U.S. Iraq war casualties reach new milestone

Started by Diomedes, February 08, 2006, 09:00:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ice grillin you

Quote from: FastFreddie on August 05, 2008, 09:18:09 AM
The initial cause of starting the "war" was to retaliate for the single-largest attack on civilians in the history of the world.  That was plenty just.

wat?

so would it have been just to have attacked madagascar after 911 because they had as much to do with the attacks as iraq
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

Seabiscuit36

"For all the civic slurs, for all the unsavory things said of the Philadelphia fans, also say this: They could teach loyalty to a dog. Their capacity for pain is without limit." -Bill Lyons

PoopyfaceMcGee

Exactly.  I'm talking about the start of the "War on Terror."

Seabiscuit36

everyone on here agrees that Iraq was a stupid operation, but Afghanistan was completely warranted. 
"For all the civic slurs, for all the unsavory things said of the Philadelphia fans, also say this: They could teach loyalty to a dog. Their capacity for pain is without limit." -Bill Lyons

PoopyfaceMcGee

I've said all along that I was in favor of flushing out Saddam.  Of course, the whole setting up a new government thing has proven to be much more problematic and painful.  Then, there's all the oil bullshtein that got tied up in the effort.

It's a wasteful and extremely messy war, and it was waged based on lies.

Cerevant

Sorry for the confusion. To clarify:

The War on Terror is a convenient fiction to justify unilateral action by the present administration.
The War in Afghanistan is a just war being waged against those responsible for the attacks on 9/11.
The War in Iraq is an unjust war entered in under false pretenses, without clear goals (or at least shifting goals), and as a result there are no clear measures for "victory", making victory impossible.
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

PoopyfaceMcGee

Quote from: Cerevant on August 05, 2008, 12:18:10 PM
Sorry for the confusion. To clarify:

The War on Terror is a convenient fiction to justify unilateral action by the present administration.
The War in Afghanistan is a just war being waged against those responsible for the attacks on 9/11.
The War in Iraq is an unjust war entered in under false pretenses, without clear goals (or at least shifting goals), and as a result there are no clear measures for "victory", making victory impossible.

I'll second that.

Phanatic

The thing about the Iraq war is that there were real reasons to make it just. They just didn't think they were strong enough so they made shtein up.
This post is brought to you by Alcohol!

rjs246

Quote from: Phanatic on August 05, 2008, 12:35:15 PM
The thing about the Iraq war is that there were real reasons to make it just. They just didn't think they were strong enough so they made shtein up.

Exactly. There were enough human rights issues alone to garner support and usurping mad men as leaders has never been frowned upon. But they made up other reasons instead, had no clear objective and no withdrawl plan. Clusterfarged from the go.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

ice grillin you

there was zero real justification to invade and occupy iraq

none
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

Phanatic

Quote from: ice grillin you on August 05, 2008, 03:39:23 PM
there was zero real justification to invade and occupy Iraq

none


Iraq was already a rogue state with our military constantly keeping them at bay for the 10 years before Gulf war II as dictated by the UN. The Iraqi military in my time of patrolling the no fly zones moved SAM sites below the parallels and took shots at patrolling aircraft all the time. The UN created the most ridiculous solution because Bush and Cheney I didn't have the balls to go in there and finish the job. Then Bush Cheney II comes in and think they can finish off the job on the cheap because Iraq would be like rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WWII. They actually said that, believed it, and were somehow re-elected for it. Idiots!

This post is brought to you by Alcohol!

ice grillin you

im guessing theres lots of "rogue" nations who would take shots at our aircraft if we perputually flew over their country

when they invaded kuwait i wouldnt have had a problem going to baghdad but in 03 there was no justification whatsoever...but if someone wants to spin it to say that there was justification to go in 2003 then iraq probably wasnt even in the top 10 countries we could have most justifed taking over
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

Phanatic

Quote from: ice grillin you on August 05, 2008, 04:43:42 PM
im guessing theres lots of "rogue" nations who would take shots at our aircraft if we perputually flew over their country

when they invaded kuwait i wouldnt have had a problem going to baghdad but in 03 there was no justification whatsoever...but if someone wants to spin it to say that there was justification to go in 2003 then iraq probably wasnt even in the top 10 countries we could have most justifed taking over

I can not disagree more. We were there as part of a UN mandate. They were flaunting the mandate. At the very least the world community should have been outraged but instead dragged feet and did nothing making the UN an absolutly useless entity. To sit there and act like the Iraqi government was this innocent thing and we had no business there is complete bullshtein.

This post is brought to you by Alcohol!

Phanatic

I should also point out that they weren't just shooting at US aircraft during this time as the patrols were under the UN. They were French and English in the early 90's before the French left.
This post is brought to you by Alcohol!

ice grillin you

no one is saying saadam was an angel but there was way worse govts then and now than saadam hussien

and if it was a UN mandate then let the UN practice destroying and occupying nations...id support the united states contributing a few thousand peace keeping troops to the un's cause
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous