Middle east outcome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

Are you really trying to argue that Hamas and Hezbollah are not a bunch of scumbags?

If they are so great, why aren't they in the UN? If they aren't terrorists, and we are, we should probably move our families there because it will be so much better, right?

---

Are you arguing that we're not a bunch of scumbags?

We just tore apart two nations because we were angry. (Better yet, we removed two of our own puppet governments!)

For some reason, we always see any Israeli conflict from an Israeli point off view. As Kenyth said, these are old conflicts. Every time we see Israel "retaliating" for something, that thing was in retaliation for something Israel did, which was in retaliation for something else, which was in retaliation for... well, you get the picture.

I really wish we'd just tell Israel to STFU and sit down. They are supposed to be the responsible nation, they need to learn to deal without jumping to violence. In my opinion, they're just as bad as any of the "terrorist groups" they fight against, they just have bigger toys.

No, I don't really think most of us are scumbags, I think the people who decided to kill over 3,000 innocent people in a non-military building scumbags.

Unfortunately, people like that are out there, so they have to be hunted down and stopped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

No, I don't really think most of us are scumbags, I think the people who decided to kill over 3,000 innocent people in a non-military building scumbags.

Unfortunately, people like that are out there, so they have to be hunted down and stopped.

---

How does 3000 compare to 40,000?

This is a cool site that's been tracking the number of civilian deaths since the US got involved in Iraq...

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

**thread hijack on**
You guys hear about the Tsunami that just hit Indonesia.... CNN has reported that Bush was behind it

**thread hijack off**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperChuck

How does 3000 compare to 40,000?

This is a cool site that's been tracking the number of civilian deaths since the US got involved in Iraq...

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

---

Who gives a shit.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bkcloud114

Who gives a shit.........

---

We pee on ourselves when 3000 of our own civilians are killed, but it's okay to kill 40,000 of someone else's civilians?

Everyone should read the book "Refined by Fire" by Brian and Mel Birdwell. If you can read that and still give a shit a about some nutcase with a diaper on his head, I would be truly impressed.

Even if that website were accurate or mentioned any reasons why it should be credible, I probably wouldn't care. At least we conduct precision military strikes on military targets, drop food and supplies to civilians, and even set our POW's up in a nice prison cell with three squares a day. Name another country in the history of warfare that has done anything like that. I guess maybe the Nazis making my grandpa march with a broken leg and no food or electricity for miles comes pretty close.

Nobody wants to be in a war - it sucks, people die, we all know that. But if we sit here on our ass, its only a matter of time before the enemy - which lacks any kind of logical thought or reasoning - is on our own doorstep. Look at France in WWII - they ignore the obivous psychopath next door, feel that they can sit on their ass all day, and all of a sudden you are occupied, and expect the rest of the world to bail you out. Is that what we're supposed to do?

I don't like the idea of people dying more than anyone else, but they way I see it, when you have all these weirdos running around you have to stop them, or at least try. I have a piece of the rubble from the Pentagon sitting here on my desk, and looking at that, its hard for me to justify taking no action. Do I know exactly what the correct action is? Hell no. Do we need to do more than nothing? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

Even if that website were accurate or mentioned any reasons why it should be credible, I probably wouldn't care.

---

Hahaha, click on View Database. It lists each and every report and its source. Running down the most recent few, it lists CNN, AFP, AP, Reuters, and Washington Post. If those aren't accurate sources, I'm not sure what is.

They actually used to do a much better job, listing what each news outlet was reporting for each incident. If you didn't think our news sources were craptacular before, this would have convinced you. The US news outlets were routinely lower than the BBC or Al-Jazeera numbers.

Civilians die in war and that sucks. But when your war is based on falsified intelligence and you target civilian areas under false pretenses, that's pretty borderline terrorism. When Kuwaitis were killed in Hussein's invasion, we called it atrocities. When we bomb a market, it's called "collateral damage". It's all a matter of perspective.

If they weren't killed directly by us, I don't see why we should be held accountable. By that logic the parents of the suicide bombers are also responsible for the deaths because they conceived the killer. How many of these deaths were still occurring before the war even started?

I'm not saying I think the war in Iraq was the greatest idea ever. I'm saying that blaming the US for every violent death in Iraq now that we're there is bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenyth

If they weren't killed directly by us, I don't see why we should be held accountable. By that logic the parents of the suicide bombers are also responsible for the deaths because they conceived the killer. How many of these deaths were still occurring before the war even started?

I'm not saying I think the war in Iraq was the greatest idea ever. I'm saying that blaming the US for every violent death in Iraq now that we're there is bullshit.

---

Yeah, I wish they'd separate out direct US deaths vs. terror attacks.

I do know that it was up around 4000 civilian deaths before the ground campaign started. I would think the majority of the deaths are directly caused by US acts, but that's just based on finger counting (5 people here and 20 there).

I can see where they're going with including the suicide bombings as an indirect result of US activity, but like you said, there's only so much blame you can place on the US for that. I mean, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day 1, but I didn't imagine the outcome would be al Qaeda suicide bombing the hell out of it.

I really really didn't want to get involved in this, but god damnit...

1. Can you possibly imagine any terrorist organization taking the absurd steps that we have to preserve civilian life??? As afore mentioned, we precision strike, drop supplies, and treat POWs with a civility above and beyond any other country we engage.

2. I don't buy the stats on that site for anything. Is there any differentiation between military casualties, civilians killed by insurgents, or civilians killed by their own countrymen? Also, when you have a war that lasts for three years and you can (or at least attempt) to catalogue every Iraqi death that means that we are doing one hell of a job preserving life. Lastly, if you could actually count the civilian deaths caused by the US invasion you should try comparing that to the number of civilians that would have been killed by Sadam's dictatorship.

3. We as a country are losing our evolutionary edge. We see a country that threatens our citizens, security, and way of life and we SHOULD bomb them until they aren't a threat anymore. We live, those who oppose die, that's how the terrorists operate. If they had weapons and military power like we do the US would be a patch of radioactive dirt and we'd all be dead.

4. How you can compare Bush to the psychos running nations like Iran, Iraq (formerly), N. Korea, Lebanon, Afghanistan (formerly), etc.; you are out of your mind. You might not like his politics, but give me a break.

I hate arguing with liberals b/c they believe that ranting and raving are substitutes for facts and logic. You show me a Democrat candidate that has a PLAN for withdrawal from Iraq (pulling everyone out after a 12 month deadline is not a plan) and I will actually consider for voting for one. A platform that says "I am not Bush so vote for me" is the reason that Kerry had the worst popular vote % since before the Reagan era.

Reply as you please, but don’t expect a reply. Dueling with the libs on this board is like pounding your head against a brick wall. Actually, when I do pound my head against the wall I can actually see the wall’s point of view.

The site is stupid and the author obviously has an agenda. How many were killed before we got there in the previous 3 years? Does he have a site for that? The author of that site wants to blame the US for every death in a country that's been at war with itself and neighboring countries for 2,000 years. Give me a fucking break and use your head for something other than a god damn hat rack. Sometimes I wonder if these people who think they are so smart have the brains to think their way out of a fucking paper bag! I don't know who is worse, the ones that post this shit or the ones that rally around it. That was one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen.

lets just give Isreal the MOAB and let them drop it on the Hezbolla :smiley37: :smiley31: :smiley20:

Hehe, so much to say, but I'm going to abstain.

This thread has gotten completely out of control. I'm sorry I stoked the flames...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperChuck

Hehe, so much to say, but I'm going to abstain.

This thread has gotten completely out of control. I'm sorry I stoked the flames...

---

Same here, it was fun for a couple days though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

Same here, it was fun for a couple days though.

---

Totally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperChuck

Hehe, so much to say, but I'm going to abstain.

This thread has gotten completely out of control. I'm sorry I stoked the flames...

---

I agree, kind of.

But notice the name calling, and pissing and moaning came from the neocons. But wait, it's OK for them to whine like babies about those "damn Liberals" calling their beloved POTUS a POS, or trying to kill their "god", but they whine, bitch, and moan more than anyone else.

And, SuperChucks link is correct in blaming all of the civilian deaths in Iraq, since the U.S. invasion, on us. First, there was NO insurgent activity in Iraq, untill we got there. Second, our wise :smiley24: POTUS and lousy staff, ignored warnings from certain advisors, and failed to consider or prepare for anything past the first week in Iraq.

So, it was our uber-intelligent POS POTUS, that destabilized Iraq, and thus led directly to thousands of civilians deaths.

To all the neocons unable to form an opinion not pre-announced on FOX "news", PUT DOWN THE KOOLAID, AND BACK AWAY SLOWLY! :smiley36:

Ok, so if the insurgency/terrorism/islamo-fascism is a direct result of our actions, then they must be doing that stuff because they are pissed off at us, correct? So I'm wondering, is the solution here to appease the fascists, walk on egg-shells around them and make sure they don't get upset?

I understand where your argument is coming from, but it seems flawed to me because if a psycho commits a crime, the person who comitted the crime is at fault.

Sure, we can go round and round about how it is indirectly the US's fault, but do you think someone as unstable as terrorists are going to need a good reason to do something stupid? No, its a matter of time. I mean, 9/11 was unprovoked, and it won't be long before Iran gives the world community a reason to do something about them, same with Kim Jong.

I guess my argument is that terrorists have to be hunted, plain and simple. The whole world should feel that way. It sucks we have to do it because it causes problems, costs a shitload of money, etc. - but whose fault is it we have to go hunt them? The terrorists, that's who.

BTW, I don't really watch the news that much, but does anyone else automatically think of Inside Edition when they see that O'Reilly factor guy?

Sorry guys, I don't go for the "indirect" route for fault. You can weave an infinite web of fault using that kind of logic. If I have a gun to someones's head and tell you "Don't move, or I'll shoot him!" and you move, triggering me to shoot, it's not your fault the guy is murdered, it's mine. Certainly, having the foresight to not move would have been a smarter thing for you to do, but that doesn't make the death your responsibility. There's no guarantee that if you didn't move, I wouldn't have killed him anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenyth

Sorry guys, I don't go for the "indirect" route for fault. You can weave an infinite web of fault using that kind of logic. If I have a gun to someones's head and tell you "Don't move, or I'll shoot him!" and you move, triggering me to shoot, it's not your fault the guy is murdered, it's mine. Certainly, having the foresight to not move would have been a smarter thing for you to do, but that doesn't make the death your responsibility. There's no guarantee that if you didn't move, I wouldn't have killed him anyway.

---

Depending on your use of judgment, you can be considered at least partially responsible. You didn't pull the trigger, but if you decided to be a hero or a fool, your action indirectly resulted in death. If a member of your family were to be taken hostage in such a way, you would want everyone to remain calm and cooperate; if some hothead did something stupid, you would certainly hold him responsible. There's some amount of judgment involved.

Similarly, if someone is driving on the wrong side of the road, causing another driver to swerve off into a telephone pole, the driver on the wrong side of the road is responsible. That driver did not directly do anything which directly affected the other driver (in fact, he never touched him). The other driver could have made a move that would not involve driving into a pole.

We hold other nations responsible for their indirect actions. Selling weapons to insurgents, for example. There's even some talk about blaming Iran for suggesting to Hezbullah that they could capture an Israeli soldier. These are things that aren't done directly, but that hold indirect responsibility.