NationStates Jolt Archive

I got this great idea... we need to push for a law that says: For every death in any pre-emptive invasions (not war because they will just change the name to get around ) started by the Govt. of the U.S., a finger or toe will be amputated from those in the Govt. who support said invasion. This will start with the President and work its way down thru the ranks, after each person loses all of his/her fingers and toes. We'll allow them one day after the death before the amputation so they can prepare. Doesn't that sound fair? At least then Those that started the wars and make others pay with their lives at least lose something important to them as well.

:D

Why stop there? E-bay the fingers and toes! :p Collect them all, (I'd like Rice's pinkie myself), they would be considered holy relics among the right.

Let's go back to the middle ages type of warfare, where the wealthy governing classes led the charge into battle. Try to picture George W. sitting astride the turret of an abrahms tank, waving a sword and shouting "Charge!".

I got this great idea... we need to push for a law that says: For every death in any pre-emptive invasions (not war because they will just change the name to get around ) started by the Govt. of the U.S., a finger or toe will be amputated from those in the Govt. who support said invasion. This will start with the President and work its way down thru the ranks, after each person loses all of his/her fingers and toes. We'll allow them one day after the death before the amputation so they can prepare. Doesn't that sound fair? At least then Those that started the wars and make others pay with their lives at least lose something important to them as well.

:D

For a war that involves an insurgency, and the complete takeover of another nation that had the 4th largest army in the world (complete with modern equipment), that's a remarkably low number of deaths.

I'm willing to bet that some of those are not combat deaths, either.

Want to compare it to other engagements in modern history?

There are USMC reports that indicate that Israeli soldiers operating against Hezbollah fighters in Southern Lebanon killed 40 civilians for every one Hezbollah fighter killed - and they lost 10 Israeli dead for every one Hezbollah fighter. In seven years, no Hezbollah fighters ever surrendered - they all fought to the death.

We fought people like this in Fallujah - and we handed them their own ass. The casualties were completely lopsided - the other way around.

Go ahead and keep crying. Oh, and those vaunted fighters in Afghanistan who kicked the Soviet Union's ass - we handed those guys their ass as well.

For a war that involves an insurgency, and the complete takeover of another nation that had the 4th largest army in the world (complete with modern equipment), that's a remarkably low number of deaths.

I'm willing to bet that some of those are not combat deaths, either.

Want to compare it to other engagements in modern history?

There are USMC reports that indicate that Israeli soldiers operating against Hezbollah fighters in Southern Lebanon killed 40 civilians for every one Hezbollah fighter killed - and they lost 10 Israeli dead for every one Hezbollah fighter. In seven years, no Hezbollah fighters ever surrendered - they all fought to the death.

We fought people like this in Fallujah - and we handed them their own ass. The casualties were completely lopsided - the other way around.

Go ahead and keep crying. Oh, and those vaunted fighters in Afghanistan who kicked the Soviet Union's ass - we handed those guys their ass as well.
US troops are top notch. Nobody's debating that. Just some of us think the war was unnecessary.

Let's go back to the middle ages type of warfare, where the wealthy governing classes led the charge into battle. Try to picture George W. sitting astride the turret of an abrahms tank, waving a sword and shouting "Charge!".

I'm willing to accept this.

US troops are top notch. Nobody's debating that. Just some of us think the war was unnecessary.

The interesting thing is that the war in Iraq is having effects beyond Iraq.

It has emboldened the Lebanese (anti-American Lebanese are calling the elections in Iraq the Arab equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall).

It has scared the Libyans into compliance.

Palestinians are now negotiating in earnest.

Perhaps it wasn't necessary to go in after WMD. But I don't think that's the reason. Rumsfeld as much as told us right after 9-11 that the government would not disclose the real reasons for deploying or using troops overseas.

I think it was a smokescreen. A ruse.

But there were other reasons - and I think Condi was the author.

Go ahead and keep crying. Oh, and those vaunted fighters in Afghanistan who kicked the Soviet Union's ass - we handed those guys their ass as well.


So why are we at war again? Oh thats right... we have absolutely no idea why. We just know the official story which you yoruself claim to be false. I guess it's okay with you to send people off to die in the thousands for some unknown cause, but for me, yes I will continue to cry for lost lives on both sides of the war equation.

:(

I can see the effects. It seems to be working.

Yup, you kicked those guys in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they're still there!

Yup, you kicked those guys in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they're still there!
You'll notice they are not in charge.
And a lot of them are dead.

In fact, the only thing the Iraqi insurgents can do is roadside bombs - where they kill mostly their own people. Something Bin Laden is upset about - he thinks it's bad PR.

And it was impressive enough to scare Qaddafi in Libya, wasn't it? He had to change his soiled underwear.

Yes only Iraqis are dying, thats why there are over 1500 troop deaths now. Good logic there.

But I still maintain that we should enact the law I originally proposed at the beginnign of this thread.

For a war that involves an insurgency, and the complete takeover of another nation that had the 4th largest army in the world (complete with modern equipment), that's a remarkably low number of deaths.

I'm willing to bet that some of those are not combat deaths, either.

Want to compare it to other engagements in modern history?

There are USMC reports that indicate that Israeli soldiers operating against Hezbollah fighters in Southern Lebanon killed 40 civilians for every one Hezbollah fighter killed - and they lost 10 Israeli dead for every one Hezbollah fighter. In seven years, no Hezbollah fighters ever surrendered - they all fought to the death.

We fought people like this in Fallujah - and we handed them their own ass. The casualties were completely lopsided - the other way around.

Go ahead and keep crying. Oh, and those vaunted fighters in Afghanistan who kicked the Soviet Union's ass - we handed those guys their ass as well.


You sure did! You handed badly trained, low morale troops their asses! Oh and not to mention a few fragments of broken mosques and limbs of dead babies/civillians. Yeah I bet you guys sometimes drop dazies just to make people feel better! Oh and don't forget you knocked out the power to all the hospitals in Baghdad as well! Bravo! Care to go to war with someone that really does have WMDs, like North Korea or China? Maybe you should think about liberating countries that have a real messed up, like Zimbabwe, South Africa etc.
There is no dispute that the US Military are the most powerful fighting force in the world, and 1, 500 deaths is incredibly low....for a country that hardly even mobilized its military strength. So bravo on the war on Islam.

For a war that involves an insurgency, and the complete takeover of another nation that had the 4th largest army in the world (complete with modern equipment), that's a remarkably low number of deaths.

I'm willing to bet that some of those are not combat deaths, either.

Want to compare it to other engagements in modern history?

There are USMC reports that indicate that Israeli soldiers operating against Hezbollah fighters in Southern Lebanon killed 40 civilians for every one Hezbollah fighter killed - and they lost 10 Israeli dead for every one Hezbollah fighter. In seven years, no Hezbollah fighters ever surrendered - they all fought to the death.

We fought people like this in Fallujah - and we handed them their own ass. The casualties were completely lopsided - the other way around.

Go ahead and keep crying. Oh, and those vaunted fighters in Afghanistan who kicked the Soviet Union's ass - we handed those guys their ass as well.
Yes the Americans are the best in the world; at killing and destroying. Nobody does it better. With rare exceptions, members of the American military seem to be willing to commit any war crime, any criminal or illegal act they are ordered to do, seemingly often gleefully.
How any one can boast of this and pretend to be moral beats me. The entire venture in Iraq seems to me to lay bare the character of the Americans; the dishonest callous and brutal nature of the leadership, their contempt for law, whether U.S. or international (or natural), their complete contempt for and lack of compassion for the people they are invading and murdering.

The clear light that the U.S. war against Iraq shines on the character of their leadership and the members of their Armed Forces, extends to the populace in general. It is a very unflattering light.
Generalisations are unfair, since there are always exceptions, and many in the U.S. don't support the criminal actions of their leaders, and I imagine a few actually show concern for not just their troops, but the victims of their troops. Nonetheless, it has become clear the the Americans (as defined by those involved in actions outside their country) have the morals of sewer rats and the impulses of rabid weasels.

I got this great idea... we need to push for a law that says: For every death in any pre-emptive invasions (not war because they will just change the name to get around ) started by the Govt. of the U.S., a finger or toe will be amputated from those in the Govt. who support said invasion. This will start with the President and work its way down thru the ranks, after each person loses all of his/her fingers and toes. We'll allow them one day after the death before the amputation so they can prepare. Doesn't that sound fair? At least then Those that started the wars and make others pay with their lives at least lose something important to them as well.

:D
Very funny, mister comic. Ha. Ha. My body is wracked with hysterical laughter.[/sarcasm] :headbang:

Pre-emption is probably the name of the game now.

In a world where it only takes months from the initial desire to have a nuke to the time you actually have one (thanks to Dr. Khan of Pakistan and thanks to China, and thanks to Germany for providing the centrifuges), how long should we wait?

Would you prefer that we wait until Iran finishes making their bombs (they already have an ICBM ready)? I'm ok with that now, since the Europeans would be the ones in range - with no missile defense and no plan and they're the ones who want to talk and talk while the Iranians continue to be disingenuous. Ok by me.

We did what the world wanted on North Korea - we've talked and talked and talked - with people who have no intention of negotiating in good faith.

I know - we'll do it both ways. We'll pre-empt in Iraq, and we'll do the talking method in North Korea. And we'll leave Iran to the Europeans, who will capitulate once Iran puts one on top of their new ICBMs.

Then after North Korea nukes something, the world can see which one was the better outcome. Or maybe everyone in Europe will be forced to convert to Islam.

Have a nice day.

US troops are top notch. Nobody's debating that. Just some of us think the war was unnecessary.

So you supported Saddam Hussein's right to be despot of Iraq?

Thankfully most Iraqis did not... although i bet he got a few write-in votes from some of his Baathist/insurgent friends.

Although over 1000 US soldiers have died in combat, hundreds have died in friendly fire and mistakes, which is disgraceful. I can't even remember how many Brits or other occupation soldiers died, but I know that all but a few British soldiers were killed by friendly fire: often blown up by the Americans.

The invaders' toll is nothing compared to the Iraqis. It is true hundreds of Iraqi police and soldiers (considered collaborators) have been blown up by the resistance, and many, many civilians have died or been murdered in guerrilla attacks. Western civilian hostages have been murdered. Some of those captured may not have been civilians because of their involvement with the occupation forces, but that doesn't justify the murder of prisoners.

But somewhere between 10,000 (a minimum from Iraq Body Count) and 100,000 (Lanclet study of excess deaths) Iraqi civilians died in the invasion. No one's sure because the occupiers' care so little about Iraqi lives they can't be bothered to make a body count. Thousands more soldiers died during the invasion, and thousands of guerrillas have died since. The US-led occupation forces are also much more brutal that the Israelis, who routinely kill dozens in daily attacks on Palestine. The US (aided by the Scottish Black Watch) recently massacred hundreds of civilians carpet bombing, invading and destroying the city of Fallujah, creating tens of thousands of refugees. The invaders boasted they had killed over 1000 resistance fighters (or insurgents or "terrorists" or whatever you call someone fighting to defend their city from murderous invasion, or someone from abroad who has come to help them), but it appears many run off despite the occupation forces prohibiting any boy over the age of 15 (I think) leaving before they levelled the city Guernica-style.

I wonder how many troops the imperialists of the Project for the New American Century are willing to lose (if they even care) in this disastorous aggressive war before the troops are brought home, leaving Iraq in the anarchy and rampant violence the invasion created and the murderous occupation can only perpetuate.

Pre-emption is probably the name of the game now.

In a world where it only takes months from the initial desire to have a nuke to the time you actually have one (thanks to Dr. Khan of Pakistan and thanks to China, and thanks to Germany for providing the centrifuges), how long should we wait?

Would you prefer that we wait until Iran finishes making their bombs (they already have an ICBM ready)? I'm ok with that now, since the Europeans would be the ones in range - with no missile defense and no plan and they're the ones who want to talk and talk while the Iranians continue to be disingenuous. Ok by me.

We did what the world wanted on North Korea - we've talked and talked and talked - with people who have no intention of negotiating in good faith.

I know - we'll do it both ways. We'll pre-empt in Iraq, and we'll do the talking method in North Korea. And we'll leave Iran to the Europeans, who will capitulate once Iran puts one on top of their new ICBMs.

Then after North Korea nukes something, the world can see which one was the better outcome. Or maybe everyone in Europe will be forced to convert to Islam.

Have a nice day.

Agreed. We should definitely do nothing while the bad countries stockpile nukes. Let's see where that gets us.

And Saddam would have stepped down gladly at the behest of the Left Americans and non-aggression Europe.

So you supported Saddam Hussein's right to be despot of Iraq?

Thankfully most Iraqis did not... although i bet he got a few write-in votes from some of his Baathist/insurgent friends.
I thought he was better than the folks running Sudan. They're in the middle of their second genocide. If you want to use the military to help people, help those most in need. Plus, Sudan has clear ties to Bin Laden.

Although over 1000 US soldiers have died in combat, hundreds have died in friendly fire and mistakes, which is disgraceful. I can't even remember how many Brits or other occupation soldiers died, but I know that all but a few British soldiers were killed by friendly fire: often blown up by the Americans.

The invaders' toll is nothing compared to the Iraqis. It is true hundreds of Iraqi police and soldiers (considered collaborators) have been blown up by the resistance, and many, many civilians have died or been murdered in guerrilla attacks. Western civilian hostages have been murdered. Some of those captured may not have been civilians because of their involvement with the occupation forces, but that doesn't justify the murder of prisoners.

But somewhere between 10,000 (a minimum from Iraq Body Count) and 100,000 (Lanclet study of excess deaths) Iraqi civilians died in the invasion. No one's sure because the occupiers' care so little about Iraqi lives they can't be bothered to make a body count. Thousands more soldiers died during the invasion, and thousands of guerrillas have died since. The US-led occupation forces are also much more brutal that the Israelis, who routinely kill dozens in daily attacks on Palestine. The US (aided by the Scottish Black Watch) recently massacred hundreds of civilians carpet bombing, invading and destroying the city of Fallujah, creating tens of thousands of refugees. The invaders boasted they had killed over 1000 resistance fighters (or insurgents or "terrorists" or whatever you call someone fighting to defend their city from murderous invasion, or someone from abroad who has come to help them), but it appears many run off despite the occupation forces prohibiting any boy over the age of 15 (I think) leaving before they levelled the city Guernica-style.

I wonder how many troops the imperialists of the Project for the New American Century are willing to lose (if they even care) in this disastorous aggressive war before the troops are brought home, leaving Iraq in the anarchy and rampant violence the invasion created and the murderous occupation can only perpetuate.

You should ask some Iraqis if they're happy that Saddam is gone... and ask them what they think of the insurgents with whom you probably empathize.

Pre-emption is probably the name of the game now.

In a world where it only takes months from the initial desire to have a nuke to the time you actually have one (thanks to Dr. Khan of Pakistan and thanks to China, and thanks to Germany for providing the centrifuges), how long should we wait?

Would you prefer that we wait until Iran finishes making their bombs (they already have an ICBM ready)? I'm ok with that now, since the Europeans would be the ones in range - with no missile defense and no plan and they're the ones who want to talk and talk while the Iranians continue to be disingenuous. Ok by me.

We did what the world wanted on North Korea - we've talked and talked and talked - with people who have no intention of negotiating in good faith.

I know - we'll do it both ways. We'll pre-empt in Iraq, and we'll do the talking method in North Korea. And we'll leave Iran to the Europeans, who will capitulate once Iran puts one on top of their new ICBMs.

Then after North Korea nukes something, the world can see which one was the better outcome. Or maybe everyone in Europe will be forced to convert to Islam.

Have a nice day.

Pakistan has the bomb, and hasn't used it. India has the bomb, and hasn't used it. Israel has lots of nukes, and haven't used them. What's wrong with Iran having the bomb? The whole idea behind having the bomb is not to use it, but to stop others using it. Why else did the US and the USSR aquire so many?
If Iran ever had a target, it would be Israel anyway, and yet Israel has nukes, so oops, can't do that. If Iran had a few (dozen or so) with decent delivery systems, the Americans and the Israelis would back off and not attack them. This would be good.
Nukes don't get used unless you're suicidal (or American, but that was 60 years ago). Governments aren't suicidal, unless they are pushed right to the wall. So don't push them.
some people argue that govt.s they don't like will get loonie and use them (Iran, North Korea etc). Realistically, the only people who would use them area: loonies, or loonie groups (like Al Quaeda)- so don't let nukes get loose!-; govt.s pushed to the wall by anihilating invasions - so don't invade!; and insanely aggressive nations.
So far the only nation these days that qualifies as insanely aggressive is the USA, and they hardly need to use nukes.
Either eliminate all nukes and respect the rights of nations (no invading) or get used to the rest of the world doing whatever it takes to get hold of a few, 'cause they work! as a deterrent.

I thought he was better than the folks running Sudan. They're in the middle of their second genocide. If you want to use the military to help people, help those most in need. Plus, Sudan has clear ties to Bin Laden.

That's actually a good idea.

Pakistan has the bomb, and hasn't used it. India has the bomb, and hasn't used it. Israel has lots of nukes, and haven't used them. What's wrong with Iran having the bomb? The whole idea behind having the bomb is not to use it, but to stop others using it. Why else did the US and the USSR aquire so many?
If Iran ever had a target, it would be Israel anyway, and yet Israel has nukes, so oops, can't do that. If Iran had a few (dozen or so) with decent delivery systems, the Americans and the Israelis would back off and not attack them. This would be good.
Nukes don't get used unless you're suicidal (or American, but that was 60 years ago). Governments aren't suicidal, unless they are pushed right to the wall. So don't push them.
some people argue that govt.s they don't like will get loonie and use them (Iran, North Korea etc). Realistically, the only people who would use them area: loonies, or loonie groups (like Al Quaeda)- so don't let nukes get loose!-; govt.s pushed to the wall by anihilating invasions - so don't invade!; and insanely aggressive nations.
So far the only nation these days that qualifies as insanely aggressive is the USA, and they hardly need to use nukes.
Either eliminate all nukes and respect the rights of nations (no invading) or get used to the rest of the world doing whatever it takes to get hold of a few, 'cause they work! as a deterrent.

rights of nations, you say

what about the rights of the PEOPLE in those nations... especially trampled-on rights under despotic rule? Should we respect such nations? Aren't you mad with the cause of freedom?

That's actually a good idea.
But we're busy in Iraq now. A nation that was fairly secular, had no strong ties to Al Quaeda, and had no nuclear weapons program. While we're tied up there Sudan, N. Korea, Iran, and Saudi are free to do what they want.

The US (aided by the Scottish Black Watch) recently massacred hundreds of civilians carpet bombing, invading and destroying the city of Fallujah, creating tens of thousands of refugees. The invaders boasted they had killed over 1000 resistance fighters (or insurgents or "terrorists" or whatever you call someone fighting to defend their city from murderous invasion, or someone from abroad who has come to help them), but it appears many run off despite the occupation forces prohibiting any boy over the age of 15 (I think) leaving before they levelled the city Guernica-style.

Fallujah, was not levelled. And it was not carpet bombed. We don't have an Air Force that does carpet bombing. It was over 2000 insurgents killed, and several hundred captured. The civilians were given plenty of warning to leave - and most did.

There was also a small mountain of ammunition and bombs discovered - and quite a bit more destroyed during the fighting.

One of my friends there said that a single artillery shell hit one of the insurgents' underground ammo dumps - and the secondary explosions went off for the next forty-five minutes, destroying a seven block area - hey, that's their explosives going off, not ours.

While some were local insurgents, a fair number were not.

Massacre is an event where you line people up and shoot them. Or, barring that, you randomly and thoroughly (as at Guernica) carpet bomb an area.

Fallujah was not carpet bombed. Nor were civilians lined up and shot by US or UK forces. You need to stop lying about what's going on over there - maybe it just doesn't fit your view of the world, so you have to lie about it.

rights of nations, you say

what about the rights of the PEOPLE in those nations... especially trampled-on rights under despotic rule? Should we respect such nations? Aren't you mad with the cause of freedom?
Please do not feed the trolls.

I got this great idea... we need to push for a law that says: For every death in any pre-emptive invasions (not war because they will just change the name to get around ) started by the Govt. of the U.S., a finger or toe will be amputated from those in the Govt. who support said invasion. This will start with the President and work its way down thru the ranks, after each person loses all of his/her fingers and toes. We'll allow them one day after the death before the amputation so they can prepare. Doesn't that sound fair? At least then Those that started the wars and make others pay with their lives at least lose something important to them as well.

:D


I think that is a wonderful idea! Good job trying to implement it though, especially with a government of chicken hawks who got deferment after deferment to stay safely out of all the wars they supported or started.

But we're busy in Iraq now. A nation that was fairly secular, had no strong ties to Al Quaeda, and had no nuclear weapons program. While we're tied up there Sudan, N. Korea, Iran, and Saudi are free to do what they want.

Can't be everywhere. Iraq is a conveniently strategic position on the chessboard.

It's between Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia. You can move in any direction from Iraq.

That's why Syria and Iran are scared - why they signed a useless alliance. Why Syria is backing out of Lebanon instead of massacring the Lebanese protesters.

As for North Korea, the OPLAN made public involves the use of nuclear weapons by the US. It's unlikely that since North Korea has several bombs that they would not use them in any combat event. So, the US plans to nuke the crap out of the place.

You don't need troops to occupy a radioactive wasteland.

Oh, and since the North Koreans will likely be the first to use a nuke, don't cry if all the North Koreans die horribly. Because they were warned.

Can't be everywhere. Iraq is a conveniently strategic position on the chessboard.

It's between Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia. You can move in any direction from Iraq.

That's why Syria and Iran are scared - why they signed a useless alliance. Why Syria is backing out of Lebanon instead of massacring the Lebanese protesters.

As for North Korea, the OPLAN made public involves the use of nuclear weapons by the US. It's unlikely that since North Korea has several bombs that they would not use them in any combat event. So, the US plans to nuke the crap out of the place.

You don't need troops to occupy a radioactive wasteland.

Oh, and since the North Koreans will likely be the first to use a nuke, don't cry if all the North Koreans die horribly. Because they were warned.
Convenient spot on the chessboard? How about hitting our real enemies? Saudi Arabia funds and promotes the brand of islam that attacked us on 9/11. They are just as repressive as Saddam was. Saddam has never attacked the USA.

rights of nations, you say

what about the rights of the PEOPLE in those nations... especially trampled-on rights under despotic rule? Should we respect such nations? Aren't you mad with the cause of freedom?

Good point, look at Zimbabwe, or Myanmar, or uzbekistan, or.....
Problem seems to be, who's got the will, the ability, AND has their hands clean to interfere?

This bulhshit about "War on terror" has unleashed a whole lot of serious whoop-ass on minorities by a lot of nations; Russians on the Chechens, Chinese on the western china Muslims, various dictatorships on their own people. Boy, this sure isn't advancing freedom!

Then there is Africa, with a whole bunch of intervention, ripping up the Congo like vultures on a fat juicy corpse. Isn't working worth dick as far as I can see.

I don't have a solution myself, except for all peoples and nations to become more moral and less selfish. The US and the UK are sure setting a bad example in this regard. All the actions of the US for instance can be traced back to a single STATED objective - protecting and enhancing the US. This is not a moral basis for intervention.

Just asserting the inviolable right of nations doesn't work either. I don't have an answer, except to emphasise supra-national efforts (UN, World Court etc) to set standards and act positively.

But we're busy in Iraq now. A nation that was fairly secular, had no strong ties to Al Quaeda, and had no nuclear weapons program. While we're tied up there Sudan, N. Korea, Iran, and Saudi are free to do what they want.

A nation which is mostly grateful that we took down Saddam, the oppressor of 80% of them (Shi'a, Kurd)... a nation with a sick insurgency of foreign terrorists and Iraqi Sunnis that must be dealt with until Iraq is able to defend itself from its worst people.

And... I wonder where our special forces are. I bet they're in places other than Iraq (at least some of them are, probably).

A nation which is mostly grateful that we took down Saddam, the oppressor of 80% of them (Shi'a, Kurd)... a nation with a sick insurgency of foreign terrorists and Iraqi Sunnis that must be dealt with until Iraq is able to defend itself from its worst people.
Since when did I say Saddam was a nice guy, or the Iraqi people loved him? Now that we're in there we have to finish the job, but there were much more pressing jobs ahead of Iraq, and we've neglected them.

Convenient spot on the chessboard? How about hitting our real enemies? Saudi Arabia funds and promotes the brand of islam that attacked us on 9/11. They are just as repressive as Saddam was. Saddam has never attacked the USA.

Well, if you ask me, we should have made Saudi Arabia the 51st state back in 1991 when we had 300,000 troops sitting there.

Probably would have averted 9-11, eh?

Well, if you ask me, we should have made Saudi Arabia the 51st state back in 1991 when we had 300,000 troops sitting there.

Probably would have averted 9-11, eh?
Maybe not, but if we had installed a secular and democratic government it would have probably reduced the likelyhood of terrorism in the future.

Good point, look at Zimbabwe, or Myanmar, or uzbekistan, or.....
Problem seems to be, who's got the will, the ability, AND has their hands clean to interfere?

This bulhshit about "War on terror" has unleashed a whole lot of serious whoop-ass on minorities by a lot of nations; Russians on the Chechens, Chinese on the western china Muslims, various dictatorships on their own people. Boy, this sure isn't advancing freedom!

Then there is Africa, with a whole bunch of intervention, ripping up the Congo like vultures on a fat juicy corpse. Isn't working worth dick as far as I can see.

I don't have a solution myself, except for all peoples and nations to become more moral and less selfish. The US and the UK are sure setting a bad example in this regard. All the actions of the US for instance can be traced back to a single STATED objective - protecting and enhancing the US. This is not a moral basis for intervention.

Just asserting the inviolable right of nations doesn't work either. I don't have an answer, except to emphasise supra-national efforts (UN, World Court etc) to set standards and act positively.

Re: your last sentence --

The most important word is ACT. They need to act, not just talk. Talking doesn't get squat done when you're dealing with psychopathic/sociopathic, narcissistic dictators.

Very funny, mister comic. Ha. Ha. My body is wracked with hysterical laughter.[/sarcasm] :headbang:


why you laffin'? I'm completely serious. Got anythign of value to add to the discussion?

So you supported Saddam Hussein's right to be despot of Iraq?

Thankfully most Iraqis did not... although i bet he got a few write-in votes from some of his Baathist/insurgent friends.


The wasr wasn't sold to the people over this. It was about National Security and Saddam wasn't even close being a threat to our national security.

I don't have an answer, except to emphasise supra-national efforts (UN, World Court etc) to set standards and act positively.

Yes, the UN. The body that has supervised, or condoned, or allowed more massacres of more people in the past 50 years than any single nation in history.

And to everyone's chagrin, the Oil For Food thing turns out to be REAL. It's not the figment of some Fox News reporter's imagination. It's REAL.

Set standards my ass. Act positively my ass.

You should ask some Iraqis if they're happy that Saddam is gone... and ask them what they think of the insurgents with whom you probably empathize.


And if Canada invaded America for it's human rights abuses around the world, and got rid of Bush, you would have thousands if not millions of people sayign they are glad Bush was gone.

And if Canada invaded America for it's human rights abuses around the world, and got rid of Bush, you would have thousands if not millions of people sayign they are glad Bush was gone.

Canada wouldn't last ten seconds.

Even if Canada used its armed forces, and the US did not - the fact that there are insurgents in the US with 300 million guns would be a major problem.

Canada wouldn't last ten seconds.

Even if Canada used its armed forces, and the US did not - the fact that there are insurgents in the US with 300 million guns would be a major problem.


It was a counter to a stupid (IMO) argument, with another stupid argument. I never thought that Canada could actually invade the US and win anything lol :rolleyes:

But if we go with the idea, there would be people in the US that are for the insurgents and those against them.

I did some research... searched on the DoD (department of defense) web site... to put the Iraq death-toll in perspective:

numbers signify number dead (not overall casualties)

-----------------------------------------------
US forces deaths by conflict/war:

World War II (battle/other deaths): 405,399

US Civil War (Union side -- battle/other deaths): 364,511

World War I (battle/other deaths): 116,516

Vietnam Conflict (total in-theater deaths): 58,209

Korean War (total deaths): 54,246

US Revolutionary War: 4,435

Operation Iraqi Freedom (thus far): ~1,500

For a war that involves an insurgency, and the complete takeover of another nation that had the 4th largest army in the world (complete with modern equipment), that's a remarkably low number of deaths.

I'm willing to bet that some of those are not combat deaths, either.

Want to compare it to other engagements in modern history?

There are USMC reports that indicate that Israeli soldiers operating against Hezbollah fighters in Southern Lebanon killed 40 civilians for every one Hezbollah fighter killed - and they lost 10 Israeli dead for every one Hezbollah fighter. In seven years, no Hezbollah fighters ever surrendered - they all fought to the death.

We fought people like this in Fallujah - and we handed them their own ass. The casualties were completely lopsided - the other way around.

Go ahead and keep crying. Oh, and those vaunted fighters in Afghanistan who kicked the Soviet Union's ass - we handed those guys their ass as well.

Those "vaunted fighters" are still in control of afghanistan just not the taliban, warlords control the entire country outside of kabul :rolleyes:

I did some research... searched on the DoD (department of defense) web site... to put the Iraq death-toll in perspective:

numbers signify number dead (not overall casualties)

-----------------------------------------------
US forces deaths by conflict/war:

World War II (battle/other deaths): 405,399

US Civil War (Union side -- battle/other deaths): 364,511

World War I (battle/other deaths): 116,516

Vietnam Conflict (total in-theater deaths): 58,209

Korean War (total deaths): 54,246

US Revolutionary War: 4,435

Operation Iraqi Freedom (thus far): ~1,500


Remember nam lasted abotu 10 years, and LESS GIs died in the first year of nam then in IRAQ, although with alot less involvement ;)

The interesting thing is the rate per year.
Vietnam was over 6000 dead US soldiers per year.
We're operating in largely urban terrain and we're nowhere near that rate.

Of course, counting bodies is what made a fool of McNamara.

We might ask ourselves how much of Iraq the insurgents actually control (probably some areas within the Sunni Triangle - nothing in the Kurdish or Shiite areas).
We might ask ourselves if the insurgents are able, as the Viet Cong were, to mount attacks against US soldiers involving hundreds of insurgents - engage in a massive firefight and retreat intact. Nope. The last time was Fallujah, and that was suicidal.
We might ask if the insurgents are able to kidnap a US soldier at will. Or even capture one. Nope. They are down to kidnapping GI Joe dolls.

Yeah, the insurgency is all that.

The interesting thing is the rate per year.
Vietnam was over 6000 dead US soldiers per year.
We're operating in largely urban terrain and we're nowhere near that rate.

Of course, counting bodies is what made a fool of McNamara.

We might ask ourselves how much of Iraq the insurgents actually control (probably some areas within the Sunni Triangle - nothing in the Kurdish or Shiite areas).
We might ask ourselves if the insurgents are able, as the Viet Cong were, to mount attacks against US soldiers involving hundreds of insurgents - engage in a massive firefight and retreat intact. Nope. The last time was Fallujah, and that was suicidal.
We might ask if the insurgents are able to kidnap a US soldier at will. Or even capture one. Nope. They are down to kidnapping GI Joe dolls.

Yeah, the insurgency is all that.

IMO the insurgants are made up of mainly bandits and criminals. They are disjointed and unorganized. If they finally get united and the entire country actually backs the rebels which i dont think will happen, the USA will be in tough. Probably will continue to be like this state of semi - anarchy for many, many years. If the USA does leave though, IRAQ will collapse..

IMO the insurgants are made up of mainly bandits and criminals. They are disjointed and unorganized. If they finally get united and the entire country actually backs the rebels which i dont think will happen, the USA will be in tough. Probably will continue to be like this state of semi - anarchy for many, many years. If the USA does leave though, IRAQ will collapse..
Leaving before the Iraqis can defend themselves from internal and external threats will ensure that Iraq collapses. The US is stuck there until the Iraqi government and military is strong enough to take control.

Leaving before the Iraqis can defend themselves from internal and external threats will ensure that Iraq collapses. The US is stuck there until the Iraqi government and military is strong enough to take control.

Just look at how long we were in Germany.

Ooops. We're still there.

Just look at how long we were in Germany.

Ooops. We're still there.
Yeah, but if we pull out of Germany, it's neighbors won't send hordes of terrorists accross the border to destabilize the government. We could have left Germany at least a couple of decades ago and everything would still have been OK. We pull out of Iraq now, and they have their home grown insurgency, Syrian backed terrorists, and Iranians pouring over the border into Iran.

Let's go back to the middle ages type of warfare, where the wealthy governing classes led the charge into battle. Try to picture George W. sitting astride the turret of an abrahms tank, waving a sword and shouting "Charge!".
It's a little easier to imagine than M. Dukakis.

Originally posted by Drunk Commies
Yeah, but if we pull out of Germany, it's neighbors won't send hordes of terrorists accross the border to destabilize the government. We could have left Germany at least a couple of decades ago and everything would still have been OK. We pull out of Iraq now, and they have their home grown insurgency, Syrian backed terrorists, and Iranians pouring over the border into Iran.[/

I'm pretty sure Germany can handle its own defense, besides the terrorists can go through Germany even if we are there.

I'm pretty sure Germany can handle its own defense, besides the terrorists can go through Germany even if we are there.
Um, did you read my post? I said Germany was stable enough to take care of itself. Iraq, however, isn't.

Origina;;y posted by Drunk commies
Um, did you read my post? I said Germany was stable enough to take care of itself. Iraq, however, isn't.

Dang, sorry (knocking head over :headbang:and over)
I'm kinda out of it right now.

Dang, sorry (knocking head over :headbang:and over)
I'm kinda out of it right now.
No big.

You Know what? shut up! ya over 1.5k ppl have died.....in vietnam ther were times when 700 ppl died a week! and you know what? AIDS kills almost 58k ppl a month!

I propose, that to make the anti-war people happy, we restore ol Saddam to his "rightful and legally" sanction place as leader of Iraq. Then, for every person he kills after that we cut off a piece of the peace people's extremities. They would be given a day to prepare. It's only fair since they seem so happy to leave the Iraqis to their fate that they share a little bit of that fate.

Yeah, but if we pull out of Germany, it's neighbors won't send hordes of terrorists accross the border to destabilize the government. We could have left Germany at least a couple of decades ago and everything would still have been OK. We pull out of Iraq now, and they have their home grown insurgency, Syrian backed terrorists, and Iranians pouring over the border into Iran.

I think Iraq will be a lot more stable after Syria and Iran get fixed.

Most of the insurgents money and logistical support, and replacement fighters come from one or both of those countries.

So, we stay until the job is done.

Just fighting in Iraq would be like just staying in South Vietnam. If we had taken the North, and Laos, there wouldn't have been much for the Viet Cong to get supplies and extra men from.

You Know what? shut up! ya over 1.5k ppl have died.....in vietnam ther were times when 700 ppl died a week! and you know what? AIDS kills almost 58k ppl a month!


How many non combatants though? 100K, 50K?

and I am willing to bet that if the states spent the cash they are flushing down the iraqi crapper on world health programs, they could say millions of peops!!

In an event, iraqi war = bad, but i still hope the usa will win ;)

I think Iraq will be a lot more stable after Syria and Iran get fixed.

Most of the insurgents money and logistical support, and replacement fighters come from one or both of those countries.

So, we stay until the job is done.

Just fighting in Iraq would be like just staying in South Vietnam. If we had taken the North, and Laos, there wouldn't have been much for the Viet Cong to get supplies and extra men from.


You dont think even the usa military would be a little think fighting in iran as well as iraq?