ViperPilot

Well the Iraqi president and the Iraqi Parliament Speaker for the time being were elected by their peers. But I suppose you'll argue that we held guns to each electors head as they voted. Not to mention the election coming up in December. So no, we're not controlling Iraq's destiny, they are. We're just helping them keep safe for the time being, as they have ASKED us to.

Well, I stand corrected, just blame both. Either way, it's not right to just blame the president for a budget you (not specifically you Kallend) don't like. Congress had a big hand in it, the President has his hand in it. So blame should be spread around, not just directed at one man.

Well the reason I disagree is because we are not an army of occupation anymore. Like I said, the only reason we're still there is because the Iraqi Army/Police can't defend their country on their own. You have to realize that these guys suck really bad. Some are trying really hard, and that's great. But a huge number just care about getting paid, and it's damn hard to train people that don't care. We are there defending the country because its countrymen don't have the ability to do that yet. What do you suggest, we just leave and let the insurgents take control of the country while killing 100s of thousands in the process? Iraq sucks, but it's just not right to leave all these people defenseless. Do you agree?

You can't serioulsy think that's a valid comparison? The Soviets ruled with an iron fist over the Bloc countries. How are we doing the same in Iraq? Right now were just trying to train the Iraqis to fight so they can keep control over their own country. We're there because they can't do that yet. They're taking forever and it's really pissing me off. Too many of these guys don't even care, they're just there to get paid. As for the actual political side of it all, the Iraqis are doing everything. We had no hand in writing the constitution, no hand in how they want to do things. Sure we give advice, but that does not equate to having an iron grip on the process.

Obviously this one was meant for me, so... They do mean something to me. They mean more to me then they do to you, that's for sure. Why? Because I've seen it, you haven't. Iraqi civilians were being murdered before we got there, and the insurgents are continuing to murder them today. We're trying to help. When you look at those high figures, look at how they died. Car bombings, suicide bombings, just plain executed in the street, etc. All done by the insurgents. So before you get pissed at us for the number of Iraqi civilians dead, start looking in the right direction at those insurgent assholes who are doing the killing.

Yeah, no shit. If we were there to suck Iraq dry of its oil, our gas prices would be a hell of a lot lower. That's just common sense. Not to mention we've never gotten more than around 15-20% of our oil from the Middle East. People assume that because it's an oil rich region that we get 95% of our oil from there. It actually mostly comes from South America, with another big part coming from Africa and old Soviet Bloc states.

Yes, Japan attacked us, not Germany. It's irrelevant at that juncture that Germany and Japan had somewhat of an alliance. We still attacked Germany when they had yet to attack us, just as we attacked Iraq when they had not directly attacked us. It's the same situation. Nope, Iraq is not under foreign control. We are there, but we are not running the government. The government is entirely made up of Iraqis. We set Iraq free from opporession and confinement by a dictatorship. We do not control Iraq anymore, Iraqi people do. So yes, it is liberated. No one could surmise Hitler would kill 6 million jews, 10 million Russians, and have plans to actually take over the entire world (and believe he could). No one at the time would ever surmise that. Does that mean we were wrong to go in at the time? Heck no it doesn't. Remember, hind sight is always 20/20. You never know what the outcome will be after a war, never. That doesn't mean it's wrong to go to war for the possiblity of saving lives. Same thing applies as I said above. In 1939, you could say the exact thing about WWII. However, at the time it was a pretty good guess that more people would die if we just let Hitler be. It's also a pretty good guess that more people would die if we had let Saddam be. He'd already killed half a million of his own people. And that's the ones we know about. The trend was increasing death, so it's a pretty good guess that he was not going to knock it off any time soon.

Nonetheless, do you agree that it does put it in perspective? I think it does from a neutral standpoint. I mean, comparing the beginnings of this war with others through historical fact isn't really biasing one way or another.

Legally the passengers have to be provided oxygen, it's their choice to use it or not.

Fine add the 1st war to the list. The point is that Iraq right now was started no differently than pretty much all of our wars/conflicts in the past. The point he's making is that people bitch about how Bush started the war, when in fact pretty much all our previous wars this century have been started the same way - without attack. It doesn't matter that we're still there. The word liberate means "to set free." We did set the Iraqi people free. You can't argue with that. The word liberate does not have any strings attached such as "the liberator must leave the country before it can be considered liberated." Dang straight he was. Our intervention in WWII saved lives. But guess what, so did our intervention in Iraq. It's an utter joke for you to not see that. Both wars we were not directly attacked, but we still went in. Both wars we have set people free and saved lives. So in my mind, both are justified. Don't assimilate the justification of a war with how it is ran. Nothing hinges all on a single entity or person. That quote is just saying that soldiers deserve a lot of respect...and they do. However, so does the good working class man/woman, police officer, firefighter, etc. So it's true that soldiers' sacrifices have made and kept this country free, but they could not have done it w/o support; that's undeniable.

The intent was not justification, but providing perspective. At least that's what I take from the original poster.

Well, here's some numbers I looked up. In 2004, there were 565 murder in New York City. In 2004, there were 848 deaths in Iraq. Not too far off. Now add 445 murders in 2004 for Chicago, and only two American cities combined have 162 more deaths. Now of course the 848 total for Iraq includes all deaths, including vehicle accidents, sickness, etc. So throw in those statistics for New York and Chicago. Now, you've got figures from two American cities drastically towering over the figures from Iraq. Sources: http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t7758.html http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx I can somewhat see your point on the Germany argument, but how bout reading further? What could it hurt? Because the rest of it is 100%, no bullshit valid. Even the rest of part 2. You should read it.

Regardless of which party is in control, it's Congress who ultimately decides/approves the budget. So if you don't like it, blame Congress, not the President.

Even I think we need to allocate more money to intelligence. We can fight terror with conventional war, but we can't completely win with conventional war. The challenge is to convince the terror organizations that attacking western civilization is not lucrative because there is something far better. We can only win this thing in the end by turning terrorist away from attacking us, and towards something that has a much greater benefit/value to them. Now, find that thing and you're golden. But until then...

Well, there's approx 59,440,000 that voted against Bush. So where's your 150,000,000 figure coming from? Including non-voters?

Not necessarily. While your description can describe large numbers of voters, the other large number of voters voted for Bush because they think he is a good leader. So their votes do say something about his ability to lead. Besides, a vote for Bush because a voter thinks he is a better leader just inherently implies that voter thinks Bush will do better thank Kerry. However, it's all really a moot point, because every election comes down to picking the "better" guy. Both candidates could be the best leaders or the worst leaders, or a mix. It doesn't matter, the basic principle is picking who you think is best.

Until the entire world starts playing hardball with terrorists, people will continue to die. The US is playing some hardball, several other countries are...but there needs to be more. It's slowly becoming us or them...which do all of you choose? Denial is a deadly game.

I never said civilians don't die in war. Civlians will always be killed in war, it's unavoidable. But, we don't say, "hey, lets go bomb a neighborhood and see how many people we can kill today." That's not the mentality we have...that's the mentality of the terrorists. Yes, what a terrible occurance in history. But it did end a war and saved millions of lives in the process. So, it's a tough call. We could have not done it and millions would have been killed. Or, we could do it and kill people, but overall save millions (especially Americans...and yes, even though that seems harsh, we all have our own self-preservation as first priority...even you do). No, we get good intel almost all of the time. We stictly target a single building at a time, killing the terrroists inside. If they surround themselves with civlians inside that we don't know about, well then that's horrible on their part, not ours. We do not just strafe neighborhoods...we're very "surgical" in our bombing. People are killed accidentally, but overall, very few innocent civilians are killed by our bombings. But go ahead and believe bullshit news articles telling you otherwise. Afterall, the piece of shit journalist was right there and pickeled the bomb themselves, didn't they?

You are grossly blinde to the world you live in Cliff. I take personal offense to you accusing me of that. While I don't have a bleeding heart for terrorists who die, it still is a terrible thing to take a life. You can't even imagine. I'm not proud of killing people, I NEVER WILL BE. But, I'm damn proud of helping people and helping keep Iraq and the rest of the world safe...and if that means killing some terrible people, then so be it. I'll keep on sacrificing more than you'll ever know so that you can sit in your comfortable office and try to flame me with personal attacks. Cliff, you're grossly misinformed about how you even have the freedoms that you do today. I won't explain because you won't listen. Your disrepectful candor on this thread is just ridiculous. Grow up and show some respect for your country and for the people who keep the air you breath free. While I do not want personal praise, I want you to understand and respect the thousands of people who have died over the years. You don't need to like Bush or his policies, but you should respect those who selfless died for you and millions of others across this planet.

Cliff, by your years in the sport, I can assume you are well into your adult years. So, how bout we act like it and not try to render useless flames like "keep firing blind, pal! That's damn Patriotic!!!" A large reason I think it is Islamic fundamentalists is because British forensic scientists think it is. They've found evidence, I believe them. No, I did not say it was Islamic fundamentalists just because you think I'm a muslim hater. I said it because the government investigators think it is, and I have no reason to not back that up...especially considering past history. It's been proven knowledge for several years that Al Queda has numerous cells throughout Europe.

Well Bill, what happened to that man is a damned shame. Thanks for sharing the story. I really do appreciate it. I don't claim to know everything, so I'm not pissed when someone points out data, I just like to see it. However, I guess a better point I could make on this topic is that American soldiers at least do not deliberately try to kill numerous, innocent civilians. Are there shitbags in our military? Yes, there are. However, 99.9% of us would never do something like this. Where as there are thousands of these jihadists that get off by killing as many innocent people as possible. While America's military is not perfect, I do not take kindly to people practically comparing us to terrorists (not that you did, but other people on this site). So in short, we do not deliberately try to kill large numbers of civilians. There may be a few shitbags in the military who have killed a single innocent civilian, like in the story you posted, but they will be delt with. But like I argued previously, we still do not deliberately kill numerous civilians.

Well, doesn't make sense for Arabs to send the warning to a Jew. I mean, that's just obvious. So, who knows. Where'd you hear about this warning? I haven't seen anything on it yet, just wondering.

can you provide me proof that an American service member beat to death an innocent civilian for the reason of extracting WMD info? And by my above statement, I was refering to the type of innocent civilian such as those killed in the attacks today. Show me proof that American service members have DELIBERATELY killed people like those who died in the attacks today. Show it to us all.

Well, the attacks have all the signs of Al Qaeda's involvement, and a cell with membership ties to Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility. I suppose it's not 100% proven yet, but there's about a 1:100000000000000 chance that it'll turn out to be an angry group of christian Britons. Do you have any evidence that it was not? While you are entitled to ask us what makes us think islamic fundamentalists were behind this, we can ask, what makes you think it wasn't? What evidence throughout recent history, besides McVeigh and the Japan thing, have led you to believe that it's NOT predominantly Islamic fundamentalist who commit mass killings of innocent people with no requirements except that they're residents of a democracy.

Not a single one. We have never DELIBERATELY killed an INNOCENT civilian. That's not what we do.