IRAQ WAR CASUALTIES

[Engineer]

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.

And every society that has taken that approach (instead of producing their own) has collapsed under it's own arrogance. The US will fall if that is it's strategy.

You neoconistic types need to be on the front lines in the ME instead of calling up National Guard troops that aren't defending ANYTHING that will help the US...period!

 

[tommywishbone]

The horror

 

[Aimster]

I wonder if Bush feels anything when he sees these victims or talks to someone who lost a loved one there..

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I wonder if Bush feels anything when he sees these victims or talks to someone who lost a loved one there..

I just wonder if Bush feels ANYTHING.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well. Id say about 50% of those are from mainstream media so the title is at least 50% sensationalist crap.

As for the rest of it. I dont watch network television. I leave that for children and the retarded ( Niether of which should be subjected to that ). Who knows.

I do wish there were some pics of what the enemy does though. That doesnt seem to count in most of the twisted sick little fvcking minds that post this crap though.

edit. Actually those are pics of what they do. ....

 

[halik]

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.

we had a strong miliary presence in middle east (saudi arabia) since the early 90s. Conincidentally that was why bin laden organized the attacks on 2001.
I'm sure that having infidels (us) in the holy land is a great idea for the next 20 years... all the extremists will be really contemp with that :roll:

And the exchange rate of USD has *ABSOLUTELY* nothign to do with political influence. Exchange rates are determined by the global market for money. Dollars are used world wide because of their relative stability compared to other currencies, though some big entities are begining to diversify with euro as well.

 

[Rainsford]

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.

As others have pointed out, your reasoning does not resemble our Earth logic, but even if your silly little theory was right...please tell me what the hell is wrong with supporting the troops' health? They are in a very hostile situation where it's not uncommon to die or be maimed for life. Even if the only thing you can say is that you support the troops by hoping and praying that they come back alive and well, I fail to see what's so wrong with that. Or is this one of those times where you can't see the difference between supporting the war and hoping some poor 20 year old Marine doesn't step on a landmine?

But taking your theory to the logical conclusion, I would say that ONLY people who don't think like you do really have the right to say they "support the troops". You don't support the troops, you support the war. You might happen to ALSO support the troops because of the war they are fighting in, but I can only assume from your statements that as soon as a war comes up that you DON'T agree with (we might have to wait a while for that one...), you'll be joining the people spitting on the troops when they get back. Your support is conditional upon their particular actions, which means you don't really support them at all, at least not in the sense most people mean it. I support the troops as individuals, for their courage of conviction and their selfless desire to protect the country. This kind of thing is above and beyond any particular conflict, and is really at the heart of what "Support the Troops" means.

 

[Acanthus]

*BREAKING NEWS*

war causes casualties.

 

[LcarsSystem]

I can't believe that President Bush had the nerve to show up there. If I was one of those soldiers I would have punched him in his face, hell I wouldn't even shake the mans hand. Kudos to Denzel for showing up and giving them his support.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

As others have pointed out, your reasoning does not resemble our Earth logic, but even if your silly little theory was right...please tell me what the hell is wrong with supporting the troops' health? They are in a very hostile situation where it's not uncommon to die or be maimed for life. Even if the only thing you can say is that you support the troops by hoping and praying that they come back alive and well, I fail to see what's so wrong with that. Or is this one of those times where you can't see the difference between supporting the war and hoping some poor 20 year old Marine doesn't step on a landmine?

But taking your theory to the logical conclusion, I would say that ONLY people who don't think like you do really have the right to say they "support the troops". You don't support the troops, you support the war. You might happen to ALSO support the troops because of the war they are fighting in, but I can only assume from your statements that as soon as a war comes up that you DON'T agree with (we might have to wait a while for that one...), you'll be joining the people spitting on the troops when they get back. Your support is conditional upon their particular actions, which means you don't really support them at all, at least not in the sense most people mean it. I support the troops as individuals, for their courage of conviction and their selfless desire to protect the country. This kind of thing is above and beyond any particular conflict, and is really at the heart of what "Support the Troops" means.

Here's an analogy: What do you think would happen if you said to Shaqeal O Neal's face that you hated basketball, basketball sucks, it's boring, and a pointless game, but you support him! What do you think will happen next?

A) Shaqeal will feel warm and fuzzy inside from your support.
B) Give you a big hug.
C) Shake your hand.
D) Kick your arse.

Now how do you think the troops in the middle east feel about your rhetoric?

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

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.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. Know someone in Iraq and then spout the kind of BS that you are spouting here in this forum.

You are talking about arms, legs, eyes and lives for some kind of monetary consideration. Is that what America is about? Soldiers and Marines are sacrificing to prop up the dollar? Soldiers and Marines are sacrificing so that we can essentially control (i.e. steal) the natural resource from another country, or group of countries? Is that what America is about?

And I have news for you - the vast majority of those in country could give 2 sh1ts about a mission or a cause. The vast majority believes that the mission was completed when Baghdad fell and Saddam was captured. They care about their comrades and units. That is what they care about. That and getting home.

And finally - you are clueless on what is going to happen in Iraq. Fundamentalist Shi'ites with close ties to Iran, and with no love for us, are going to wind up sitting on top of most of the oil. It is a low grade civil war right now. It is only going to get worse. As we draw down, it will be the Shia militias that put down the former Baathists. It will be a brutal conflict. They will triumph in a prolonged struggle by being every bit as brutal as Saddam ever was. You got a taste of it 6 weeks ago when they were rounding up Sunni's and putting bullets in the back of their heads. That is some deal for us - we traded a neutered and harmless secular Saddam for another group of religous wackos that are going to have a ton of money.

And up north - who knows what is going to happen. It is probably even money that the Kurds and the Turks will be trading rounds within the next 5 or 10 years. And who will stop that one if it happens? NATO? When another NATO country is involved - I don't think so.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[strummer]

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.

Bunch of heroes there. It is our responsibility not to forget about their sacrifice.

Someone tries to tell you that attacking Iran is a great idea - just ask them when they are going to do their part and enlist. It will shut them right up.

Iraq is what happens when you put a bunch of incompetent, greedy MF'ers in the Whitehouse.

 

[strummer]

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 are you talking about? Did the People's Republic of China land a ground force somewhere in the Middle East without telling anybody? Would it be okay for them to do so?

 

[strummer]

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.

Crap.

 

[strummer]

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.

More crap.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

As others have pointed out, your reasoning does not resemble our Earth logic, but even if your silly little theory was right...please tell me what the hell is wrong with supporting the troops' health? They are in a very hostile situation where it's not uncommon to die or be maimed for life. Even if the only thing you can say is that you support the troops by hoping and praying that they come back alive and well, I fail to see what's so wrong with that. Or is this one of those times where you can't see the difference between supporting the war and hoping some poor 20 year old Marine doesn't step on a landmine?

But taking your theory to the logical conclusion, I would say that ONLY people who don't think like you do really have the right to say they "support the troops". You don't support the troops, you support the war. You might happen to ALSO support the troops because of the war they are fighting in, but I can only assume from your statements that as soon as a war comes up that you DON'T agree with (we might have to wait a while for that one...), you'll be joining the people spitting on the troops when they get back. Your support is conditional upon their particular actions, which means you don't really support them at all, at least not in the sense most people mean it. I support the troops as individuals, for their courage of conviction and their selfless desire to protect the country. This kind of thing is above and beyond any particular conflict, and is really at the heart of what "Support the Troops" means.

Here's an analogy: What do you think would happen if you said to Shaqeal O Neal's face that you hated basketball, basketball sucks, it's boring, and a pointless game, but you support him! What do you think will happen next?

A) Shaqeal will feel warm and fuzzy inside from your support.
B) Give you a big hug.
C) Shake your hand.
D) Kick your arse.

Now how do you think the troops in the middle east feel about your rhetoric?

The only rhetoric being thrown around is the bullsh!t that WE don't support the troops because we don't support a lie and sham of a war. I don't care if the troops approve of my stance of the war or not. I, do however, want them to come home healthy and right now. That's my support and if you don't like it, you can cram it.

I'm tired of all you neocon types telling me that I don't support the troops. Bullsh!t. Get off your @ss and fight your neoconistic view of a war.

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

As others have pointed out, your reasoning does not resemble our Earth logic, but even if your silly little theory was right...please tell me what the hell is wrong with supporting the troops' health? They are in a very hostile situation where it's not uncommon to die or be maimed for life. Even if the only thing you can say is that you support the troops by hoping and praying that they come back alive and well, I fail to see what's so wrong with that. Or is this one of those times where you can't see the difference between supporting the war and hoping some poor 20 year old Marine doesn't step on a landmine?

But taking your theory to the logical conclusion, I would say that ONLY people who don't think like you do really have the right to say they "support the troops". You don't support the troops, you support the war. You might happen to ALSO support the troops because of the war they are fighting in, but I can only assume from your statements that as soon as a war comes up that you DON'T agree with (we might have to wait a while for that one...), you'll be joining the people spitting on the troops when they get back. Your support is conditional upon their particular actions, which means you don't really support them at all, at least not in the sense most people mean it. I support the troops as individuals, for their courage of conviction and their selfless desire to protect the country. This kind of thing is above and beyond any particular conflict, and is really at the heart of what "Support the Troops" means.

Here's an analogy: What do you think would happen if you said to Shaqeal O Neal's face that you hated basketball, basketball sucks, it's boring, and a pointless game, but you support him! What do you think will happen next?

A) Shaqeal will feel warm and fuzzy inside from your support.
B) Give you a big hug.
C) Shake your hand.
D) Kick your arse.

Now how do you think the troops in the middle east feel about your rhetoric?

They are probably wondering why they ever signed up for military service under a jesus crazy warmonger.

But to address your point, this is the problem with the mindset today. The "You criticize me, I'm going to kick your ass!" mentality. There is no room anymore for discourse without violence. Certainly I would not want anyone representing the "Free World" with this mentality.


But, I also think that the majority of the population and troops in general know this is a screwed up war, and it is a wrong war, the only reason they are there is because of Bush, not the bs story about "faulty intelligence" which has already been disproven. And if they had a chance to go back most probably wouldn't have gone much less signed up. Luckily I am saved from the draft myself because if I was called to war like I said in my above post I would sooner go to D.C. and punch Bush in the face than go fight for him on his own personal crusade.

 

[Polish3d]

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.

I don't agree.

I think you can wish for the best for the soldiers, particularly after they return home, but believe that what they have been ordered is a faulty course.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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.

Thats a total crock of caca.
It very well is possible to support the troops and NOT the cause!!!

The troops had no choice but to go.....
Keeping that in mind we do NOT have to support the cause in order to support the troops!!
You alos in your rush to cause some trouble don`t understand that saying at all!!

By supporting the troops we mean to pray for them and to support them through communicating with them and other such things!!

It doesn`t mean I have to support the killing in order to support the troops!!

 

[GroundedSailor]

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.

Bvllshyt! I support the well being and safety of the troops but not the the stupid mission they have been given in Iraq.

The troops will do as they are told. So it's not fair to assign any blame on them for the politics of the civilian bosses.

 

[Red Dawn]

Oh how I wish this situation was reversed.. The one with the injury does not deserve it where as the one without it does!

 

[ECUHITMAN]

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.

First let?s define what 'support' is.
According to Google:
Support
1) The activity of providing for or maintaining by supplying with money or necessities
2) Give moral or psychological support, aid, or courage
3) Back
(The list goes on)
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=support

Now based on the two definitions posted above I am not exactly sure why you have to support the war itself (i.e. back) to support (i.e. provide for or maintain their ability to do their job by proving them with the necessities they need)the troops.

For example:
I support the troops getting/having the best most user friendly weapons and body armor.

I support the troops in that if I feel and other military leaders (i.e. Generals) feel that the militaries leadership is poor and better leadership would reduce causalities, then I support a change in leadership.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

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.

First let?s define what 'support' is.
According to Google:
Support
1) The activity of providing for or maintaining by supplying with money or necessities
2) Give moral or psychological support, aid, or courage
3) Back
(The list goes on)
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=support

Now based on the two definitions posted above I am not exactly sure why you have to support the war itself (i.e. back) to support (i.e. provide for or maintain their ability to do their job by proving them with the necessities they need)the troops.

For example:
I support the troops getting/having the best most user friendly weapons and body armor.

I support the troops in that if I feel and other military leaders (i.e. Generals) feel that the militaries leadership is poor and better leadership would reduce causalities, then I support a change in leadership.

You are talking over his head, he'll never understand your post.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yup, I'm really getting over the hill. I think I'll retire after my sophomore year in college and having only been able to legally drink for 3 months.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

As others have pointed out, your reasoning does not resemble our Earth logic, but even if your silly little theory was right...please tell me what the hell is wrong with supporting the troops' health? They are in a very hostile situation where it's not uncommon to die or be maimed for life. Even if the only thing you can say is that you support the troops by hoping and praying that they come back alive and well, I fail to see what's so wrong with that. Or is this one of those times where you can't see the difference between supporting the war and hoping some poor 20 year old Marine doesn't step on a landmine?

But taking your theory to the logical conclusion, I would say that ONLY people who don't think like you do really have the right to say they "support the troops". You don't support the troops, you support the war. You might happen to ALSO support the troops because of the war they are fighting in, but I can only assume from your statements that as soon as a war comes up that you DON'T agree with (we might have to wait a while for that one...), you'll be joining the people spitting on the troops when they get back. Your support is conditional upon their particular actions, which means you don't really support them at all, at least not in the sense most people mean it. I support the troops as individuals, for their courage of conviction and their selfless desire to protect the country. This kind of thing is above and beyond any particular conflict, and is really at the heart of what "Support the Troops" means.

Okay, I just think it's a lame, cowardly stance on the war. Either support everything they are doing, what they are trying to accomplish, and who they are working for along with their health and safety or don't support the troops at all. I'm sick of this two-sided stance.