Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a surprize... the level of killing is greater in wartime than peace time.
So, you concede that virtually none of this wanton death would have occurred if we hadn't foolishly invaded, thereby creating five years (and counting) worth of needless wartime. You could have just said so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
No.... That is one of the reasons I was in the minority before the war started when I was opposed to going. Now that we are there, you can't blame our troops for illegal actions such as roadside bombings and such questions do exactly that for no other reason than political gain.
Your apparent position (although you didn't start it) is that the US bears no responsibility for Iraqi IED's and car-bombs that would never have come into being at all had it not been for the US invasion??? That sounds a little Bushspeak-ish to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
This is not a yes or no question... it is a false dichotomy - So my answer will not fit one of your choices. As it turned out, the ability to do so much damage to al Qaeda was a side benefit to the war... not to be confused with a reason to go to war.
It wasn't a false dichotomy to US intelligence agencies. And in their view, "so much damage" has left the terrorists stronger, not weaker. That doesn't really stand up as a "benefit" in my book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
Bonus question (yes or no) Has al Qaeda attacked American Soil since 9/11??
Double bonus... Do you think they would have if they could have?
No, they've chosen to attack various other targets around the world instead. It is quite plain that they could have attacked here whenever they felt like it. There isn't much to it. It's about as easy as drug-smuggling. The fact that they haven't attacked here is evidence only of the fact that they haven't wanted to.
We didn't find WMD but we found mass graves. You are simply wrong on this one.
A lot of those mass grave were from the American demolition of the Iraqi army. Remember the 'highway of death'? The Iraqis were getting slaughtered like fish in a barrel. Thousands were buried alive by US plows. The Kurds and Shia were killed with weapons bought from the US, when they tried to topple Saddam.
So, you concede that virtually none of this wanton death would have occurred if we hadn't foolishly invaded, thereby creating five years (and counting) worth of needless wartime. You could have just said so.
I did but without the adjectives (wanton, foolishly, needless.) Those are the words that make your statement false.
Quote:
Your apparent position (although you didn't start it) is that the US bears no responsibility for Iraqi IED's and car-bombs that would never have come into being at all had it not been for the US invasion??? That sounds a little Bushspeak-ish to me.
Yep, The US is not responsible for illegal weapons our enemies make. That is the case no matter who said it. And I didn't vote for Bush and make no apologies for him.
Quote:
It wasn't a false dichotomy to US intelligence agencies. And in their view, "so much damage" has left the terrorists stronger, not weaker. That doesn't really stand up as a "benefit" in my book.
I never said that the US intelligence agencies created a false dichotomy. I said your question was a false dichotomy.
Quote:
No, they've chosen to attack various other targets around the world instead. It is quite plain that they could have attacked here whenever they felt like it. There isn't much to it. It's about as easy as drug-smuggling. The fact that they haven't attacked here is evidence only of the fact that they haven't wanted to.
Their stated goal is to kill all infidels. So you are saying that they "felt like" attacking us before we invaded Iraq and they have the capacity to since then. Also they are stronger now because our actions have really made them mad and they can recruit more easily, but they just don't feel like it?
But it can't be that we are actually thwarting attacks and they are a little afraid of retaliation since our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are somewhat effective.....Because Bush said so.
A lot of those mass grave were from the American demolition of the Iraqi army. Remember the 'highway of death'? The Iraqis were getting slaughtered like fish in a barrel. Thousands were buried alive by US plows. The Kurds and Shia were killed with weapons bought from the US, when they tried to topple Saddam.
We had a pretty good idea about the location of the thousands of Iraqi troops who died during the Gulf War as we simply collapsed their networks of fortifications, tunnels, and underground storage facilities on top of them. I think that most of the discoveries that have been described in the press as being "mass graves" do indeed represent Iraqis who were killed by other Iraqis rather than by us. Though per the earlier posts, we did set many of them up for it.
How many of them were WE responsible for? What happens to casualties in wartime? Aren't they usually buried?
Some of the mass graves that America was responsible for:
1. In February 1991, just after the start of the brief Gulf War, there was a large fight at the "Neutral Zone" located at the Iraq-Saudi border. American troops slaughtered thousands of Iraqi soldiers, after which American earth-movers plowed the Iraqis into the ground and covered them up. Thousands of Iraqis were buried in the mass graves the American military created.
2. Near the end of the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. troops slaughtered thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were retreating from Kuwait. Once again, the dead soldiers were plowed into the ground.
3. One mass grave near a Baghdad palace is known to contain Iraqi soldiers who died when American soldiers stormed Baghdad.
4. When the U.S. Marines destroyed Fallujah, at least 600 Iraqis died — and most of them were buried in mass graves set up in soccer fields, called the "Graveyard of the Martyrs" by Fallujah residents.
5. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers, were buried alive by plows mounted on Abrams battle tanks plowing tons of sand into the trenches. Just behind the tanks came Bradleys pumping 7.62mm machine gun bullets into the Iraqi troops. "I came through right after the lead company," said Army Col. Anthony Moreno, who commanded the lead brigade "What you saw was a bunch of buried trenches with people's arms and land things sticking out of them. For all I know, we could have killed thousands."
I did but without the adjectives (wanton, foolishly, needless.) Those are the words that make your statement false.
"Wanton death" as in recklessly widespread and indiscriminate. "Foolishly invaded" as in having done so on false and insuffient grounds and with truly remarkable disregard for what the actual consequences of the act would be. "Needless wartime" in that the conflict was never necessary and has accomplished none of its objectives any better than what a couple of well-placed bullets might have done.
Which of those will you claim is false again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
Yep, The US is not responsible for illegal weapons our enemies make. That is the case no matter who said it. And I didn't vote for Bush and make no apologies for him.
It doesn't matter whom you cast your vote for. The proximate cause for the manufacture and use of these weapons was the US invasion. No invasion, no weapons. Responsibility attaches to proximate cause, even if others share in culpability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
I never said that the US intelligence agencies created a false dichotomy. I said your question was a false dichotomy.
That wasn't accurate either. A false dichotomy posits only two possible answers when others exist. The quesion of whether there would be such a thing as al Qaeda in Iraq if we had not invaded does not meet that test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
Their stated goal is to kill all infidels. So you are saying that they "felt like" attacking us before we invaded Iraq and they have the capacity to since then. Also they are stronger now because our actions have really made them mad and they can recruit more easily, but they just don't feel like it?
Their expressed goal is to re-establish the Caliphate and return to the world of the 11th century or so. Otherwise, they felt like attacking us on 9/11 and did so with a little good luck and otherwise with relative ease. They could do the same again. There is nothing to stop them save an insufficiency of their own imaginations. The only reason we have not been attacked since 9/11 is that their objectives in 9/11 have been met, and there is not currently any reason for them to want to attack. The next time they DO want to attack, they will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
But it can't be that we are actually thwarting attacks and they are a little afraid of retaliation since our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are somewhat effective.....Because Bush said so.
Somewhat effective? At what? Wasting what will eventually amount to about $3 trillion? Check! Bringing about hundreds of thousands of deaths and many more often horrible injuries? Check! Creating a chaos in the Middle East that no one anywhere knows how to repair because some supposed PNAC eggheads thought it would be a good idea? Check! What else have you got on your list...killing or capturing 2/3 (or is it 3/4) of top al Qaeda leadership, forcing them simply to promote other guys into those positions? Wow...that's impressive. Kind of like bagging the big drug kingpin. It just turns somebody else into the big drug kingpin...
To obliterate a mass of people has nothing to do with morality, because society does not function on morality. All acts of violence can be justified and even blessed. The world offers more than enough proof of this.
Maybe Hillary was just appeasing a special interest group...it's probably not a good idea to not give them what they want.
What is the morality of obliterating a captive Iranian people you ask?
If a bug lands on your arm and bites you. You SMASH it.
So sorry you view the lives of other people as expendable if they BUG you. Using this logic then, if a child pesters you with a question while you're busy watching TV, it's OK to kill them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
