NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow. This is really good. Should be a commercial. (No sarcasm.)
If you view the flash that should be a commercial which I linked you to above, there are graphic images. Parental supervision is advised.

Satisfied?
http://www.bushflash.com/antivic.html

Please edit the name of your post or otherwise note that there are graphic images.

Please edit the name of your post or otherwise note that there are graphic images.
If you view the flash that should be a commercial which I linked you to above, there are graphic images. Parental supervision is advised.

Satisfied?

dude, NO. Edit your post, and place it BEFORE the link. Perferably in the title of either the link or this thread itself.

Wow. This is really good. Should be a commercial. (No sarcasm.)
If you view the flash that should be a commercial which I linked you to above, there are graphic images. Parental supervision is advised.

Satisfied?

http://www.bushflash.com/antivic.html
Now satisfied?

That was sick and pointless. War is terrible and has casualties, but would you rather have a few thousand casualties halfway around the world now, or a few million here at home in a few years? I point you to this quote:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
~John Stuart Mill

It makes me sick to see some liberals protest all these wars and soldiers. It is because of these men and the men before them that they have the right to do so in the first place. It makes me even sicker when they show the casualties of war as a case against a particular war. War has casualties. It is inevitible. However, war sometimes has fewer casualties than not going to war.

That was sick and pointless. War is terrible and has casualties, but would you rather have a few thousand casualties halfway around the world now, or a few million here at home in a few years?
(First, part of the quote I deleted was you labeling me as a soldier-protesting liberal. I don't have any sort of political label. And no one, not even liberals, protest soldiers.)

Uhm, I'm not sure how a few million here at home are going to die. Would you like to expand on that theory?

[tag] until I can see it.

That was sick and pointless. War is terrible and has casualties, but would you rather have a few thousand casualties halfway around the world now, or a few million here at home in a few years? I point you to this quote:

[cut out quote]

It makes me sick to see some liberals protest all these wars and soldiers. It is because of these men and the men before them that they have the right to do so in the first place. It makes me even sicker when they show the casualties of war as a case against a particular war. War has casualties. It is inevitible. However, war sometimes has fewer casualties than not going to war.

I saw very few (any?) pictures of soldiers in that lineup. I thought war was not supposed to involve the civilian population? Especially wars with all our nice technology where we could bomb and invade quickly and then declare victory.

They could also have shown the numerous American soldiers killed or seriously wounded, many fighting after the victory was claimed.

I also would like to know how Americans would have died if we had NOT gone to war in Iraq.

As a note to the original posting as a commercial, I think the first bit before Martin Luther King would be the best, but I doubt it would ever get past our wonderful censors.

First off, many liberals are protesting soldiers. A returning soldeir in Washington State was booed and had things thrown at him as protestors called him things like "baby-killer." It's the 1960s all over again. Second, I'm not labeling anybody here, just the guy who created the video. He is obviously of the opininon that war is the ultimate evil and that nothing is worth a war, which is dead wrong.

As far as the millions of deaths here, what would you have us do? Before the war, Iraq was in defiance of 17 U.N. resolutions. They funded terrorism (though no necessarily Al-Qaida), and everyone in the U.N. believed they had weapons of mass destruction and were willing to use them against the United States. Do you think the situation would be so much better if we just abolished declaring war against any nation that never attacked us, only end up being on the wrong end of a nuclear strike? This war was in the best interests of the people of both Iraq and the United States, and I have several Iraqi and Army friends who will testify to that.

As far as war not hitting civilians, that's a pipe dream that hasn't been possible since we stopped lining the armies up on a field and just standing a shooting at each other until one army runs away. We can't avoid hitting every civilian without tipping off the people we do want to kill.

All in all, this was a pretty light casualty war. If you don't believe me, look up the stats for the carpet bombing of North Vietnam, the land mine victims of Korea, and the fire bombings of both Tokyo and Dresden. Thousands upon thousands of civilians were killed in these actions. At least in Iraq, we're really trying not to hit civilians by using things like smart bombs. Many famous generals, such as William T. Sherman (Union general in the Civil War) intentionally brought to fight to civilians to break the country's will to fight.

As far as the millions of deaths here, what would you have us do? Before the war, Iraq was in defiance of 17 U.N. resolutions. They funded terrorism (though no necessarily Al-Qaida), and everyone in the U.N. believed they had weapons of mass destruction and were willing to use them against the United States. Do you think the situation would be so much better if we just abolished declaring war against any nation that never attacked us, only end up being on the wrong end of a nuclear strike? This war was in the best interests of the people of both Iraq and the United States, and I have several Iraqi and Army friends who will testify to that.
Uh...the same thing is going on in North Korea, except they really do have Weapons of Mass Destruction and I really have heard about their threats. I'm not saying Iraq hasn't threatened, because I'm sure you could show me where and when they did, I just never saw it.

All in all, this was a pretty light casualty war. If you don't believe me, look up the stats for the carpet bombing of North Vietnam, the land mine victims of Korea, and the fire bombings of both Tokyo and Dresden. Thousands upon thousands of civilians were killed in these actions. At least in Iraq, we're really trying not to hit civilians by using things like smart bombs. Many famous generals, such as William T. Sherman (Union general in the Civil War) intentionally brought to fight to civilians to break the country's will to fight.
Uh, I like how you use for example wars in which the technology was NO WHERE near what it is now, and I don't feel like looking up the casualties for the last war in Iraq because I'm lazy and don't care that much. But it would be interesting to compare.