Kellimus, I really feel that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. You attacked his posts yet you contributed nothing to the discussion of your own. Perhaps you care to respond to his post while keeping score on the number and types of fallacies we all make?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 20 2007, 8:39 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

1. I refuse to accept your .1% figure until you add in the Iraqi deaths. They are people also.

2. Smoking and joining the army are completely different. Joining the army may seem as the right thing to do for some (not me). Smoking is more of a habit, or addiction.

Well, we're way too deep in to just pull out now. The soldiers say they want to go finish what they started. Are you just going to pull out so that all these soldiers just died for nothing? That would piss me off if my soldier friends died for nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the military took its sweet time withdrawing.

Again, you never specified what proof you wanted. That article was to prove that DU was making people very ill. You still didn't research it on your own, so here are some links that explain how many people are getting ill.
Try and find the high number with lots of zeros after it.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6731
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12903.htm
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=4561

I should change what I said, they weren't in vain, their deaths worsened the position the world is in now. It's a god damn shame that people are being manipulated the way they are.
I am in a position in which I understand there is a better way govern the millions of Americans than is currently being done. If you must call me a do-gooder to describe the passion I have to change things, then so be it.

I disagree. I think pulling out now would be beneficial in the long run. I will not accept another "sustained" war that benefits big business the way it did from Vietnam and WWI. At least WWII was for a more tangible good.
I can't believe Haliburton and Blackwater are allowed to be criminals.

Everyone who is actually fighting in the war says otherwise. All of the generals and such say that they are close to achieving their goals, if they pull out now they would give up all that they have worked so hard for.

Akar, the amount of time lives and money spent in Iraq should have nothing to do with the decision, all that matters is marginal cost and benefit, and why would you believe we are close to winning now, when we have been told we were within weeks or months of winning for several years? What benefit is spending any additional time there going to do for this country?

AS: It seems to me that the people who should know are the ones fighting the war. The soldiers and the generals should have more input than the general public (when most of us have never worn a US armed forces uniform). As Akar said, the generals think we should fight, and the soldiers are willing.
Also, if we leave now we might as well just drop a nuke on the way out, cause that's about how many people will likely die. Leaving now would just make things so much worse.


I wanted a reputable source actually. I did look over the first one though.

Damned Lies and Statistics
Yes, these are all very big but seemingly irrelevant numbers. First off, lots of people get sick, and I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't too disproportionate to the average American.
Furthermore, I don't see anything in that article about which of those numbers is related to uranium dust.
Finally, this article does not cite any sources. The website, as I said, seems disreputable. In all likelihood the article was talking about an isolated case. Even more likely, they made the whole thing up. That sort of thing isn't uncommon on the internet, and the lack of reputable sites with this sort of thing leads me to believe that it is indeed, as they say, poppycock.

Edit:
Whoa!!! Go back and read again. I didn't call you a do-gooder, it just seems to me that that is what you think you are.
As I said, I feel you really lack any sense of self sacrifice and are in no way a "do-gooder"
Please don't debate this point, I just wanted to clarify what I thought. I don't care to argue about this. This is what I think of you and I'm sure you have your thoughts about me. That's cool, but lets not get into an argument over it.
I just wanted to clarify.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 20 2007, 11:49 pm by frazz.

Then why do you even bother? You're very immature.
Sometimes reputable means they have to take advantage of their gate keeper powers, they ignore real truths and keep exhibiting the dullest ignorant news. Fox is reputable, but they don't do shit for me.
Can you just admit that you're trying to argue against the existence of something that's actually happening? Because you are.



If we stay in this war, we are being complacent. Our government will lead us into Iran and cause even more trouble. The middle east is a powder keg right now with the conditions between Israel and Palestine. Syria and Lebanon need support from Iran, yet if we go into Iran, that support will likely end. Israel will undoubtedly try to push out Palestine once they are week from lack of support. Besides, Israel is looking for reason to keep a Jewish majority what with their new party, Kadima, in power. We cannot worsen conditions over in the Middle East. Pulling out will not yield effects similar to a nuke. That is ignorant talk and non-problem solving talk. Use your brain.

Alright, glad we got that settled.

You argue that mainstream media is unreliable. An argument can be made for such a thing.
However, your flaw comes when you ignore the lack of reputability in the sources you provided. There are much better independent news sources on the internet. If you want to avoid [insert whatever you think is wrong with mainstream media here] then you should look for independent, but reliable, news sources.

The fact is, these sources you gave don't cite anything for their statistics. How then can you believe them? Even though they are small and unheard of, if they merely cited sources for these devastating sounding statistics, their believability would go way up. The fact that they do not do so indicates that they may not have such sources.

Please, I generally avoid calling you an idiot when I post. If you could do the same, it would be greatly appreciated.

I don't feel like finding the article that had citations in it. I did a project on this at a school computer, I don't have the sources I used. Either way, I know its happening, and if you don't take my word for it I don't blame you, but you should still keep an open mind to what I'm saying. I'll dig up my old email that had the links in it or find the source through google..

I never called you an idiot, but I'll be cooler.

Please make a topic about it when you find those reputable sources. =þ

The Big Problem
We need /V\oRe KiLlInGz!

On a more serious note, I disprove of the war because the more diverse our world is culturally, the greater varieties of ideas are attempted. I'm all for the attempting of ideas. And invading another country only imposes ones lifestyle upon those being invaded.

Well, i'm sorry that you don't even take the time to read the PMs that I have sent you, because it explains a lot that you seem to either:

Ignore
Don't realise

So please, for like the fifth time i've asked you: Quit Trolling. Its not nice



How is that not contributing anything?

This forum/thread is about opinions, and I've clearly expressed mine. Every time I try to bring up a valid point to a subject, people like Frazz come in and Ad Hominem Abusive me, then try to run it off on me.

I figured you wanted me to keep things short and sweet, so people wouldn't turn threads into flame wars against me *shrugs*

Guess that's what I get for trying to contribute for once.

You dedicated almost an entire post (other than your one valid addition to the topic) to how illogical frazz was in your first post in this topic. He didn't ad hominem abusive you, you did it to him as soon as you came into the topic. You're the one trolling here. The end.

Actually, wrong. Do I really have to show you where he started trolling me first within se.n if you want to get that technical about something so simplistic and inane?

PM me if you want me to.

Anyways, lets get back on topic please people?

Why is it that people care so much about 4000 American deaths while they shrug off 160 000 Iraqi deaths that have been labeled as "collateral damage". Either mourn them all equally, or don't mourn at all.

Furthermore, this is no longer a peacekeeping operation as Bush never got any justification from the United Nations to actually do anything to Saddam, or invade Iraq. This is actually a real war between the "peace keepers" and the people of Iraq. US forces are now classified as Terrorists and enemies of the people there. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan Bush will just send missiles and bombs to decimate any building, city or like as soon as he hears Osama could be there. Most people don't even realize that 9/11 was the work of Al-Qaeda, and not the Taliban. We have no International justification for what we are doing, the war on terrorism is just any other war.

Bush has invaded Iraq for some reason or another. He couldn't have gone in for Saddam, because he had no right to, and the same goes for the Taliban. If he wanted to end communist rule in Iraq, then why didn't he go as soon as he was elected? The answer is because he wanted something else. He may have gone for the vast reserves of oil, because that is a multi-billion dollar industry, and with the supply depleting, the profits will rise dramatically 20 years from now, when the oil supply peaks, then drops. I cannot say what exactly is his purpose for coming to Iraq was, but for Afghanistan he went to kill Osama. The fact that he doesn't give a shit about killing thousands of innocent people, including his own, to kill Osama, or to get whatever he wanted in Iraq, makes him just as bad as any other terrorist.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 15 2007, 5:35 pm by SCORPIONOX.

I don't quite understand the reasoning for still being in Iraq. Wasn't "Mission Accomplished" declared in 2004? It probably isn't for oil, since we have Chavez for that. Then again, it could be, since he's anti-American and could cut us off whenever he feels like it... But anyway, hey, check this out. Sonic says "That's no good."

The most trusted and most accurate source says 600,000+

Why revive this topic. Anyways I find it strange how America launched one of the biggest pre-emptive strike in history on a neutral country. Just for oil and teaching them democracy? They've always been like that over history.

Iraq War, like Vietnam War. Not 'Iraqi' War.