Attacking Iraq...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Dunno. Why was he banned?

[Guest LooseCannon]

According to Brian: "Pretty much he was warbed and went flame-baiting in the WWE folder and just generally was dick towards everyone. "

 

I don't know what warbed means, or if its a typo what it was supposed to be. warped?

 

EDIT: Figured it out. the 'n' is right next to the 'b' on the keyboard, so apparently warned.

[Guest benoitrules2000]

ok

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Does anyone know if 4Life was really in the military. He acted like a 13 year old on this board. That's not something you'd expect from someone in the military.

[Guest Powerplay]

For some reason he said he was in Kuwait. I don't remember having garrisoned troops in Kuwait, though I could be wrong. Plus, for someone in the Middle East on active duty (Did he say he was in Afganistan, or just fought there?) he sure had some pretty good internet access. And does anyone know what his last post read, cause I'm just kinda curious about why he had to edit it out.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Does anyone know if 4Life was really in the military. He acted like a 13 year old on this board. That's not something you'd expect from someone in the military.

All I know is that his birthday at first was 1975. He said he was in Panama, which was in 1989 and which would have made him about 14 at the time. Someone pointed this out and he changed the date to 1905.

 

I don't know if he was in the military or not, but that's pretty suspicious.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

...

 

He claimed to be 27, and then 97 years old?

[Guest Powerplay]

Yeah, they hooked up an SAW to his Rascal scooter and made him the LMG for the squad. That way they had a mobile machine gun platform. And maybe they hooked him up with some off-road tires for the rugged terrain of Afganistan.

[Guest mister foozel]

FOR THOSE WHO BOMBED IRAQ!!! (WE SALUTE YOU)

 

sorry...

 

bomb military strategic places so that they can't retalitate back.

 

but I'm not American

don't kill civilians either

 

don't lower to their level

[Guest Vern Gagne]

FOR THOSE WHO BOMBED IRAQ!!! (WE SALUTE YOU)

 

sorry...

 

bomb military strategic places so that they can't retalitate back.

 

but I'm not American

don't kill civilians either

 

don't lower to their level

civilian casualties are a part of war.

 

we're not targeting civilians like Hussein would.

[Guest LooseCannon]

...

 

He claimed to be 27, and then 97 years old?

Perhaps he was doing some space travel at speeds in excess of the speed of light. That's a plausible explanation.

[Guest TJH]

Maybe HHH can find out who banned 4Life next Raw?

[Guest Powerplay]

Maybe HHH can find out who banned 4Life next Raw?

Yeah, then we'll find out HHH banned him because he was weak and needed HHH. He did it as an act of love. There is no act of love and friendship then banning your friend. Or perhaps pulling a super-safe pedigree on him and then shoving his head through a car windshield.

[Guest Vagabond]

Well, I thought we should have taken out Saddam last time and figured we would have to deal with him again if we did not. I think Bush Jr. is mainly doing this to save his fathers legacy or something because everybody knows he totally blew it by stopping then. The world would certainly be a better place without him but I have seen no evidence that he is anywhere near having weapons of mass destruction in any way shape or form. Main point however, is we cannot attack every country on earth who we don't agree with that might be developing such things. It's not feasible even if we wanted to. It is inevitable that these countries will get these things in the near future regardless of what we do. I think we need to find a way to get along with them and stop making it an us or them proposition all the time. We are the only country who ever used nukes and it wasn't a case in which the survivability of our country was at stake either. This doesn't give us the moral high ground to act like we are the only people noble enough to be trusted with them. Who are we to deny nuclear power or weapons to anybody we happen not to like?

[Guest Powerplay]

Well, I thought we should have taken out Saddam last time and figured we would have to deal with him again if we did not.  I think Bush Jr. is mainly doing this to save his fathers legacy or something because everybody knows he totally blew it by stopping then. The world would certainly be a better place without him but I have seen no evidence that he is anywhere near having weapons of mass destruction in any way shape or form. Main point however, is we cannot attack every country on earth who we don't agree with that might be developing such things.  It's not feasible even if we wanted to.  It is inevitable that these countries will get these things in the near future regardless of what we do. I think we need to find a way to get along with them and stop making it an us or them proposition all the time.  We are the only country who ever used nukes and it wasn't a case in which the survivability of our country was at stake either. This doesn't give us the moral high ground to act like we are the only people noble enough to be trusted with them. Who are we to deny nuclear power or weapons to anybody we happen not to like?

I'm sorry, but I'm simply amazed at the audacity of the statement you just made. First off, when we dropped the atom bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it was for the survivability of our country. "Operation Olympic", the invasion of Mainland Japan, was predicted conservatively to have a casualty figure of 1 Million servicemen. 1 Million. And looking at the ratio of Americans dead to Japanese dead on Iwo Jima (I believe. It may have been Tarawa, though), the figures would be in excess of 10 million Japanese dead, including many women and children. That's 11 million people dead plus the entire island of Japan being reduced to rubble do to the fighting, and you say that's not an issue of survivability for BOTH countries?

 

Secondly, we've been informed from many intelligence reports that Iraq has been trying to produce weapons of mass destruction. Saddam tried to produce an artillery gun in the mountains capable of hurling artillery shells from Iraq to Israel. That would be pretty destructive to me. Plus, Iraq does support many different Terrorist groups in their fight against the West and Israel (I believe Hamas is one. And wasn't it mentioned that they give $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers?).

 

Saddam won't get along with us. He won't even let Weapons Inspectors check out if they are building weapons. What does he have to hide from UN weapons inspectors *cough*weaponsofmassdestruction*cough*?

 

Also, this wouldn't be Bush Snr. failed legacy. It would be Colin Powell's. Powell nixed the idea of uninstalling Saddam because he felt the power vacuum left over could bring an even worse leader around. Very real concern (Also the biggest fear we have about taking the bastard Arafat out of power), and he probably wishes he had taken him out when he had the chance. But hindsight is 20/20.

 

Who are we to deny countries that support and fund terrorism, and the downfall of the West and Israel, weapons of mass destruction that could demolish cities in one blast, effectively killing millions and scattering radioactive debris that will make the area unliveable for years to come? I dunno, you really have me there.

[Guest Vagabond]

I'm sorry, but I'm simply amazed at the audacity of the statement you just made. First off, when we dropped the atom bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it was for the survivability of our country. "Operation Olympic", the invasion of Mainland Japan, was predicted conservatively to have a casualty figure of 1 Million servicemen. 1 Million. And looking at the ratio of Americans dead to Japanese dead on Iwo Jima (I believe. It may have been Tarawa, though), the figures would be in excess of 10 million Japanese dead, including many women and children. That's 11 million people dead plus the entire island of Japan being reduced to rubble do to the fighting, and you say that's not an issue of survivability for BOTH countries?

You make several huge assumptions here all of them totally wrong. First of all since there were only 400,000 US dead in the entire 5 year war. The estimate of a million US casualites is completely absurd. You like most people will take the battle such as Tarawa with the absolute maximum casualties and then use that to extrapolate a huge campaign. Wrong. Secondly, you make the assumption that there were only two alternatives to ending the war. Either the bomb or an invasion. There were plenty of other alternatives. The bomb was dropped more to stop the Soviets than it was the Japanese. It was much more politically motivated as are the absurd invasion projections to try and justify it which never even happened and likely never would have. Lastly, even granting your absurd projections are true. Losing that many men would not have ended the US as a country. It's not a matter of survival but of expediancy.

[Guest Vagabond]

Who are we to deny countries that support and fund terrorism, and the downfall of the West and Israel, weapons of mass destruction that could demolish cities in one blast, effectively killing millions and scattering radioactive debris that will make the area unliveable for years to come? I dunno, you really have me there.

Well, first of all terrorism is a completely different question. Terrorism is basically any attack against the US or Israel regardless of how justified it is. Bush and others illinformed will try and act like it is targeting civilians but when the USS Cole was the target they were still called terrorist, ditto the marine barracks in Lebanon, ditto the embassies which are sovereign US territory and guarded by marines. There is nothing they could attack in which they would not be labelled terrorists. Like I said, any attack on US is done by "terrorists", it's a meaningless word to provoke mindless kneejerk reactions from people like you. Secondly, one of the US biggest problems is that we feel justified in doing just abou anything to defend ourselves but deny any other country the ability to do the same. That rage to get revenge and destroy we felt after 9/11 is the same way they feel when we cruise missle them and bomb them for threatening to raise our gas prices by manipulating something that belongs to them. Lastly, as I said before we are the only nation to use weapons of mass destruction on anybody. I still can't see how that gives us the moral high ground in anyway. Not too hard to get you , as your education is obviously lacking severely.

[Guest Powerplay]

You make several huge assumptions here all of them totally wrong. First of all since there were only 400,000 US dead in the entire 5 year war. The estimate of a million US casualites is completely absurd. You like most people will take the battle such as Tarawa with the absolute maximum casualties and then use that to extrapolate a huge campaign. Wrong. Secondly, you make the assumption that there were only two alternatives to ending the war. Either the bomb or an invasion. There were plenty of other alternatives. The bomb was dropped more to stop the Soviets than it was the Japanese. It was much more politically motivated as are the absurd invasion projections to try and justify it which never even happened and likely never would have. Lastly, even granting your absurd projections are true. Losing that many men would not have ended the US as a country. It's not a matter of survival but of expediancy.

No, check military records. Predicted casualty reports were at 1 million. These are military experts giving predicting these casualty reports. They were going to carry out this operation up until the bombs were dropped. They know far better how to make casualty predictions than you or I. No, it was dropped to save American lives. Had the bomb not been dropped, the Japanese would have had time to go through with Operation Cherry Blossom, was the dropping of fleas infected with Bubonic plague on San Diego via planes launched from Submarine. How many people would be dead from an epidemic of Bubonic plague in Southern California? Battles like Tarawa and Iwo Jima were two of the closer battles to Japan. If you look at statistics, they show as the battles got closer to Japan, rates of the Japanese rose considerably. They estimated that invading mainland Japan, a place that in it's entire history had never been invaded before, a place with a population fanatically devoted to it's government, that they would take massive casualties. The Japanese would NEVER surrender mainland Japan without a massive fight. They were training young boys and girls how to fight. They were building small suicide boats filled with explosives at that they were prepared to launch at approaching landing craft. No country in all of WWII had the mass devotion and faith in their leaders like Japan did. Propaganda by the Japanese specifically told civilians not to surrender because Americans would viciously rape women and slaughter men and children. This is why it was so hard to capture Japanese civilians on islands. They would rather commit suicide than surrender.

[Guest Vagabond]

No, check military records. Predicted casualty reports were at 1 million. These are military experts giving predicting these casualty reports. They were going to carry out this operation up until the bombs were dropped. They know far better how to make casualty predictions than you or I. <<<<

 

Perhaps, they could if they were motivated to give a completely accurate prediction, however they were trying to rewrite history so deliberately gave high predictions. Secondly, go see what Trevor Dupuy's predictions for the gulf war were. Lastly, your entire post is called "begging the question" and is a logical fallacy.

[Guest DrTom]

"Terrorism is basically any attack against the US or Israel regardless of how justified it is."

 

Terrorism is completely unjustifiable.

 

"Bush and others illinformed will try and act like it is targeting civilians but when the USS Cole was the target they were still called terrorist, ditto the marine barracks in Lebanon, ditto the embassies which are sovereign US territory and guarded by marines."

 

Let's see, the 1993 WTC attack targeted civilians. The Embassy bombings targeted civilians. The Embassies might be guarded by military men, but they're still staffed by civilians. The 2001 WTC attacks targeted civilians. Sounds like terrorism to me.

 

"Like I said, any attack on US is done by "terrorists", it's a meaningless word to provoke mindless kneejerk reactions from people like you."

 

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see that you've transcended completely sensible emotional reactions provoked by the premeditated slaughter of your countrymen. Please forgive the rest of us for not living on your enlightened plane of existence, O Great And Mighty Jackass.

 

"That rage to get revenge and destroy we felt after 9/11 is the same way they feel when we cruise missle them and bomb them for threatening to raise our gas prices by manipulating something that belongs to them."

 

Exactly when did we bomb someone for threatening to raise our gas prices?

 

"Lastly, as I said before we are the only nation to use weapons of mass destruction on anybody. I still can't see how that gives us the moral high ground in anyway."

 

Perhaps because our attack was designed to end a long and bloody war that threatened to get even bloodier, as opposed to enforcing the tenets of a narrow-minded religion by raining death upon the infidels?

 

"Not too hard to get you , as your education is obviously lacking severely."

 

Physician, heal thyself.

[Guest Vagabond]

Let's see, the 1993 WTC attack targeted civilians. The Embassy bombings targeted civilians. The Embassies might be guarded by military men, but they're still staffed by civilians. The 2001 WTC attacks targeted civilians. Sounds like terrorism to me.<<<<

You didn't answer to the examples I gave but just came back with some others. I never said that an attack couldn't ever be terrorism. I just said we call every attack "terroism" whether or not it actually is or not. You can put civilians anyplace. We do it and we call it a day care center, others do it and we call it using "human shields". The fact somebody isn't wearing a uniform doesn't mean they are a non combatant. Putting Civilians in combat areas or places likely to be attacked doesn't mean those targets are now off limits to attack. The rest is just mindless insults and flaming.

[Guest Powerplay]

Well, first of all terrorism is a completely different question. Terrorism is basically any attack against the US or Israel regardless of how justified it is. Bush and others illinformed will try and act like it is targeting civilians but when the USS Cole was the target they were still called terrorist, ditto the marine barracks in Lebanon, ditto the embassies which are sovereign US territory and guarded by marines. There is nothing they could attack in which they would not be labelled terrorists. Like I said, any attack on US is done by "terrorists", it's a meaningless word to provoke mindless kneejerk reactions from people like you. Secondly, one of the US biggest problems is that we feel justified in doing just abou anything to defend ourselves but deny any other country the ability to do the same. That rage to get revenge and destroy we felt after 9/11 is the same way they feel when we cruise missle them and bomb them for threatening to raise our gas prices by manipulating something that belongs to them. Lastly, as I said before we are the only nation to use weapons of mass destruction on anybody. I still can't see how that gives us the moral high ground in anyway. Not too hard to get you , as your education is obviously lacking severely.

And a disco bar in Israel is really a military instillation, right? And buses carrying innocent civilians, I mean, they are military targets. If they support the killing of Israel civilians, what differentiates the Israeli citizen from the American citizen? And embassies are NOT full of military personnel. Diplomats, secretaries, mail boys, envoys, reporters, and numerous support are all civilians. Don't fool yourself into thinking that an embassy is a military target. Terrorism is only an attack against Israel or the US? No, terrorism, defined by the FBI, is "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coere a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". It can happen anywhere. Japan had an attack a while back with some enviromental extremists flooding a Tokyo subway with poisin gas. What about the Iran embassy in England that required the SAS? Terrorism is using violence against the innocent to further political motives.

 

Why do we feel justified to invade Iraq?

 

1) They have produced chemical weapons, biological weapons, and can possibly produce nuclear weapons which could fall into the hands of terrorist groups.

 

2) Their current dictator supports the killing of innocent Israelis and pays Terrorist groups and encourages them to commit acts of violence.

 

3) The Iraqi people have suffered as a whole from the current regime. The Kurds to the north have been attacked and slaughter many times, either with armed soldiers or poisin gas attacks. Economically the people are in relative poverty.

 

I just can't see how you can defend Iraq and Saddam Hussein's "Right" to have weapons of mass destruction, when it could jeporadize world security. And man you are condescending. I'm sorry if you think you are so much better than me. Isn't it hypocritical to say that the US doesn't hold the moral highground all subjects when you obviously think you hold the moral highground over me?

 

Why do you think I feel "Rage" and yearn for "Revenge" after 9/11? Thanks for the stereotype. Not all people feel we should attack Iraq simply because of 9/11. I felt that we should have invaded Iraq a long time ago simply to depose Saddam Hussein and better the people of Iraq long before that.

 

Pakistan and India are coming close to using weapons of mass destruction on each other. And why do you assume Iraq wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction if they got their hands on some?

 

I suppose you were also against the bombing of Serbia, since we shouldn't stop the genocidal wishes of a warcriminal.

 

Your more biased than anyone on these boards. I dislike Some Guy and Marney sometimes, but think you are the end-all-be-all on opinions in foreign policy. If only you were president.

[Guest DrTom]

"I just said we call every attack "terroism" whether or not it actually is or not."

 

For me to properly answer that, I'd need to know how you define terrorism, or more accurately, how you interpret the USA's definition of terrorism.

 

"The fact somebody isn't wearing a uniform doesn't mean they are a non combatant."

 

True, but people who are just working their everyday jobs in an Embassy building or a skyscraper aren't combatants. They might be considered valuable civilian targets by the attackers, but the average civilian is a non-combatant.

 

"The rest is just mindless insults and flaming."

 

Well, considering your usage of "mindless," "people like you," and "your education is obviously lacking severely," I thought what I said was more akin to fighting fire with fire. But looking at the rest of your posts, that blatantly and unnecessarily patronizing tone isn't there, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and forget about it.

[Guest Vagabond]

And a disco bar in Israel is really a military instillation, right? And buses carrying innocent civilians, I mean, they are military targets. If they support the killing of Israel civilians, what differentiates the Israeli citizen from the American citizen?

I will tell you, since the Israelis have mandatory military service for all those 18-20 of both sexes, if you bomb a disco 95 percent of those in that disco are out of uniform soldiers. They just aren't called that by anybody because of propaganda. A school principal got the M-16 out of his office and killed two supposed "terrorists" Since all Israelis are ex-military and have M-16's I can't see that there is anybody over the age of 18 that is actually a non-combatant. You sir just believe all the propaganda. More begging the question. You need desperately a class on logic, among many others.

[Guest Powerplay]

No, check military records. Predicted casualty reports were at 1 million. These are military experts giving predicting these casualty reports. They were going to carry out this operation up until the bombs were dropped. They know far better how to make casualty predictions than you or I. <<<<

 

Perhaps, they could if they were motivated to give a completely accurate prediction, however they were trying to rewrite history so deliberately gave high predictions. Secondly, go see what Trevor Dupuy's predictions for the gulf war were. Lastly, your entire post is called "begging the question" and is a logical fallacy.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about the reports that were given to General Marshall, Supreme Commander of American forces. These were the ones given by the military experts and commanders BEFORE the bombs were dropped. The people PLANNING THIS OPERATION ESTIMATED 1 MILLION CASUALTIES. Not historians. The actual planners. The operation called for us to take a large foothold on the southern islands, and continiously firebomb the rest of the island as we advanced. It would have meant almost the complete destruction of Japan. But, if you wanted it that way, sure.

 

Difference between Iraqis and Japanese:

 

Iraqis are willing to surrender. The Japanese are not.

 

To invade Iraq, all you had to do was cross an imaginary line. To invade Japan, you would have to land troops and supplies. Naval landings often have many more casualties, especially against the defenses that the Japanese had.

 

The Iraq planners were simply inept. The Japanese are far more skilled and trained than them.

[Guest Powerplay]

And a disco bar in Israel is really a military instillation, right? And buses carrying innocent civilians, I mean, they are military targets. If they support the killing of Israel civilians, what differentiates the Israeli citizen from the American citizen?

I will tell you, since the Israelis have mandatory military service for all those 18-20 of both sexes, if you bomb a disco 95 percent of those in that disco are out of uniform soldiers. They just aren't called that by anybody because of propaganda. A school principal got the M-16 out of his office and killed two supposed "terrorists" Since all Israelis are ex-military and have M-16's I can't see that there is anybody over the age of 18 that is actually a non-combatant. You sir just believe all the propaganda. More begging the question. You need desperately a class on logic, among many others.

The disco bar wasn't like a USO bar. It was a civilian bar run by civilians. There may have been a few out of uniform soldiers there, but not 95%. And what about the gunman that burst into a barmitzvah and began shooting people? I guess they were all military personnel as well.

 

Not everyone is a "Combatant". You sir, have fallen to propaganda. To kill innocent people, people who in no way threaten the bombers, is obscene. Did you support Timothy McVeigh because the Federal Building in OC, Oklahoma, was a government target?

[Guest J*ingus]

I will tell you, since the Israelis have mandatory military service for all those 18-20 of both sexes, if you bomb a disco 95 percent of those in that disco are out of uniform soldiers. They just aren't called that by anybody because of propaganda. A school principal got the M-16 out of his office and killed two supposed "terrorists" Since all Israelis are ex-military and have M-16's I can't see that there is anybody over the age of 18 that is actually a non-combatant. You sir just believe all the propaganda. More begging the question. You need desperately a class on logic, among many others.

I'm trying to follow your logic here:

 

1. Israel is attacked repeatedly by foreign armies and terrorists.

 

2. In response, Israel started forcing mandatory military service on all its citizens.

 

3. The same terrorists who attacked before keep attacking.

 

4. Ergo, everyone over the age of 18 is "fair game" for murder by violent extremists.

 

I think that's what you're implying, and if I'm right, then you're dead wrong, sir.

[Guest Vagabond]

For me to properly answer that, I'd need to know how you define terrorism, or more accurately, how you interpret the USA's definition of terrorism

If somebody deliberately kills civilians who have no active part in supporting the government, military, war effort. I would consider that terrorism. 9/11 certainly counts. I explained the US definition which is any attack of any kind aimed at us. Which diminishes the meaning and purpose. What motivation do those who wish to war against us have to limit their attacks on military targets if we still call them "terrorists" when they attack a purely military target like the Cole? Also, it is a necessary evil in war to attack known civilian areas to keep them from being considered safe by the enemy. If you did not they would just move their troops and supplies in school buses and taxis instead of army trucks. It's a fine sentiment to limit your attacks to only military but in practice it's impractical if you want to win. We don't do it ourselves either.

[Guest Vagabond]

Well, considering your usage of "mindless," "people like you," and "your education is obviously lacking severely," I thought what I said was more akin to fighting fire with fire. But looking at the rest of your posts, that blatantly and unnecessarily patronizing tone isn't there, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and forget about it.

I always do my best to stick to facts. However, using adjectives which accurately describe somebodies statements are not insults. They might be taken as such by those who receive them but they aren't. It's not a name if it is true. It might be a bit harsh but it is meant to be. If somebody obviously doesn't know anything about a topic, saying they are uneducated is no different from telling somebody they aren't a carpenter when they are giving you advice on building your deck. Neither of which they should be doing.

[Guest Powerplay]

You talk as if the group that attacked the USS Cole was the military force of a country, as if they had declared war on us and we actively knew that docking the Cole was inviting disaster. We hadn't declared war on Yemen. It was a group of civilians not affiliated with the government of Yemen attacking the USS Cole. It was peacetime in Yemen. The USS Cole hadn't made any threatening actions that would warrant the actions of self defense.

 

So what you are saying is if Israel decided to attack Palestinian civilian centers and slaughter all Palestinians within Israel, they would be justified to do so because any Palestinian, young or old, can have a bomb strapped to them and blow up, killing numerous civilians around them.