IRAQ WAR CASUALTIES

[envy me]

This site is not in english, but the pictures speak a lot louder than words can.

These people are your brothers, sisters, fathers.

All this for a lie, a lie that was known about in advance. Just remember these faces when some bonehead tries convincing you attacking Iran is the right thing to do.



*pictures are graphic and may be NSFW.

 

[5150Joker]

Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

I honestly think you're just spewing this crap to get a rise out of people, noone can be this blindly stupid or loyal without being on the payroll. 'America's interests' again!?! freaking parrot.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

I honestly think you're just spewing this crap to get a rise out of people, noone can be this blindly stupid or loyal without being on the payroll. 'America's interests' again!?! freaking parrot.

I'm giving a realistic opinion but you guys just can't accept reality. Like it or not, there is no "good guy" or "bad guy", it's your interests or mine. America is looking out for it's own national interests by securing the middle east, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I'm giving a realistic opinion but you guys just can't accept reality. Like it or not, there is no "good guy" or "bad guy", it's your interests or mine. America is looking out for it's own national interests by securing the middle east, there's nothing wrong with that.

And Saddam gassed the Kurd for his interest, anything wrong with that? I see as long as America does something stupid under a Republican, they get a pass. Forget the ill thought out grand vision in the ME, do you have any opinion on the planning or execution, or is that right on plan also?

 

[dahunan]

War is wonderful... I think I will invest in some Defense Industry and Oil/Energy Stocks

I just with cheney and bush and every PNAC member was mutilated and burned horribly and had to live that way for the rest of their lives.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

What interests did the US have in Iraq and/or what US interests were being threatened by Iraq?

Should be a fairly easy question for you.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

What interests did the US have in Iraq and/or what US interests were being threatened by Iraq?

Should be a fairly easy question for you.

Interests, you know, interests. American interests, in other words, interests that are American. </dumbya speak>

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

What interests did the US have in Iraq and/or what US interests were being threatened by Iraq?

Should be a fairly easy question for you.

Saddam tried to kill George's daddy. Clinton gave Saddam a slap on the wrist . . . Bush, the Decider gave the world a caricature of America that fit the stereotype of our worst impulses.

 

[Aimster]

 

[BlancoNino]

It's impossible to support the troops but not support the cause.

It's the same as saying you support Bush but not his cause.

I feel bad for those people.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

What interests did the US have in Iraq and/or what US interests were being threatened by Iraq?

Should be a fairly easy question for you.

Iraq is just the stepping stone to greater control over the middle east. I wasn't even a supporter of the war initially and still have some reservations about it but in the long run, if it serves America's interests by having a strong military and intelligence presence in the middle east, then so be it. Oil is a sparse resource so lets not kid ourselves here, with our military being in the heartland of the middle east, we can continue to dictate policy to the rest of the world and stave off China's aggressive growth. Another member here linked to an article that outlined exactly why the American dollar is still the world's top currency, because of it's military and political influence - not because it's backed by gold. That's reality for you guys.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

Exactly WHAT does Iraq have to do with America's interests? Unless, of course, those interests are O.I.L.?

In another thread you insisted that there is no proof that Dubai had terrorists connections. Where is YOUR proof that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., had terrorist connections, or was in any way planning or could indeed project any threat to their neighbors or half way across the world to the USA?

 

[BlancoNino]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying Joker. I believe in the cause of this war, but not really in the way it is being fought. The middle east is complicated. If we don't take care of our own oil interests in the middle east, somebody else will, and most likely won't be too friendly to us.

However, I don't think our administration is very responsible with foreign policy. A lot of mistakes being made.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

I honestly think you're just spewing this crap to get a rise out of people, noone can be this blindly stupid or loyal without being on the payroll. 'America's interests' again!?! freaking parrot.

I'm giving a realistic opinion but you guys just can't accept reality. Like it or not, there is no "good guy" or "bad guy", it's your interests or mine. America is looking out for it's own national interests by securing the middle east, there's nothing wrong with that.

That may be so, but there is something severly wrong with how we go about it.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
It's impossible to support the troops but not support the cause.

It's the same as saying you support Bush but not his cause.

I feel bad for those people.

It is? Why?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
It's impossible to support the troops but not support the cause.

It's the same as saying you support Bush but not his cause.

I feel bad for those people.

It is? Why?

It's very mathematical.

The troops either support the war or make themselves support the war, in order to carry out their actions effectively without remorse.

People claim to support the troops, but not the war.

If they don't support what the troops are doing, or how they are feeling when they go about it, what exactly are they supporting? Their health? Please. That's the equivilent to saying

"I don't support any of the president's actions, but I do support the president!"

"How so!?"

"Well I support his health. I hope he lives healthily"

Nobody says that.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

What interests did the US have in Iraq and/or what US interests were being threatened by Iraq?

Should be a fairly easy question for you.

Iraq is just the stepping stone to greater control over the middle east. I wasn't even a supporter of the war initially and still have some reservations about it but in the long run, if it serves America's interests by having a strong military and intelligence presence in the middle east, then so be it. Oil is a sparse resource so lets not kid ourselves here, with our military being in the heartland of the middle east, we can continue to dictate policy to the rest of the world and stave off China's aggressive growth. Another member here linked to an article that outlined exactly why the American dollar is still the world's top currency, because of it's military and political influence - not because it's backed by gold. That's reality for you guys.

Incorrect the dollar is backed by Oil. Can you remember the last time we established a presence in the ME to prevent the expansion from another nation? Last time I checked, we are now fighting those very people we trained and armed.


edit:
Blanco please just stop with the rhetoric. People can support their fellow citizens. Those who taken it upon themselves to help protect our country from legitimate dangers. The people do not have to agree with what the Civilian leadership do with our military forces. It would be more accurate to say, the people want our troops to be safe, even though they don't approve of the orders pushed down from the CIC.

You may do well to understand the UCMJ, and the fact that you are required to follow lawful orders for your enlistment period. Even if you don't believe in what your CoC orders, you have to follow those orders for 2,4, or 6 years depending on your contract.

 

[Todd33]

I love BlancoNino's posts, they are true forehead smackers.

Can I support a F15 and not support the pilot bombing a house full of orphans?

Can I support the US Government and Constitution and not support some elected officials?

The military is a tool of the government, they neither choose their fight or have any input (unless they are brass). Anyone can support the people of the military and their families and not support the mission. If some poor smuck get put on active duty and sent to Iraq and loses his leg - Democrats cannot support him, his family and his rehabilitation because they think the war is wrong? Either your age is showing or your lack of thought is.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Nobody said war would be painless or there wouldn't be consequences. America can't sit back and not tend to it's interests, especially in a climate where other countries are rapidly expanding their interests to vital regions of the world.

What interests did the US have in Iraq and/or what US interests were being threatened by Iraq?

Should be a fairly easy question for you.

Iraq is just the stepping stone to greater control over the middle east. I wasn't even a supporter of the war initially and still have some reservations about it but in the long run, if it serves America's interests by having a strong military and intelligence presence in the middle east, then so be it. Oil is a sparse resource so lets not kid ourselves here, with our military being in the heartland of the middle east, we can continue to dictate policy to the rest of the world and stave off China's aggressive growth. Another member here linked to an article that outlined exactly why the American dollar is still the world's top currency, because of it's military and political influence - not because it's backed by gold. That's reality for you guys.

Incorrect the dollar is backed by Oil. Can you remember the last time we established a presence in the ME to prevent the expansion from another nation? Last time I checked, we are now fighting those very people we trained and armed.

The F-16 dollar backing
Since 1979 the US power establishment, from Wall Street to Washington, has maintained the status of the dollar as unchallenged global reserve currency. That role, however, is not a purely economic one. Reserve-currency status is an adjunct of global power, of the US determination to dominate other nations and the global economic process. The United States didn't get reserve-currency status by a democratic vote of world central banks, nor did the British Empire in the 19th century. They fought wars for it.

For that reason, the status of the dollar as reserve currency depends on the status of the United States as the world's unchallenged military superpower. In a sense, since August 1971 the dollar is no longer backed by gold. Instead, it is backed by F-16s and Abrams battle tanks, operating in some 130 US bases around the world, defending liberty and the dollar.

Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC10Ak01.html

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
It's impossible to support the troops but not support the cause.

It's the same as saying you support Bush but not his cause.

I feel bad for those people.

It is? Why?

It's very mathematical.

The troops either support the war or make themselves support the war, in order to carry out their actions effectively without remorse.

People claim to support the troops, but not the war.

If they don't support what the troops are doing, or how they are feeling when they go about it, what exactly are they supporting? Their health? Please. That's the equivilent to saying

"I don't support any of the president's actions, but I do support the president!"

"How so!?"

"Well I support his health. I hope he lives healthily"

Nobody says that.

You're oversimplifying the issuse at hand, making a huge false dilemma out of the issuse.

I never orginally supported the war, but I do support our troops efforts in trying to establish a fair democracy in Iraq and a secure state. I support our troops so much that, if things don't improve to a certain degree we need to leave.

BlancoNino, you've got a lot to learn about the world...

 

[dahunan]

BTW, our troops do not have to support the war to do their sworn duty.. we don't have to support the war to support them

 

[1EZduzit]

And we currently have 17,469 wounded just counting US soilders.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: envy me

This site is not in english, but the pictures speak a lot louder than words can.

These people are your brothers, sisters, fathers.

All this for a lie, a lie that was known about in advance. Just remember these faces when some bonehead tries convincing you attacking Iran is the right thing to do.



*pictures are graphic and may be NSFW.

Hmm. " pictures they don't want you to see" Arent a large percentage of those pics photo ops? I dont get it. Who exactly would " they " be then?

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: envy me

This site is not in english, but the pictures speak a lot louder than words can.

These people are your brothers, sisters, fathers.

All this for a lie, a lie that was known about in advance. Just remember these faces when some bonehead tries convincing you attacking Iran is the right thing to do.



*pictures are graphic and may be NSFW.

Hmm. " pictures they don't want you to see" Arent a large percentage of those pics photo ops? I dont get it. Who exactly would " they " be then?

...mainstream media. Have you seen any of these pictures with disfigured limbs and scared faces on tv at all?

I haven't.