Bright chap eh? ;)
Your 'sort of' against the war at this point? I bet Bush is 'sort of' against the war at this point.
You should be generally against war (state sponsored murder) anyway but against this war where the US attacked a nation not threatening the US or anyone else that had demonstrably no significant weapons.
It has left the Iraqi people (the ones left) clearly worse off than they were before the war, killed a @#%$ load of them by any estimate, killed what must be nearing as many dead US soldiers as people died in 911 (not that the 2 are linked in any way)
October last year there were 2,000 dead Soldiers, actually the thing is that is the number they admit to dying in iraq, it doesn't count the 40,000 wounded some of which died after leaving iraq, so in all probability it will be well above 3,000 by now.
The US has been further disgraced by their solders being creepy, torturing prisoners...
Oh and it seems it will cost 1-2 trillion dollars.
What was the point of the war again?
Yeah I'm 'sort of' against the war in iraq too.
On 8/17/06, Kyle R. Mcallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
---- Original Message -----
From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: New Segway Products
> ..and exactly why do you think the suicide bombers feel that it
> is worth giving up their lives?
Because, if you decided to put them up to most standards of psychology, they
are crazy, and train their young to join in the collective madness.
>>then we are also justified. We
>>were attacked,
>
> . yes, but are your *really* sure you know who did it?
I can see where this is going...
> There is every reason to believe that 911 was a "false flag"
> operation set up by the World's elite specifically to arouse the
> ire of the impressionable masses, including such as yourself -
> thus providing an excuse to go to a very profitable war. And even
> if that isn't so, there was no reason to bomb the crap out of Iraq
> who had nothing to do with it anyway.
Even if Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with this (which is by no means
certain, or put another way, has more chance of being true than 9-11-01
being orchestrated by the "Illuminati") they still would have needed to be
dealt with at some point. I am sort of against the war at this point, little
is being accomplished, we have not crippled enough enemy effectiveness, and
we continue to lose the lives of our own. Unless we are willing to go in
with all guns blazing, and level the whole place, at this point we are
looking at nothing but a civil war. I hope I am wrong, and that it becomes a
stable democracy. But I do not harbor much hope at this point.
> America lost about 3000 people in the WTC.
> This is how many your bombing killed in Iraq:-
<snip many 3000s>
War's hell, ain't it?
> ...and your administration calls it "collateral damage" and
> "doesn't count the number of Iraqi casualties" - of course not,
> there were so many that they couldn't keep up with them.
What would your administration have done if 9-11-01 had been carried out
specifically on your people?
> ..and then you wonder why they hate your guts? .. they feel
> exactly the way you feel Kyle, and both you and they think that
> violence will resolve the problem.
Violence will solve it if the other side is dead. Then there is peace by
definition.
>Ever heard of a Pyrrhic
> victory? - because that would be the most probable outcome, if you
> both had your way. (No bets on who the "victor" would be).
> Regards,
To use the "fire" derivative of pyrrhic and to the farthest extreme, it
wouldn't, if we act now. Maybe for them, as we have enough nuclear weapons
to sterilize the place if need be. If it gets so far gone that we have had
Islamic radicals detonate nuclear weapons on our (American) soil, hopefully
someone will have the guts to retaliate massively. Or, to clarify, "nuke"
the whole bloody place.
--Kyle
