|
|
|
|
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 1251 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/12/2006 4:41:48 PM | ""can you give me the numbers of the deaths caused by the insurgents and by the US...if your going to make these claims it would be nice if you could show something to substantiate your claims...""
With the severe monitoring of the press by USA in Iraq, there will probably never be exact mumbers of the dead and injured for either side
But if you take the estimates of dead/injured as 10 to 1 there are already over 20,000 young American men who will have lasting reminders of this action
That is only on the USA figures
The rest of the Coalition forces deaths/injuries will add more to this total
If you consider that they have massive firepower readily available and readily used, against an enemy who is usually intermingled with innocent civilians, the toll on Iraqis must be vastly higher
Until this War, that is not a War, is over, there will be no accurate information available
After it is finished, the administration will not need to sugarcoat the casualty lists any more
..
. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/12/2006 9:25:29 PM | Sorry take it easy, is this not here to talk and better understand the war? It Was just a question to gain a better understanding. My best friend is in this war funny how all the troops in his units says "it's way harder to fight knowing that the war they fight in is not back by the people they fight for".....but heck that's just one troops words, someone who is there.
PS there is other countries fighting too, not just Americans eh?
"lack of apprehension is a true crime" L.M. Buttler | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 1253 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/12/2006 9:45:44 PM | Winged Feet
I ended up in Nam in 72/73
Nobody wanted to be there because we were not allowed to fight properly
One of the reasons for this was public opinion
With hindsight can anyone say the Vietnam War was justified??
Yet it appears to have a lot more justification than this one
To have troops lose their lives, in a conflict that may turn out to be unjustified,
is not a good thing
To allow this action to escalate, would be even worse
There are too many questions about this War, that recieve different answers, often from the same people
The reasons for any mortal combat should be definite and clearly defined
Entry and Exit strategies should be in place
You must have workable plans in place if you win or lose
You should have the support and approval of your military staff
Some of the above are missing in this case
That leads to the question of Why
That question is not being answered
Eventually someone will be held responsible
But it will not be those who led us to war
Rather some poor General somewhere who followed orders, but they lay blame upon
It is better to argue against this action now, than leave it for ten years, and have a similar body count to Vietnam
..
. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 1:36:22 AM | okaaaaaaay.......essaress, you made your point vehemently and well. Nice to see a man who has been through it, knows what it is, doesn't want to inflict it on anyone else and has been able, somehow, to throw off the shackles of his Gestalt brainwashing in the Army. Wish I could say the same for some of the other veterans in here.......
I'm against it because it is being prosecuted at the wrong time, in the wrong way, in the wrong place, against the wrong people and for the wrong reasons. You don't go hunting for guys hiding in closets with aircraft carriers. I'll say this one more time, this time partly for the fun of sending all the dobermen berserk again (I can hear the howling now), this WAR is about:
1. OIL
2. POWER
3. MONEY
4. ISRAEL
- not necessarily in that order | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 6:34:23 AM | essaress,
I usually find your posts pretty even tempered and well worded, but I must comment on this most recent post.
You comment on the topic of the thread -
"This thread is cleverly titled "Are You Against The War" ,...but you thread hijackers have changed the thread to "Provide Proof Of What You Think Or Shut the $%^k Up"...is that about right???"
Given that these threads are intended for discussion of ones views, I somebody provides their reasons for being for or against the war, they probably can expect to be challenged if another poster disagree's with them. With respect to the exchange between Certified & Open Book - Open made the claim that the war was illegal; Certified challenged the validity of that claim by asking Open to note the law he is depending on to hold such a belief. That is not thread hi-jacking and is a legitimate question.
This next quote may or may not upset, because I am unsure what you meant by it.
"Sheesh you people make my skin crawl...you either are afraid to show your face ,and or are too young to really know what you are talking about with any "real" authority..."
Are somehow attaching intelligence to age, or stating that "real" authority only comes by virtue of age? I was hoping you could clear this up, as I do not want to jump the gun on a comment that may not intend what I think it does.
Your response to the person suggesting that you were an 'enemy sympathisor' was appropriate. I have no qualms about that whatsoever.
Something that does bother me is the following statement:
"Cheap tricks and clever linguistic arguments mean nothing...zero...they are the hallmarks of a person unsure of themselves, their morality , their sexuality, their Patriotism, and damn near everything else that makes an Adult..."
Are you suggesting that an 'Adult' is sure of themselves, their morality, their sexuality, and their Patriotism? I doubt that many Adults are sure about themselves; peoples moralities should constantly be re-evaluated and subject to change, and in the event a person changes their moral beliefs that cannot mean they are less of an adult (i.e. born again Christians). Finally, I have no idea how being "Patriotic" is attached to being an adult, perhaps you can explain.
And to suggest that clever linguistic arguments mean nothing, and demonstrate that a person is not an adult is utterely ridiculous. A clever linguistic argument indicates that a person is able to process the information in front of them, and respond with intelligence. That is a trait that I wish more people on this site could employ.
You end with the following:
"Ive been there sonny, Ive done that sonny,...I no longer have any need to to Prove what I say about anything...you dont like that??? Too bad..."
This is called an argument from authority. Merely because you have been there, or done that, does not mean that we have to accept what you say as being fact. While it is true that you don't have to 'Prove' anything that you claim, I would suggest attempting to do so, as providing proof for your claims or validating your claims actually makes them that much stronger.
With respect to the war, we are in agreement, I do not agree with it whatsoever.
And to FoxFire...we are at war my dear...or don't you remember...it is the 'War on Terror' and I am sure those insurgents are part of the 'axis of evil.' | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 6:50:00 AM | And to FoxFire...we are at war my dear...or don't you remember...it is the 'War on Terror' and I am sure those insurgents are part of the 'axis of evil.'
War on terror yes. War declared against Iraq. When did Bush declare war against Iraq? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:10:50 AM | March 20th, 2003 - Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Remember the decapitation attack that was supposed to kill Saddam and his kids.
But maybe there wasn't a war, and when Bush declared that victory was achieved he was talking about a cereal box toy that he figured out.
Oh, was Desert Storm a war, was South Korea a war, was Vietnam a war? Technically no, because the Congress has not made such a formal declaration since WW2. So I suppose according to you, the US has not been in a war for 60 some years now. That is amazing, here I was thinking that they had losts thousands upon thousands of troops in all those other 'wars'.
So what would you call all those events...if not war?
Actually, how do you define war... | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:11:59 AM | @foxefire
No war? So...there should be no presidential wartime powers?
@Brain
Certified directed a post at essaress...before mine.
Posted By: certified male on 1/12/2006 6:00:39 PM
Subject: Are you against the War?
Message: You dont like my saying I am against an illegal war"
essaress....since the Iraq war has not been declared illegal by any court what qualifications do you have to legitimately claim it is illegal?
^^^I think this is the linguistic gymnastics, and no face, he's refering to.
Peace  | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 1259 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 7:12:15 AM | And while the exact name/description of this engagement is discussed
Kids are dying
..
. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 1260 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:02:15 AM | Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
So the "Use of Military Force Against Iraq" is not declaring War??
..
. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:28:34 AM | The current president Bush also never sought a formal declaration of war from Congress. Instead, he requested, and received, the authority to use armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend American interests against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
http://encarta.msn.com/guide_whocandeclarewar/Who_Can_Declare_War_Backgrounder_ and_Research_Guide.html | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:33:41 AM | | Define war for us Foxfire...seeing as how according to your stance the USA has not been at war since the second world war... | |
|
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:52:21 AM | See xmilitary still does not take the time to read posts carefully...I never said that was my opinion.
| |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:56:09 AM |
See the US does not start wars as you have admitted
You need to read it again a few times, he is not admitting any such thing.
1) your reply is just trying to play a bullshit fallacy.
Or,
2) you are lacking in comprehension skills
Which is it?
Incapable of honesty in discourse? ......or just slow? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 9:39:31 AM | "When did Bush declare war against Iraq?"
foxe.....Bush never declared War in Iraq and according to what I found you are right in that the US has not declared war since WW II...
Congressional Research Service report RL30172, as posted by the Naval Historical Center
Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 - 2004
by Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
October 5, 2004
"Eleven times in its history the US has formally declared war against foreign nations. These eleven US war declarations encompassed five separate wars: the war with Great Britain declared in 1812, the war with Mexico declared in 1846, the War with Spain declared in 1898, the First World War, during which the US declared war with Germany and with Austria-Hungary during 1917, World War II, during which the US declared war against Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941, and against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania in 1942."
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.htm | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 11:44:12 AM | Actions often speak louder then words...I think we can all agree, whether or not war was declared, what happened in Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, fits the bill for war.
And if you consider international law for a moment, an argument can be made that the US has engaged in war. In international law an ultimatum is considered equal to a proper declaration, and we all recall the ultimatum for Saddam and his kids to get out in 42 hours. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 12:28:58 PM | ^^^
Vat,
As you have qualified, truly you can not say that since US congress is the only US body that can declare war, not the president. So I am not even going to blame Johnson for Vietnam. So stop blaming Bush for protecting Americans against the Evil Empires.
No War No Harm
.
See Late as Cert has described US only declared war 11 Times. Vat is correct the US seldom declares war. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 12:42:58 PM | Xmilitary,
I am become somewhat frustrated with you. Your posts are non-sequitors 3 / 10 times, and 6 / 10 times they argue with straw-man fallacies.
You attack me with arguments that I have never made; you accuse me of statements that I have never posted.
Why don't you take the time to carefully consider my posts, and then carefully craft an appropriate response; and hopefully a response that actually makes some sense.
Take your most recent post.
You fail to acknowledge that in the post prior to this you accuse me of saying something that I did not say; and on top of that you fail to apologize for the said mistake.
In this post you accuse me of 'blaming Bush for protecting Americans'. That is verbal diarrhea; I never said anything remotely close to this, nor will I. My position, throughout the entirety of my posts with respect to Bush has been consistent, I did not agree with his decision to engage Iraq.
I try to engage in debate, and it would seem that all you are capable of doing in response is to accuse me of making statements that I never have.
I have tried to be civil, but you repeatidly engage in the same style of posting, and it is just laziness. A good example of someone that responds to the actual posts I make would be Dmotz, or Certified...when they attack my opinion they do so by accurately quoting me, not by using the garbage tactics you are so fond of. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 12:43:58 PM | All this redefinition and arguing over semantics by the Bush apologists is hilarious!!
So, there's NO war, except when it suits Bush's agenda to call himself a "wartime (P)resident". What a sick, pathetic joke. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 12:52:48 PM | Don't forget, when losing a debate, scream "You're Anti-American!"
Toon | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 1272 | |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 1:23:32 PM | It seems pretty disgusting to me, that a country has virtually been destroyed;
Many thousands of Iraqi people have died;
And especially that there are Coalition Force widows who now exist, because of a 'thing'
What do these widows tell their kids??
"Your father died fighting in the army/navy/airforce in Iraq""
""OK Mum, I was too small. What war was that??
""No son, you father didnt die at war""
"But you said he was a War Hero"
"Well I think he was a War Hero, but because we never declared war, he died ????????"
Its time to forget semantics
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, no matter what other name you want to call it
..
. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 1:27:44 PM | If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck"
If Saddam walks like he has WMD's, swims like he has WMD's, and quacks like he has WMD's, he probably has WMD's....... | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 1:30:26 PM | | Saddam repeatedly told anyone who would listen he had no WMDs. Many in this country said the same thing but were ignored. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 1:33:43 PM | Saddam repeatedly told anyone who would listen he had no WMDs."
while he continously interfered with and threatened the weapons inspectors...... | |
|
|
| Page 51 of 54
|
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 |
|
Home
login 
