PDA

View Full Version : Going into the Army


Andariel
16-07-06, 03:05
I've been volunteering at a hospital for a while since I've been interested in nursing. Now I'm repulsed that I would have to clean bed pans and that type of stuff. My cousin and I are signing up to go into the Army this September. Have to take a physical but I'm sure we both are fine. We're both girls btw. I've been doing intense cardio & weight lifting since December. I'm not bulky but very toned. Espcially my abs. Whey protein goes a long way. Who's proud of us? :)

dbot
16-07-06, 03:07
thats awesome man...i wish i had enough balls to join the military...although id join the air force or the marines if i did. And id only join the air force if theyd train me to be a fighter pilot.

But seriously though, dbot's proud.

Catapharact
16-07-06, 03:15
Babe... Being toned has nothing to do with it. Its how long you can survive in extreme conditions with bullets flying over your head and over 150 pound worth of equipment strapped to your body.

Hope you know what you are getting yourself into. Goodluck Cadet.

Melonie Tomb Raider
16-07-06, 03:30
Well I'm happy to hear that you're joining the military! :D My dad was in the army for 21 years and he just got back from the war a few months ago. If you were a man, I wouldn't really advise it, because you would be in combat probably. My dad had bullets flying mere inches from his face, it's extremely dangerous and completely different than the video games!

Since you're female you won't be on the battlefield though. If you are sent into the war you very well could be in great danger, but not as bad as it could be anyway.

I'm very proud of you that you're choosing to serve our wonderful country, especially in time of war. You have my greatest respect. :) *salutes*

wantafanta
16-07-06, 03:35
I guess if you live in the US, you mean, the US Army. I wish you the best of luck in whatever you do. But may I ask why you want to join the military now, considering we are bogged down in a misguided war in Iraq? Remember we have a Commander in Chief who used his father's influence to keep him out of the army when the Viet Nam war raged for 10 years. And the vice president got 5 deferments to stay out. Why would anyone want to serve those two phonies? Do you think changing bed pans would be worse than what could happen to you in some forsaken bullet strewn hamlet in Iraq? You could get seriously injured and suffer the rest of your life. Worse yet, you could kill some Iraqi girl's father - somebody just your age who would never see her daddy again and you would have to live with that memory. I hope you'll reconsider. Just remember. George Bush and Dick Cheney didn't go. So why should you? But as I said, good luck with your decision.

azumi_mm
16-07-06, 03:38
I've been doing intense cardio & weight lifting since December. I'm not bulky but very toned. Espcially my abs.

uh I wanna see some body shots! :D show me yours and I will show you mine.

wantafanta
16-07-06, 03:43
I'm very proud of you that you're choosing to serve our wonderful country, especially in time of war. You have my greatest respect. :) *salutes*

I am sorry to disagree, but our soldiers are not serving our country in Iraq. Iraq never attacked us and was not going to. We were deceived and misled into this wasteful, cruel war. It is not the soldiers' fault. They signed up to defend the United States, but Iraqis are not our enemies. This war was a horrible mistake, a misuse and waste of our military.

Spitfire
16-07-06, 03:47
Good luck is all i have to say.

Tomb Raider 5194
16-07-06, 03:52
Yeah Good Luck hope it all goes well :tmb:

Melonie Tomb Raider
16-07-06, 04:35
I am sorry to disagree, but our soldiers are not serving our country in Iraq. Iraq never attacked us and was not going to. We were deceived and misled into this wasteful, cruel war. It is not the soldiers' fault. They signed up to defend the United States, but Iraqis are not our enemies. This war was a horrible mistake, a misuse and waste of our military.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but we're not at war against Iraq, that's just our battle ground. We're at war against terror. We have every right to be in Iraq. Not only have we taken Saddam off his throne, but we've also caught Zarqawi in Iraq. Terrorist are still being harvested there, trust me, my dad killed some. The troops aren't going on a mad rampage, they're taking out the terrorist. We actually have Iraqi people on our side. In fact, part of my dad's job was to train them. He fought side by side with them.

I could go on and on, but not unless Andariel wishes to discuss the issue. The topic is about her joining the army, and I don't want to cause a flame war.

Again Andariel, I can't even tell you how much I respect you for making the decision to serve our country. That is extremely noble of you! :hug:

Andariel
16-07-06, 04:52
Thank you Melonie. You understand that I want to help our country. Most people don't understand and I don't expect them to. I suppose you could say I have something in me that many don't. I bet the Army must have toughened your father quite a bit and he sounds like quite a noble man. :)

Melonie Tomb Raider
16-07-06, 05:10
Thank you Melonie. You understand that I want to help our country. Most people don't understand and I don't expect them to. I suppose you could say I have something in me that many don't. I bet the Army must have toughened your father quite a bit and he sounds like quite a noble man. :)

I'm so happy that you want to help our country as well, because in our time of war, so many Americans show no respect for America. It's so refreshing that some people actually care. :D You're exactly right too, you do have something in you that many don't. Patriotism is diminishing, sadly, but it's a good thing that there are still some people out there who love their country.

Joining the Army will definitely be very difficult(especially boot camp), but I know that you can pull through! :) Be sure to keep us all updated. :hug:

Lonely Istari
16-07-06, 05:17
Wow, Andariel, That is awesome! Good luck to you and your cousin! This is a very respectable choice you two are making and even if there are people out there who may chastise you for joining, know that there are lots out there who are supporting you and praying for you! Thanks for serving our country!! (or preparing to anyway hehe. :D )

madderakka
16-07-06, 06:02
I am proud of you and all of our military. Good luck in basic

Angelx14
16-07-06, 11:07
*shakes head* Oh, poor you. I wish you luck.

wantafanta
16-07-06, 20:58
I'm so happy that you want to help our country as well, because in our time of war, so many Americans show no respect for America. It's so refreshing that some people actually care. :D You're exactly right too, you do have something in you that many don't. Patriotism is diminishing, sadly, but it's a good thing that there are still some people out there who love their country.


I respect America. Just because I am not one of George W. Bush's little wind-up zombies does not make me any less a patriot than you. Being patriotic means freely disagreeing with your government, not saluting the flag at every corner. In Americia we the people are the boss, not George W. Bush. He works for us. U got it backwards. Read the constituion. The power to declare war shall be reserved for the Congress - not the president. My congressman never voted to declare war on Iraq and neither did yours.

Oh, if we're not at war with Iraq, then why are over 100,000 Iraqis dead? And no, we do not have the right to be in Iraq. There are many decorated war veterans from Viet Nam and Iraq who believe we don't belong there. Chuck Hagel and John Murtha are just two in our Congress who want us out and both are war heroes. They love their country and they are patriots.

scion05
16-07-06, 21:02
Goodlook :jmp:

but god-forbid... be careful :hug:

ILG49ers
16-07-06, 21:09
Wow, that's really brave of you! You and your cousin definitely have my respect! I hope and pray everything goes alright with you two! :hug:

jarhead
16-07-06, 21:15
I am proud of you.

i dont think i could join the army as a soilder but i suppose being a nurse must be just as hard. anway i wish you all the best and hope you do well and get in. good luck

scion05
16-07-06, 21:16
im also very proud of you :)
and you have my upmost respect :hug:

Pablo.CT
16-07-06, 21:17
Babe... Being toned has nothing to do with it. Its how long you can survive in extreme conditions with bullets flying over your head and over 150 pound worth of equipment strapped to your body.

Hope you know what you are getting yourself into. Goodluck Cadet.


Thats very true it what's up in your head that will make you survive. But you talk like you have actually fought in a battle.

However, Congratulations, Hope you enjoy it.

BlackGrey
16-07-06, 21:20
You brave gal! :D

xMiSsCrOfTx
16-07-06, 21:46
That is a brave decision! :)

lita212
16-07-06, 22:39
have a really good think before u join the army cause trust me all the army guys and especially the girls are priks. the only gud think bout the army now is u can get lotsa stuff free like a house etc. but trust me there all priks my dad was in the army in 3 para and all the army estates were full of dick head husbands who cheated on there wives.

Catapharact
16-07-06, 22:42
Thats very true it what's up in your head that will make you survive. But you talk like you have actually fought in a battle.

However, Congratulations, Hope you enjoy it.

I know plently who did and they definately know what war and battles are like.

GodOfLight
16-07-06, 22:44
Who's proud of us? :)

i'm not proud of you one tiny bit :wve: but i do hope that nothing happens to you :)

DREWY
16-07-06, 22:51
Well I'm proud of you. You have to do in life what you think is right, thats why you have a concience. Good luck and keep safe :tmb:

sweetPoison
16-07-06, 23:29
That's great. :) But truth be told, the first thought in my mind after reading your post was, 'What on earth have you been smoking?'

Army, goodness, I do hope you think it through.
I assure you that it is not at all like the army commercials you see on tv that speak of courage, bravery, camaradery. Army = war = death. That is the only reason for having an army and for having soldiers.

In any case, let us know how it goes and good luck. :)

Flipper1987
17-07-06, 00:08
Leave it to wantafanta to take a thread about joining the army and use it to deliver another one of his political hissy-fits. :)

I respect America.

Yeah you're just oozing with patriotism with that statement.

Just because I am not one of George W. Bush's little wind-up zombies does not make me any less a patriot than you.

I would hardly call Melonie (or anybody who supports Bush) a "little wind-up zombie." If anything, everytime I read your anti-war rants, it looks as if I'm reading the DNC's talking points over the last three years verbatim.

Being patriotic means freely disagreeing with your government, not saluting the flag at every corner.

I don't recall the phrase "disagreeing with the government" being part of any definition of patriotism that I have read. It's just a liberal interpretation of the word concocted by those who really aren't very patriotic.

Of course redefining words to fit one's political bias is hardly new. Words like "terrorist," "liar" and "unilateral" have been redefined in an irresponsible way by the left to attack their political opponents.

My congressman never voted to declare war on Iraq and neither did yours.

Well Congress did authorize the Pres. to use force (if he wished) to deal with Iraq. Granted it's not an official "declaration of war" but that's just semantics for the most part.

Oh, if we're not at war with Iraq, then why are over 100,000 Iraqis dead?

You made that assertion about two years ago based on an article (that you posted) that made a complete guess-timation without actually going into the field to actually count. Don't you have anything new?

And no, we do not have the right to be in Iraq.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz.

There are many decorated war veterans from Viet Nam and Iraq who believe we don't belong there. Chuck Hagel and John Murtha are just two in our Congress who want us out and both are war heroes.

You said "many" but only list two. For every military veteran that you list who wants to cut and run (for personal political advancement or not), I'm sure there are at least 20 that don't. But since those veterans don't agree with you on this issue, I guess their opinions don't really matter, huh?

I love how liberals quote the few military veterans that conform to their views but completely write off and ignore the opinions of millions of veterans who don't.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
17-07-06, 00:10
I've been volunteering at a hospital for a while since I've been interested in nursing. Now I'm repulsed that I would have to clean bed pans and that type of stuff. My cousin and I are signing up to go into the Army this September. Have to take a physical but I'm sure we both are fine. We're both girls btw. I've been doing intense cardio & weight lifting since December. I'm not bulky but very toned. Espcially my abs. Whey protein goes a long way. Who's proud of us? :)

Thank you very much for signing up and fighting for our freedoms. :) Good luck to you and don't let dour pessimists influence what you do with your life.

FLIPPER

K.J
17-07-06, 00:40
Are you going to Iraq?

dbot
17-07-06, 00:41
I respect America. Just because I am not one of George W. Bush's little wind-up zombies does not make me any less a patriot than you. Being patriotic means freely disagreeing with your government, not saluting the flag at every corner. In Americia we the people are the boss, not George W. Bush. He works for us. U got it backwards. Read the constituion. The power to declare war shall be reserved for the Congress - not the president. My congressman never voted to declare war on Iraq and neither did yours.

Oh, if we're not at war with Iraq, then why are over 100,000 Iraqis dead? And no, we do not have the right to be in Iraq. There are many decorated war veterans from Viet Nam and Iraq who believe we don't belong there. Chuck Hagel and John Murtha are just two in our Congress who want us out and both are war heroes. They love their country and they are patriots.


Congress is the only group that can officially declare war, but the president is the commander in chief....he's the head of the military.

Melonie Tomb Raider
17-07-06, 00:43
I respect America. Just because I am not one of George W. Bush's little wind-up zombies does not make me any less a patriot than you. Being patriotic means freely disagreeing with your government, not saluting the flag at every corner. In Americia we the people are the boss, not George W. Bush. He works for us. U got it backwards. Read the constituion. The power to declare war shall be reserved for the Congress - not the president. My congressman never voted to declare war on Iraq and neither did yours.

Oh, if we're not at war with Iraq, then why are over 100,000 Iraqis dead? And no, we do not have the right to be in Iraq. There are many decorated war veterans from Viet Nam and Iraq who believe we don't belong there. Chuck Hagel and John Murtha are just two in our Congress who want us out and both are war heroes. They love their country and they are patriots.

I just found this, which is why I haven't responded yet. Flipper explained it rather well, so I won't go into it any further unless you post something like this again. You can count on me replying in that case. ;)

DragonDan
17-07-06, 00:50
I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who are brave enough and able to fight for our freedoms. It is people like you, Andariel, who give those sniveling Democrats the freedom to be able to say what they think. We can all think/ say what we want here in America. That is a precious thing that some do not understand.
Thank you.

Andariel
17-07-06, 00:55
Thank you DragonDan. :)

Thank you very much for signing up and fighting for our freedoms. :) Good luck to you and don't let dour pessimists influence what you do with your life.

FLIPPER
Thank you Flipper. I know exactly what you mean.

K.J
17-07-06, 00:59
Little off topic: Do you americans on the forum think Guantanamo-Bay is necessary ?

DragonDan
17-07-06, 01:04
Yes.

wantafanta
17-07-06, 05:19
Thank you very much for signing up and fighting for our freedoms. :) Good luck to you and don't let dour pessimists influence what you do with your life.

FLIPPER

That is total nonsense, Flipper. Nobody in Iraq is fighting for our freedoms.
When did any Iraqi ever threaten US freedoms? That is the silliest thing I ever heard. That is just the kind of thing you would hear from a wind-up zombie who still refuses to accept that he/she has been deceived by George W. Bush. We were sent there on a search for WMDs that weren't even there. We were not sent there to protect our freedoms.

Your idea of patriotism would make Joseph Stalin smile. Yes sir, no sir, sorry sir, I will obey sir. We live in a system of checks and balances in the US and it is our duty to question our government.

You dismiss as "semantics" the fact that your congressman never declared war on Iraq. That is very sad, that you dismiss and surrender your power over congress so willingly. A formal vote on a declaration of war against Iraq never would have passed, in my opinion, which is why none was taken. The founding fathers put that clause in to prevent exactly the type of catastrophe which has just occurred. But congress sidestepped that provision which is why we had Viet Nam and why we have Iraq - two wars based on lies.

As for the 100,000 civilian deaths figure, you are wrong and misrepresenting that article. It was not a guesstimate. It was a scientifically conducted survey by Johns Hopkins which has a high degree of validity. It is by no means a "guesstimate" - as you derisively call it. Go here if you want the "counted" civilian deaths - still a horrifying figure. But it is impossible to count all the bodies which is why we do polling.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

PS
Melonie, my father fought in World War II in the Marines on Guadalcanal and Okinawa. My mother was in the Navy in World War II. My brother was in the Marines. I was in high school during Viet Nam and still have my draft card. It was a humongous waste of humanity, and I hate to see it being repeated.

Melonie Tomb Raider
17-07-06, 06:07
That is total nonsense, Flipper. Nobody in Iraq is fighting for our freedoms.
When did any Iraqi ever threaten US freedoms?

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but we're not at war against Iraq, that's our battle ground. If we were at war against them my dad wouldn't fought fought side by side with them. You're definitely misinformed with that idea.

And yes, our freedom was threated by the terrorist. We're after them, not the innocent Iraqi people.

That is the silliest thing I ever heard. That is just the kind of thing you would hear from a wind-up zombie who still refuses to accept that he/she has been deceived by George W. Bush. We were sent there on a search for WMDs that weren't even there. We were not sent there to protect our freedoms.


You call us wind up zombies, yet you seem like the wind up zombie who fails to accept the fact that we're not at war against Iraq.

Additionally, we weren't over there only for WMDs. If we were we wouldn't be there now. Saddam attacked the Kurds with chemical weapons in the 80s, why on earth would the idea of having WMDs be such a radical idea? Expecially considerring he wouldn't let the UN search for them until he was ready. I truly think he did have them, but even if he didn't, he deserved to be overthrown anyway.

Your idea of patriotism would make Joseph Stalin smile. Yes sir, no sir, sorry sir, I will obey sir. We live in a system of checks and balances in the US and it is our duty to question our government.

That was extremely exaggerated. Let's stick with the facts here.


As for the 100,000 civilian deaths figure, you are wrong and misrepresenting that article. It was not a guesstimate. It was a scientifically conducted survey by Johns Hopkins which has a high degree of validity. It is by no means a "guesstimate" - as you derisively call it. Go here if you want the "counted" civilian deaths - still a horrifying figure. But it is impossible to count all the bodies which is why we do polling.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Well I still question the 100,000 figure, but I don't doubt the fact that a lot of civilians died. Sadly, in war, civilians suffer the most. You can't have a war without civilian casualties. It's sad that it has to happen, but you imply that our troops are out their slaughtering civilians, and that is hardly the case. Even if we were in a war you agreed with, civilians would still be dying as well.

I'd hardly compare this war to Vietnam. Our war right now is based on terror, while Vietnam was focussed on founding democracy.

DREWY
17-07-06, 06:24
while Vietnam was focussed on founding democracy.
I thought Vietnam was a French problem, the US was never even involved in to start with.
Anyway, wasn't this thread about Andariel joining the army(and good luck in her choice), not debating the rights or wrongs of US foreign policy?
http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/violent080.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)
How wars should be fought. Leader Vs leader

Andariel
17-07-06, 06:41
I thought Vietnam was a French problem, the US was never even involved in to start with.
Anyway, wasn't this thread about Andariel joining the army(and good luck in her choice), not debating the rights or wrongs of US foreign policy?
http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/violent080.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)
How wars should be fought. Leader Vs leader
Exactly. If you don't accept my decision then you could easily say you don't and/or avoid this thread. If you want a debate then make a thread for petty politician discussion.

Lara Lover
17-07-06, 06:43
Good luck :tmb:

Gomes
17-07-06, 07:07
Good luck, Andariel.

You will probably see more gross things in war than bed pans, though, make sure you are prepared pyschologically. :)

Greenkey2
17-07-06, 09:46
Good luck Andariel :wve: You're going to need it.

Flipper1987
17-07-06, 17:44
That is total nonsense, Flipper. Nobody in Iraq is fighting for our freedoms.

I wasn't talking about Iraq alone. There are tens of thousands of U.S. troops around the world fighting terrorists and safeguarding people from rogue regimes. Their actions protect our freedoms as well as the freedoms of others in different countries.

When did any Iraqi ever threaten US freedoms?

Let's see, they violated the cease fire agreement that they signed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, they fired multiple times at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone, they completely ignored 17+ UN resolutions, and they most likely bribed (through fat oil contracts) two permanent members of the Security Council and various members at the UN. Want more? I won't even mention the Oil for Food program that fattened Saddam's regime.

Or perhaps we should wait for Saddam to have developed nukes? After all, Russia and France were lobbying hard to lift sanctions on Iraq because they signed multi-billion dollar oil contracts with Hussein. What do you think Saddam would have done after the sanctions were lifted? Duh!

If people like you had your way, we would have a nuclear Iraq and Iran by now, both of whom hate Israel. Would the world be better off then?

That is just the kind of thing you would hear from a wind-up zombie who still refuses to accept that he/she has been deceived by George W. Bush.

This is typical liberal arrogance. If you support Bush you are some brain-dead simpleton who can't think for themselves. Blah blah blah!

Your idea of patriotism would make Joseph Stalin smile. Yes sir, no sir, sorry sir, I will obey sir.

ROFLMAO!!!!! Yeah, that's exactly what I do, wantafanta.

Criticizing your government for whatever reason does not fall under the guise of "patriotism." It's our civic responsibility to hold our government accountable, but I would never consider your blatantly partisan criticisms of Bush as "patriotic."

We live in a system of checks and balances in the US and it is our duty to question our government.

And the sky is blue and 2+2=4.

You dismiss as "semantics" the fact that your congressman never declared war on Iraq.

They passed a resolution allowing the "use of force" against Iraq. What do you think that means, wantafanta? If you want to split hairs over semantic nuances, knock yourself out.

A formal vote on a declaration of war against Iraq never would have passed, in my opinion, which is why none was taken.

I disagree.

As for the 100,000 civilian deaths figure, you are wrong and misrepresenting that article. It was not a guesstimate. It was a scientifically conducted survey by Johns Hopkins which has a high degree of validity.

I read that article you originally posted thoroughly and it was explicit that they were making projections based on samples. There were no scientific boots on the ground doing any real counting. Hence that 100,000 figure is a huge guess-timate.

By the way, I went to the website that you posted. They posted that the "Max" number of civilians who have died since 2003 is @44,000 and that includes the people who died from terrorist bombings and insurgent attacks. When you originally posted the article and the 100,000 number, you were implying that the US military was responsible for all of the civilian deaths. Either way, your 100,000 number is flat-out wrong.

FLIPPER

deepbluesea
17-07-06, 17:52
The army is hard work, i was in for 5 years but if you work hard and excell you'll get on well. good luck.

azumi_mm
17-07-06, 17:57
but I don't doubt the fact that a lot of civilians died. Sadly, in war, civilians suffer the most. You can't have a war without civilian casualties. It's sad that it has to happen, but you imply that our troops are out their slaughtering civilians, and that is hardly the case.

And the relatives of the civilian casualties are the next super motivated volunteer terrorists.

Just imagine your whole family get killed (slaughtered, bombed, whatever) due to the fact that some "president" declares war on your country.

There are always two sides...

Hurrah4Lara
17-07-06, 20:44
Well from one Army Gal to another: I am proud of you too. Let you go in with open eyes:yik:, though, Andariel, and your cousin. So I agree with Lita's first bit...

have a really good think before u join the army

But not the second

cause trust me all the army guys and especially the girls are priks.

Oy! Lita!:D


Patriotism is perhaps not so fashionable now, ironically thanks to the many who have died so we free ones may say and do what we like. It drives me nuts having to justify my honour-code "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" (How sweet it is and noble to give my life for the Fatherland), and you will surely find the same.

I reckon :hug:Rudyard Kipling:hug:'s words about the typique soldier Tommy Atkins are as true today as they ever were:

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

Best wishes

H4L:wve: [Jessika - British Army]

xLaRaMasTeRx
17-07-06, 20:48
Army, eh? Wow. That must be tough. You must be a brave girl :p Good luck, I think you'll be needing it. :tmb:

Mona Sax
17-07-06, 20:50
I hope you know what you're getting yourself into, it's not going to be a walk in the park.

Good luck. :wve:

Flipper1987
17-07-06, 21:13
And the relatives of the civilian casualties are the next super motivated volunteer terrorists.

Based on that logic, there should have been tens of millions of terrorists created in Germany and Japan after World War II. Of course there wasn't so how do you explain that?

Just imagine your whole family get killed (slaughtered, bombed, whatever) due to the fact that some "president" declares war on your country.

That's a pretty simplistic statement. Of course you seem to be ignoring the obvious fact that the actions of a dictatorial government and/ or terrorist thugs are largely to fault for inviting military action against their country, which unfortunately does result in civilian casualties.

FLIPPER

Tombgirl5
17-07-06, 21:20
That'sCool

Reggie
17-07-06, 21:24
Take care Anadriel, make sure you're prepared for whatever awaits you out there.

wantafanta
18-07-06, 03:56
I read that article you originally posted thoroughly and it was explicit that they were making projections based on samples. There were no scientific boots on the ground doing any real counting. Hence that 100,000 figure is a huge guess-timate.

By the way, I went to the website that you posted. They posted that the "Max" number of civilians who have died since 2003 is @44,000 and that includes the people who died from terrorist bombings and insurgent attacks. When you originally posted the article and the 100,000 number, you were implying that the US military was responsible for all of the civilian deaths. Either way, your 100,000 number is flat-out wrong.
FLIPPER

You apparently have never had a statistics course. We don't have to fly to the sun to know how far it is from the earth. That is why we have mathematics. Entire industries and billions of dollars at stake depend on surveys and sampling. These are not guesses. And the 100,000 figure is now lowball, as it is outdated. The "Max" number is limited to the number reported by news agencies and wire services for the media. Obviously reporters cannot go and dare not go everywhere, so these figures are low. Every civilian death in Iraq today is directly or indirectly a result of George W. Bush invading Iraq by mistake or deceipt - take your pick. If the US had not gone to Iraq, none of those civilians would have been killed.

And the 100,000 figure was not "my" number. It was from Johns Hopkins. BTW - the 44,000 figure in itself is an abomination and no taxpaying American should sleep well nights with a clean conscience.

WANTAFANTA

dbot
18-07-06, 05:23
where is this link that talks about the 100,000 dead? I looked for it and i cant find it. Does it explain how they came up with such a large number? Cause i want to see how exactly they came up with 100,000 civilian deaths since the invasion of iraq....cause to me it seems that even if they were to count civilian deaths by US troops, civilian deaths by terrorist attacks, insurgents killed by Coalition troops, and civilians killed by terrorists worldwide since the invasion....i cant fathom it coming near that high.

100,000 civilian deaths as a result of the US military? That kind of statement demands backing. I'm not immediately dismissing it as false, but it is an incredible claim to make.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-07-06, 05:48
If the US had not gone to Iraq, none of those civilians would have been killed.


Not only that, but our country would be living in fear of future terrorist attacks, which would have been impending. Don't forget to mention that one! Zarqawi would still be alive, Saddam would still be in power, terrorist would not have any threats, etc. The list goes on.

I'm sorry, but that 100,000 number is completely bogus. You act as if it is a fact, but it's nothing more than speculation, a possibility. It was never officially stated that 100,000 Iraqi Civilans have died; however, it was said that 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died. The reason why they got that number is because of door to door surveys. Honestly, do you find that to be credible?

Though I'm not sure of how many died, I do know how most of the deaths occured. Approximately 95% of the civilian deaths were a result of aerial weaponry, not misconduct. I'm not sure if you were implying that, but I figure it's a statistic that needs clarified.

Sure, many civilians died, and that's tragic; however, are we supposed to sit back and do nothing while they are being oppressed? Heck, Saddam alone has killed more civilians than we have. If we didn't go to Iraq at all, he'd still be in power killing more innocent people.

wantafanta, you are focussing entirely on who all has died through this war. Instead, why don't you focus on the people who are living because of the war?

The UN estimated that Saddam killed over 250,000 people. This was no door to door survery either. Additionally, 150,000+ more have died because he illegally used the "oil for food" money to buy weapons. America rids Iraq of this terribly vicious man, and all you can do is complain about the people have died in the process? Honestly, you can't have a war without any deaths. We did Iraq a favor, and in the process, we are protecting our own country. If you find that wrong then I question your ethics.

Akhenaton
18-07-06, 05:56
Y'know, she's joining the army to fight for your right to sit there and dis the government, the system, and whatever else you wanna say! If this were China or North Korea some of you could get locked up for some of the things you've written here. I think no matter what we say here, the fact that our freedom of speech can be exercised(to a great extent!) at all means that whether we realize it or not we're with you, Andariel, and I personally want to thank you for the commitment you are going to make for all of us.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-07-06, 05:59
^^

Very well stated. :)

spence
18-07-06, 08:50
Good luck Andariel. I hope all goes well for you. :wve:

Flipper1987
18-07-06, 16:56
You apparently have never had a statistics course.

And apparently no one else in the U.S. has taken a statistics course since Johns Hopkins is the ONLY organization putting forward a number like this.

We don't have to fly to the sun to know how far it is from the earth. That is why we have mathematics.

Are you suggesting that calculating the distance between the Sun and the Earth is the same as counting dead civilians in a country that pointy-headed intellectuals from Johns Hopkins never visited? The variables involved in estimating distance and death are not the same. It's a faulty analogy it only serves to damage your credibility even further.

Entire industries and billions of dollars at stake depend on surveys and sampling.

And of course a LOT of those surveys and samplings are wrong, aren't they?

These are not guesses.

You need to get it through your head wantafanta that unless you actually leave your ivory tower and go out and physically count whatever needs to be counted, you will only be making a guess. Granted, some guesses are more objective and educated than others, but in the end they're still guesses.

And the 100,000 figure is now lowball, as it is outdated.

According to you and this questionable Johns Hopkins survey that has yet to be corroborated by anybody else except rabid, irrational Bush haters.

Every civilian death in Iraq today is directly or indirectly a result of George W. Bush invading Iraq by mistake or deceipt - take your pick.

Well that's one way of looking at it (except for the "deceit" part - you really need to get over that), but usually only people from the "blame America first" crowd would look at what's going on in Iraq in such a narrow, partisan fashion.

Once again Saddam Hussein has escaped all responsibility in wantafanta's eyes for what is going on in Iraq. Apparently Hussein's irresponsible and dangerous behavior had nothing to do with his country being invaded.

I am so glad that you made this statement, wantafanta. This sentence shows everybody the modern liberal mindset when it comes to assigning blame. To modern liberals/radicals like you, Saddam Hussein is not the enemy, Bush is. Al Qaeda and the Baathist Party aren't the enemy, Haliburton and Wal Mart are. The terrorists and suicide bombers that are bombing mosques and killing civilians in Iraq aren't the enemy, the coalition soldiers who are helping to protect Iraq's infant democracy are!

I'll give you credit for one thing, wantafanta. Partisan Democrats like you are excellent complainers. In fact political hacks like you have transformed the practice of blaming Bush for nearly everything into an art form. But there is one thing that Democrats like you really suck at, and that is coming up with realistic solutions to any problem, both domestically and internationally. People like you have nothing positive or constructive to say. All you do is whine like spoiled children, and that gets old really fast.

If the US had not gone to Iraq, none of those civilians would have been killed.

So you're suggesting that the brutal totalitarian dictatorship of Hussein wouldn't have killed any of its civilians after April of 2003 if it wasn't invaded? ROFLMAO!!!!!! Hussein's regime already put 300,000+ corpses into mass graves and you're suggesting that Hussein would have changed his ways if the U.S. and the coalition hadn't gone in? Good Lord what dream world do you live in?

BTW wantafanta, with the current hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, is the region better off that the Israel-hating, terrorist-supporting Hussein is out of power in Iraq?

And the 100,000 figure was not "my" number. It was from Johns Hopkins. BTW - the 44,000 figure in itself is an abomination.

Once again, only according to you and this laughable "survey" from Hopkins. You continue to defend this "survey" as if Moses came down from the Sears Tower and handed it personally to you.

FLIPPER

Mona Sax
18-07-06, 17:00
Glad you have such an educated image of liberalism, Flipper. Look the word up sometime.

BTW you aren't "related" to Wolfguard, by any chance? He's got the same style as you and he quotes every single sentence, too. I'll check this out.

tha_mattster
18-07-06, 17:08
I think 'liberal' has a special meaning in america. Everywhere else it means a centre-right position, but I always see americans using it as an insult. Confusing.:confused:

StarCroft:AOD
18-07-06, 18:24
Good Luck:)

Lenochka
18-07-06, 18:36
oy vey does every topic have to turn into a debate XD
I'm so happy that you want to help our country as well, because in our time of war, so many Americans show no respect for America. It's so refreshing that some people actually care.
that right there mel is exactly what i was thinking. so many people are showing no respect when our country really needs it...

annnyways i wish all the best to you on your brave choice Andariel :hug:

Paul H
18-07-06, 20:09
I guess if you live in the US, you mean, the US Army. I wish you the best of luck in whatever you do. But may I ask why you want to join the military now, considering we are bogged down in a misguided war in Iraq? Remember we have a Commander in Chief who used his father's influence to keep him out of the army when the Viet Nam war raged for 10 years. And the vice president got 5 deferments to stay out. Why would anyone want to serve those two phonies? Do you think changing bed pans would be worse than what could happen to you in some forsaken bullet strewn hamlet in Iraq? You could get seriously injured and suffer the rest of your life. Worse yet, you could kill some Iraqi girl's father - somebody just your age who would never see her daddy again and you would have to live with that memory. I hope you'll reconsider. Just remember. George Bush and Dick Cheney didn't go. So why should you? But as I said, good luck with your decision.

A very good and sensible post. And the same goes for all the other posts wantafanta has contributed to this thread. :tmb:

rika2
18-07-06, 20:16
A very good and sensible post. And the same goes for all the other posts wantafanta has contributed to this thread. :tmb:

agreed, let them fight their own wars...

dbot
18-07-06, 21:21
I think 'liberal' has a special meaning in america. Everywhere else it means a centre-right position, but I always see americans using it as an insult. Confusing.:confused:

"liberal" and "conservative" are both used as insults now....hell, even "republican" and "democrat" have decayed into derogatory terms, these days.

"Me, im a conservative republican!:) But that guy over there? Hmph....hes one of those democrat liberals trying to ruin america:mad:"

And of course, vice versa. Politics in america right now arent two schools of thought, its more like two different sides on a playground. At least thats how it seems like to me.

azumi_mm
18-07-06, 23:31
Based on that logic, there should have been tens of millions of terrorists created in Germany and Japan after World War II. Of course there wasn't so how do you explain that?


You're compare bananas with shoes. Who started the war? What happened to Japan?



That's a pretty simplistic statement. Of course you seem to be ignoring the obvious fact that the actions of a dictatorial government and/ or terrorist thugs are largely to fault for inviting military action against their country, which unfortunately does result in civilian casualties.
FLIPPER

Who gave Saddam Hussein the power?


Due to fears that revolutionary Iran would defeat Iraq and export its Islamic Revolution to other Middle Eastern nations, the U.S. began giving aid to Iraq. From 1983 to 1990, the U.S. government approved around $200 million in arms sales to Iraq, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI). [3] These sales amounted to less than 1% of the total arms sold to Iraq in the relevant period, though the US also sold helicopters which, although designated for civilian use, were immediately deployed by Iraq in its war with Iran. [4]

An investigation by the Senate Banking Committee in 1994 determined that the U.S. Department of Commerce had approved, for the purpose of research, the shipping of dual use biological agents to Iraq during the mid-1980s, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), later identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program, as well as Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatum, Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens. The Committee report noted that each of these had been "considered by various nations for use in war." [5] Declassified U.S. government documents indicate that the U.S. government had confirmed that Iraq was using chemical weapons (but not biological weapons that the agents being exported could have been used for) "almost daily" during the Iran-Iraq conflict as early as 1983. [6] The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: “The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licences for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think it’s a devastating record”.

Chiefly, the U.S. government provided Iraq with economic aid. Iraq's war with Iran, and the consequent disruption in its oil export business, had caused the country to enter a deep debt. U.S. government economic assistance allowed Hussein to continue using resources for the war which would have otherwise had to have been diverted. Between 1983 and 1990, Iraq received $5 billion in export credit guarantees from the Commodity Credit Corporation program run by the Department of Agriculture, beginning at $400 million per year in 1983 and increasing to over $1 billion per year in 1988 and 1989, finally coming to an end after another $500 million was granted in 1990. [7] Besides agricultural credits, the U.S. also provided Hussein with other loans. In 1985 the U.S. Export-Import Bank extended more than $684 million in credits to Iraq to build an oil pipeline through Jordan with the construction being undertaken by Californian construction firm Bechtel Corporation.


Hint: It's all about the oil...

Leon xXx
18-07-06, 23:33
I have a feeling that you wont go there, like something will tell your mind to just forget it or cancel it. Anyway if i am wrong, then good luck Andariel. You gonna need it.

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-07-06, 23:41
BTW you aren't "related" to Wolfguard, by any chance? He's got the same style as you and he quotes every single sentence, too. I'll check this out.

Flipper has been a member a while before Wolfguard. In debates it's a lot easier to quote every sentence or two and reply to each, otherwise you'll miss out on a lot of things. I debate on other forums frequently and basically everyone I know does that.

CerebralAssassin
18-07-06, 23:42
how did this thread turn into another politics debate :confused:

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-07-06, 23:43
that right there mel is exactly what i was thinking. so many people are showing no respect when our country really needs it...


:hug: :)

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-07-06, 23:45
how did this thread turn into another politics debate :confused:

Well some people support Andariel and her decision to support our country, others don't. It basically started as an issue of why people should respect America, but then it turned into a lot more than that. :p

CerebralAssassin
18-07-06, 23:49
Well some people support Andariel and her decision to support our country, others don't. It basically started as an issue of why people should respect America, but then it turned into a lot more than that. :p
well maybe she's doin' it just for the money!!http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/evilgrin/evilgrin0029.gif

Melonie Tomb Raider
18-07-06, 23:55
well maybe she's doin' it just for the money!!http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/evilgrin/evilgrin0029.gif

LOL! Perhaps. :p Although you don't start off making a whole lot, you have to make rank before you're well off. :p

CerebralAssassin
19-07-06, 00:00
And apparently no one else in the U.S. has taken a statistics course since Johns Hopkins is the ONLY organization putting forward a number like this.



Are you suggesting that calculating the distance between the Sun and the Earth is the same as counting dead civilians in a country that pointy-headed intellectuals from Johns Hopkins never visited? The variables involved in estimating distance and death are not the same. It's a faulty analogy it only serves to damage your credibility even further.



And of course a LOT of those surveys and samplings are wrong, aren't they?



You need to get it through your head wantafanta that unless you actually leave your ivory tower and go out and physically count whatever needs to be counted, you will only be making a guess. Granted, some guesses are more objective and educated than others, but in the end they're still guesses.



According to you and this questionable Johns Hopkins survey that has yet to be corroborated by anybody else except rabid, irrational Bush haters.



Well that's one way of looking at it (except for the "deceit" part - you really need to get over that), but usually only people from the "blame America first" crowd would look at what's going on in Iraq in such a narrow, partisan fashion.

Once again Saddam Hussein has escaped all responsibility in wantafanta's eyes for what is going on in Iraq. Apparently Hussein's irresponsible and dangerous behavior had nothing to do with his country being invaded.

I am so glad that you made this statement, wantafanta. This sentence shows everybody the modern liberal mindset when it comes to assigning blame. To modern liberals/radicals like you, Saddam Hussein is not the enemy, Bush is. Al Qaeda and the Baathist Party aren't the enemy, Haliburton and Wal Mart are. The terrorists and suicide bombers that are bombing mosques and killing civilians in Iraq aren't the enemy, the coalition soldiers who are helping to protect Iraq's infant democracy are!

I'll give you credit for one thing, wantafanta. Partisan Democrats like you are excellent complainers. In fact political hacks like you have transformed the practice of blaming Bush for nearly everything into an art form. But there is one thing that Democrats like you really suck at, and that is coming up with realistic solutions to any problem, both domestically and internationally. People like you have nothing positive or constructive to say. All you do is whine like spoiled children, and that gets old really fast.



So you're suggesting that the brutal totalitarian dictatorship of Hussein wouldn't have killed any of its civilians after April of 2003 if it wasn't invaded? ROFLMAO!!!!!! Hussein's regime already put 300,000+ corpses into mass graves and you're suggesting that Hussein would have changed his ways if the U.S. and the coalition hadn't gone in? Good Lord what dream world do you live in?

BTW wantafanta, with the current hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, is the region better off that the Israel-hating, terrorist-supporting Hussein is out of power in Iraq?



Once again, only according to you and this laughable "survey" from Hopkins. You continue to defend this "survey" as if Moses came down from the Sears Tower and handed it personally to you.

FLIPPER

hmm..a fellow St.louisan:wve:

CerebralAssassin
19-07-06, 00:06
You apparently have never had a statistics course. We don't have to fly to the sun to know how far it is from the earth.

umm..they don't teach that in a statistics course...you have to take a "applied" differential equations course to learn such info LOL

Flipper1987
19-07-06, 00:32
hmm..a fellow St.louisan:wve:

Hello there :)

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
19-07-06, 00:33
how did this thread turn into another politics debate :confused:

Wantafanta took it off topic by injecting his partisanship into a thread where it didn't belong.

FLIPPER

DREWY
19-07-06, 00:41
I don't think Wantafanta was on an island there though....

Flipper1987
19-07-06, 01:02
Glad you have such an educated image of liberalism, Flipper. Look the word up sometime.

Well as you know there are a wide variety of "liberals." Unfortunately "modern (American) liberalism" (which I was referring to) has lurched far to the left and has been hijacked by radical organizations like MoveOn.org and eccentric billionaires like George Soros. These type of "modern liberals" have essentially hijacked the Democratic Party and consistently use the War on Terror as a political football for short-term political gain. These "modern liberals" are fiercely anti-war and are intolerant of others (including liberals) who don't share their monolithic, anti-war, anti-Bush views such as traditional liberal Joseph Lieberman. Are you following his primary fight? I am and I live in Missouri. Guess who's funding Lieberman's opponent?

Liberalism espouses tolerance; however "modern American liberalism" has abandoned that notion recently. I've known many liberals in my life and several are close friends. They respect my opinion as I do theirs. I also have respect for many liberal politicians and leaders that I don't agree with on a variety of issues (I even voted for a couple in state elections).

I've been closely following American politics for the last 25 years and I've watched the Democratic party evolve from the party of Wilson, FDR, and Truman into the party of Carter and Clinton.

With all due respect, I don't need to look up the definition of liberalism. I've studied and witnessed its evolution during the 20th and 21st century.

BTW you aren't "related" to Wolfguard, by any chance? He's got the same style as you and he quotes every single sentence, too. I'll check this out.

Knock yourself out.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
19-07-06, 01:29
You're compare bananas with shoes. Who started the war? What happened to Japan?

Those two questions are irrelevant to the issue that you brought up. We bombed German and Japanese cities into oblivion during World War II. In your original post, you stated that "the relatives of the civilian casualties (in Iraq) are the next super motivated volunteer terrorists." So once again I'll ask you the question. Please try to answer it. After we bombed Germany and Japan, killing millions of civilians in the process, how come it didn't lead to worldwide terrorism?

Who gave Saddam Hussein the power?

It's no secret that the US gave assistance to Iraq in the 1980s. The US was looking for payback against Iran for the hostage crisis, and they were also looking to limit Iran's influence in the region. Of course Saddam did a fine job building up his military after the Iran-Iraq War without US help.

The US also gave assistance to Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union during World War II as well. In fact world history is filled with numerous instances where countries fought against one another shortly after assisting each other.

Hint: It's all about the oil...

That's one of the typical knee-jerk mantras that anti-war liberals use to justify their views. Of course if that was truly the case, then gas would be dirt cheap in the US, right? After all, the US went into Afghanistan for oil, right? The US supports Israel's bombing of Hezbollah because of oil, right? Hamas and Hezbollah want to wipe out Israel because of oil, right? Iran's president, who's looking to develop nuclear weapons, has called for Israel to be wiped off the map because of oil, right?

Hint: the US is deeply-involved in the Middle East for a variety of important reasons, not just for oil.

FLIPPER

Tombreaper
19-07-06, 01:58
Ways too complicated stuff for us simple citizens :cln:

Melonie Tomb Raider
19-07-06, 02:55
Who gave Saddam Hussein the power?


You might as well blame Saddam's mother for giving birth to him with that mentality.

Paul H
19-07-06, 07:20
Wantafanta took it off topic by injecting his partisanship into a thread where it didn't belong.

FLIPPER
Wantafanta didn't go off topic at all, but was giving relevant and sensible advice to the thread starter, and it was entirely appropriate to include incidental matters - such as those about Bush & Cheney’s history - in doing so. When advising someone of the dangers of joining a war, what is wrong with also pointing out that those who would send them into such danger have a history of avoiding it themselves?

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=1067259&postcount=5

Mona Sax
19-07-06, 09:46
Well as you know there are a wide variety of "liberals." Unfortunately "modern (American) liberalism" (which I was referring to) has lurched far to the left and has been hijacked by radical organizations like MoveOn.org and eccentric billionaires like George Soros. These type of "modern liberals" have essentially hijacked the Democratic Party and consistently use the War on Terror as a political football for short-term political gain. These "modern liberals" are fiercely anti-war and are intolerant of others (including liberals) who don't share their monolithic, anti-war, anti-Bush views such as traditional liberal Joseph Lieberman. Are you following his primary fight? I am and I live in Missouri. Guess who's funding Lieberman's opponent?

Liberalism espouses tolerance; however "modern American liberalism" has abandoned that notion recently. I've known many liberals in my life and several are close friends. They respect my opinion as I do theirs. I also have respect for many liberal politicians and leaders that I don't agree with on a variety of issues (I even voted for a couple in state elections).

I've been closely following American politics for the last 25 years and I've watched the Democratic party evolve from the party of Wilson, FDR, and Truman into the party of Carter and Clinton.

With all due respect, I don't need to look up the definition of liberalism. I've studied and witnessed its evolution during the 20th and 21st century.

Then stop using the word in a derogatory way. The populism shown by both the Republican and Democratic parties has nothing to do with liberalism whatsoever. Liberalism is the striving for freedom and tolerance (ideals the U.S. are based on, for Chrissakes). All the parties strive for is power.

Flipper1987
19-07-06, 12:39
Wantafanta didn't go off topic at all, but was giving relevant and sensible advice to the thread starter, and it was entirely appropriate to include incidental matters - such as those about Bush & Cheney’s history - in doing so.

Andariel started this thread to announce her future entry into the army. Wantafanta stayed on topic for exactly one sentence and then engaged in his predictable rant against Bush and Cheney (conveniently leaving out Clinton's avoidance in the process). If you don't see how that's not "off topic," there's not much I can do for you.

In regards to your comment about wantafanta giving "sensible advice," that largely depends on your political point of view and your view on war. If you hate Bush and oppose all forms of war, then I guess his advice would seem "sensible" to you. His "advice" was clearly motivated by his obvious patisanship and frankly didn't belong in this particular thread. Once again, if you lack the simple objectivity to see that, then there's nothing much I can do to help you.

Good luck.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
19-07-06, 12:47
Then stop using the word in a derogatory way.

That's why I used the term "modern liberal" to differentiate between the two.

The populism shown by both the Republican and Democratic parties has nothing to do with liberalism whatsoever. Liberalism is the striving for freedom and tolerance (ideals the U.S. are based on, for Chrissakes). All the parties strive for is power.

I agree with most of your points but unfortunately many of the Democrats see themselves and identify themselves as "liberal" yet do not engage in the "tolerance" that you and I recognize the word (or moniker) to represent.

FLIPPER

Mona Sax
19-07-06, 14:34
Honestly I don't see any difference. "Modern" or not, they're not liberal in any way, even though they sure like to use the word. Just like an Islamist terrorist sees himself as a martyr (I don't think we need to discuss that point) or nationalist fundamentalists call themselves "conservative". Since when are the violation of human rights (Guantanamo Bay, CIA abductions and secret prisons) or the limitation of individual freedom (wiretapping, downtalking all criticism as "unpatriotic") classic American values?

It's easy to just take a side. Seriously, blaming Bush for his mistakes does not mean that one defends the other side. I just wish Bush, Blair, Hussein, Bin Laden, Ahmadinedjad, Kim Jong Il and all the other megalomaniac clowns would battle it out among themselves without involving civilians.

tha_mattster
19-07-06, 14:39
LOL! I would love to see that.

Bush: Yo, tony i heer we gotta fight huh?
Blair: It would appear so, but I'd rather not.
Bush: Oh great cuz i'd whoop yer ass!
Blair: Care for a pretzel to pass the time?
Bush: uh huh....
Bush:.... x.x
Blair: :mis:

Jeremy Raider
19-07-06, 14:51
I know yur at work lovely but I'm proud of you girl and glad you stand up for what you believe in. You rock. :hug:

azumi_mm
19-07-06, 16:34
Those two questions are irrelevant to the issue that you brought up.


That's how I would describe your questions about WW2. You still compare bananas with shoes.



We bombed German and Japanese cities into oblivion during World War II.
how come it didn't lead to worldwide terrorism?


Who started the war? What happend to japan and germany? Did the germans got millions $ for selling something (like oil)? :p
I don't think so. Also at this time you couldn't travel that fast like nowadays.



It's no secret that the US gave assistance to Iraq in the 1980s. The US was looking for payback against Iran for the hostage crisis, and they were also looking to limit Iran's influence in the region.


So you admit that the US supported dictatorship. First they raise some dictator and if the lose the control (over the puppet) the declare war under false evidence. Where are the nuclear or chemical weapons? As far as I know they didn't found anything yet. Either here is something wrong or you are just blindfolded. And by the way the US have had the chance to kill Saddam H. in 1991 (Gulf War) but they didn't.



That's one of the typical knee-jerk mantras that anti-war liberals use to justify their views.


...and to present counterfeit alleged evidence of mass destruction weapons is a typical knee-jerk mantras that war liberals use to justify their crazy actions.



Of course if that was truly the case, then gas would be dirt cheap in the US, right? After all, the US went into Afghanistan for oil, right? The US supports Israel's bombing of Hezbollah because of oil, right? Hamas and Hezbollah want to wipe out Israel because of oil, right? Iran's president, who's looking to develop nuclear weapons, has called for Israel to be wiped off the map because of oil, right?

Hint: the US is deeply-involved in the Middle East for a variety of important reasons, not just for oil.
FLIPPER

Indeed if you compare the gas prizes of europe with the US, it is dirty cheap. :D

Oil is not the only thing you can sell. The Arms industry making billions...

The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined. Military sales account for about 18 percent of the national budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any other nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.)

U.S. arms are sold either as foreign military sales (FMS), in which the Pentagon is an intermediate negotiator, and direct commercial sales (DCS), where a company directly negotiates with its buyer.

From 1989 to 1996, the global value of direct commercial arms sales was US$257 billion, of which 45% was exported from the US. According to the 2005 annual US congress reports, 58% of all US arms trade contracts are made with developing countries.

:ohn:

azumi_mm
19-07-06, 16:36
You might as well blame Saddam's mother for giving birth to him with that mentality.

To ignore facts and post nonsense sarcasm is quite a nice mentality? :rolleyes:


BTW in case this wasn't clear. I have no problems that Andariel is joining the Army.

Paul H
19-07-06, 19:54
Andariel started this thread to announce her future entry into the army. Wantafanta stayed on topic for exactly one sentence and then engaged in his predictable rant against Bush and Cheney (conveniently leaving out Clinton's avoidance in the process). If you don't see how that's not "off topic," there's not much I can do for you.
I spelled out why wantafanta's references to Bush & Cheney were entirely relevant to the topic and to the advice that was being given, in the part that you ignored. So here it is again:

When advising someone of the dangers of joining a war, what is wrong with also pointing out that those who would send them into such danger have a history of avoiding it themselves?
But it is interesting that you now attack wantafanta for "conveniently leaving out Clinton's avoidance in the process". Had wantafanta mentioned Clinton's draft dodging, how would that have been on topic? Unlike the references to Bush & Cheney, it wouldn't; it would have been wildly off topic. So after attacking wantafanta for posting what you wrongly described as being off topic comments, you are now attacking him for not being off topic. You seem rather confused here. Do you want wantafanta to be on topic or off topic?

I think the explanation for the above confusion was, ironically, provided by you when you wrote: ‘His "advice" was clearly motivated by his obvious patisanship (sic) …’ It is evident from the views you have expressed throughout this thread that your objection to wantafanta’s post was based not on any genuine disdain you might feel toward off topic posting generally, but by your own partisanship. In other words, you don’t like wantafanta’s views, so rather than just try to counter them, you felt the need to add the accusation of off topic posting so as to squeeze as much mileage as possible out of your attacks on him.

Flipper1987
20-07-06, 04:50
Who started the war? What happend to japan and germany? Did the germans got millions $ for selling something (like oil)? :p
I don't think so. Also at this time you couldn't travel that fast like nowadays.

Oh dear Lord. Azumi, you obviously don't have a lot of experience with debating simple issues. First you ignore my simple question, which I stated twice, and then you respond by asking nonsensical questions. It doesn't matter who started the war because civilians were killed in both Iraq, Germany and Japan. I already told you what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II. Until you can actually debate this topic on an adult level, I'm not going to bother to respond to you anymore.

So you admit that the US supported dictatorship.

I never admitted that.

First they raise some dictator and if the lose the control (over the puppet) the declare war under false evidence. Where are the nuclear or chemical weapons?

First, Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party were in firm control of Iraq before the US gave them military assistance against the Iranians. We never controlled them in any way, shape or form.

Second, the "false evidence" you are referring to are the numerous intelligence reports provided by various countries, including the UN, that said Iraq had WMDs. Forgetting that important tidbit seems to be common with many people on this forum.

Third, if you're looking for WMDs, Syria may be a good place to check out. :)

As far as I know they didn't found anything yet.

Then you need to actually follow the news because they have, but not in the quantities that were expected...yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

And by the way the US have had the chance to kill Saddam H. in 1991 (Gulf War) but they didn't.

This clearly shows that you don't understand anything about the priorities of Operation Desert Storm....killing Hussein was not one of the main goals.

...and to present counterfeit alleged evidence of mass destruction weapons is a typical knee-jerk mantras that war liberals use to justify their crazy actions.

Hmmm. If you can actually prove the evidence was "counterfeit,' then simply provide the documentation.

Oil is not the only thing you can sell. The Arms industry making billions...

Yup, just ask China, France, Russia, Syria, and Iran. They're big time weapon merchants in the Middle East that sell/transport their weapons to rogue nations and terrorist groups hell bent on erasing Israel. The US usually doesn't do that.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
20-07-06, 05:24
But it is interesting that you now attack wantafanta for "conveniently leaving out Clinton's avoidance in the process". Had wantafanta mentioned Clinton's draft dodging, how would that have been on topic? Unlike the references to Bush & Cheney, it wouldn't; it would have been wildly off topic. So after attacking wantafanta for posting what you wrongly described as being off topic comments, you are now attacking him for not being off topic. You seem rather confused here. Do you want wantafanta to be on topic or off topic?

Wow, you really missed the point here Paul. The point is that wantafanta went off-topic by mentioning Bush and Cheney. He would also have been off-topic if he mentioned Clinton too. The fact that he ONLY mentioned Bush and Cheney and NOT Clinton shows his partisanship, which is what I was pointing out in that one, isolated comment.

It is evident from the views you have expressed throughout this thread that your objection to wantafanta’s post was based not on any genuine disdain you might feel toward off topic posting generally, but by your own partisanship.

No, my disdain is for wantafanta's off-topic partisanship. I think that is quite obvious.

In other words, you don’t like wantafanta’s views, so rather than just try to counter them, you felt the need to add the accusation of off topic posting so as to squeeze as much mileage as possible out of your attacks on him.

Paul, there are plenty of reasons why I criticized wantafanta's views. His decision to go off-topic is really a tertiary matter that you give too much importance to. My initial post on this thread was in response to his second post and its condescending attitude to Mel (along with other matters). You've taken this Bush-Cheney-Clinton issue and have blown it way out of proportion. Wantafanta's deep-seething hatred towards Bush is largely irrational so I don't even bother to engage him in that directly.

Of course if wantafanta didn't go off topic, then we don't have this thread going off in the direction that it did, plain and simple.

FLIPPER

Paul H
20-07-06, 06:56
Wow, you really missed the point here Paul. The point is that wantafanta went off-topic by mentioning Bush and Cheney.
As I said before, they were incidental references that were relevant to the on topic advice he was giving. But I won’t dwell on that because doing so would be repetitive.

He would also have been off-topic if he mentioned Clinton too.
I’m glad you agree.

The fact that he ONLY mentioned Bush and Cheney and NOT Clinton shows his partisanship, which is what I was pointing out in that one, isolated comment.
He mentioned Bush & Cheney because he was referring to the Iraq war. Why would he mention Clinton in relation to the Iraq war? His post was not primarily about draft dodging. If you think he should have mentioned Clinton, do you also think he should also have posted a list of others who have been similarly accused? How pointless would that have been? He didn’t mention Dan Quale either, but you didn’t criticise him for that.

Paul, there are plenty of reasons why I criticized wantafanta's views. His decision to go off-topic is really a tertiary matter that you give too much importance to.
I don’t give any importance to "his decision to go off-topic" because, as I have said, I don’t believe he did so.

Of course if wantafanta didn't go off topic, then we don't have this thread going off in the direction that it did, plain and simple.
If you thought that discussing the Iraq war was off topic, you could have simply said so briefly, before returning to what you thought was on topic. But you didn’t do that; instead you took the thread further off topic than it would have been without your intervention. You are the last person who should be complaining about the direction the thread took because you were instrumental in taking it there.

tlr online
20-07-06, 06:59
... if you're looking for WMDs, Syria may be a good place to check out.

I thought Iraq harboured WMD? #1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm). #2 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160842,00.html). Ect...

So now it's Syria then?

Perhaps every enemy of the U.S. is harbouring WMD Flipper? :rolleyes:

Wolfguard
20-07-06, 07:32
I thought Iraq harboured WMD? #1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm). #2 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160842,00.html). Ect...

So now it's Syria then?
The theory isn't new. It was put forth by the Israelis before the war started, and has been reinerated by General Georges Sada who served under Saddam:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder030206.asp

You might remember this thwarted attack (or not.) These guys brought their stuff from Syria into Jordan:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/


Also, while Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, this pretty much sums it all up rather well IMO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Transported to another country

Rumors from top governmental officials have abounded of possible transportation of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to foreign countries, namely Syria and Lebanon, right before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

Former Iraqi general Georges Sada stated that in late summer 2002, Saddam had ordered all of his stockpiles to be moved to Syria. The former number two in the Iraqi Air Force stated that with the arrival of inspectors on November 1st, he took the occasion of Syria’s broken dam and made an “air bridge”, bringing by air and by ground, moved them into cargo aircraft and moved them into Syria. He also claimed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s attempt to use 20 tons of chemical weapons in Amman, Jordan and kill 80,000 civilians came from a large cache in Syria, originally transported from Iraq. Another Iraqi general, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti who defected before the 1991 Gulf War, claimed in 2006 that weapons are in Syria because of long military deals going back to the late 1980’s, where contingency plans would be activated if either country were threatened. The credibility of both men was brought into question by Alex Koppelman who questions the closeness of Syria and Iraq after Syria fought against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War.

Claims were also made by Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, a former Israeli officer who served as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces from July 2002 to June 2005. The General told the New York Sun in December 2005 that “[Saddam] transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.” He had previous said in April 2004 that "perhaps" they had been transferred to Syria. [citation needed] Even Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that “Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria.” These claims were considered by the Iraq Survey Group Duelfer report addenda, and stated that because of worsening violence in Iraq they were forced to stop after several months, and results remain inconclusive. It appeared that no official transportation of WMD’s took place, though a limited amount of unofficial movement could not be rule out. They did note that Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with intelligence officers who would then supervise the movement of banned materials between Syria and Iraq. There was also particularly heavy traffic in large trucks on the border before the United States invasion. In testimony before a Senate panel in October 2004, Charles Duelfer stated that this was true, but it was not possible to say if they were WMD-related, and later other officials concurred that there was no information that would indicate what they contained.

Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw has also alleged that the Russians played an extensive role in transporting materials into Syria and Lebanon, and he claims he found that trucks were transporting materials to Syria and returning empty. Also, containers with warnings painted on them were moved to a Beirut hospitals basement. Russia and China were also alleged to have helped arm and then move WMD equipment.

In one of the Saddam tapes released in 2006 of a conversation with one of his aides, he is asked "Where was the nuclear material transported to?" He then says, "A number of them were transported out of Iraq." Reports claim Saddam discusses WMD and links to terrorists on these tapes. US Congressman Pete Hoekstra called for the U.S. government to put the remaining 35,000 boxes of documents on the internet so Arabic speakers around the world can help translate the documents. The U.S. government is in the process of releasing these documents called the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents.

Jeremy Raider
20-07-06, 07:55
It seems like some of you would make great politicians.

tlr online
20-07-06, 12:49
Afternoon Wolfguard. :)

I'm aware of those threats, but that wasn't really the point I was making. More simply put, Bush will continue use his mastered brazen ability of deflection by pointing a finger every which way but loose rather than admit a few basic truths the rest of the planet are already wisen to.

1. George Bush is a liar.
2. George Bush (& Co.) are this planets biggest threat to global stability.

In one way or another, the U.S. has directly amplified Middle Eastern hostility by interfering and manipulating on foreign soil when she should have been putting her own house in order. America will need decades to recover from the legacy of George W. Bush.

Unfortunately for the good, level-thinking citizens of America who have become embroiled in this international disgrace and global deception, the U.S. simply can’t drill, bulldoze or bomb for respect. That’s still a traditionally accepted commodity that must be earned.

tlr online
20-07-06, 13:02
Two more points.

Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Someone remind George W. Bush and Tony Blair they work for us. I wish I had the power to brush aside popular consensus as Bush has just done (see previous thread on stem cell research, so much for democracy!) because I would fire both their asses.

This one's for Flipper, because I can already envisage the plume of lead rising off his notepad as the nib of his pencil reaches critical mass.

It is my free right to express my absolute disdain for your President. The U.S. and UK government are now labelling folk "supporters of hate" if their opinions differ from their own. It now appears civil liberty and freedom of speech is yet another casualty of our times.

Wolfguard
20-07-06, 19:16
Afternoon Wolfguard. :)

I'm aware of those threats, but that wasn't really the point I was making. More simply put, Bush will continue use his mastered brazen ability of deflection by pointing a finger every which way but loose rather than admit a few basic truths the rest of the planet are already wisen to..
That doesn't really counter what was posted in regards to the accusation that WMDs which Iraq claimed to have were possibly transfered elsewhere, in fact, it seems to be an end run around it. Bush wasn't the one making the accusations about Syria, it was two people who were part of Saddam's former military. You got on Flipper about it, and I posted reasons as to why he said that. Now it's back to Bush? OK.


1. George Bush is a liar.
What was the lie.

2. George Bush (& Co.) are this planets biggest threat to global stability.
How.


The U.S. and UK government are now labelling folk "supporters of hate" if their opinions differ from their own. It now appears civil liberty and freedom of speech is yet another casualty of our times.
Then why are you able to type this? Shouldn't you be in jail instead? C'mon now. People protest and communicate their distain all the time, and no one is stopping them. I hear the same thing when the sides are switched, and the other guys are crying "foul" because they are called "haters" or "______ophobes."

tlr online
20-07-06, 19:37
What was the lie.

There are WMD in Iraq.

How.

Because George G. Bush has and continues to meddle in foreign affairs. The Middle East has nothing to do with Bush. Give them the freedom to evolve naturally, a freedom the UK and U.S. have already enjoyed. Will Bush eye China next to enforce his democratic ideal?

Then why are you able to type this? Shouldn't you be in jail instead? C'mon now. People protest and communicate their distain all the time, and no one is stopping them. I hear the same thing when the sides are switched, and the other guys are crying "foul" because they are called "haters" or "______ophobes."

I often wonder who's watching over me. ;) The point I'm making here is that I will choose my own side, and will not be branded for making a choice that directly contradicts with the choice of my government.

azumi_mm
20-07-06, 19:53
First you ignore my simple question, which I stated twice, and then you respond by asking nonsensical questions.


I didn't ignored your illogical questions. I simple gave you the opportunity to answer counter questions. If you were capable to answer them you would already came to the the conclusion that your comparison is nonsense.


It doesn't matter who started the war because civilians were killed in both Iraq, Germany and Japan.


Wrong. It does matter!

WW2: The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union; and also in the Pacific where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific.

After World War II, Europe was informally split into Western and Soviet spheres of influence. There was a shift in power from Western Europe and the British Commonwealth to the two new superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union.

At the end of the war, millions of refugees were homeless, the European economy had collapsed, and 70% of the European industrial infrastructure was destroyed. The Soviet Union had been heavily affected, with 30% of its economy destroyed. The effects lasted for decades as a price for being the forefront in defeating the Axis Powers.


So, know you know why your comparison is totally illogical.



I already told you what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II.


Hm and you still don't get it?



Until you can actually debate this topic on an adult level, I'm not going to bother to respond to you anymore.


Ouch. You really tried to insult me with this? Try harder. For someone who has the numbers 1987* in his name, you are acting very immature.

*Probably your brithday? or maybe just a randomly number, of course. :D

So you still want to "debate" your nonsensical contrasts?



I never admitted that.



It's no secret that the US gave assistance to Iraq in the 1980s.


Really? so we can call that an accident of contradiction?



First, Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party were in firm control of Iraq before the US gave them military assistance against the Iranians. We never controlled them in any way, shape or form.


Again:

In 1985 the U.S. Export-Import Bank extended more than $684 million in credits to Iraq to build an oil pipeline through Jordan with the construction being undertaken by Californian construction firm Bechtel Corporation.


...just big money business.



Second, the "false evidence" you are referring to are the numerous intelligence reports provided by various countries, including the UN, that said Iraq had WMDs.


Please show us those provided documents of the various countries.


The United States and the United Nations came into conflict as a majority of members of the Security Council refused to support a military solution to the crisis, and the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003.

Great controversy emerged when no stockpiles of such weapons were found, leading to accusations that the United States, and in particular its President George W. Bush had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country. As of June 21, 2006, declassified documents show that over 500 chemical munitions containing degraded Mustard or Sarin Nerve agent built prior to 1991 have been recovered in Iraq [1], though no post 1991 munitions have been found. While various leftover weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have also been found, most weapons inspectors do not now believe that the WMD program proceeded after the early 1990s, though various theories continue to be put forward.


This clearly shows that you don't understand anything about the priorities of Operation Desert Storm....killing Hussein was not one of the main goals.


Right, S. Hussein wasn't the important thing. Neither the liberation of the people. But to maintain the oil flow.



Yup, just ask China, France, Russia, Syria, and Iran. They're big time weapon merchants in the Middle East that sell/transport their weapons to rogue nations and terrorist groups hell bent on erasing Israel. The US usually doesn't do that.


What that suppose to mean. Selling arms to "developing countries" is not bad? To be the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries "combined", is great?

Wolfguard
20-07-06, 20:10
There are WMD in Iraq.
And he's the only one who made that claim or did others - including Iraq? Mind naming them? Are the rest of them liars as well?

Because George G. Bush has and continues to meddle in foreign affairs. The Middle East has nothing to do with Bush. Give them the freedom to evolve naturally, a freedom the UK and U.S. have already enjoyed. Will Bush eye China next to enforce his democratic ideal?
Sooooo if he "stops "meddling in foreign affairs" no one else will do that in other countries, everyone will be nice to each other and we'll have world peace? That's the logical conclusion to your suggestion since you are being rather one-sided about it.

I often wonder who's watching over me. ;) The point I'm making here is that I will choose my own side, and will not be branded for making a choice that directly contradicts with the choice of my government
Lol - The irony is that between you and me, I'm probably being watched more than you ever will since I'm always looking up Middle East related topics, people, music, etc....

...plus I don't like Bush. OMG - Should I fear for my freedom and my life?!





I don't think so.

Mona Sax
20-07-06, 20:13
Sooooo if he "stops "meddling in foreign affairs" no one else will do that in other countries, everyone will be nice to each other and we'll have world peace? That's the logical conclusion to your suggestion since you are being rather one-sided about it.
Nope, but we'd have a lot of wars less.

tlr online
20-07-06, 20:15
And he's the only one who made that claim or did others - including Iraq? Mind naming them? Are the rest of them liars as well?

Certainly, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is another liar.


Sooooo if he "stops "meddling in foreign affairs" no one else will do that in other countries, everyone will be nice to each other and we'll have world peace?

So much for leading by example, instead of by force :rolleyes:

Wolfguard
21-07-06, 08:35
Nope, but we'd have a lot of wars less.
Based on what evidence? You don't really have anything substancial to back that accusation up since it's based on a possibility which is impossible to prove either for or against. Furthermore, Bush has only existed for a little over 60 years. What's the rest of humanity's excuse over the centuries?

Wolfguard
21-07-06, 08:47
Certainly, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is another liar.
Jaques Chirac as well, right? What about the US reps who's prior stance was a complete 180 from what it is presently, most notably John Kerry. You also seem to be forgetting that the entire UN believed Saddam had not disarmed completely, in addition to having weapons stockpiles which were unaccounted for.

Why?

Don't tell me it was about US pressure in 2002 because there was aaaaall the years prior which counts towards this belief, especially when one considers the numerous weapons inspectors sent there over the years as well as Operation Desert Fox in 1998 - the objective being to strike at Saddam's WMDs. In addition, the UN had Iraq's own list of weapons stockpiles to go by, hence the inspections.

All this is why I don't buy the "lie" accusation. Seriously, why are you not taking this other information into account?

Mona Sax
21-07-06, 11:16
Based on what evidence? You don't really have anything substancial to back that accusation up since it's based on a possibility which is impossible to prove either for or against. Furthermore, Bush has only existed for a little over 60 years. What's the rest of humanity's excuse over the centuries?
Bush has started two wars and caused a turmoil in Arab and Muslim countries with unforeseeable consequences. There's nothing hypothetic about that. As for the violent history of mankind: Of course Bush hasn't invented war, but every single one is one too many.

Furthermore, if the suspected existence of WMD is a valid reason for going to war, everybody could legally attack the U.S. Ever thought about that? Or what if somebody invaded the U.S. to capture Bush and bring him to trial for his violations of human rights? Unthinkable, but that's just what happened with Saddam Hussein.

Wolfguard
21-07-06, 19:21
Bush has started two wars and caused a turmoil in Arab and Muslim countries with unforeseeable consequences. There's nothing hypothetic about that.
What?

Iraq - yes.

Afghanistan - no.

:rolleyes:

As far as the "turmoil" aspect, the accusation works if everything in the Middle East prior to September 11, 2001 was fine, everyone was getting along, and there had been no terrorist attacks, specifically against US targets. That's false, and you know it.

...if the suspected existence of WMD is a valid reason for going to war, everybody could legally attack the U.S. Ever thought about that?...
Yes I have, and that's a silly comparison. If you don't see the difference between a government who has WMDs and doesn't want to use them and a government who has WMDs and either uses them, wants to use them or provides them to terrorist groups, then I can't help you.

...what if somebody invaded the U.S. to capture Bush and bring him to trial for his violations of human rights? Unthinkable, but that's just what happened with Saddam Hussein.
Among other things. What you are trying to do here is blend the intentions of Bush and Saddam. Please, I don't like Bush either, but if you're going to talk about how "bad" he is, there's plenty of other ammo, as opposed to a psudo comparision between two people who's intent of actions are based on motives which are fundamentally different.