Veterans Group Sends Challenge to Kerry

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I feel sorry for you if you can't tell the difference, or even see the light of reality.

He's trying to show you the reality from the other side's point of view. I feel sorry for you if you're incapable of empathy.

[Trent 0]

Kev, go read the argument and realize how luda-chris it is for Bill, or anyone, to assume that every death in the IBC is an "innocent" civilian. Really, it's mind-bogglingly naive.

And as for empathy... I see his point, and I'm sure he's wrong. How's that work for you?

I've never disputed that civilians haven't been killed, just that the "evidence" that people use to say the US has killed 11,000 innocent people is complete bullshit. If anyone looks closely, they'll see the differences as well.

Oh, hello again!

[favaks 0]

Quote

Quote

Some good has been done at the cost of those 7000 lives. What good did Hanoi Jane accomplish?

Well, she accomplishe the beating and torture of American POW's. Wait A MInute! Isn't that Against the Geneva Convention?

The US never declared war. Vietnam was one country, not two. The Geneva Convention did not apply.

favaks

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok, so what is an acceptable number of civilian deaths? Or does that not matter as long as our goals are met?

[Trent 0]

Quote

Ok, so what is an acceptable number of civilian deaths? Or does that not matter as long as our goals are met?

Well, boys, I figured that since everyone is so into the REAL story here that it might make sense to point out that the numbers at IBC are a bit misleading. Do you agree?

If people are going to run around using the "10,000 dead civilians" argument, they'd better be able to back it up when questioned. They seem to like 10,000 because it just looks like so many... it's probably more effective for them to use that than say... 4,000 or whatever the nebulous "real" civilian casualty rate may be. I happen to think there is a difference between 10,000 and 4,000 or 3,000 or 5,000.

So, if that argument about the count is over... I'll answer your question:

No amount of civilian deaths are "good". It should be understood that in war, civilians have always died, even though they may not have specifically been targeted. I also find it stupid to blame one side alone for any civilian deaths. As ugly as it may be to you, the goal of a war is to win. To do that, people will die. My opinion is that the US takes more care to NOT target civilians than any other nation would. If you think that there should be a firm number of civilian deaths before an army pulls out, let me know. We'll work from there.

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

I agree with your sentiments. But you didn't actually answer the question.

Quote

If you think that there should be a firm number of civilian deaths before an army pulls out, let me know. We'll work from there.

Who and what are we fighting in Iraq? Are we fighting Al Queda? I don't think so. Do you STILL think Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US? We're fighting to liberate the Iraqi people is what my understanding is. So considering that, don't you think there should be a point where you say, "Damn, we're killing so many innocent civilians. that it's not worth it."

We're not fighting an enemy of the US. We're supposedly trying to help the Iraqis. Killing innocents is diametrically opposed to that goal. Where's the tipping point?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

I agree with your sentiments. But you didn't actually answer the question.

Quote

If you think that there should be a firm number of civilian deaths before an army pulls out, let me know. We'll work from there.

Who and what are we fighting in Iraq? Are we fighting Al Queda? I don't think so. Do you STILL think Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US? We're fighting to liberate the Iraqi people is what my understanding is. So considering that, don't you think there should be a point where you say, "Damn, we're killing so many innocent civilians. that it's not worth it."

We're not fighting an enemy of the US. We're supposedly trying to help the Iraqis. Killing innocents is diametrically opposed to that goal. Where's the tipping point?

PK - it is a war on terrorism. It is a mission to make a country that was infested with a dictator that killed and murdered the HUMAN RIGHTS of people.

Human rights are worth fighting for. No, we won't be perfect in achieving the goal. Yes, we make mistakes, we are only human. In a society that is ruled by the threat of death and dismemberment, it is highly unlikely that human rights violations could ever be resolved.

Just consider for a moment, what you would want if you were one of the oppressed. Would you not want the freedoms you have now? Do you think they could have it under any regime similar to what they were living in?

Wasn't it you that defends an "Equal" chance at life?

Why is that only a platform when you disagree with a republican? Why not make it a human rights issue? Do you now think that the Iraqi people don't deserve what we enjoy? Do they not warrant your definition of "equal chance"?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jdhill 0]

Quote

don't you think there should be a point where you say, "Damn, we're killing so many innocent civilians. that it's not worth it."

Well, in this case, no... Iraq does not have a stable civil/political environment... we are the cause of the that. You can argue all you want about if we should have gone or not, but we went, so we have an obligation to create conditions suitable for the new government to have a chance.

The US goes through great pains to avoid collateral damage, even to the point of not engaging legitimate targets, but civilians will still get hurt.

To say that all of whatever number of non-combatant (a better term to define the "problem")deaths are the fault of the US is ridiculous ... Some are, sure... mistakes do happen in spite of the the efforts to avoid them...

But how many are because of an ADA battery being placed in a neighborhood? Using a school as an arms depot? Insurgents firing from rooftops of occupied buildings? To what extent should our troops endure hostile fire, simply to avoid collateral damage?

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Trent 0]

Quote

I agree with your sentiments. But you didn't actually answer the question.

Here then, I don't think that civilian casualties should limit our engagement in Iraq at all. Like I, and others, have said... we try not to kill civilians, but it will happen. The terrorists and militants have chosen this type of war now, we can't leave because people die.

Quote

Who and what are we fighting in Iraq? Are we fighting Al Queda? I don't think so. Do you STILL think Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US? We're fighting to liberate the Iraqi people is what my understanding is. So considering that, don't you think there should be a point where you say, "Damn, we're killing so many innocent civilians. that it's not worth it."

We're fighting to stabilize Iraq, contrary to what the loco-muslims are trying to do. Sure, we destabilized it by showing up to remove Saddam, now we clean up.

Am I reading your statements correctly when I get the "we should pull out of Iraq and leave them to whatever fate befalls them" vibe?

You and Bill really make it seem like the US forces are doing nothing but killing civilians over there. Do you really think that's what's going on?

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Why not make it a human rights issue?

It is a human rights issue. The most fundamental of which is the right to live. I don't think we can or should just pull out. Think of it this way. If we pull out now, we no longer kill any innocent civlilians but they have a shit hole country. If we do what funks and Rhino want and nuke the place killing all the civilians, well then, we killed all the bad guys and there's no problems with people being opressed.

Obviously, we want something in the middle. What is that middle? How is it defined? This is something that GWB should have defined before we went in. He admitted (finally) that he "misjudged" what post Saddam Iraq would be like. But, I have yet to hear him, or anyone else, including Kerry define what REALLY defines "mission accomplished" and pulling all our troops out. Other than the ubiquitous "when the job is finished". Bottom line is, we can stay in Iraq until the end of time and there will always be someone to fight and there will always be collateral damage. At some point we have to say we've done enough, time for them to figure it out on their own. We haven't reached that point yet. But don't you think we should define what that point is?

[billvon 3,131]

>I wonder if you could educate us on how you can tell the difference
> between the body of a militant in civvies and that of an actual civilian.
> Please... show us the way...

I can't possibly show you anything; you seem absolutely determined not to listen to anything other than "the US was absolutely, 100% right in everything it did. Nothing to learn, nothing to change." And if we proceed with an attitude like that, we will repeat everything. 9/11. The tortures. The thousand-odd US military dead. The escape of Bin Laden. I, for one, would rather them NOT be repeated - and to avoid that you have to admit that sometimes we screw up. We make mistakes. And we should fix them.

Want to claim that most of the innocent people listed on that page deserve to die? Want to assuage your conscience by imagining that a 15 year old boy without arms was probably guilty of something? Want to pretend that our foreign policy is one of goodness and light? Go right ahead. But fantasies don't stop terrorists - fixing the mistakes that led up to 9/11 will. And I place a high priority on that, even if it means admitting mistakes.

[Trent 0]

Quote

I can't possibly show you anything; you seem absolutely determined not to listen to anything other than "the US was absolutely, 100% right in everything it did. Nothing to learn, nothing to change."

Cop-Out, Bill. Way to go. I'm debating one simple thing here that YOU simply cannot see. Never did I ever say that the US is 100% right. Never did I say that everyone that has died in Iraq "deserved it"! Go ahead and quote me where I say those things.

It's hard for me to imagine that someone who takes the time to look over the numbers can honestly say that they think that every single one of the "7,000" dead in Iraq are innocent civilians. Do you REALLY think that everyone killed by a US troop or missile is innocent? I guess you're right, the US is just using those poor people for target practice without any sort of restraint.

Want to fantasize about the pure evil of our government and GWB? Go ahead... ignoring facts and assuming that the US is the bad guy first will do just as little to help us in the long run.

But keep blindly believing large numbers if it makes your argument look better. Remember, if you only look critically at things you disagree with, you can almost convince yourself that you're right!!

Oh, hello again!

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Want to claim that most of the innocent people listed on that page deserve to die?

Do you want to claim that most of the people listed on that page were killed by the US?... take a closer look... the majority of non-combatant deaths were caused by insurgent or terrorist actions, not US.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>Some good has been done at the cost of those 7000 lives.

Right. More terrorism, 1000 dead US soldiers - and a great backdrop to film campaign ads! What more could a president want?

That's a really narrow view Bill, but have at it.

I won't bother pointing out any of the positive effects of US efforts in IRAQ, because you already know what they are, and will be.

. . =(_8^(1)