BF2S Forums Without WMD we would have found another excuse to invade Iraq

galt has the assumption that it's america's divine right to give liberty and police the world

it isn't.

you've created two unstable shitholes on the verge of civil-war.

just stop trying to spread your idealized utopian democracy bullshit, focus on home first

Uzique wrote:

galt has the assumption that it's america's divine right to give liberty and police the world

it isn't.

you've created two unstable shitholes on the verge of civil-war.

just stop trying to spread your idealized utopian democracy bullshit, focus on home first

I want nothing more than to become an isolationist country. I don't believe it's America's 'right' to be the world's police force at all. I'm just objectively viewing what's already been done and they really are better off than they were before, or will be in a few years when their economy gets going and the oil starts pumping.

Were we better off keeping our troops home and out of that mess? Sure. Would possibly millions of more people died because of the sanctions imposed on the country because of Saddam? Probably.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I could've sworn that I've argued vehemently for the military to reduced in size drastically. I don't see how that makes me a lover of the US Army, especially considering that I hated my time in the service.

The fact of the matter is the invasion wasn't illegal no matter how many people wish to think it was. And less civilians have died in this war per capita than in any other war in modern times.

so fuck em is basically what you're saying. God you're such the humanist aren't you.

Pretty fuckin disgusting frankly, reducing human lives to just numbers and comparisons on a chart - your death isn't worth as much because there's less of you dying. I'm sure the survivors of the wedding parties who were bombed or the orphaned children will be so comforted to know there are 'less deaths per capita than in other modern wars'. Many people might think ONE innocent life would be ONE too many. When do they start to matter, at what number? ten thousand? a hundred thousand? Two? A million?

Following your logic we might as well say that the military deaths don't matter a flying fuck either until they reach WWII or even Vietnam standards right?

Sick sick sick.

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I could've sworn that I've argued vehemently for the military to reduced in size drastically. I don't see how that makes me a lover of the US Army, especially considering that I hated my time in the service.

The fact of the matter is the invasion wasn't illegal no matter how many people wish to think it was. And less civilians have died in this war per capita than in any other war in modern times.

so fuck em is basically what you're saying. God you're such the humanist aren't you.

Pretty fuckin disgusting frankly, reducing human lives to just numbers and comparisons on a chart - your death isn't worth as much because there's less of you dying. I'm sure the survivors of the wedding parties who were bombed or the orphaned children will be so comforted to know there are 'less deaths per capita than in other modern wars'. Many people might think ONE innocent life would be ONE too many. When do they start to matter, at what number? ten thousand? a hundred thousand? Two? A million?

Following your logic we might as well say that the military deaths don't matter a flying fuck either until they reach WWII or even Vietnam standards right?

Sick sick sick.

At least we try to avoid ccollateral damage. Unlike the suiciders who target them, no?

Not really trying to join this convo... pressing submit anyways

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I could've sworn that I've argued vehemently for the military to reduced in size drastically. I don't see how that makes me a lover of the US Army, especially considering that I hated my time in the service.

The fact of the matter is the invasion wasn't illegal no matter how many people wish to think it was. And less civilians have died in this war per capita than in any other war in modern times.

so fuck em is basically what you're saying. God you're such the humanist aren't you.

Pretty fuckin disgusting frankly, reducing human lives to just numbers and comparisons on a chart - your death isn't worth as much because there's less of you dying. I'm sure the survivors of the wedding parties who were bombed or the orphaned children will be so comforted to know there are 'less deaths per capita than in other modern wars'. Many people might think ONE innocent life would be ONE too many. When do they start to matter, at what number? ten thousand? a hundred thousand? Two? A million?

Following your logic we might as well say that the military deaths don't matter a flying fuck either until they reach WWII or even Vietnam standards right?

Sick sick sick.

You do understand that at every wedding party they fire their AKs into the air in lieu of fireworks, yes? A) that can be construed as an attack by jumpy soldiers and B) Those rounds have to come down sometime. How many people are killed yearly because of those wedding party celebrations?

JohnG@lt wrote:

You do understand that at every wedding party they fire their AKs into the air in lieu of fireworks, yes? A) that can be construed as an attack by jumpy soldiers and B) Those rounds have to come down sometime. How many people are killed yearly because of those wedding party celebrations?

SO FUCKIN WHAT? fuck man stop with your stupid bullshit hypothesising about shit that might or might not happen 'the rounds have to come down somewhere' fuck it's a fuckin desert what are the chance they'll hit someone? Pretty damn slim. I dunno, how many have been killed by these wedding celebrations? ten? five? I dunno, do you? Not many. but do you remember this in 2004?

"UN rights boss concerned over Iraq "wedding" strike.

The top United Nations human rights official voiced concern on Friday over a U.S. air strike in Iraq which killed about 40 people near the Syrian border, saying security fears were "no licence to commit carnage".

In a statement, Bertrand Ramcharan, acting U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed shock over the deaths of "some 40 civilians at a wedding party" near Qaim on Wednesday.

The U.S. military said it had attacked a "suspected foreign fighter safe house" near the Syrian border, killing around 40 people. But witnesses said the victims were celebrating a wedding.

In Baghdad, U.S. military spokesman Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a news conference the military was investigating reports that those killed were at a wedding, and that four to six of the dead were women.

Ramcharan said it was the occupying forces' responsibility to ensure the safety of Iraqi civilians and to "refrain from excessive use of force and indiscriminate attacks".

"The acting High Commissioner calls upon all belligerents to respect human rights and humanitarian law, and to demonstrate at all times paramount concern for the safety and protection of civilians. He reiterates that even if there are security-related concerns, there can be no licence to commit carnage," he said.

Ramcharan has ordered a U.N. report into the human rights situation in Iraq over the past year, which is due by the end a month. "

But what about the FACTS that I've shown you and your frankly inhumane attitude towards YOUR army killing THOUSANDS of civilians? Except that 'oh there's not fuckin many of them compared with other shit that's gone down' which as I've amply demonstarted is in my opinion just stupid and sick. Stop avoiding the facts and towing the party line. You're almost getting as bad as lowing.

We get it. Every life is valuable and every person is a snowflake.

(except for those serving in the military, everyone else is innocent)

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-05 11:25:56)

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You do understand that at every wedding party they fire their AKs into the air in lieu of fireworks, yes? A) that can be construed as an attack by jumpy soldiers and B) Those rounds have to come down sometime. How many people are killed yearly because of those wedding party celebrations?

SO FUCKIN WHAT? fuck man stop with your stupid bullshit hypothesising about shit that might or might not happen 'the rounds have to come down somewhere' fuck it's a fuckin desert what are the chance they'll hit someone? Pretty damn slim. I dunno, how many have been killed by these wedding celebrations? ten? five? I dunno, do you? Not many. but do you remember this in 2004?

"UN rights boss concerned over Iraq "wedding" strike.

The top United Nations human rights official voiced concern on Friday over a U.S. air strike in Iraq which killed about 40 people near the Syrian border, saying security fears were "no licence to commit carnage".

In a statement, Bertrand Ramcharan, acting U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed shock over the deaths of "some 40 civilians at a wedding party" near Qaim on Wednesday.

The U.S. military said it had attacked a "suspected foreign fighter safe house" near the Syrian border, killing around 40 people. But witnesses said the victims were celebrating a wedding.

In Baghdad, U.S. military spokesman Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a news conference the military was investigating reports that those killed were at a wedding, and that four to six of the dead were women.

Ramcharan said it was the occupying forces' responsibility to ensure the safety of Iraqi civilians and to "refrain from excessive use of force and indiscriminate attacks".

"The acting High Commissioner calls upon all belligerents to respect human rights and humanitarian law, and to demonstrate at all times paramount concern for the safety and protection of civilians. He reiterates that even if there are security-related concerns, there can be no licence to commit carnage," he said.

Ramcharan has ordered a U.N. report into the human rights situation in Iraq over the past year, which is due by the end a month. "

But what about the FACTS that I've shown you and your frankly inhumane attitude towards YOUR army killing THOUSANDS of civilians? Except that 'oh there's not fuckin many of them compared with other shit that's gone down' which as I've amply demonstarted is in my opinion just stupid and sick. Stop avoiding the facts and towing the party line. You're almost getting as bad as lowing.

You really should talk to your mom about skipping school one day and have her take you to the doctor to increase you prescription of Ritalin. You are entirely too tense for this forum. But HEY, don't you dare take off from school on a test day!!

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

We get it. Every life is valuable and every person is a snowflake.

(except for those serving in the military, everyone else is innocent)

Total misrepresentation borne out of desperation and you know it.

Actually he gave an accurate description of how your posts are coming across.

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

And where have I ever said I think that suicide bombers are great guys? Err..nowhere. They're motherfuckers as well. Stop bringing up shit and avoiding the issues mentioned above.

I'm not avoiding any issues. Did I ever say the military was perfect and that mistakes didn't happen? No, of course not. But to seriously expect there to be zero civilian casualties in a war fought in cities and where the 'bad guys' aren't wearing uniforms is silly and childish.

And did I ever say I expect zero civilian casualties. This whole thing started because you wanted proof 'not from Al-Jazeera' that the US Army has killed thousands of civilians in Iraq. Rather than saying 'that's pretty fucked up and shocking gee maybe we DID fuck up' you start bringing up a load of unrelated shit and ignore everything I say. You bring up one thing, I refute it, you misrepresent me then you move on to another thing.

I said I'd prefer it if NO-ONE would be killed but you seem to be saying that it DOESN'T MATTER if civilians get killed. I dunno if the're fuckin snowflakes or whatever but they are NON-COMBATANTS. One minute you say it DOES matter when Saddam kills them, next thing it DOESN'T MATTER when YOUR army kills them because 'it's only to be expected'. So, how many is too many for you like I asked before? A million? What number would be high enough to make you think yeah gee what a fuck up. And I stand by the opinion that most of those people (all? who knows?) would STILL be alive including the children and babies (I guess they must be the snowflakes or are tehy just collateral damage too?) if the US hadn't ILLEGALLY (yeah I said it again) invaded the country for the puropse of regime change and making lots of money.

Here's your collateral damage btw:

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

And where have I ever said I think that suicide bombers are great guys? Err..nowhere. They're motherfuckers as well. Stop bringing up shit and avoiding the issues mentioned above.

I'm not avoiding any issues. Did I ever say the military was perfect and that mistakes didn't happen? No, of course not. But to seriously expect there to be zero civilian casualties in a war fought in cities and where the 'bad guys' aren't wearing uniforms is silly and childish.

And did I ever say I expect zero civilian casualties. This whole thing started because you wanted proof 'not from Al-Jazeera' that the US Army has killed thousands of civilians in Iraq. Rather than saying 'that's pretty fucked up and shocking gee maybe we DID fuck up' you start bringing up a load of unrelated shit and ignore everything I say. You bring up one thing, I refute it, you misrepresent me then you move on to another thing.

I said I'd prefer it if NO-ONE would be killed but you seem to be saying that it DOESN'T MATTER if civilians get killed. I dunno if the're fuckin snowflakes or whatever but they are NON-COMBATANTS. One minute you say it DOES matter when Saddam kills them, next thing it DOESN'T MATTER when YOUR army kills them because 'it's only to be expected'. So, how many is too many for you like I asked before? A million? What number would be high enough to make you think yeah gee what a fuck up. And I stand by the opinion that most of those people (all? who knows?) would STILL be alive including the children and babies (I guess they must be the snowflakes or are tehy just collateral damage too?) if the US hadn't ILLEGALLY (yeah I said it again) invaded the country for the puropse of regime change and making lots of money.

Here's your collateral damage btw:

http://franciscanmafia.files.wordpress. … lties1.jpg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006 … 197616.jpg

http://mindprod.com/image/restricted/iraqburnedbaby.jpg

http://mindprod.com/image/restricted/ir … htubes.jpg

I don't remember saying civilian casualties aren't a tragedy. I do remember saying that they are to be expected and compared to previous wars the numbers are low. I also remember saying that the casualties suffered during this war are far less than they experienced under Saddam's rule. So logically, getting bent out of shape over a few thousand lives lost versus the millions of lives saved seems a bit silly to me, yes.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't remember saying civilian casualties aren't a tragedy. I do remember saying that they are to be expected and compared to previous wars the numbers are low. I also remember saying that the casualties suffered during this war are far less than they experienced under Saddam's rule. So logically, getting bent out of shape over a few thousand lives lost versus the millions of lives saved seems a bit silly to me, yes.

Man, how can you say millions of lives were saved? You don't know that. we DO know the US army and allies killed thouasnds, but you're just hypothesising about 'millions' being saved. where the fuck you get that from? Who knows how many other thousands have been killed as a result of terrorism influenced by the US actions?

and you've NEVER said civvie deaths ARE a tragedy - you just say that the numbers in Iraq aren't that high compared with other wars so where's the problem. That's what you SAID man, remember????

jeezez-h-christ.

JohnG@lt wrote:

It was a continuation of the Gulf War which was started by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Is this difficult to understand? We didn't go in there unprovoked.

Rubbish, unless you mean the US provoked Iraq.

As for deaths averted... well, 500k civilians died in the 10 years following the Gulf War because Saddam wouldn't comply with the terms of the sanctions.

Saddam did comply with the sanctions.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-01-05 14:49:25)