions took care of that ..before 91 it had the highest standard of living in the middle east ....not that that is any excuse to invade ...your response justifies nothing

 

[repiV]

perhaps in your deluded paranoid mind ..again I was relating what happened

No, you put a tabloid-style spin on the event.

no actually it wasnt 12 years of crippling sanctions took care of that ..before 91 it had the highest standard of living in the middle east ....not that that is any excuse to invade ...your response justifies nothing

Wrong or right, who gives a ****. Saddam is an evil mofo, and so are the groups we are battling in Iraq. Our troops are, generally speaking, not evil mofos. The moment you stop acting like we are the bad guys and Saddam and the terrorist cells in Iraq are the good guys is the moment we can have a serious discussion about this.

 

[DaMaN]

Slaughtering?
Man, you do talk some right bullshit. Sure, we just went into Iraq and slaughtered civilians. There was a hell of a lot more "slaughtering" of civilians in World War 2 than there is here. Collateral damage is not a "slaughter".

So you don't think that 655,000 civilians killed due to the invasion (that's 655,000 in 3 years) is not a slaughter? That's 598 civilians dying EVERY DAY. Collateral damage my ass.

And (paraphrase) "because there were more people killed in WW2 it's not a slaughter". Hmm...

Personally I'd say it's far more sensible to blame the continuing civilian casualties on the terrorists that wear no identifiable uniform (and are therefore not protected under the Geneva Convention, much as you would no doubt like to protest) and blend in with the general population. Also, the suicide bombers might have something to do with it.

That's right. Blame the continuing civilian casualties on teh terrorists. Don't blame the US-launched napalm, the cluster bombs, or the 39,600 bombs dropped in the first months.
:sniper: :sniper:

By the way, try Afghanistan.

Indeed, try Afghanistan!

Some of the past statistics of Afghanistan are listed here (2000 est): http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2001/10/sh0110.html and here: http://www.photius.com/wfb2000/count...n_economy.html
And the present statistics are listed here: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html
Compare:
Past // Present
Infant Mortality: 147/1,000 live births // 163.07/1,000 live births
Unemployment Rates: 8% // 40%
Life Expectancy: 45.88 years // 42.9 years (That's a drop of nearly 4 years)
Birth Rate: 41.82 births/1,000 population // 47.02 births/1,000 population
Death Rate (excluding military conflict): 18.01 deaths/1,000 population // 20.75 deaths/1,000 population
Over 25,000 Afghan civilians have died from occupation hands so far. (Please note this is the absolute minimum estimate, the fact that the military is not keeping track of the number of deaths is a clear indication that they do not think of them as people, but as "detestable murderers and scumbags" in the words of the Canadian government).

But this topic is about the quagmire Iraq.

Wrong or right, who gives a ****. Saddam is an evil mofo, and so are the groups we are battling in Iraq. Our troops are, generally speaking, not evil mofos. The moment you stop acting like we are the bad guys and Saddam and the terrorist cells in Iraq are the good guys is the moment we can have a serious discussion about this.

Yes, Saddam is an evil mofo, so why the **** did the US put him in power?

We cannot have a serious discussion about this if we only have memory of up to five years in the past, which is what you are presenting, and poorly at that. The US installed Saddam. The US funded Saddam. The US turned a blind eye more than once towards Saddam's human rights violations until it suited their schedule. The US decided the time was right, and they could go into Iraq and knock over their own puppet government, and reap (read: rape) the land.

We also cannot have a serious discussion by referring to "good guys" and "bad guys". THEY'RE ALL BAD. Saddam is bad, GW Bush is bad, our troops may be good but they're doing bad things, and these so-called "terrorists", while they do bad things too, they're doing bad things to get foreign troops out of their country. Which doesn't make it OK to do bad things, but it makes it one hell of a lot better than invading another country under false pretenses, murdering hundreds of thousands, and taking away an entire people's self-determination.

 

[Raeven0]

I don't think I could legally serve in the military anyway.

 

[repiV]

So you don't think that 655,000 civilians killed due to the invasion (that's 655,000 in 3 years) is not a slaughter? That's 598 civilians dying EVERY DAY. Collateral damage my ass.

No, it's not a slaughter. If the civilians were intentionally killed, it would be a slaughter. And believe it or not, there is more than one side in war.

And (paraphrase) "because there were more people killed in WW2 it's not a slaughter". Hmm...

No, because civilians were intentionally targeted by our forces in World War 2. Remember Dresden?

That's right. Blame the continuing civilian casualties on teh terrorists. Don't blame the US-launched napalm, the cluster bombs, or the 39,600 bombs dropped in the first months.
:sniper: :sniper:

Socialist review?
Yes, terrorists wear plain clothes in order to make themselves indistinguishable from the rest of the population. Doesn't take a genius to figure out how that's going to cause higher civilian casualties, does it?
They also intentionally target civilians, unlike our troops.

Indeed, try Afghanistan!

Some of the past statistics of Afghanistan are listed here (2000 est): http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2001/10/sh0110.html and here: http://www.photius.com/wfb2000/count...n_economy.html
And the present statistics are listed here: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/af.html
Compare:
Past // Present
Infant Mortality: 147/1,000 live births // 163.07/1,000 live births
Unemployment Rates: 8% // 40%
Life Expectancy: 45.88 years // 42.9 years
Birth Rate: 41.82 births/1,000 population // 47.02 births/1,000 population
Death Rate (excluding military conflict): 18.01 deaths/1,000 population // 20.75 deaths/1,000 population
Over 25,000 Afghan civilians have died from occupation hands so far. (Please note this is the absolute minimum estimate, the fact that the military is not keeping track of the number of deaths is a clear indication that they do not think of them as people, but as "detestable murderers and scumbags" in the words of the Canadian government).

So, how exactly did that little rant of yours which points out that war has detrimental effects on a country (no shit, Sherlock!) have ANYTHING to do with discounting the security benefits to ourselves from our campaign there?

But this topic is about Iraq.

You asked "when has it ever made us safer". I told you.

Yes, Saddam is an evil mofo, so why the **** did the US put him in power?

We cannot have a serious discussion about this if we only have memory of up to five years in the past, which is what you are presenting, and poorly at that. The US installed Saddam. The US funded Saddam. The US turned a blind eye more than once towards Saddam's human rights violations until it suited their schedule. The US decided the time was right, and they could go into Iraq and knock over their own puppet government, and reap (read: rape) the land.

I'm well aware of that. That doesn't make him the good guy.

You also cannot have a serious discussion by referring to "good guys" and "bad guys". THEY'RE ALL BAD. Saddam is bad, GW Bush is bad, our troops may be good but they're doing bad things, and these so-called "terrorists", while they do bad things too, they're doing bad things to get foreign troops out of their country. Which doesn't make it OK to do bad things, but it makes it one hell of a lot better than invading another country under false pretenses, murdering hundreds of thousands, and taking away an entire people's self-determination.

Accidental death is not murder, dipshit. Nor did the Iraqi people have any self-determination under Saddam.
I like the way you sympathise with the terrorists there - you know, the ones that are making Iraq a quagmire and sabotaging the reconstruction efforts and the emerging democracy. Really helps your credibility.

 

[Raeven0]

Ends don't justify means, by the way.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

 

[repiV]

Ends don't justify means, by the way.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

That depends entirely on the possible ends and the options available.
The death of half the world's population would be preferable to the entire world being subjugated under an evil totalitarian ideology.

 

[Ennui]

I get the impression that it's more subject to one's opinion rather than the possible ends.

 

[Raeven0]

The death of half the world's population would be preferable to the entire world being subjugated under an evil totalitarian ideology.

I think you confuse the meaning of "justify".

 

[repiV]

I get the impression that it's more subject to one's opinion rather than the possible ends.

Such is the volatile nature of humanity.

I think you confuse the meaning of "justify".

Choosing the lesser of a number of evils is a justification.

 

[DaMaN]

I don't think I could legally serve in the military anyway.

Ditto, though I'm not sure if that would matter if it really came to a draft...

No, it's not a slaughter. If the civilians were intentionally killed, it would be a slaughter. And believe it or not, there is more than one side in war.

Slaughter: The killing of a large number of people; a massacre http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slaughter

655,000 Civilians died as a direct result of the invasion.601,000 from violence.

No, because civilians were intentionally targeted by our forces in World War 2. Remember Dresden?

Socialist review?
Yes, terrorists wear plain clothes in order to make themselves indistinguishable from the rest of the population. Doesn't take a genius to figure out how that's going to cause higher civilian casualties, does it?
They also intentionally target civilians, unlike our troops.

Ok, wait a second. You are stating that in the Iraq occupation:
1. Civilians are not intentionally targeted by our forces.
2. Our forces are targeting terrorists.
3. Terrorists wear plain clothes in order to make themselves indistinguishable from the rest of the population.
From this we can conclude that:
4. Our forces are targeting anyone that looks like a civilian.
And hence:
5. Our forces are targeting civilians.

So, how exactly did that little rant of yours which points out that war has detrimental effects on a country (no shit, Sherlock!) have ANYTHING to do with discounting the security benefits to ourselves from our campaign there?

You asked "when has it ever made us safer". I told you.

When a country gets that bad, the people will get desparate. The attacks of 9/11 were attacks of desperation. HOW do you think they're going to be now? I'm sure ALL the Afghani's and Iraqi's will be saying "OH what great people these Americains and Canadians are! Look at all the poverty and despicable living conditions they have created for us! Look at how they've completely erradicated our self-determination!"

I'm well aware of that. That doesn't make him the good guy.

When did I say he was the good guy?
In fact, I said the opposite:

Saddam is bad

Accidental death is not murder, dipshit. Nor did the Iraqi people have any self-determination under Saddam.

Whatever they had under US-installed Saddam, they've got a whole lot less now.

If the US installed Saddam, what makes you think they're going to make it any better by un-installing him? (heh... Microsoft Saddam (TM). Run a country into the ground so you can be hailed as liberators!)

Choosing the lesser of a number of evils is a justification.

Depends on your opinion of "lesser".

I like the way you sympathise with the terrorists there - you know, the ones that are making Iraq a quagmire and sabotaging the reconstruction efforts and the emerging democracy. Really helps your credibility.

I like the way you sympathise with the US troops - you know, the ones that caused the deaths of 655,000 people. Really helps your credibility.

Oh, and I love the way you insult me (quote: "dipshit"). Really helps your credibility.

 

[Raeven0]

Choosing the lesser of a number of evils is a justification.

"I had to do it" and "I was right/good/justified in doing it" are fundamentally different concepts. In the former case, you should be sincerely apologetic and dismayed by the choice you were forced to make; in the latter case, you should be proudly and arrogantly defending the choice you made and denouncing all others as, say, unpatriotic. (Or something similarly cutting.)

Incidentally, neither of them applies to Iraq. That falls in a completely different category: "POLITICAL CAPITAL!"

 

[repiV]

I'll come back to this tomorrow. I need sleep. Suffice to say DaMan's monumental idiocy makes my head bleed.
By the way, your "slaughter" definition does not fly as it is not "the killing of a large number of people". It is lots of separate incidents at different times.

I really don't understand morons like you. You'll find absolutely anything to pin on the evil West and find any justification for the actions of Arabs you can lay your hands on. A good argument for pro-choice, if nothing more...

By the way, you're now blaming OUR forces because terrorists dress as civilians to effectively have civilians as human shields and increase public outcry to the war thus wearing us down over time?
And yes, that so OBVIOUSLY means we kill any civilian we see.
You're warped. Warped as ****.

 

[Aenama]

Daman really is a douche.

 

[DaMaN]

Yep. Ignore my argument and go for the personal attacks. Try to hurt my feelings. Oh, and for extra gusto, try to slander my name and bring my credibility down with unrelated topics! Bonus points for mocking my intelligence!

THAT'S how to argue on halflife2.net's politics forum!!

Now you're talking like a pro!!

 

[Absinthe]

Daman really is a douche.

Is this your re-invention? A hardass? Can't you just go back to being the clueless, milktoothed dipshit we all know and love?

 

[Ennui]

Every time I go into Politics I come out with my eyebrows scorched off.

 

[DaMaN]

Every time I go into Politics I come out with my eyebrows scorched off.

LOL! Very true.

I think I'm going to invest in one of these:
http://www.med-eng.com/sub.asp?id=44

I guess people don't read the stickies

 

[Aenama]

Is this your re-invention? A hardass? Can't you just go back to being the clueless, milktoothed dipshit we all know and love?

ahaha your the right person to say shit like that.

 

[Hapless]

I already have served over there the first time, and I'm in my mid-thirties, but if they called I'd have to go. Call me what you will but I ain't doing time in the joint for nothing, especially considering what I do for a living.

 

[Stigmata]

Gia: That's not what he's saying. His original point (though he's been caught into the spiral of hyperbole that you're perpetuating) was that as a direct result of the decidedly haphazard US attacks on Iraq, hundreds of innocent civilians are dying each and every day. I don't know how much more simply it can be put.

Hrm.

I think it's high time that people started taking an entry test for the politics forum. "Ten of the following twelve statements contain a logical fallacy. Identify all ten and define them. By submitting this test, you agree that any posts that contain a logical fallacy will be flagged, reviewed, and if necessary, edited and/or deleted to preserve the logical and rhetorical integrity of the Politics subforum."

 

[Flyingdebris]

come on you big pansies

I'd serve if there was a draft.

 

[CptStern]

I think you're looking for a biblical style slaughter ,well there's many examples of that on smaller scale ..for example ..during the initial combat phase of the invasion of iraq upwards of 6275 civilians were killed in little over a month

 

[15357]

The US Army? I'd probably kill everyone at basic training.

But if the ROK goverment conscripted me, then I would fight. Or they won't have to conscript me. Why? Being branded a traitor for the rest of your life with 0 social welfare and rights isn't something to look forward to. Besides, joining the army is something I've always wanted to do (and um.. would have to do anyway).

 

[CptStern]

lol @ those that would throw their lives away to line other people's pockets ..you're a credit to your nation

 

[15357]

At least we're doing something beneficial to the nation and homeland.

 

[CptStern]

:upstare: ya sure you are

remember the scenario is you're fighting for the US

 

[Aenama]

lol @ those that would throw their lives away to line other people's pockets ..you're a credit to your nation

and your a pussy.




with every post you make,you basicly say" have no balls".

 

[15357]

:upstare: ya sure you are

remember the scenario is you're fighting for the US

Feck.

 

[JNightshade]

and your a pussy.




with every post you make,you basicly say" have no balls".

Congratulations! You officially make Pat Robertson look like Alan Turing.

 

[CptStern]

and your a pussy.




with every post you make,you basicly say" have no balls".

and you cant spell, dummkopf!!!

it's "you're" not "your" my little kartoffelknödel


btw it seems to me that since you're not in iraq right now, that you're the pussy ..put your money where your mouth is Lemonchicken and sign up for a tour of duty in iraq ..what are you waiting for?

 

[Aenama]

just look at all his posts lately,he talks so much trash,on a gaming forum while he sits in an Office all day..amounting to nothing.Because he's bored,he has to critizise the US.He doesn't know what else to do with his time.He makes this stupid pole people and basicly asks people If they would fight for there Country.And it the same time he insults these people that do have balls with stuff like I just quoted.

Wow I made a typo,a great way to destroy what I just said wohooo.

 

[CptStern]

heh you continue to make typos ...it's poll not "pole" my chubby little friend

oh so if I'm a pussy what's your excuse? why arent you fighting in iraq right now?

 

[15357]

Maybe he's shy. I say that seriously.

 

[CptStern]

shy? I doubt he'd pass the physical and from what I've seen so far the written as well (unless the written test is connect the dots)

 

[Aenama]

I'm not fighting in Iraq becuase I lack physical fitness.I am working on that though.I drive my 12 miles a day to the beach.and I lost 19 pounds sofar.And not telling you to go to Iraq.The differnce is while I'm not there I don't insult people that are there, like you do.You know that I think this whole thing is wrong,and Bush lied and so forth.But by just saying stuff like "lol @ those that would throw their lives away to line other people's pockets ..you're a credit to your nation".Who is that helping? nobody.That's a blatant insult imho.

 

[CptStern]

.....But by just saying stuff like "lol @ those that would throw their lives away to line other people's pockets ..you're a credit to your nation".Who is that helping? nobody.That's a blatant insult imho.

probably because you dont understand what was said lemonking ..for once shut your pie hole and try to pay attention:



I meant the 16 people that voted "serve my country" in this thread


and the "credit to your nation" comment wasnt sarcastic



I used to think you were a victem and that people heaped abuse on you for no real reason but now I see you bring upon yourself

 

[Aenama]

you spelt victim wrong.