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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE=frazz]Yeah... Well I read over some of that, and it seems like a pretty meager problem. 6 out of 75,000 for those French people? What did you say again?[/QUOTE]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 [QUOTE=frazz]I'm sorry. Are you saying that they were insignificant? Are you saying that 9 or 10 people giving their lives to protect 2000 more (on average) is insignificant and pointless? Did you not just make a topic proclaiming yourself the ultimate do-gooder? Or is self sacrifice not in your vocabulary?[/QUOTE]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. [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.

Quote from frazz

Yeah... Well I read over some of that, and it seems like a pretty meager problem. 6 out of 75,000 for those French people? What did you say again?

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

Quote from frazz

I'm sorry. Are you saying that they were insignificant? Are you saying that 9 or 10 people giving their lives to protect 2000 more (on average) is insignificant and pointless? Did you not just make a topic proclaiming yourself the ultimate do-gooder? Or is self sacrifice not in your vocabulary?

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.

Quote

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.

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.

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 [I]this[/I] country?

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. [quote=yenku][QUOTE=frazz]Yeah... Well I read over some of that, and it seems like a pretty meager problem. 6 out of 75,000 for those French people? What did you say again?[/QUOTE]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[/quote] I wanted a reputable source actually. I did look over the first one though. [QUOTE=that first article]We know about the VA scandal, the great betrayal, but what almost no one talks about are the numbers. According to Veterans Administration figures from last November, 205,000 GIs who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, a third of the total, have sought medical care, for such problems as malignant tumors (1,584), endocrinal and metabolic diseases (36,409), nervous system diseases (61,524), digestive system diseases (63,002), musculoskeletal diseases (87,590), and mental disorders (73,157), among many other conditions. One of the largest categories is "ill defined," a.k.a. mystery conditions (67,743). In comparison, a relatively small number (35,765) have sought VA care for injuries.[/QUOTE] 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: [QUOTE=yenku]If you must call me a do-gooder to describe the passion I have to change things, then so be it.[/QUOTE] 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.

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.

Quote from yenku

Quote from frazz

Yeah... Well I read over some of that, and it seems like a pretty meager problem. 6 out of 75,000 for those French people? What did you say again?

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

Quote from that first article

We know about the VA scandal, the great betrayal, but what almost no one talks about are the numbers. According to Veterans Administration figures from last November, 205,000 GIs who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, a third of the total, have sought medical care, for such problems as malignant tumors (1,584), endocrinal and metabolic diseases (36,409), nervous system diseases (61,524), digestive system diseases (63,002), musculoskeletal diseases (87,590), and mental disorders (73,157), among many other conditions. One of the largest categories is "ill defined," a.k.a. mystery conditions (67,743). In comparison, a relatively small number (35,765) have sought VA care for injuries.

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:

Quote from yenku

If you must call me a do-gooder to describe the passion I have to change things, then so be it.

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.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]Then why do you even bother? You're very immature. [QUOTE] I wanted a reputable source actually. I did look over the first one though.[/QUOTE]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.

Quote

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.

Then why do you even bother? You're very immature.

Quote

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

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.

[quote=yenku][QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]Then why do you even bother? You're very immature. [/quote] Alright, glad we got that settled. [quote=yenku][QUOTE] I wanted a reputable source actually. I did look over the first one though.[/QUOTE]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.[/quote] 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.

Quote from yenku

Quote

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.

Then why do you even bother? You're very immature.

Alright, glad we got that settled.

Quote from yenku

Quote

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

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.

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.

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

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

[URL=http://www.mwillett.org/Politics/bigprob1.htm]The Big Problem[/URL] 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.

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.

[quote=frazz][quote=Kellimus][quote=Frazz]I'm sorry. Are you saying that they were insignificant? Are you saying that 9 or 10 people giving their lives to protect 2000 more (on average) is insignificant and pointless? Did you not just make a topic proclaiming yourself the ultimate do-gooder? Or is self sacrifice not in your vocabulary?[/quote] Time to "publicly defame you" by pointing out how ill-logical you are, and why you shouldn't be debating in this topic (lol, ur funny Frazz :D): [quote]I'm sorry. Are you saying that they were insignificant? Are you saying that 9 or 10 people giving their lives to protect 2000 more (on average) is insignificant and pointless?[/quote] Yes he did, get over it. Instead of just asking a question to create a loop, why not give your [i]retort[/i]? Which is something [i]good debaters[/i] would do. [quote=Frazz]Did you not just make a topic proclaiming yourself the ultimate do-gooder? Or is self sacrifice not in your vocabulary?[/quote] What relevancy does this have within this thread? Absolutely none. Therefore, you fail. Gg :D I'm sorry. Can you for once, not Ad Hominem Abusive someone, or create a logical fallacy? Kk, thx, gg. Anyways, I like the little rant Kow, but honestly (I agree with Dapperdan for once) those two "valid" points she brings up are pretty damn horrible examples to use to justify a war that is killing thousands of our men/women to "protect" another country from itself.[/quote] You did not rebut any of my points, Kellimus. You merely criticized the form of my rebuttal. It was a rhetorical question. That's when you ask a question that you don't expect an answer too. In this case it was used to make a statement, by pointing out the lack of validity in saying what I asked if he said. I really don't appreciate these harassing posts and the pms you're sending me. If you have an argument to make, ok. If you want to use that as an excuse to insult me, I guess I can't stop you. But what you're doing now is harassing me, nothing more.[/quote] 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 :) [quote=Mini Moose 2707]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?[/quote] [quote=Kellimus]Anyways, I like the little rant Kow, but honestly (I agree with Dapperdan for once) those two "valid" points she brings up are pretty damn horrible examples to use to justify a war that is killing thousands of our men/women to "protect" another country from itself. [/quote] 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.

Quote from frazz

Quote from Kellimus

Quote from Frazz

I'm sorry. Are you saying that they were insignificant? Are you saying that 9 or 10 people giving their lives to protect 2000 more (on average) is insignificant and pointless? Did you not just make a topic proclaiming yourself the ultimate do-gooder? Or is self sacrifice not in your vocabulary?

Time to "publicly defame you" by pointing out how ill-logical you are, and why you shouldn't be debating in this topic (lol, ur funny Frazz ):

Quote

I'm sorry. Are you saying that they were insignificant? Are you saying that 9 or 10 people giving their lives to protect 2000 more (on average) is insignificant and pointless?

Yes he did, get over it. Instead of just asking a question to create a loop, why not give your retort? Which is something good debaters would do.

Quote from Frazz

Did you not just make a topic proclaiming yourself the ultimate do-gooder? Or is self sacrifice not in your vocabulary?

What relevancy does this have within this thread? Absolutely none. Therefore, you fail. Gg

I'm sorry. Can you for once, not Ad Hominem Abusive someone, or create a logical fallacy?

Kk, thx, gg.


Anyways, I like the little rant Kow, but honestly (I agree with Dapperdan for once) those two "valid" points she brings up are pretty damn horrible examples to use to justify a war that is killing thousands of our men/women to "protect" another country from itself.

You did not rebut any of my points, Kellimus. You merely criticized the form of my rebuttal. It was a rhetorical question. That's when you ask a question that you don't expect an answer too. In this case it was used to make a statement, by pointing out the lack of validity in saying what I asked if he said.

I really don't appreciate these harassing posts and the pms you're sending me. If you have an argument to make, ok. If you want to use that as an excuse to insult me, I guess I can't stop you. But what you're doing now is harassing me, nothing more.

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

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

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?

Quote from Kellimus

Anyways, I like the little rant Kow, but honestly (I agree with Dapperdan for once) those two "valid" points she brings up are pretty damn horrible examples to use to justify a war that is killing thousands of our men/women to "protect" another country from itself.

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.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] 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 [I]here[/I]. The end.

Quote

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.

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.

[quote=Dapperdan][QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] 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 [I]here[/I]. The end.[/quote] 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?

Quote from Dapperdan

Quote

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.

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.

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.

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, [URL=http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/pdf/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf]hey, check this out.[/URL] Sonic says "That's no good."

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."

[quote=SCORPIONOX]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.[/quote]The most trusted and most accurate source says 600,000+

Quote from SCORPIONOX

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.

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.

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.

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