[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Yes, you know why war is part of the human condition? Because there are too many dumbasses in the world who choose that option over using their brains and compassion and dignity for their fellow man. I mean that about mankind in general.
[/quote]
War has never solved anything.
Except for Imperialism, Fascism, Nazism, …
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Elk, I don’t know why people fight wars, I just know they have fought throughout history.
One sides belief in a god that does not allow them to fight and the other sides belief in a god that encourages killing will soon sort itself out.
[/quote]
Don’t think I am being naive. I agree that sometimes wars have to be fought. In this case, I would have more respect for a leader and a christian leader at that who said to himself “I will exhaust every possibility for a solution to this before I cause loss of life that could be avoided”. If the enemy was at the gate or a REAL threat to us, I would back Bush, Clinton, or who the hell ever was in charge, but we all know my feelings on this war and whether it was a just cause.
I am not afraid to say this and I don’t believe it’s un American, but I think this is going to end like Vietnam nothing accomplished and a huge loss of life and human suffering.
How long do you think Moms and Dads across America are going to put up with their children dying? Are you ready for another year of American deaths with no significant change in Iraq and Bush saying “they won’t shake our will, they hate freedom, but we will stay the course”.
How many years would you be willing to give Zap, how many American lives, we won’t even say Iraqis, just Americans before you say “this was a bad idea”?
One year, three years, ten years, what is your point Zap when you will say enough is enough.
If I thought Iraq would be peacful and stable in two years, I would say stay the course since we started it, but I don’t see Bush’s plan coming to fruition and I see the insurgents fighting as long as we are there. Wouldn’t you Zap if Muslims were here occupying us?
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Why don’t you check out the latest Brookings report. It’s got a lot of interesting information.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Don’t think I am being naive. I agree that sometimes wars have to be fought. In this case, I would have more respect for a leader and a christian leader at that who said to himself “I will exhaust every possibility for a solution to this before I cause loss of life that could be avoided”. If the enemy was at the gate or a REAL threat to us, I would back Bush, Clinton, or who the hell ever was in charge, but we all know my feelings on this war and whether it was a just cause.[/quote]
Dude. [shakes head]
I am not afraid to say this and I don’t believe it’s un American, but I think this is going to end like Vietnam nothing accomplished and a huge loss of life and human suffering.
How long do you think Moms and Dads across America are going to put up with their children dying? Are you ready for another year of American deaths with no significant change in Iraq and Bush saying “they won’t shake our will, they hate freedom, but we will stay the course”.[/quote]
Instead of the Moms and Dads, why don’t you ask the soldiers themselves? Have we had any guys in Iraq log on and say it was a waste of time? Why is it that every single soldier I’ve talked to is willing to go back to the “sandbox”?
[quote]How many years would you be willing to give Zap, how many American lives, we won’t even say Iraqis, just Americans before you say “this was a bad idea”?
One year, three years, ten years, what is your point Zap when you will say enough is enough.[/quote]
I see what’s happening here. you have the attitude of defeat already etched into your mind because we have had casualties.
Dude, our enemies are terrorists who kill innocent civilians en masse. They are assholes to the highest degree. Give in to them, and they will taste blood like a shark, and then you will see the suicide bombings over here. Think.
Good questions Elk. I also agree on the mood of the times making statements like “bipartisan support” or “bipartisan agreement” to not really carry all that much weight.
Voting records are almost never a good indication of anything because of all that they conceal… to bad they are relied on so much.
As to the article, it does bring up something that has worried me since the war began: why are the vast majority of Christians in America so much in favor of the war? They have forgotten the key tenets of their faith. Yet these same people so proudly declare themselves ‘Pro-Life’.
Loth,
I don’t think Elk was suggesting to give in to the terrorists. You can fight them in many ways without having a widescale war on an international scale…
Loth, I know quite a few soldiers some of them feel like you, some don’t really feel that passionate about it one way or the other they do what they got to do, and some agree with me.
I’m ready for the flames that are sure to come, but would you and Boston feel they same if you were there?
A family to come home to, a good job and nice paycheck, have some fun this weekend, yeah it’s easy to be a cheerleader and feel brave about watching heroin addicts die when you’re relatively safe.
Your kind of thinking is beyond my comprehension as I am sure mine is to you.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
How long do you think Moms and Dads across America are going to put up with their children dying? Are you ready for another year of American deaths with no significant change in Iraq and Bush saying “they won’t shake our will, they hate freedom, but we will stay the course”. [/quote]
Let’s put this in historical perspective: As of 8-05 we have been there 29 months and have had 1827 casualties. That 63 KIA/Month. The Civil War had 3846 KIA/month, WWII had 6639 KIA/month, and Vietnam had 526 KIA/month (http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm).
There’s no argument that war is hell( especially if you or a member of your family are one of the dead), but from a historical perspective, there aren’t that many Americans dying.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Loth,
I don’t think Elk was suggesting to give in to the terrorists. You can fight them in many ways without having a widescale war on an international scale…[/quote]
Yeah, like sending the FBI after them and prosocuting them in court… Oh wait. We’ve already tried that.
Boston, I am truly not trying to be disrespectful to you, but I am going to say that you remind me of the type of man who would send others to die and have lots of charts, and studies, and links, to do this without ever knowing the human elemant of it.
The type who thinks gee golly this plan of mine is great without feeling the cost from your own hands so to speak.
We have had this argument before and I am leery to bring it up again, but I will say this. If you were the one who had to leave the existance you are in now and risk never returning to that, I don’t think you would go and I don’t fault you for that. I wouldn’t want to leave a loving wife a good life and go die far from home. Nope, I wouldn’t want to and I don’t want others to unless it’s for real and legitimate reasons.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:.
but I will say this. If you were the one who had to leave the existance you are in now and risk never returning to that, I don’t think you would go and I don’t fault you for that. I wouldn’t want to leave a loving wife a good life and go die far from home. Nope, I wouldn’t want to and I don’t want others to unless it’s for real and legitimate reasons. [/quote]
when a you sign up for the military you do so with the full knowlegde that war happens and that means you go and fight and lay your life on the line, be it for god or country. We do what is nessesary for the many, I would rather take the fight to them in there yard than to have them bring it to my door step.
soldiers die in war, cold to say it that way, yes, but true. I’ve lost “buddies” that stayed in when I left do I feel there loss, yes.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Let’s put this in historical perspective: As of 8-05 we have been there 29 months and have had 1827 casualties. That 63 KIA/Month. The Civil War had 3846 KIA/month, WWII had 6639 KIA/month, and Vietnam had 526 KIA/month (http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm).
[/quote]
My Response:
The 1800 plus armed forces personnel who have died are only those that have died on the field. The ones that are wounded on the field and die in a hospital are not included in the death war tally. Alot of troops have died in this war that do not get the credit they deserve in order to keep the death tallies in combat low.
Response to:
My Response:
I disagree with you that people who join have full knowledge of what they are getting themselves into, why? because my friends joined to get their act straight, earn money for college, travel the world, immigrants who wanted to pay back America for giving them a better life.
We all learned what we were getting into when going through training and what could happen to us while on Active duty. I still believe we fight not for god or country, but the constitution of America. I learned over the years that there is a huge difference btw. fighting for your pres, country, and beliefs compared to fighting for the us constitution. that is one beautiful piece of document that all Americans should fight.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Loth, I know quite a few soldiers some of them feel like you, some don’t really feel that passionate about it one way or the other they do what they got to do, and some agree with me.
I’m ready for the flames that are sure to come, but would you and Boston feel they same if you were there?[/quote]
We’ve done this already, as you know. I can only guess at how I would feel, obviously, maybe I would hate it. But it wouldn’t mean that I would think I’m wasting my time or disagreed at why I was there in the first place.
Honestly, I hate snow so much (Florida rules) maybe I wouldn’t mind the desert so terribly as someone from up north like you. 
[quote]A family to come home to, a good job and nice paycheck, have some fun this weekend, yeah it’s easy to be a cheerleader and feel brave about watching heroin addicts die when you’re relatively safe.
Your kind of thinking is beyond my comprehension as I am sure mine is to you. [/quote]
I’m tempted to bump RJ’s old “Imitate T-members” thread, dude… you really are sounding like yourself in there.
PS There is nothing noble about seeing someone kill themselves over or because of a drug like heroin. Call me a cheerleader or whatever you want, I don’t care, but please do not belittle the shit that I see quite too often at work. Those are real people just like you and me. They had problems and now they are dead. You can understand how I feel about those addicts because you feel the same way about our soldiers who died in Iraq… like it is a shame because it was for the wrong reasons.
This is where we differ, my friend. I just happen to see Iraq as something other than a waste of time. It is different with a dangerous and out of control drug addiction.
elkhntr1 wrote:
“Nope, I wouldn’t want to and I don’t want others to unless it’s for real and legitimate reasons.”
Sounds like you and al-zawahiri are in agreement.
After listening to a former CIA Operative today imploring the liberal left to stop feeding the terrorists great P.R. stories, I thought about you.
The messages from the enemy encouraging the United States to run away in Iraq are aimed at the soft under-belly of the U.S. population: you and your friends.
I want you to think about that the next time you preach your standard surrender line.
The recent loss of our brave men and women in Iraq and London should harden our resolve. I also think it’s time to lay all our options on the table. I’d be for at least looking at reorganization of the DOD starting from Rumsfeld on down.
I hope the recent deaths and reported f…in videos of these scum cutting dog-tags from the bodies of a dead GI leads to harsh, innovative new measures.
London has stimulated some fresh thinking on counter-terrorism in my neck of the woods. I hope that it does so in Iraq one-hundred fold.
JeffR
Teufelhund wrote:
Hey Jeff,
Could you, without checking the net, tell me the difference between mustard and VX and sarin? Wouldn’t that be something good to know if you are going to make this argument? How complicated is it to make mustard? Could you ever justifiably call mustard a WMD?
I would also like to address the difference between a chemical plant and a chemical weapons plant. Every oil producing country has chemical plants. Oil refineries are chemical plants from which we get petrochemicals. So basically, the last three paragraphs of your evidence could easily state that Saddam wanted to improve his economy.
Where is your evidence of nuclear or biological threats?
Please forgive me if I am not immediately swayed by the compelling nature of your evidence.
TH"
Hey, TH. Thanks for the questions. I appreciate you taking the time to read my post.
Please forgive me, I’ve argued the reasons for going to war once too many.
I’ve learned that many opinions are set in concrete. Therefore, I’m going to encourage you to look up Duefler on your own. Think about what was known in 2003. Think about alternatives for invasion.
If you take the time to follow my suggestions and you still aren’t convinced about the magnitutde of the threat saddam posed to a post-911 world, then I would be unsuccessful in convincing you.
I wish you well,
JeffR
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
As to the article, it does bring up something that has worried me since the war began: why are the vast majority of Christians in America so much in favor of the war? They have forgotten the key tenets of their faith. Yet these same people so proudly declare themselves ‘Pro-Life’.[/quote]
Didn’t Jesus throw the moneylenders out of the temple?
Yet many christians take out car loans, home mortgages and some christians are even bankers.
How can this be? Jesus was against money lending. Quite a paradox.
The various arguments you present against war make you appear to be grasping at straws.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Good questions Elk. I also agree on the mood of the times making statements like “bipartisan support” or “bipartisan agreement” to not really carry all that much weight.
Voting records are almost never a good indication of anything because of all that they conceal… to bad they are relied on so much.[/quote]
Simple question - why not?
And, in search of better evidence, what would be ‘reliable’ then?
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Yes thunder, but much of the hyperbole about the resolutions came after 9/11 when the right hijacked the mood of the country in it’s mourning over that tragic event. If any one dare spoke up in a slightly questioning manner about anything going against the Bush grain it meant career or political suicide.[/quote]
Absolute dishonesty. People have built entire - albeit short-term careers - on being against Bush and the Iraq War. Recall the $220 million grossing mythodrama? Have you see the number of books at the bookstore raging against Bush and the War?
Secondly, you blame game is all too similar - the right ‘hijacked’ the nation when the nation was grieving. How about the nation actually started feeling a certain way all on its lonesome without being ‘hijacked’ by boogeymen? This is classic Leftist garbage - always some external force or boogeyman moving levers behind a curtain to manipulate people into doing something they really don’t want.
Nonsense, Elk - people reacted in their own way; if the country shifted ‘rightward’, it wasn’t because they got ‘hijacked’.
You mean disagreed with? Just because you dissent doesn’t mean you have the privilege of being accepted and patted on the back. No one got smeared - but they got challenged. The right to speak is not the same as the right to be listened to.
Yup, Bush did indeed privilege the danger of WMD over all other causes for war. That was, perhaps, the most compelling factor that dealt directly with our national security.
As for not mentioning resolutions, etc. - why would that bother you? It’s not like you read any of them anyway. Of all people, you shouldn’t care how technical gets about policy in front of a crowd - see our discussion on the Patriot Act.