• 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."

John McCain admits hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq war

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=311_1207160690

Was/is it worth it?
My hypothesis is that McCain's estimate is fairly accurate.
So in order to save a few thousand American lives we have killed hundreds of thousands of ignorant world peoples that don't know shit from shinola.
Well, yes, except it didn't save a few thousand american lives, it cost 4k. Any insane, gangbusters fvcking ignorant links that some (not pointing at OP, just pre-empting:)) make between iraq and "avoided terrorist attacks" is conjecture (and bad conjecture).

By any reasonable definiteion of success, this isn't even in the same dictionary. It has been the greatest blunder by America since Vietnam. I cannot think of any blunder as big as Iraq since Vietnam, can any of you?
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Delegitimizing the single biggest terrorist organization in the world.

Yeah, what a fuck up Iraq has been......
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Welcome to the corruption of power.

'What's the point of having this superb military that you've always been talking about if we can't use it?''
Madeleine K. Albright, then-UN Ambassador. to then-JCS Chairman Colin Powell
You're got to do *something* with it, which is why the founding fathers saw a standing military as a great threat to democracy.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
- James Madison
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Delegitimizing the single biggest terrorist organization in the world.

Yeah, what a fuck up Iraq has been......
When you tell children that good behavior puts them on Santa's 'good list' for presents, they believe it.

And when you tell them that war against Iraq harms Al Queda, they believe it, because comprehending how it actually helps Al Queda is not within their simplistic views.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,322
0
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Delegitimizing the single biggest terrorist organization in the world.

Yeah, what a fuck up Iraq has been......
I would lawl but your ignorance should be criminal.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Delegitimizing the single biggest terrorist organization in the world.

Yeah, what a fuck up Iraq has been......
When you tell children that good behavior puts them on Santa's 'good list' for presents, they believe it.

And when you tell them that war against Iraq harms Al Queda, they believe it, because comprehending how it actually helps Al Queda is not within their simplistic views.
Thats whats so interesting about you die har dliberals. You always make referneces to fantasy to describe that which you dont agree with, as if your opinion is the only natural way things should be. Anything else of course is fantasy. Then of course rather the face the facts of my statement you simply veer off into left feild talking about "simplistic views".

How very fitting for you. Well done.

Heres but one example. I could find more, but why waste my time? Again rather then realize the facts of the situation you will side step then or simply deny them as coming from a biased news source. Which is essentially admitting that you refuse to accept anything if it isnt to your liking. So while the FACTS of the situation may not be to your liking they cetainly arent changed by your decision to ignore them.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
You're got to do *something* with it, which is why the founding fathers saw a standing military as a great threat to democracy.
Although Caligula was a bad film overall, the scene where Caligula orders his troops, naked from the waist down, to "attack Britain" is priceless in this context.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Perry404
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=311_1207160690

Was/is it worth it?
My hypothesis is that McCain's estimate is fairly accurate.
So in order to save a few thousand American lives we have killed hundreds of thousands of ignorant world peoples that don't know shit from shinola.
Well, yes, except it didn't save a few thousand american lives, it cost 4k. Any insane, gangbusters fvcking ignorant links that some (not pointing at OP, just pre-empting:)) make between iraq and "avoided terrorist attacks" is conjecture (and bad conjecture).

By any reasonable definiteion of success, this isn't even in the same dictionary. It has been the greatest blunder by America since Vietnam. I cannot think of any blunder as big as Iraq since Vietnam, can any of you?
Well for arguments sake lets pretend that ten 9/11's might have happened.
30'000 Americans dead verses murdering 100,000+ Iraqis. Was it worth it?
 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
24
81
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Delegitimizing the single biggest terrorist organization in the world.

Yeah, what a fuck up Iraq has been......
When you tell children that good behavior puts them on Santa's 'good list' for presents, they believe it.

And when you tell them that war against Iraq harms Al Queda, they believe it, because comprehending how it actually helps Al Queda is not within their simplistic views.
Thats whats so interesting about you die har dliberals. You always make referneces to fantasy to describe that which you dont agree with, as if your opinion is the only natural way things should be. Anything else of course is fantasy. Then of course rather the face the facts of my statement you simply veer off into left feild talking about "simplistic views".

How very fitting for you. Well done.

Heres but one example. I could find more, but why waste my time? Again rather then realize the facts of the situation you will side step then or simply deny them as coming from a biased news source. Which is essentially admitting that you refuse to accept anything if it isnt to your liking. So while the FACTS of the situation may not be to your liking they cetainly arent changed by your decision to ignore them.
Don't you dare call me a liberal! I assure I am twice as conservative as you, more importantly, I understand why, and I think bringing a military conflict to Iraq was about the worst decision made by free men, ever.

Your scorching inability to see the situation for what it is, while you spout your ignorant, spoon-fed, jingoistic rhetoric is infuriating to people with more than 3 living brain cells because they know your fucking stupid voice counts just as much as theirs.

People like you almost make a viable argument for eugenics.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Delegitimizing the single biggest terrorist organization in the world.

Yeah, what a fuck up Iraq has been......
When you tell children that good behavior puts them on Santa's 'good list' for presents, they believe it.

And when you tell them that war against Iraq harms Al Queda, they believe it, because comprehending how it actually helps Al Queda is not within their simplistic views.
Thats whats so interesting about you die har dliberals. You always make referneces to fantasy to describe that which you dont agree with, as if your opinion is the only natural way things should be. Anything else of course is fantasy. Then of course rather the face the facts of my statement you simply veer off into left feild talking about "simplistic views".

How very fitting for you. Well done.

Heres but one example. I could find more, but why waste my time? Again rather then realize the facts of the situation you will side step then or simply deny them as coming from a biased news source. Which is essentially admitting that you refuse to accept anything if it isnt to your liking. So while the FACTS of the situation may not be to your liking they cetainly arent changed by your decision to ignore them.
Don't you dare call me a liberal! I assure I am twice as conservative as you, more importantly, I understand why, and I think bringing a military conflict to Iraq was about the worst decision made by free men, ever.

Your scorching inability to see the situation for what it is, while you spout your ignorant, spoon-fed, jingoistic rhetoric is infuriating to people with more than 3 living brain cells because they know your fucking stupid voice counts just as much as theirs.

People like you almost make a viable argument for eugenics.
You've proven your ability to type. Unfortunately this doesnt include an ability to think.

You never addressed why we should not be in Iraq. Perhaps when you have a thought of your own outside of what CNN tells you to think you can type something besides "blah blah blah you shoudl be killed". And for the record, I wont consider your statement a threat on my life.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Delegitimizing the single biggest terrorist organization in the world.

Yeah, what a fuck up Iraq has been......
When you tell children that good behavior puts them on Santa's 'good list' for presents, they believe it.

And when you tell them that war against Iraq harms Al Queda, they believe it, because comprehending how it actually helps Al Queda is not within their simplistic views.
Thats whats so interesting about you die har dliberals. You always make referneces to fantasy to describe that which you dont agree with, as if your opinion is the only natural way things should be. Anything else of course is fantasy. Then of course rather the face the facts of my statement you simply veer off into left feild talking about "simplistic views".

How very fitting for you. Well done.

Heres but one example. I could find more, but why waste my time? Again rather then realize the facts of the situation you will side step then or simply deny them as coming from a biased news source. Which is essentially admitting that you refuse to accept anything if it isnt to your liking. So while the FACTS of the situation may not be to your liking they cetainly arent changed by your decision to ignore them.
Yes, it's just "die har liberals" that think Iraq has been a monumental waste. :roll:

Do you honestly think terrorists are stupid enough to engage us in firefights in Iraq rather than carry out, you know, terrorist acts? Like they couldn't figure out how to stroll across the southern border and do something to actually hurt the US. No, they're going to pick up AK47s and start shooting at US tanks in the middle of Baghdad. :roll:
 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
24
81
Well, let's see there...

1. It was a sovereign nation.
2. It was not a threat to us.
3. All evidence used to convince the public of the necessity to invade was shoddy, inaccurate, biased, and plain falsified.
4. We are not the world police.
5. Support for the action was only obtained via fear mongering.
6. The highjackers were all Saudi and 1 Jordanian and 1 Syian or something. Zero Iraqis.
7. Iraq was a secular nation, now it's a religious one, congratulations on moving an entire country back a century or 10.

Those are the moral arguments.

8. Prior to the invasion, religious terrorists in Iraq had a shorter life expectancy than female fetuses in India. It is the destabilization that made Iraq a terrorist haven.
9. It costs us a lot of money and lives.
10. It is an obvious shiny object to divert our attention from the Bush administration's other dealings, which have been profoundly detrimental to the foundation of this country.
11. It's a way to hide a lot of money and has been used as such.
12. It cost Iraq a lot of lives.
13. It's an obvious excuse to maintain a permanent base of operations in a territory of the world that does not like us, but which we depend on.

Those are the more or less practical ones.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
So in order to save a few thousand American lives we have killed hundreds of thousands of ignorant world peoples that don't know shit from shinola.
Iraq chooses to have civil wars. - Therefore, the word we is a stretch of responsibility.

It was a pressure cooker that the lid was being kept on by Saddam.

Are we responsible for all those killed by Japan because we were cutting of their access to Pacific islands?

 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Well, let's see there...

1. It was a sovereign nation.
2. It was not a threat to us.
3. All evidence used to convince the public of the necessity to invade was shoddy, inaccurate, biased, and plain falsified.
4. We are not the world police.
5. Support for the action was only obtained via fear mongering.
6. The highjackers were all Saudi and 1 Jordanian and 1 Syian or something. Zero Iraqis.
7. Iraq was a secular nation, now it's a religious one, congratulations on moving an entire country back a century or 10.

Those are the moral arguments.

8. Prior to the invasion, religious terrorists in Iraq had a shorter life expectancy than female fetuses in India. It is the destabilization that made Iraq a terrorist haven.
9. It costs us a lot of money and lives.
10. It is an obvious shiny object to divert our attention from the Bush administration's other dealings, which have been profoundly detrimental to the foundation of this country.
11. It's a way to hide a lot of money and has been used as such.
12. It cost Iraq a lot of lives.
13. It's an obvious excuse to maintain a permanent base of operations in a territory of the world that does not like us, but which we depend on.

Those are the more or less practical ones.

That's what he's saying

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Delegitimizing the single biggest terrorist organization in the world.

Yeah, what a fuck up Iraq has been......

Ooooh wait, I see now, he was talking about Al-Qaedaaaaa
;)
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yes, it's just "die har liberals" that think Iraq has been a monumental waste. :roll:

Do you honestly think terrorists are stupid enough to engage us in firefights in Iraq rather than carry out, you know, terrorist acts? Like they couldn't figure out how to stroll across the southern border and do something to actually hurt the US. No, they're going to pick up AK47s and start shooting at US tanks in the middle of Baghdad. :roll:
So you claim terrorists wouldnt be stupid enough to attack us in Iraq. Isnt that whats been happening? havent they been attacking us in Iraq?? :confused:

As to strolling across on getting us, yeah it'll probably happen. Its a matter of if, not when. But, showing their ineffectiveness in Iraq has been a strong tool in stemming the abilities to recruit new members. Additionally, if we can pull off setting up a democratic islamic nation that will go a long ways to thwarting terrorist organization as well.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,919
3,443
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
You never addressed why we should not be in Iraq.
Terrorism is the chosen method of warfare by Islamic Supremacists, who are a cancer within Islam. That host is here in our nation and the attacks against us will also come from within just as 9-11 did. Iraq is nothing more than a distraction to deflect any substantive debate over what we're going to do to cure this cancer on our own soil.

It consumes our blood and our coin to produce nothing more substantive than the next Islamic Regime akin to Iran. Anyone who likes Iran would certainly like Iraq in the next 30 years. Everyone else will recognize that we got screwed in this deal. Especially as Islamic Terrorism continues to grow on our soil.

Pardon if I fail the see the advantages here, without that any cost whatsoever is too much to bear when getting nothing in return.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Well, let's see there...

1. It was a sovereign nation.
2. It was not a threat to us.
3. All evidence used to convince the public of the necessity to invade was shoddy, inaccurate, biased, and plain falsified.
4. We are not the world police.
5. Support for the action was only obtained via fear mongering.
6. The highjackers were all Saudi and 1 Jordanian and 1 Syian or something. Zero Iraqis.
7. Iraq was a secular nation, now it's a religious one, congratulations on moving an entire country back a century or 10.

Those are the moral arguments.

8. Prior to the invasion, religious terrorists in Iraq had a shorter life expectancy than female fetuses in India. It is the destabilization that made Iraq a terrorist haven.
9. It costs us a lot of money and lives.
10. It is an obvious shiny object to divert our attention from the Bush administration's other dealings, which have been profoundly detrimental to the foundation of this country.
11. It's a way to hide a lot of money and has been used as such.
12. It cost Iraq a lot of lives.
13. It's an obvious excuse to maintain a permanent base of operations in a territory of the world that does not like us, but which we depend on.

Those are the more or less practical ones.
All evidence?? You mean the evidence that fooled the majority of the world, including America, United Kingdom, Australia, France etc etc etc. You think the entire world was fooled by Bushs lie that Saddam had WDM's?? He must be one hell of a liar....either that or most of the world had bad information. Most of which was due to Saddams burning desire to keep it that way. So much so in fact it gave grounds for military action, like it or not. As for moving the country back a century or 10....Hello McFly. Your talking about a religion that supports beating its women and stoning people. I dont think we're really setting them back one bit. But ulteimately Saddams unwillingness to meet the terms as laid out by Gulf War I gave us legitimate reasons to invade.

Now for the moral arguments, well done. At least you've highlighted some of the major shortcomings. There has been a lot of waste with Iraq, I wont deny it. But one key reasont o invade is to set up a base. As for a territory that does not like us, who doesnt like us? Saudia Arabia at least gives us lip service. Egypt is an ally, Israel is an ally. Oh, you mean the radical islamic states dont like us.....You mean, the same people who by and large want to see the West wiped off the map?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Well, let's see there...

1. It was a sovereign nation.
2. It was not a threat to us.
3. All evidence used to convince the public of the necessity to invade was shoddy, inaccurate, biased, and plain falsified.
4. We are not the world police.
5. Support for the action was only obtained via fear mongering.
6. The highjackers were all Saudi and 1 Jordanian and 1 Syian or something. Zero Iraqis.
7. Iraq was a secular nation, now it's a religious one, congratulations on moving an entire country back a century or 10.

Those are the moral arguments.

8. Prior to the invasion, religious terrorists in Iraq had a shorter life expectancy than female fetuses in India. It is the destabilization that made Iraq a terrorist haven.
9. It costs us a lot of money and lives.
10. It is an obvious shiny object to divert our attention from the Bush administration's other dealings, which have been profoundly detrimental to the foundation of this country.
11. It's a way to hide a lot of money and has been used as such.
12. It cost Iraq a lot of lives.
13. It's an obvious excuse to maintain a permanent base of operations in a territory of the world that does not like us, but which we depend on.

Those are the more or less practical ones.
All evidence?? You mean the evidence that fooled the majority of the world, including America, United Kingdom, Australia, France etc etc etc. You think the entire world was fooled by Bushs lie that Saddam had WDM's?? He must be one hell of a liar....either that or most of the world had bad information. Most of which was due to Saddams burning desire to keep it that way. So much so in fact it gave grounds for military action, like it or not. As for moving the country back a century or 10....Hello McFly. Your talking about a religion that supports beating its women and stoning people. I dont think we're really setting them back one bit. But ulteimately Saddams unwillingness to meet the terms as laid out by Gulf War I gave us legitimate reasons to invade.

Now for the moral arguments, well done. At least you've highlighted some of the major shortcomings. There has been a lot of waste with Iraq, I wont deny it. But one key reasont o invade is to set up a base. As for a territory that does not like us, who doesnt like us? Saudia Arabia at least gives us lip service. Egypt is an ally, Israel is an ally. Oh, you mean the radical islamic states dont like us.....You mean, the same people who by and large want to see the West wiped off the map?
And there are your excuses for having hundreds of thousands die for a purely elective war.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Delegitimizing the single biggest terrorist organization in the world.

Yeah, what a fuck up Iraq has been......
When you tell children that good behavior puts them on Santa's 'good list' for presents, they believe it.

And when you tell them that war against Iraq harms Al Queda, they believe it, because comprehending how it actually helps Al Queda is not within their simplistic views.
Thats whats so interesting about you die har dliberals. You always make referneces to fantasy to describe that which you dont agree with, as if your opinion is the only natural way things should be. Anything else of course is fantasy. Then of course rather the face the facts of my statement you simply veer off into left feild talking about "simplistic views".

How very fitting for you. Well done.

Heres but one example. I could find more, but why waste my time? Again rather then realize the facts of the situation you will side step then or simply deny them as coming from a biased news source. Which is essentially admitting that you refuse to accept anything if it isnt to your liking. So while the FACTS of the situation may not be to your liking they cetainly arent changed by your decision to ignore them.
It's pretty audacious for you to make the argument on the high ground of using facts. Your side is pretty allergic to them.

You do make the rare effort to at least provide one, your link, so let's give it its full due.

It points out that Al Queda recruitment and retention in Iraq is not going well.

Now, when you add the fact that Al Queda had no operational ability in Iraq before the war, that puts it in a different light; any operational capacity is an increase.

When you add in the more global perspective of how much the war has turned Middle-Eaastern opinion against the US and given Al Queda an outstanding political cause for use - not unlike the way 9/11 provided the Bush administration its power to stop being an unpopular, failed administration iwthout any theme the public was interested in, at least for a while - that sort of puts your fact in some context, showing that the fact supports the conclusion other than yours, that the war in Iras has helped Al Queda.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty audacious for you to make the argument on the high ground of using facts. Your side is pretty allergic to them.

You do make the rare effort to at least provide one, your link, so let's give it its full due.

It points out that Al Queda recruitment and retention in Iraq is not going well.

Now, when you add the fact that Al Queda had no operational ability in Iraq before the war, that puts it in a different light; any operational capacity is an increase.

When you add in the more global perspective of how much the war has turned Middle-Eaastern opinion against the US and given Al Queda an outstanding political cause for use - not unlike the way 9/11 provided the Bush administration its power to stop being an unpopular, failed administration iwthout any theme the public was interested in, at least for a while - that sort of puts your fact in some context, showing that the fact supports the conclusion other than yours, that the war in Iras has helped Al Queda.
These are the type of posts I expect from you Craig, not that other shit.

I cant speak to AQ presence in Iraq before the war. If you have links as to what it is I would be interested but I would venture it wasnt nearly what it is in other countries. Which should solidify the point AQ is having problems. Most of the combatants they would have in Iraq would be recruits from elsewhere. If theres less terrorists in Iraq one can conclude theres less recruitment abroad, where the original terrorists came from.

Additionally Iraq is about AQ. Its about "terrorists". You can be a terrorist and not be in Al Queda. The majority of combatants in Iraq and not from Iraq. This conflict there is pulling in terrorists from around the globe to fight America in Iraq. And every day they are unsuccessful is one less day they spend planning offensive operations in America, is one less day they have breathing room for training and recruitment and is one less terrorist trying to strike the West in the West. When was the last terrorist attack outside of the middle east?

Now I wont argue that "its our own fault". But, we can hardly start placing blame now for 40 years of fucked up foreign policy. All we can do is deal with the cards we were dealt from previous hands. While we may have originally formed them, trained them and equipped them those days are long gone. They are now our enemy. To qoute the played out saying "We can fight them here or we can fight them there, but we WILL fight them". I would think the past 2 decades of terrorist attacks would show trying to ignore them wont stop them.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
And there are your excuses for having hundreds of thousands die for a purely elective war.
Does that figure include enemy combatants killed? If so its a bullshit number and you know it as well as I do in regards to how horrible this war has been.

Want to make any bets it does include enemy combatants killed?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,358
5,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
not unlike the way 9/11 provided the Bush administration its power to stop being an unpopular, failed administration
i like how you declare the bush admin as failed and unpopular 7 months into it.

fact is he hovered in approval in the mid 50s for those 7 months, which is slightly better than his approval rating on the first tuesday after the first monday in november, 2000. i'd like to see the disapproval and no opinion charts for other presidents as well, but all i've got is for bush.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
And there are your excuses for having hundreds of thousands die for a purely elective war.
Does that figure include enemy combatants killed? If so its a bullshit number and you know it as well as I do in regards to how horrible this war has been.

Want to make any bets it does include enemy combatants killed?
You mean the enemy combatants that weren't enemies or their before?

There are many many thousands dead because of our actions. Of course you can blame others for taking advantage of an opportunity a 10 year old could foresee.

Bush wanted Saddam. He used whatever excuse to get him because he wanted to do it. He used aluminum tubes that the nuke experts said weren't useable, but a CIA operative said they were. So Bush sold it. We gave intel to other nations, then used that as evidence that others knew Saddam had an active WMD program.

Time after time a reason was sought, a justification.

In the end we made a war we didn't need to, and thousands and thousands died who did not need to. Again an elective war.

We are America the lesser for it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS