• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

2007 is deadliest year in Iraq

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
Except you can't change it with an occupation. When in the history of the planet has a large, prolonged occupation by a foreign country ever succeeded in impressing their values on that occupied country? Spreading values by force has never, I repeat, never worked. Despite our good intentions, the very nature of this war is flawed.

Well, Rome did make a pretty good go of it, but you are right, they ultimately failed. I do prefer trying occupation to what has actually worked in the past,,,,,what has ultimately shaped nearly every country into what it is today......... (Genocide of native populations)


By the way, the Islamic revolution underway worldwide advocates the latter if the prior fails,,,,,,which it will if you are correct.

 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
Except you can't change it with an occupation. When in the history of the planet has a large, prolonged occupation by a foreign country ever succeeded in impressing their values on that occupied country? Spreading values by force has never, I repeat, never worked. Despite our good intentions, the very nature of this war is flawed.

Well, Rome did make a pretty good go of it, but you are right, they ultimately failed. I do prefer trying occupation to what has actually worked in the past,,,,,what has ultimately shaped nearly every country into what it is today......... (Genocide of native populations)


By the way, the Islamic revolution underway worldwide advocates the latter if the prior fails,,,,,,which it will if you are correct.
Well, I'm not an expert on Roman history despite a good deal of (mostly) HS and college classes on the matter. But in terms of modern history, say since the discovery of the New World 500+ years ago, occupation has never worked. Off the top of my head; British occupation of colonies. British occupation of India. Nazi occupation of France/Poland. USSR occupation of Afghanistan. Notice too how far those empires fell, btw.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,097
880
126
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
Why do you want to make change in the middle east? What right do you have to use violence to force people to comply with your chosen way of living? Doesn't that sound a little like, I don't know, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? You make the mistake of assuming that your way of life is better than all others, and therefor trying to spread your way of life to others is a matter worth killing over. This is the fundamental principle behind every religious war in history, and it has proven to be absolutely disastrous time and time again. If history has taught us nothing, it's that people who are willing to kill to spread their way of life are the greatest threat to peace.

You can call me a pacifist all you want. It's not true. There are times when war is necessary. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, war was necessary. When he gassed the Kurds in the 80s, war probably should've been used. There was no justification given for this current war that passes muster (no WMDs, no yellow cake, no ties to Al Qaeda, no nothing). This war accomplishes nothing but death, and it is a sad state of affairs that anyone would applaud that.

Why would you say that? Who are you to say the kurds were right and Sadaam was wrong? And why was Sadaam wrong and the Kuwaiti's right? Who are you to say?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,097
880
126
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
Except you can't change it with an occupation. When in the history of the planet has a large, prolonged occupation by a foreign country ever succeeded in impressing their values on that occupied country? Spreading values by force has never, I repeat, never worked. Despite our good intentions, the very nature of this war is flawed.

Well, Rome did make a pretty good go of it, but you are right, they ultimately failed. I do prefer trying occupation to what has actually worked in the past,,,,,what has ultimately shaped nearly every country into what it is today......... (Genocide of native populations)


By the way, the Islamic revolution underway worldwide advocates the latter if the prior fails,,,,,,which it will if you are correct.
Well, I'm not an expert on Roman history despite a good deal of (mostly) HS and college classes on the matter. But in terms of modern history, say since the discovery of the New World 500+ years ago, occupation has never worked. Off the top of my head; British occupation of colonies. British occupation of India. Nazi occupation of France/Poland. USSR occupation of Afghanistan. Notice too how far those empires fell, btw.
Germany? Japan? Phillippines? Or dont they count?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
What did they die for? Is it a Neocon dream or is there some greater good or?
So Bush could finally get to land on an aircraft carrier, even if he wasn't the pilot?
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: dahunan
What did they die for? Is it a Neocon dream or is there some greater good or?
So Bush could finally get to land on an aircraft carrier, even if he wasn't the pilot?
I thought it was because the bad man tried to kill his daddy.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: dahunan
What did they die for? Is it a Neocon dream or is there some greater good or?
So Bush could finally get to land on an aircraft carrier, even if he wasn't the pilot?
I thought it was because the bad man tried to kill his daddy.
LOL, you got me there!!
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

You're the one who likened me to Nazis and Hitler while defending the child rapings of the Talibans, if you're representative of the Pakistani population, then the child raping pillaging murdering scum will take over without a problem.
They must have a different version of English in the UK.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: IGBT
..and in other news 42k drivers were killed on the nations roads and freeways. Every year.
Yes.. and they are intentionally targeted by the other vehicle? The other vehicle went out in search of other drivers to kill?
..dead is dead. makes no difference. over 4k drivers a month die on the road.
So you agree that auto safety is 84 times more important than fighting terrorism, right? After all, "dead is dead. makes no difference," and there were about 250,000 Americans killed in auto accidents (within the U.S.) over the last six years vs. fewer than 3,000 due to terrorism.

I'll bet the NHTSA is thrilled to hear that by your measure, they're going to receive $1 trillion per year to protect us from the accident bogeyman, not to mention all the new ways they get to infringe civil liberties. Someone goes into a bar, arrest them on the spot and detain them without counsel indefinitely since they might get drunk and might then have an accident. After all, dead is dead, and traffic accidents deserve 84 times more response than terrorism, right?
..good to see your finally catching on to the fact that there are many risks in life. Some of those risks we volunteer for.
Speaking of catching on. :roll:
Meh. It's the sort of moronic evasion I expected. Anything is better for them than actually considering how many people we've killed in the name of protecting us from Iraq's "mushroom cloud", or Iran's mushroom cloud, or the terrorist bogeyman, or whatever their current excuse for war is. There's always some good reason to go kill a bunch of foreigners, and if American men and women die too, well that's just too bad. It's a small price to pay for <insert today's excuse>.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
I thought it was because the bad man tried to kill his daddy.
Some of us think that plotting an assassination of a POTUS is a serious offense. You seem to find it hilarious. Why am I not surprised...
 

tomywishbone

Golden Member
Oct 24, 2006
1,401
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
War kills people. Welcome to reality.

It sucks, but thats reality. We will NEVER EVER have a war free world.
:D:laugh: OK killer, whatever you say.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Engineer
I thought it was because the bad man tried to kill his daddy.
Some of us think that plotting an assassination of a POTUS is a serious offense. You seem to find it hilarious. Why am I not surprised...
Where did I say that it wasn't? Also, would it have been worth going into Iraq over, especially since a decade had passed?

Where did I laugh (in response to the "hilarious" comment)?

 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Where did I say that it wasn't? Also, would it have been worth going into Iraq over, especially since a decade had passed?
No, not by itself, and we didn't.

Where did I laugh (in response to the "hilarious" comment)?
You made a smart-ass reply to another poster which clearly implied it.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Engineer
Where did I say that it wasn't? Also, would it have been worth going into Iraq over, especially since a decade had passed?
No, not by itself, and we didn't.

Where did I laugh (in response to the "hilarious" comment)?
You made a smart-ass reply to another poster which clearly implied it.
Well, your smart ass comment back was dead wrong.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.

Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.
Were as the Pro War crowd believes that they don't need a justification to go to war. Pro War = FAIL
I dont think so. But I *do* know force is needed in some cases to make changes. In the case of the ME, you cant change thousands of years of repression and religious stranglehold in two years. Will probably take a decade or more.
Except you can't change it with an occupation. When in the history of the planet has a large, prolonged occupation by a foreign country ever succeeded in impressing their values on that occupied country? Spreading values by force has never, I repeat, never worked. Despite our good intentions, the very nature of this war is flawed.

Well, Rome did make a pretty good go of it, but you are right, they ultimately failed. I do prefer trying occupation to what has actually worked in the past,,,,,what has ultimately shaped nearly every country into what it is today......... (Genocide of native populations)


By the way, the Islamic revolution underway worldwide advocates the latter if the prior fails,,,,,,which it will if you are correct.
Well, I'm not an expert on Roman history despite a good deal of (mostly) HS and college classes on the matter. But in terms of modern history, say since the discovery of the New World 500+ years ago, occupation has never worked. Off the top of my head; British occupation of colonies. British occupation of India. Nazi occupation of France/Poland. USSR occupation of Afghanistan. Notice too how far those empires fell, btw.
Germany? Japan? Phillippines? Or dont they count?
We weren't trying to instill U.S. values in Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany, unlike Britain was during the Revolution and during the early 20th century in India. Also, two other humongous differences:

1) Japan attacked the U.S. and there was irrefutable evidence of the Nazi's terrorism (i.e. concentration camps and taking over Poland and France). On the other hand, with Iraq there was mere speculation of Saddam-engineered atrocities. If Iraq had WMDs/mobile weapons labs, an advanced nuclear program, and was connected to AQ terrorists as claimed with absolute confidence by the administration (Meet the Press 03/04), then this war would certainly been at least somewhat comparable to WWII Japan/Germany. Best the admin could do was say Saddam murdered his own people, but that fact by itself hardly justifies the type of invasion and commitment we have there now given all the far worse atrocities around the world (e.g. Darfur).

2) Goals were also entirely different. We dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan and destroyed Germany with constant bomb raids with the sole purpose of wiping out the remaining remnants of Nazis and Imperials. Obviously, the occupation of Iraq is to set up a stable economy and engineer a democratic political solution. We're not dropping nukes on them like Japan, nor did we occupy Japan or Germany with our entire military force with those goals in mind.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Engineer
Where did I say that it wasn't? Also, would it have been worth going into Iraq over, especially since a decade had passed?
No, not by itself, and we didn't.

Where did I laugh (in response to the "hilarious" comment)?
You made a smart-ass reply to another poster which clearly implied it.
Well, your smart ass comment back was dead wrong.
I think he only comes in here to make ridiculous comments to taunt others and claim his neocon supremacy while always ignoring the reality of the disaster called the Bush Family
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Originally posted by: dahunan
World Peace? Who fucking attacked who? Would you have told concerned German citizens who opposed the SS to go sing kumbaya?
So you're going from "Bush is killing soldiers" to "Bush is going to take over the America!!1!!"?


Hrmm, ulterior motives, anyone?

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffieldI'm getting fed up with the fucking idiots who thinks that NOT going to war over everything and nothing means you're a fucking pacifist.

Put your fucking life where your mouth is, get over here right this fucking second, all your mouthiness will be gone in the blink of an eye.

Roll your fucking eyes and pretend like you actually know anything but for the love of god, don't say anything or the'll get how stupid you really are.

Iraq was and is a disaster that will not heal for a LONG time, it's a damned if you do and damned ifi you don't situation now and while you little thugh wanaabes are yapping about it the real enemy is preparing.
Using the F-word every other word does not make you look much more intelligent.

Originally posted by: senseamp
..dead is dead. makes no difference. over 4k drivers a month die on the road.
Did you feel the same way about 9/11?
[/quote]

Liberal:

noun: person who takes statements out of context and perverts them for his own twisted cause.



Hrmm, sounds like a legitimate definition to me.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
This thread is nothing more than a partisan effort to counter the noted progress being made during the last five months in Iraq. While the title and stats are true, the entire intent is obviously disingenuous... I would have given at least an ounce of respect to the OP if he had also acknowledged the recent progress - which would have been much more honest. But, instead, we get one sentence of partisan crap: "IMO, the carnage is only going to continue... for many years."

bah...
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
This thread is nothing more than a partisan effort to counter the noted progress being made during the last five months in Iraq. While the title and stats are true, the entire intent is obviously disingenuous... I would have given at least an ounce of respect to the OP if he had also acknowledged the recent progress - which would have been much more honest. But, instead, we get one sentence of partisan crap: "IMO, the carnage is only going to continue... for many years."

bah...
Progress.... *shakes head*
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: palehorse74
This thread is nothing more than a partisan effort to counter the noted progress being made during the last five months in Iraq. While the title and stats are true, the entire intent is obviously disingenuous... I would have given at least an ounce of respect to the OP if he had also acknowledged the recent progress - which would have been much more honest. But, instead, we get one sentence of partisan crap: "IMO, the carnage is only going to continue... for many years."

bah...
Progress.... *shakes head*
Yes, "progress." It's the exact opposite of what you and yours consider "good news"!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Engineer
Where did I say that it wasn't? Also, would it have been worth going into Iraq over, especially since a decade had passed?
No, not by itself, and we didn't.

Where did I laugh (in response to the "hilarious" comment)?
You made a smart-ass reply to another poster which clearly implied it.
Well, your smart ass comment back was dead wrong.
I think he only comes in here to make ridiculous comments to taunt others and claim his neocon supremacy while always ignoring the reality of the disaster called the Bush Family
Are you being ironic on purpose or did you actually post that with a straight face?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: palehorse74
This thread is nothing more than a partisan effort to counter the noted progress being made during the last five months in Iraq. While the title and stats are true, the entire intent is obviously disingenuous... I would have given at least an ounce of respect to the OP if he had also acknowledged the recent progress - which would have been much more honest. But, instead, we get one sentence of partisan crap: "IMO, the carnage is only going to continue... for many years."

bah...
Progress.... *shakes head*
Yes, "progress." It's the exact opposite of what you and yours consider "good news"!
"Us against them" mentality... What exactly is "my and mine"?... Please enlighten us with some quotes to back up your assumptions....

Didn't think so.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: palehorse74
This thread is nothing more than a partisan effort to counter the noted progress being made during the last five months in Iraq. While the title and stats are true, the entire intent is obviously disingenuous... I would have given at least an ounce of respect to the OP if he had also acknowledged the recent progress - which would have been much more honest. But, instead, we get one sentence of partisan crap: "IMO, the carnage is only going to continue... for many years."

bah...
Progress.... *shakes head*
Yes, "progress." It's the exact opposite of what you and yours consider "good news"!
"Us against them" mentality... What exactly is "my and mine"?... Please enlighten us with some quotes to back up your assumptions....

Didn't think so.
simple: "you and yours" refers to all of you who ignore or deny the recent (last five months) progress being made in Iraq.

Does the shoe fit?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
This thread is nothing more than a partisan effort to counter the noted progress being made during the last five months in Iraq. While the title and stats are true, the entire intent is obviously disingenuous... I would have given at least an ounce of respect to the OP if he had also acknowledged the recent progress - which would have been much more honest. But, instead, we get one sentence of partisan crap: "IMO, the carnage is only going to continue... for many years."

bah...
I think the thread is driven by the media stories about 2007 passing 2006 in death toll. It is now the ?deadliest year? so they run out a bunch of stories about it.

But in the long run it has no meaning. It?s similar to the Rockies 21 of 22 win streak. Didn?t mean a whole lot when they got to the World Series and get their asses kicked 4 games in a row. In other words these types of stories are meaningless without context.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY