View Full Version : More dead soldiers
gallygirl
09-19-2006, 08:08
I live in a small town in Ontario....yesterday we heard that 2 of the 4 soldiers that died handing out candy to children were from our town. I can't even imagine thier shock, surprise, terror, whatever else they might have felt when they realized what was going to happen. Being there in the first place, trying to help where you aren't wanted would be hard.....but can you imagine what it would feel like dying because you were trying to be kind to the kids that you thought suffer to much too?
I wish that it would end, that they could pull out and do something different. Those other people just don't care. How can you fight an enemy that doesn't care to be alive?
SteyrAUG
09-19-2006, 11:44
I live in a small town in Ontario....yesterday we heard that 2 of the 4 soldiers that died handing out candy to children were from our town. I can't even imagine thier shock, surprise, terror, whatever else they might have felt when they realized what was going to happen. Being there in the first place, trying to help where you aren't wanted would be hard.....but can you imagine what it would feel like dying because you were trying to be kind to the kids that you thought suffer to much too?
I wish that it would end, that they could pull out and do something different. Those other people just don't care. How can you fight an enemy that doesn't care to be alive?
Because leaving the country for the terrorist to take over and to embolden the enemy is not a suitable outcome for those who have already paid with their lives.
You fight an enemy like that by killing ALL OF THEM. Then the people who remain, who want a better way, can finally get started.
silentsamurai
09-20-2006, 08:24
No western culture has any right to be there....And who gave G.W or our muppet Prime minister the right to say otherwise...You can't say that the warriors there are dying for nothing or their deaths would have been in vain!
No western culture has any right to be there....And who gave G.W or our muppet Prime minister the right to say otherwise...You can't say that the warriors there are dying for nothing or their deaths would have been in vain!
So only people who share the same culture are permitted to help those being tortured, killed, exterminated? What about all the pleas for help from the families of Saddam's victims?
Peace
Dennis
SteyrAUG
09-20-2006, 21:49
No western culture has any right to be there....And who gave G.W or our muppet Prime minister the right to say otherwise...You can't say that the warriors there are dying for nothing or their deaths would have been in vain!
LMFAO.
Who we WE to invade and attack Nazi Germany?!?
You guys are all alike.
For those not paying attention this one is easy.
Saddam posed a threat to us following 9-11 when it was demonstrated bio/chem weapons such as those he DID POSSESS did not need a sophisticated missile delivery system.
The UN tried to determine the status of Saddamns bio/chem arsenal and he did NOT cooperate. When it was learned that he payed off UN inspectors the US was forced to proceed under the likely assumption that he did have these weapons and due to his hostility to the US may provide them to terrorists organizations.
So we neutralized the threat.
Now we could have simply helped the Iraqis rebuild their country and put Saddam on trial for his crimes against people like the Kurds and then GO HOME...EXCEPT a bunch of Islamic Holy Warriors decided to escalate the conflict into the current insurgency.
As a consequence we are still there killing barbaric savages who flooded in from Syria, Iran and other locales wholesale. And as good as it is to help all those folks get their 72 virgins we'd prefer not to be in your crappy little turd world nations.
We'd rather be home. And just as soon as the Jihadists stop targetting Americans and Iraqis who are trying to rebuild their country into something better than Iran Part Deux we can finish the job and come home.
Then you guys can get back to hating Jews like before.
SteyrAUG
09-20-2006, 21:54
So only people who share the same culture are permitted to help those being tortured, killed, exterminated? What about all the pleas for help from the families of Saddam's victims?
Peace
Dennis
Silly rabbit, only arabs can kill arabs. :laugh:
It's the same mentaility found in this country. If the KKK kills 3 black people in one year that is a matter of national interest and will lead the news on CNN for months. The FBI will get involved and the community will shudder at the sad state of racism still seen in this country.
However if various black gangs kill members of other black gangs by the thousands we call that "tuesday." It barely makes the local news and is politely termed an "environmental issue."
TIRAGION
09-20-2006, 23:12
Silly rabbit, only arabs can kill arabs. :laugh:
It's the same mentaility found in this country. If the KKK kills 3 black people in one year that is a matter of national interest and will lead the news on CNN for months. The FBI will get involved and the community will shudder at the sad state of racism still seen in this country.
However if various black gangs kill members of other black gangs by the thousands we call that "tuesday." It barely makes the local news and is politely termed an "environmental issue."
well said...
silentsamurai
09-21-2006, 04:46
OK....I take all that onboard and i do appreciate being corrected...Some answers (and please correct me again).
A - Germany was on the brink of becoming the super power that would attempt to do as the Romans did.Take over the world.
B - Saddam has never been linked to what happened on 9-11 only linked to Al-Qaeda...
C -
Q - What kind of weapons of mass destruction did they find?
A - NONE.Only the crappy arms that America originally sold to them anyway
(Listen to Bill Hicks.He was a wise man)
D - The majority of Saddams nationmen are unhappy at the way the nations are trying to "Westernise" their country with policies and a political government.The main objective was Saddam and his henchmen..not the change of an entire countrys policy ( although it was corrupt !)...and is one of the main reasons for the uprising
Who hates Jews?...I love Adam Sandler!
silentsamurai
09-21-2006, 05:39
Actually...reading that back i do sound quite anal....
Don't get me wrong.I'm not totally against the war but i honestly think that there were more subtle ways of going about it, rather than going in guns blazing.Or was that the only way to resolve it?It was anger that sent America into war..not the rights of the Iraqi's or anyone else.It was pure (justified) revenge.And i think that our countrymen are dying for a 'just cause' but at the same time there appears to be a more political agenda behind it all or some sort of a gain.Maybe Oil..or maybe we are building a new beach and need the sand!...(that was only a joke).
Either way there are certain things that do get my back up (and at the moment it's the ammount or immigrants that are flooding into our small, poxy, wealth-obsessed island), and one of them is why are our troops there when they are clearly not wanted.Surveys conducted with the people that we are trying to "Provide a better life for" have suggested that they have become angry at our nations.
The other thing is, Why are our troops being sentenced for beating up prisoners?..It's not like we are chopping off their heads on Worldwide t.v is it?..And a good kicking never hurt anyone!
The US are priding themselves on the fact that they have stopped every other terrorist threat happening on their soil. But the terrorists have turned their attention to the supporting nations, namely the U.K. We have witnessed more terrorist attacks from Muslims than the IRA.Which, prior to 9/11 wasn't a problem for us.So why all of a sudden are our busses and trains being blown up and anti-terrorist groups are striving for information to stop it?If the U.K pulled out of the war, then i guarantee that we would have no more attacks from muslims and/or radical groups, but then the U.S would crumble because they have no support.And it is on the U.K news that we are the ones that are actually in the war-torn areas while the U.S are basically sitting back in the more peaceful areas. Tony Blair is Bushes 'monkey-boy' and we are powerless to stop it.Reason being that the U.S is one of our biggest funders and (as what happened when Vietnam was in action) if the U.K refuse to participate, then the U.S pull all funding and we face a financial downfall...we need the U.S as much as they need the U.K...Catch 22
Wow, that was a bit of a rant....So anyway
What you guys doing for Christmas? ha ha
Are we still talking about Afghanistan?
SteyrAUG
09-21-2006, 12:16
OK....I take all that onboard and i do appreciate being corrected...Some answers (and please correct me again).
A - Germany was on the brink of becoming the super power that would attempt to do as the Romans did.Take over the world.
A threat is a threat is a threat. Germany posed a threat to the US and the US responded. Iraq posed a threat to the US and the US responded. If I point a gun at you and you shoot me, I'm not in the right if my gun simply wasn't loaded. A threat is a threat.
B - Saddam has never been linked to what happened on 9-11 only linked to Al-Qaeda...
Absolutely correct. However Iraq posed a threat FOLLOWING 9-11. That is what all the UN inspectors were there for. Remember?
Q - What kind of weapons of mass destruction did they find?
None. But not because the UN concluded he didn't have them. We know he did before, ask the Kurds. But because we COULDN'T determine the current status of that inventory, Iraq became a threat.
D - The majority of Saddams nationmen are unhappy at the way the nations are trying to "Westernise" their country with policies and a political government.The main objective was Saddam and his henchmen..not the change of an entire countrys policy ( although it was corrupt !)...and is one of the main reasons for the uprising
Well if he would have cooperated with UN inspectors and satisfied US fears that he had such an inventory he would still be running Iraq today. I personally would prefer that scenario.
Who hates Jews?...I love Adam Sandler!
Most Muslims. Glad to see you aren't of the same mentality. Your original rheotric led to my mistaken assumption.
silentsamurai
09-22-2006, 02:50
A threat is a threat is a threat. Germany posed a threat to the US and the US responded. Iraq posed a threat to the US and the US responded. If I point a gun at you and you shoot me, I'm not in the right if my gun simply wasn't loaded. A threat is a threat.
Absolutely correct. However Iraq posed a threat FOLLOWING 9-11. That is what all the UN inspectors were there for. Remember?
None. But not because the UN concluded he didn't have them. We know he did before, ask the Kurds. But because we COULDN'T determine the current status of that inventory, Iraq became a threat.
Well if he would have cooperated with UN inspectors and satisfied US fears that he had such an inventory he would still be running Iraq today. I personally would prefer that scenario.
Most Muslims. Glad to see you aren't of the same mentality. Your original rheotric led to my mistaken assumption.
Well played my friend.I totally respect your answers.We could go backwards and forwards all day so we will agree to disagree.
Everyone has their own opinions and i'm not 'for' the war.It just irritates me to see our countrymen dying for something which,i feel, has already been resolved.We don't need to set up a political office or some sort of parliment in Afghanistan or anywhere.The corruption is at a stable place (because it would never be completely stamped out).Train an army to keep the peace. Continue to help development in regards to the police force that has been set up, and get out. I feel we are still fighting a war that no longer needs to be fought. If we pull out then the number of road-side bombings and attacks on embassies would deminish,not completely stop.
The UN however is not actually sanctioning what is happing declaring that it is worse than ever.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1696153.ece
Rasputin
09-22-2006, 06:22
I feel we are still fighting a war that no longer needs to be fought. If we pull out then the number of road-side bombings and attacks on embassies would deminish,not completely stop.
Oooh, wait, I think I know how this one goes!
Al Quaida and the others who hate us are gathering in Iraq in droves from all over to take out their frustrations against our soldiers.
1. If we pull out now, we give them exactly what they (the terrorists) want, short-term-wise. Do you really want to be the one to tell them "you win"?
2. Right now, they are concentrating their focus on our highly trained and well-armed troops, who are equipped to fight them back. If the troops leave, the terrorists get to go back to concentrating their IEDs against our civilians and embassies in other countries, including our own.
Remember, these radical organizations do not just want us out of the region. They want us all tucked away in dirt naps.
Did I get it right? What do I win?
silentsamurai
09-22-2006, 08:12
Oooh, wait, I think I know how this one goes!
Al Quaida and the others who hate us are gathering in Iraq in droves from all over to take out their frustrations against our soldiers.
1. If we pull out now, we give them exactly what they (the terrorists) want, short-term-wise. Do you really want to be the one to tell them "you win"?
2. Right now, they are concentrating their focus on our highly trained and well-armed troops, who are equipped to fight them back. If the troops leave, the terrorists get to go back to concentrating their IEDs against our civilians and embassies in other countries, including our own.
Remember, these radical organizations do not just want us out of the region. They want us all tucked away in dirt naps.
Did I get it right? What do I win?
Ok allow me to reiterate, sorry....I don't see why my fellow countrymen are dying for something that we had no business getting involved with...Al-Quaedas grief was with America not the U.K...but we decided (well not WE but Tony 'the muppet' Blair) to help sort out the problems that were happening...and i do support that in sorts (i have family all over the states and would be just as annoyed if any of them would have been injured or died,touch wood), but we were not at threat,that i know of, and it was because Bushe's bum-chum wanted to show that he loved him....
America had a completely valid reason for starting a war...but we had no right or reason to get involved....If any U.K members disagree then please speak up and be counted..because i seem to come across as hostile to our American collegues.
And it's not a pride issue where we should or could admit defeat but about how many more people have to die for something which we have nothing to gain..There are lots of websites to state that America will be managing the oil lines and will fund the rebuilding of them...
Peace
Rasputin
09-22-2006, 09:50
I don't see why my fellow countrymen are dying for something that we had no business getting involved with...Al-Quaedas grief was with America not the U.K.
You're a western-style democracy with a pervasive culture. You're high on their list whether you are fighting alongside us or not. Your very existence runs counter to their fundamentalist goals, among which are a state-run theocracy and loss of personal freedoms.
Might as well man up now--the enemy is at your own shores. IMHO, the only reason you aren't targetted for more terrorist operations is because we (the U.S.) make a better target. Everyone likes to cheer the underdog.
I don't see why my fellow countrymen are dying for something that we had no business getting involved with...Al-Quaedas grief was with America not the U.K.
It's not just national interest, but also our common humanity that drives us to do good works.
SteyrAUG
09-22-2006, 11:51
Well played my friend.I totally respect your answers.We could go backwards and forwards all day so we will agree to disagree.
The UN however is not actually sanctioning what is happing declaring that it is worse than ever.
It is not opinion that Saddam refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, it is recorded fact.
And of course the UN doesn't agree with our solution to their failed attempts to determine the status of Saddams arsenal. They failed so we proceeded without them.
....I don't see why my fellow countrymen are dying for something that we had no business getting involved with...Al-Quaedas grief was with America not the U.K...but we decided to help sort out the problems that were happening...
So the threat of terrorism doesn't bother you?
Are you implying the London bombings would not have happened if England had not assisted the U.S.? What if the terrorist bombings had happened before 9-11, would you feel different? Wait they did happen before then, like 1988 PanAm flight 103.
It's simply would you rather go on the offensive, or use the status quo - always investigate and prosecute after the fact?
Are we all talking about the same thing here?
Al-Queda/Afghanistan - yes, the leadership of Al-Queda was being protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan, most Western countries were on board with the invasion
Iraq - no connection to Al-Queda, Saddam was a secular despot.
Somehow Iraq/Afghanistan/Al-Queda seems to have become conflated in this discussion. The incident the OP refers to occurred in Afghanistan.
Only Americans can look just about anybody in the world and say, "Our people died for your people..." Including the English.
Ok allow me to reiterate, sorry....I don't see why my fellow countrymen are dying for something that we had no business getting involved with...Al-Quaedas grief was with America not the U.K...but we decided (well not WE but Tony 'the muppet' Blair) to help sort out the problems that were happening...and i do support that in sorts (i have family all over the states and would be just as annoyed if any of them would have been injured or died,touch wood), but we were not at threat,that i know of, and it was because Bushe's bum-chum wanted to show that he loved him....
America had a completely valid reason for starting a war...but we had no right or reason to get involved....If any U.K members disagree then please speak up and be counted..because i seem to come across as hostile to our American collegues.
And it's not a pride issue where we should or could admit defeat but about how many more people have to die for something which we have nothing to gain..There are lots of websites to state that America will be managing the oil lines and will fund the rebuilding of them...
Peace
The United States and England and two countries separated by a common language. We share so much. You have been fighting this war for a while now. I am only 38-I can remember as far back as 1980 when I watched the SAS take down the Iranian Embassy ON TV.
I am sorry to say it will get alot worse for your country before it gets better.
Your country has been at war with terrorists longer than we have. We are just more overt about it. MI5, MI6, the SBS and the SAS are more covert about it than we are. The admission of defeat is never an option.
In case anyone anywhere has not been paying attention, there is a rather large group of people who profess to be Muslim. While a minoriaty of the Muslim population they are still significant in numbers. They are committed to the removal of Western Civilization from the face of the Earth. They are in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sudan, Syria, Moracco, Tunisia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, the U.S.A. , Great Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Scandanavia, Russia and elsewhere. Even if in your heart and soul you are not at war with them, they ARE at war with you. You do not need to do anything to earn their rage, just your existence is enough. You have two choices, convert NOW and become a follower of their way of life (and DEATH) or fight for your right to live as you choose or at least support those who are currently fighting them. It really is that simple.
Peace
Dennis
SteyrAUG
09-22-2006, 18:28
Iraq - no connection to Al-Queda, Saddam was a secular despot.
If you are asking "how" Saddam posed a threat to the US post 9-11.
He was known to work with terrorists groups (no history of Al Quida and they disliked him for his secularity but politics makes strange bedfellows), he was linked to terrorists organizations such as Hamas.
He was openly hostile to the US following the Persian Gulf war. Not difficult to understand why.
It is not unreasonable to suggest he would have been willing to provide bio/chem weapons to groups such as Hamas, who were also hostile to the US, who then could have conducted their own attacks against the US or provided them to groups such as Al Quida who did not have the same resentment for Hamas that they had for Saddam.
Bottom line is we knew two things were a FACT.
1. Did have bio/chem weapons. The question was did he still have them.
2. Did have tied to terrorists organizations. The question was would he provide weapons to them.
We tried to get the UN to answer these two questions and they were unsuccessful. As a consequence we were forced to proceed under the assumption that the above scenarios were likely.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.