mapaghimagsik
There were some interesting elements that wanted Saddam killed *right away*. It was a demonstration of power by the Sadrists, who defacto own Bagdhad. Its interesting because the Sadrists are the targets of the new escalation going on, but everything that is done is done at Sadr's behest.

The US had a definite interest in not letting Saddam be tried for the gassing of the Kurds. Curds are a dairy product, Kurds are an ethnic minority in Iraq and Turkey. Well, since the US and Briton provided weapons in the proxy war with Iran, including the chemical weapons, that's not something the US would want done on the world stage.

For the truly macabre, there's a cellphone video of the hanging. Saddam refused a hood. I guess being a heartless murdering bastard, he knew it was coming, and knew how he wanted to go out.

I can't help but thing if the tables were turned, the current US president won't face his death the same way, and is happy sending other people to do his dying for him.

Saddam's hanging gives Bush something positive to say at the State of the Union. It gives the warbloggers one last wargasm before reality hits again. It does *nothing* on the ground in Iraq, other than remind the Sunni that they are fucked under a Shiite dictatorship. I don't think it gives Al-Maliki any breathing room.

It makes Iran *very*very* happy. But certainly not happy enough to actually help us.

On a side note, *of course* I had to do a "Saddam is dead" comic. Its mandatory for the political comics.

Nothing will ever make Iran help us. Its kind of their thing. What was bad was the whole trial was a zoo. No doubt he was guilty but hell he still deserves a free trial. The execution was even more of a zoo, i've seen the video (i had to watch it. im in the army) and its not, what we would call a "professional execution". People were chanting for Sadr during the whole thing. Along with the expected "to hell" from everyone when we dropped.
The death of a terrible man. But even the worse people deserve a fair end.

Vindibudd
But don't sit there and lecture me about starting unjust wars et al. This country, INCLUDING the LEFT WING in congress, decided that national security was at risk. 3000 soldiers dead is NOTHING when you are contemplating hundreds of millions dead.

Yes, just like the German Invasion of Poland in 1939. They said the Polish attacked them on the boarder
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939) [en.wikipedia.org]

Saddam's military and chemical projects were in shambles for lack of funds. I don't have the website source but i saw it with my own eyes. His military was pretty much non-existant. Let alone his chemical labs were not stocked and most the workers quit because they weren't being paid.

Personally i think we should have attack for the sole purpose of destroying the government of one of the worst rulers of the 20th century. Without the claim of WMD at all.

3,006 dead soldiers is something for any cause, your ignorant to think otherwise

Phantom Penguin

Vindibudd
But don't sit there and lecture me about starting unjust wars et al. This country, INCLUDING the LEFT WING in congress, decided that national security was at risk. 3000 soldiers dead is NOTHING when you are contemplating hundreds of millions dead.

Yes, just like the German Invasion of Poland in 1939. They said the Polish attacked them on the boarder
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939) [en.wikipedia.org]

Saddam's military and chemical projects were in shambles for lack of funds. I don't have the website source but i saw it with my own eyes. His military was pretty much non-existant. Let alone his chemical labs were not stocked and most the workers quit because they weren't being paid.

Personally i think we should have attack for the sole purpose of destroying the government of one of the worst rulers of the 20th century. Without the claim of WMD at all.

3,006 dead soldiers is something for any cause, your ignorant to think otherwise

Okay, now Iraq is the equivalent of Poland. Right. That is one of the most absurd comparisons I have heard on the topic. We didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade Iraq. The United States isn't looking to take over the world. And for the last effing time, Bush does not equal Hitler. If you really want to know ignorant, that comparison is ignorant.

As for the soldiers dying, you are arguing from an emotional standpoint, not a pragmatic one. As the leader of a country, an individual has to weigh the best of a bad choice if they feel they must. They felt they must invade Iraq, obviously. Of course a bunch of people on a cartooning messageboard know better, but what can I say.

Vindibudd
Of course a bunch of people on a cartooning messageboard know better, but what can I say.

I've seen variations of that idea by a couple of people. We have to be careful about it because we don't know people's backgrounds, and then there's the fact that it describes the person using it as well- so you tend to think, "if these arguments are pointless, then what was the point of that very contribution?" :)

PP just came back from Iraq, he's a soldier. So yes, he has an emotional position (we all do if truth be told), but he's also got a very good perspective on the situation.
In regards to Poland: if PP was asserting that Iraq was like Poland in that it is a prelude to a massive campaign, then he would obviously not be right. But there were other aspects to the invasion of Poland that he may have been alluding to: The Germans created artificial reasons for the war, there was falsified intelligence of Polish attacks, propaganda etc. For years Germany had coveted what it saw as stolen territory: unfinished business from WW1. And a lot more besides. From that point of view the similarities are obvious.
There's nothing sinister in that though, you can find good similarities and analogues in many events if you know enough about them, history tends to repeat, there's only so many ways events can happen.

Back to the subject though, I hear that Sadam's "Co-defendants" will meet a similar fate in the next few days. This is certainly speedy "justice". One wonders if it is justice at all? These trials and executions are exceedingly quick...

Remember, however, Vindibudd, that Bush said, before entering Iraq, that there was "absolutely no doubt" that there were WMDs in Iraq. If there was "no doubt" then why were there none? Shouldn't Bush be sure of the information before he goes saying stuff like that? Even after no WMDs were found, he still said that he was operating under "good, sound intelligence." Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

As for the whole "cartooning message board" thing, you're just a guy on a cartooning message board too, aren't you? But to make our arguments we're each using information that was provided by more reputable sources.

On the subject of the whole Iraq thing, a cousin of mine is a Major in the army, and he's been saying since 2004 that this thing is a complete mess. He's got access to a lot of information that normal civilians don't have, and says that this war could be going on for a good 6 or 7 years. Possibly longer.

I am not saying that because this is a cartoonist message board that no one's opinion is valid, I am saying that I am pointing out that we can't sit there and say that we know better than world leaders about any given national security situation because we simply do not have the resources at hand that can show us these things.

And even more to the point, people are making crazy claims about falsified intelligence. People are making reckless claims that the people in power made up things that they knew to be completely wrong just so they could invade Iraq. That is wrong. With all due respect, being a soldier does not make you any better judge of public policy than a civilian. I respect that you for going to the military and I think you have a lot of intelligence and ability to do that. But insinuating that just because everything didn't turn out just like you thought it should that everyone was lying about going there is flat out stupid.

I am not defending George Bush. I am recognizing that he does not have an easy job and it is easy for people that don't even like him to begin with to make slanderous accusations. Such accusations undermine the respect for the office that is there. What little is left anymore.

Vindibudd

Phantom Penguin

Vindibudd
But don't sit there and lecture me about starting unjust wars et al. This country, INCLUDING the LEFT WING in congress, decided that national security was at risk. 3000 soldiers dead is NOTHING when you are contemplating hundreds of millions dead.

Yes, just like the German Invasion of Poland in 1939. They said the Polish attacked them on the boarder
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939) [en.wikipedia.org]

Saddam's military and chemical projects were in shambles for lack of funds. I don't have the website source but i saw it with my own eyes. His military was pretty much non-existant. Let alone his chemical labs were not stocked and most the workers quit because they weren't being paid.

Personally i think we should have attack for the sole purpose of destroying the government of one of the worst rulers of the 20th century. Without the claim of WMD at all.

3,006 dead soldiers is something for any cause, your ignorant to think otherwise

Okay, now Iraq is the equivalent of Poland. Right. That is one of the most absurd comparisons I have heard on the topic. We didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade Iraq. The United States isn't looking to take over the world. And for the last effing time, Bush does not equal Hitler. If you really want to know ignorant, that comparison is ignorant.

As for the soldiers dying, you are arguing from an emotional standpoint, not a pragmatic one. As the leader of a country, an individual has to weigh the best of a bad choice if they feel they must. They felt they must invade Iraq, obviously. Of course a bunch of people on a cartooning messageboard know better, but what can I say.

1) I never said Bush was hitler. Nor did i say we were trying to take over the world. I mearly pointed out the reasons seemed alot a like. The Soviet Invasion of Finland is in the same boat.
2)Think of this on a monetary standpoint. Since its money that we have been spending that pisses people off so much listen to this:
3,006 soldiers have been killed. In basic training each soldier will cost close to 145,000 dollars in the material that he will use (sometimes this is more depending on the job) Stand issue to go to Iraq is close to 300,000 dollars per soldier. Plus the life insurance (400,000 dollars a soldier)the government needs to pay out for every soldier that was killed.
And the fact it was 3,006 Amercian sons,husbands,fathers ect.
3. I never even said they lied about going in. Maybe Saddam was covering for terror groups. whatever. The reason for him being a horrible ruler still remains. All i know is there is tons of terror groups there now that may have been there in the first place.

ccs1989
Remember, however, Vindibudd, that Bush said, before entering Iraq, that there was "absolutely no doubt" that there were WMDs in Iraq. If there was "no doubt" then why were there none? Shouldn't Bush be sure of the information before he goes saying stuff like that? Even after no WMDs were found, he still said that he was operating under "good, sound intelligence." Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

As for the whole "cartooning message board" thing, you're just a guy on a cartooning message board too, aren't you? But to make our arguments we're each using information that was provided by more reputable sources.

On the subject of the whole Iraq thing, a cousin of mine is a Major in the army, and he's been saying since 2004 that this thing is a complete mess. He's got access to a lot of information that normal civilians don't have, and says that this war could be going on for a good 6 or 7 years. Possibly longer.

Bush is not the only one to have said that. Do you want me to get the quotes and sources for people like Clinton, Kerry, et al? And for your cousin, I can come up with soldiers who think the complete opposite.

Personally, I think if you are going to fight a war, you need to go in and leave absolutely no doubt who is in charge. But that's just me. I think this war was fought so that people would like it in the media. You simply cannot fight a war that way. War is ugly. It is the ugliest thing on this Earth. That is why it must be fought with complete and utter ruthlessness. You simply cannot half-ass a war. This war was half-assed. There needs to be so many soldiers there that you can't wipe your butt without walking past 50 of them. But no one would ever go for that.

Phantom Penguin
3,006 soldiers have been killed. In basic training each soldier will cost close to 145,000 dollars in the material that he will use (sometimes this is more depending on the job) Stand issue to go to Iraq is close to 300,000 dollars per soldier. Plus the life insurance (400,000 dollars a soldier)the government needs to pay out for every soldier that was killed.
And the fact it was 3,006 Amercian sons,husbands,fathers ect.

I don't reduce human life to money. I have never been that kind of a person. As far as wars go, this war is a bargain. I think we should have spent more on it to begin with.

I don't disrespect the memory of those soldiers. I am pointing out this scenario:

You are the president. You have your intelligence agencies, widely recognized as the best in the history of the planet, telling you that a third world dictator with a history of ignoring the UN and the US is developing weapons of mass destruction that could be distributed through a world wide terrorist network that just flew planes into buildings killing 3000 innocent civilians on your soil.

What would YOU do?

Are you willing to go down in history as the United States President that let terrorists set off gas or nuclear attacks on home soil?

You seem to be saying, "Well soldiers could die if we invaded, so I better not convince the country to invade."

Wait a second? Soldiers could die? What are soldiers for? They are for military action. That is the whole point. They fight and perhaps die so that CIVILIANS DON'T. NO ONE WANTS SOLDIERS TO DIE.

But people join the military because they want to kill people and break things. That is what militaries do.

Or some people join to go to college. But then, there are easier ways of going to college.

Jesus. Fish. Barrel. Shotgun.

Vindibudd
I don't reduce human life to money. I have never been that kind of a person. As far as wars go, this war is a bargain.

That was circular fast. "I don't put a value on it, but its cheap." Approaching 1 trillion dollars isn't cheap. And why not tell the 24+ thousand wounded it was cheap. Not to mention the ... oh, lets even use conservative estimates and say 200,000 Iraqis. Real cheap for them, wasn't it?

Not to mention those we'll have to take care of when they get home, because this multiple tour mess is going to make for some *seriously* screwed up people.

Vindibudd
I think we should have spent more on it to begin with.

Why not? Its not your money. Do you actually have skin in this game?

Vindibudd
I don't disrespect the memory of those soldiers. I am pointing out this scenario:

You are the president. You have your intelligence agencies, widely recognized as the best in the history of the planet, telling you that a third world dictator with a history of ignoring the UN and the US is developing weapons of mass destruction that could be distributed through a world wide terrorist network that just flew planes into buildings killing 3000 innocent civilians on your soil.

What would YOU do?

You mean invade Afghanistan, and actually finish the job there? That would have been nice. But 1) US intelligence was disputing the facts the neoconservatives went to war with. The Office of Special Plans was put together by Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends to get around the very intelligence apparatus you say is world class because they weren't getting the answers that gave them the green light for invasion.
2) The US ignored the UN, which didn't agree to military force.
3) WMD? Where? Oh that's right, the ones destroyed during the Clinton years? You're willfully ignoring history.
4) Saddam Hussein: Secular Sunni. Al-Qaeda: Shiite fundamentalist. Bin Laden *hated* Hussein, and the feeling was likewise. How do you feel sacrificing 3000+ Americans to do a hit job for Osama Bin Laden.

For our vaunted world wide intelligence, we've been taken on a *grand* scam. Bin Laden wanted a Middle Eastern caliphate and people like Saddam Hussein got in the way. We've been taken like a frat boy in Vegas, where we wake up from a drunken stupor with no wallet and a kidney missing.

Vindibudd
Are you willing to go down in history as the United States President that let terrorists set off gas or nuclear attacks on home soil?

The intelligence apparatus that above was "the best" says that the Iraq war increases the likelihood of your fear mongering, not lessens it. So, there's a good chance that the decisions you support *will* make you *that guy*

You seem to want to ignore the intelligence apparatus when it goes against what you believe. This is more of that faith-based foreign policy, isn't it?

Vindibudd
You seem to be saying, "Well soldiers could die if we invaded, so I better not convince the country to invade."

Wait a second? Soldiers could die? What are soldiers for? They are for military action. That is the whole point. They fight and perhaps die so that CIVILIANS DON'T. NO ONE WANTS SOLDIERS TO DIE.

*That* is the whole point?

The military is for defending the country, not to have military action because it gives warblogging neocons hardons. Oh, and so much for not disrespecting their memory. Like any other fair weather patriot, you want to honor the soldiers and then throw them away shamelessly because "that's what militaries do". I don't care if only 1% of those that serve really believe in the country and honor, and want to serve a greater good, They still matter.

If you really believed the whole 'fight and die so civilians don't' shtick, you'd think this war all the more folly. Iraq didn't kill any American civilians. That was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

There are times when you have to make hard decisions, and soldiers are sacrificed for the greater good. This little ego trip war wasn't the greater good, not by a long shot. These men and women died for hubris and ambition, and not to protect the United States.

Vindibudd
But people join the military because they want to kill people and break things. That is what militaries do.

So this how you "don't disrespect the memory of the soldiers", by thinking they are all people who joined because they want to kill people and break things.

As a friend and relative of military both current and past, I'll happily be banned for calling you a fucking idiot.

mapaghimagsik
Jesus. Fish. Barrel. Shotgun.

Speaking of hubris....

mapaghimagsik
That was circular fast. "I don't put a value on it, but its cheap." Approaching 1 trillion dollars isn't cheap.

I do not put a monetary value on human life. After that statement, I referenced a WHOLE NEW SUBJECT.

New Subject: Monetary Cost of War
Compared to the other wars this country has fought, yes, it's cheap. It is estimated to be at the high end, 14% of the prewar GDP. WW2 was 70% of the prewar GDP. The Revolutionary War was well over 100% of the prewar GDP.

mapaghimagsik
And why not tell the 24+ thousand wounded it was cheap. Not to mention the ... oh, lets even use conservative estimates and say 200,000 Iraqis. Real cheap for them, wasn't it? Not to mention those we'll have to take care of when they get home, because this multiple tour mess is going to make for some *seriously* screwed up people.

This is an emotional argument that has no bearing on the monetary cost of war. As I said earlier, I do not place a monetary value on human life and that applies to human injuries, physical or otherwise.

mapaghimagsik
Why not? Its not your money. Do you actually have skin in this game?

It is as much my money as it is your money.

mapaghimagsik
You mean invade Afghanistan, and actually finish the job there? That would have been nice. But 1) US intelligence was disputing the facts the neoconservatives went to war with.

Give me a source please.

mapaghimagsik
The Office of Special Plans was put together by Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends to get around the very intelligence apparatus you say is world class because they weren't getting the answers that gave them the green light for invasion.

I say is world class? Do you have a better one? Again, sources for the charge please.

mapaghimagsik
2) The US ignored the UN, which didn't agree to military force.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 [en.wikipedia.org]

mapaghimagsik
3) WMD? Where? Oh that's right, the ones destroyed during the Clinton years? You're willfully ignoring history.

Sources? Or did you just make this all up?

mapaghimagsik
4) Saddam Hussein: Secular Sunni. Al-Qaeda: Shiite fundamentalist. Bin Laden *hated* Hussein, and the feeling was likewise. How do you feel sacrificing 3000+ Americans to do a hit job for Osama Bin Laden.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." ?

mapaghimagsik
For our vaunted world wide intelligence, we've been taken on a *grand* scam. Bin Laden wanted a Middle Eastern caliphate and people like Saddam Hussein got in the way. We've been taken like a frat boy in Vegas, where we wake up from a drunken stupor with no wallet and a kidney missing.

Well that is your opinion.

mapaghimagsik
The intelligence apparatus that above was "the best" says that the Iraq war increases the likelihood of your fear mongering, not lessens it. So, there's a good chance that the decisions you support *will* make you *that guy*

I am not sure what you are saying here. I am fear-mongering? And I am still unsure if you think the U.S. intelligence agencies are or are not the best in the world. Would you like to clarify?

mapaghimagsik
You seem to want to ignore the intelligence apparatus when it goes against what you believe. This is more of that faith-based foreign policy, isn't it?

How am I contradicting any intelligence? I have provided sources for whatever I have put forth, you have not. What has faith to do with any of these things? You are assuming a lot about me.

mapaghimagsik
*That* is the whole point?

The military is for defending the country, not to have military action because it gives warblogging neocons hardons. Oh, and so much for not disrespecting their memory.

I am not a neo-con. I would have had to have been a liberal at some point to be a neo-con. I am neither.

mapaghimagsik
Like any other fair weather patriot, you want to honor the soldiers and then throw them away shamelessly because "that's what militaries do". I don't care if only 1% of those that serve really believe in the country and honor, and want to serve a greater good, They still matter.

Fair-weather patriot? Are you saying I hate my country when I don't like it or something?

mapaghimagsik
If you really believed the whole 'fight and die so civilians don't' shtick, you'd think this war all the more folly. Iraq didn't kill any American civilians. That was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

I am talking about the future possibilities that are presenting themselves. I don't think that any current leaders want wait to get hit first. That is where they are coming from. I am not coming from there, I am just pointing out that I can see where they are coming from.

mapaghimagsik
There are times when you have to make hard decisions, and soldiers are sacrificed for the greater good. This little ego trip war wasn't the greater good, not by a long shot. These men and women died for hubris and ambition, and not to protect the United States.

This was clearly not an ego trip war. Not by what they are saying they had for information at the time they went forward with it. As for dying for ambition and hubris, I don't believe soldiers die for that. I believe they fight and sometimes die to ultimately protect the constitution of the United States, the expressed goal of every serviceman.

mapaghimagsik
So this how you "don't disrespect the memory of the soldiers", by thinking they are all people who joined because they want to kill people and break things.

To put it bluntly, that is what the military does, to put it more nicely, they join the military to defend the country.

mapaghimagsik
As a friend and relative of military both current and past, I'll happily be banned for calling you a fucking idiot.

As the grandson of a decorated WW2 veteran and a Korean Conflict veteran, and the nephew of a Navy veteran, and the cousin of a currently serving Air Force servicewoman, you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is perhaps the worst argument I have ever seen.

Vindibudd

Phantom Penguin
3,006 soldiers have been killed. In basic training each soldier will cost close to 145,000 dollars in the material that he will use (sometimes this is more depending on the job) Stand issue to go to Iraq is close to 300,000 dollars per soldier. Plus the life insurance (400,000 dollars a soldier)the government needs to pay out for every soldier that was killed.
And the fact it was 3,006 Amercian sons,husbands,fathers ect.

I don't reduce human life to money. I have never been that kind of a person. As far as wars go, this war is a bargain. I think we should have spent more on it to begin with.

I don't disrespect the memory of those soldiers. I am pointing out this scenario:

You are the president. You have your intelligence agencies, widely recognized as the best in the history of the planet, telling you that a third world dictator with a history of ignoring the UN and the US is developing weapons of mass destruction that could be distributed through a world wide terrorist network that just flew planes into buildings killing 3000 innocent civilians on your soil.

What would YOU do?

Are you willing to go down in history as the United States President that let terrorists set off gas or nuclear attacks on home soil?

You seem to be saying, "Well soldiers could die if we invaded, so I better not convince the country to invade."

Wait a second? Soldiers could die? What are soldiers for? They are for military action. That is the whole point. They fight and perhaps die so that CIVILIANS DON'T. NO ONE WANTS SOLDIERS TO DIE.

But people join the military because they want to kill people and break things. That is what militaries do.
Or some people join to go to college. But then, there are easier ways of going to college.

I find this highly offensive. I've been to iraq twice, the last thing i ever wanted to do was to take a human life. Now your getting horribly ignorant and are just plain attacking members of the armed services. Calling us people who just want to destroy and end lives.I say this for the entire Army as a decorated war vet. Your a fucking moron.

Phantom Penguin

Vindibudd
But people join the military because they want to kill people and break things. That is what militaries do.
Or some people join to go to college. But then, there are easier ways of going to college.

I find this highly offensive. I've been to iraq twice, the last thing i ever wanted to do was to take a human life. Now your getting horribly ignorant and are just plain attacking members of the armed services. Calling us people who just want to destroy and end lives.I say this for the entire Army as a decorated war vet. Your a fucking moron.

Perhaps you meant to say "you're" instead of "your." I don't personally have any "fucking morons."

Can you tell me what the military is trained to do? I would imagine that you went through arms training. Did you not shoot any weapons? Did you not work on destroying things? No c-4? What are tanks for? What are f-18s for? What are g36cs for?

Maybe you didn't join the military to kill people and break things, even though that is what the military is trained to do. Yeah, the expressed purpose of the military is to defend the constitution of the United States, but how does it do it?

If it upsets you to take a human life, you are in the wrong profession. Have you thought about that?

Please cool it guys. Ok? It doesn't help to get too emotional in these things and start calling people "fucking" this and "Fucking" that. We're all fucking fools for getting heated over something in a forum. :)

ozoneocean
Please cool it guys. Ok? It doesn't help to get too emotional in these things and start calling people "fucking" this and "Fucking" that. We're all fucking fools for getting heated over something in a forum. :)

Oh, oceanzone, I'm as cool as Pinky's naked thighs. It doesn't bother me when I get called names, haha.

Sources?

Start here
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030512fa_fact?030512fa_fact

Then google "office of special plans" and who was on it, and who formed it.
While you're at it, look at the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). I keep forgetting that most people haven't even gotten to this basic stuff that was hashed out and *vetted* in 2003.

I have *sources* to back everything I've said. Unfortunately, Vil's just spouting off.

I also know that some folks don't care about sources, or any kind of investigation.

Kill and Break Stuff Indeed. And who did the Marshall Plan Kill?

OO: I agree that if this was just an argument in a forum, that would be one thing, but I *do* have skin in the game, and armchair nachos do nothing to serve this country, yet wrap themselves in flags and fear mongering to "make their point". Its bad logic that got us conned into this war, and its the same bad decisions that continue to commit forces to a folly when there are real threats to be addressed.



And thanks so much for reading the minds of our soldiers. I'm sure you know *exactly* what they are thinking.

mapaghimagsik
Sources?

Start here
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030512fa_fact?030512fa_fact

Then google "office of special plans" and who was on it, and who formed it.
While you're at it, look at the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). I keep forgetting that most people haven't even gotten to this basic stuff that was hashed out and *vetted* in 2003.

I have *sources* to back everything I've said. Unfortunately, Vil's just spouting off.

I also know that some folks don't care about sources, or any kind of investigation.

Kill and Break Stuff Indeed. And who did the Marshall Plan Kill?

OO: I agree that if this was just an argument in a forum, that would be one thing, but I *do* have skin in the game, and armchair nachos do nothing to serve this country, yet wrap themselves in flags and fear mongering to "make their point". Its bad logic that got us conned into this war, and its the same bad decisions that continue to commit forces to a folly when there are real threats to be addressed.



And thanks so much for reading the minds of our soldiers. I'm sure you know *exactly* what they are thinking.

I know. Its uncanny, I hope next he can tell me when i will get promoted.

mapaghimagsik
Sources?

Start here
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030512fa_fact?030512fa_fact

Then google "office of special plans" and who was on it, and who formed it.
While you're at it, look at the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). I keep forgetting that most people haven't even gotten to this basic stuff that was hashed out and *vetted* in 2003.

I have *sources* to back everything I've said. Unfortunately, Vil's just spouting off.

I am meaning sources cited at the time you make the assertion. What am I spouting off about, I gather you are referencing me with "Vil."

mapaghimagsik
I also know that some folks don't care about sources, or any kind of investigation.

Well I do, thanks for the links.

mapaghimagsik
Kill and Break Stuff Indeed. And who did the Marshall Plan Kill?

Atomic bomb was part of the Marshall Plan?

mapaghimagsik
OO: I agree that if this was just an argument in a forum, that would be one thing, but I *do* have skin in the game, and armchair nachos do nothing to serve this country, yet wrap themselves in flags and fear mongering to "make their point". Its bad logic that got us conned into this war, and its the same bad decisions that continue to commit forces to a folly when there are real threats to be addressed.

What does "skin in this game" mean? Where am I advocating being afraid of anything? Where am I even flag waving? Would you like to quote me for any of these things?

What are the real threats? I am curious to know.

mapaghimagsik
And thanks so much for reading the minds of our soldiers. I'm sure you know *exactly* what they are thinking.

Just like you do.

So you didn't look at the link, or even bother to follow up the source. I'll point you there, but I won't read it to you.

Well, at least I know where you stand on all that, which is basically uniformed.

So if you stay uninformed on the causes, you're of course swallowing the rest of it. Colin Powells embarassing performace at the UN.

I also find it interesting that you pick a disputed wikipedia topic to base your entire argument upon. The existence of the Office of Special Plans and the PNAC is well known, and provable. It seems your sources are in doubt.

But that's where its always lay with neo-cons, which while you say you are not a member -- well, if it walks like a duck...it probably isn't a fun drunk duck, but a armchair general duck swapping tactics like they were playing Call of Duty 3. (which is a great game, but not exactly the same as getting shot for real in over a hundred degree heat in a desert with a bunch of people who really, really hate you)

So I state the Marshall Plan. Tell me how that fits into your charge that the Military is all about killing and breaking things, because the charge is that they are much more than what you list, not that they don't kill and break things. Nice try, though.

Lets go with another of your nice tries. See, I don't need to know what *every* soldier is thinking. You're the one saying "This is how they all think". Heck, you have one *on this forums* saying "no, that's not how I think" and yet you still stick with *all*.

Occams razor says you either don't belive Phantom_Penguin, or you're willfully ignorant, and cling to your belief in the face of facts. Which is it?

See, I know one soldier -- more than one actually, that I know and trust. I may think they are a bit deluded on the whole honor and patriotism thing, but I really do think in their hearts they believe it, and bless them for it. And that's my one, which is all that's needed to bust your *all*.

I wasn't too fond of Suddam either, but I do not under ANY circumstances believe in Capital Punishment. I mean, besides it being cheaper to keep the person in prison for life than to kill them (lots of factors come to play with court and what not) and that killing someone for killing someone else is just well.....Anyway, that is probably best for a diffrent forum.
But I do agree, I think it was kind of...creepy how much people were celebrating Suddam's death.

mapaghimagsik
So you didn't look at the link, or even bother to follow up the source. I'll point you there, but I won't read it to you.

I did read it, what, you want me to respond? I never said you were wrong about that issue, I was simply asking you for a source. Why? Because maybe I am wrong, but I can not research it if I don't have the sources. You are more interested in insulting me. Well I am glad you can get your jollies off that way, but hell, I am more than happy to examine anything you have.

mapaghimagsik
Well, at least I know where you stand on all that, which is basically uniformed.

Well, I am certainly uninformed if you are not willing to back your mouth up. That being said, the New Yorker isn't exactly an impartial source.

mapaghimagsik
So if you stay uninformed on the causes, you're of course swallowing the rest of it. Colin Powells embarassing performace at the UN.

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean.

mapaghimagsik
I also find it interesting that you pick a disputed wikipedia topic to base your entire argument upon. The existence of the Office of Special Plans and the PNAC is well known, and provable. It seems your sources are in doubt.

What is in doubt about my sources? I haven't said anything that I cannot back up.

mapaghimagsik
But that's where its always lay with neo-cons, which while you say you are not a member -- well, if it walks like a duck...it probably isn't a fun drunk duck, but a armchair general duck swapping tactics like they were playing Call of Duty 3. (which is a great game, but not exactly the same as getting shot for real in over a hundred degree heat in a desert with a bunch of people who really, really hate you)

Number one, I am a political science major at the University of Florida. I know what the hell a neo-con is. You OBVIOUSLY do not. So stop throwing around words that you apparently cannot understand. Number two, do I have to make a huge post about the history of neo-conservatism or can you go research it for yourself and tell me if George Bush is a conservative at all?

mapaghimagsik
So I state the Marshall Plan. Tell me how that fits into your charge that the Military is all about killing and breaking things, because the charge is that they are much more than what you list, not that they don't kill and break things. Nice try, though.

First of all, the Marshall Plan, is named for SOS George Marshall. That is right, the Secretary of State. Would you like to tell me what army is controlled by the Secretary of State or the Department of State? Secondly, what the hell does the military have to do with the Marshall Plan? Have you even read anything to do with the Marshall Plan? Do you even KNOW what it IS?

mapaghimagsik
Lets go with another of your nice tries. See, I don't need to know what *every* soldier is thinking. You're the one saying "This is how they all think". Heck, you have one *on this forums* saying "no, that's not how I think" and yet you still stick with *all*.

I never said that ALL soldiers THINK THIS way. That would be a really stupid thing to even contemplate. I merely pointed out that I can quote soldiers that think the opposite of what the soldiers you are paraphrasing think.

mapaghimagsik
Occams razor says you either don't belive Phantom_Penguin, or you're willfully ignorant, and cling to your belief in the face of facts. Which is it?

Occam's Razor? lmao. Don't even go there with me. I am not willfully ignorant. I don't know what you are, but you seem to lean more towards, "I'M RIGHT YOU"RE WRONG OMG YOU F***ING IDIOT LOLORZ"

mapaghimagsik
See, I know one soldier -- more than one actually, that I know and trust.

Congratulations, so does just about everyone else in this country. It doesn't make you special or even make you more informed on the topic.

mapaghimagsik
I may think they are a bit deluded on the whole honor and patriotism thing,

I don't. Sue me.

mapaghimagsik
but I really do think in their hearts they believe it, and bless them for it.

That's nice, too bad you think they are delusional.

mapaghimagsik
And that's my one, which is all that's needed to bust your *all*.

This sentence makes no sense at all. Would you like to bust out "Occam's Razor" and cut to the chase?

Vindibudd
But people join the military because they want to kill people and break things. That is what militaries do.

Or some people join to go to college. But then, there are easier ways of going to college.

Way to restate Kerry's botched joke.

The fact that the military targets underpriviledged kids in poor neighborhoods is one of the terrible things about our military. But the military recruiters are salespeople. They have to meet quotas. In reality, army recruits have to pay into a fund to recieve benefits, and the military actually makes a profit on this program.

Certain recuriters have even told kids that the Iraq war is wrapping up and that they have a very slight chance of going there. These are teens we're talking about, and for kids who really need money to have a future in the world, the army, along with all those nice little lies, looks like a good opportunity.

As for sources for this, they're endless, but here's an example: Source

ccs1989

Vindibudd
But people join the military because they want to kill people and break things. That is what militaries do.

Or some people join to go to college. But then, there are easier ways of going to college.

Way to restate Kerry's botched joke.

The fact that the military targets underpriviledged kids in poor neighborhoods is one of the terrible things about our military. But the military recruiters are salespeople. They have to meet quotas. In reality, army recruits have to pay into a fund to recieve benefits, and the military actually makes a profit on this program.

Certain recuriters have even told kids that the Iraq war is wrapping up and that they have a very slight chance of going there. These are teens we're talking about, and for kids who really need money to have a future in the world, the army, along with all those nice little lies, looks like a good opportunity.

As for sources for this, they're endless, but here's an example: Source

I said that some people join the military so that they can GO to college. I did NOT say that some people join the military because they do not DO WELL in college.

So I did not restate Kerry's "joke."

That recruiting article is about the most slanted piece of journalism I have seen in a very long time.

Wagner: "Kids in the crosshairs of U.S. military recruiters."

Crosshairs? Yeah, make it sound like the military wants to harm your children. No one makes anyone join the military. If you are going to join the military you have to trip over 30 newspapers and televisions screaming about someone dying everyday. That being said, there were more Americans murdered in California in 2005 (2,503) than in Iraq. Source . So actually, yes, you do have a better chance of getting killed in the United States, that you do of being killed in Iraq.

This "investigative" article seems more concerned with bashing the military and "no child left behind" than actually presenting an accurate picture.

One more thing about Kerry. I am the editorial cartoonist for the UF school paper:

Vindibudd
So actually, yes, you do have a better chance of getting killed in the United States, that you do of being killed in Iraq.

Heh, that's actually 100% false. :)
It could only be true if there were the same number of (or more) Americans in Iraq as California. 2000 or so US citizens dead from murder or whatever out of a few million in California is a tiny amount compared to 2000 or so US citizens out of 100,000 (or however many there were serving at that time) dead in action in Iraq. Statistically you have a much greater chance of dying in Iraq if you are American, or even Iraqi for that matter. Sorry for pulling you up on that, but it was an obvious mistake about how statistics work. -Raw numbers are not directly comparable, only proportions/percentages.

ozoneocean

Vindibudd
So actually, yes, you do have a better chance of getting killed in the United States, that you do of being killed in Iraq.

Heh, that's actually 100% false. :)
It could only be true if there were the same number of (or more) Americans in Iraq as California. 2000 or so US citizens dead from murder or whatever out of a few million in California is a tiny amount compared to 2000 or so US citizens out of 100,000 (or however many there were serving at that time) dead in action in Iraq. Statistically you have a much greater chance of dying in Iraq if you are American, or even Iraqi for that matter. Sorry for pulling you up on that, but it was an obvious mistake about how statistics work. -Raw numbers are not directly comparable, only proportions/percentages.

Okay you got me on statistics. Props to you. I hated taking stats.

However. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Let's take California and Iraq. They have comparable population sizes.
California: 33,871,648
Iraq: 26,783,383

Americans dead in Iraq over the period of 2003-2006: 3,006
I don't think I need to come up with a source as that is widely accepted.

Americans dead in California over the period of 2003-2006 from traffic accidents and murder: 19,945

Sources: National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

So the truth is that more actual Americans died in one state of the United States than in Iraq. So if they are going to report that 3006 Americans died in Iraq over three years, they should point out that 19,945 Americans died from auto accidents and being murdered in California over the last three years.

Statistically, yeah, more Americans die in Iraq, but they are also there with guns putting themselves in danger on a daily basis and are fully aware that they are in a dangerous situation. They made that choice. The same cannot be said for people in California, all jokes aside.

Vindibudd
Crosshairs? Yeah, make it sound like the military wants to harm your children. No one makes anyone join the military. If you are going to join the military you have to trip over 30 newspapers and televisions screaming about someone dying everyday.

True, but when you're in the room with an army recruiter and you've got no money for college and they make it sound like the war is over and the stuff about people dying is just left wing media tripe, and you're face to face with these people... it's a little more convincing than a newspaper article. Besides, how many poor high school students read the newspaper?

True, personal responsibility comes into the mix on the part of these kids, but that doesn't give the army the go ahead to outright lie, does it?

It's kind of like someone saying "You didn't read the fine print" after you've already been screwed by a contract, even when the fine print was extremely confusing, written by legal experts who are pros at spin, and when you signed it you were told "There's nothing important to read there."

Vindibudd
However. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Let's take California and Iraq. They have comparable population sizes.
California: 33,871,648
Iraq: 26,783,383

Americans dead in Iraq over the period of 2003-2006: 3,006
I don't think I need to come up with a source as that is widely accepted.

Americans dead in California over the period of 2003-2006 from traffic accidents and murder: 19,945

Sources: National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

So the truth is that more actual Americans died in one state of the United States than in Iraq. So if they are going to report that 3006 Americans died in Iraq over three years, they should point out that 19,945 Americans died from auto accidents and being murdered in California over the last three years.

You're comparing apples and oranges. If you compare the ENTIRE population state of California, you have to compare the ENTIRE population of Iraq. That's the only way you get a statistic worth anything. Care to guess what the mortality in Iraq is vs. the mortality rate in California? Assuming your numbers are correct, 20,000 Californian deaths due to traffic and murder don't even come close to the hundreds of thousands in Iraq.

Nor does California come close to many poor countries across the world that aren't in the middle of a useless war.

I think if you asked a soldier if they'd prefer the freeways of LA or the streets of Baghdad, you wouldn't get many saying Iraq is safer.

Statistically, yeah, more Americans die in Iraq, but they are also there with guns putting themselves in danger on a daily basis and are fully aware that they are in a dangerous situation. They made that choice. The same cannot be said for people in California, all jokes aside.

The other misleading thing about that statistic is that not all soldiers are kicking in doors. There's a HUGE support team that never leaves the green zone, or that works in areas that aren't affected by insurgents as much. A soldier going to Iraq isn't a death sentence, but the risks are incredibly different from troop to troop. It all depends on what they're tasked with.

Also, the statistic you use for US deaths in Iraq doesn't include the people employed as private contractors. You can probably add quite a few more US deaths -- just not soldiers. You could also list a lot of foreign nationals on the US payroll if you wanted to be fair.

yea ! and how many U.S. soldiers died in California last year ?

and whay are we arguing this anyway?
the number of U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq would be exactly ZERO if those idiots in washington hadn't started this mess !

lothar
yea ! and how many U.S. soldiers died in California last year ?

I had thought that earlier today, after I had posted my response. Exactly right.

Well no one is saying we are losing California are they? We keep losing Iraq every 3 seconds.