Zarqawi Dead

[Fadingtoblack]

Dude, just click on the link and have a look around places like Iran. It's Mot dirt roads or anything. It's the equivilant to the Sydneys and melbournes of the world.

No-one wanted the Australian or US troops to die at Iraqi hands, they didn't want them there at all. How could an anti-war protester encourage war to teach a lesson? As far as I took the debates at the time there was only one side of the arguement willing to send troops to the war zone and certainly wasn't mine.

Re. First paragraph.

Yeah man, I know, it's the mass media that portrays the whole place as being sand and donkeys, sort of like how Aussies all ride around on Kangaroos round Sydney Harbor!


re. Second Paragaph. I totally agree with your first sentence, about the Aussies at least, unfortunately, while it could have just been the extreme vocal minorities, some anti-war campaigners were hoping that large casualties would teach America a lesson, and that by learning that lesson, would stop going to war in the first place.


I think this is where I aggravated you in the first place. Unfortunately it's those loud extremists who Howl for US blood, like those who cry to Nuke the f*ckers who give both sides of the debate a bad name.

Some people should just not be allowed to write, or appear on TV, it would solve so many problems

[Fadingtoblack]

I just realised a flaw in my analogy:

Instead of:

Me: Some people believe God exists
You: God doesn't exist. FULL STOP.

it should have been:

Me: Some people believe God exists
You: NO ONE believes that God exists. FULL STOP.

Give it a rest, Fade. Your literal arguement was

"Some people wrote they wanted troops to die"

Mine was:

"No-one wants troops to die"

What's the problem with leaving it at that?

Ahh damn the non-realtime aspects of a message board!


(I was just fixing my post, without ret-conning my original, which you were probably going to quote anyway )


And yes, I agree, that was our arguments, hence the analogy, anyway, hopefully peace was made after my last post? Hard to tell as I'm typing, damn message board, ah I'll just click submit and see what you've said

[Leighton]

Very true. No hard feelings. I am passionate about this shit cause no-one listened to me at all 3 years ago and I got that exact response from just aout everyone (support at all costs), but I really hope we're all honest when we look back to that time and see that support won't help people when they've got a bomb under their truck. The best way to keep them out of that position is to not put them there at all.

What does anyone think of my Cold War/War on Terror comparrisons? I've raised this with scholars and they think it's a pretty good prediction to make. With another $50bill allocated last week by the US it seems that the spending is not slowing down and as insurgency grows, so do operational costs. Iraq was an expensive sidetrack now that everyone knows the bullshit used to sell it.

[Fadingtoblack]

What does anyone think of my Cold War/War on Terror comparrisons? I've raised this with scholars and they think it's a pretty good prediction to make. With another $50bill allocated last week by the US it seems that the spending is not slowing down and as insurgency grows, so do operational costs. Iraq was an expensive sidetrack now that everyone knows the bullshit used to sell it.

I think that's an accurate comparison, in some ways more than others.


With one there was massive spending to build up for a war that never happened (ah hindsight ), but on the other hand, there was an actual 'bad guy' or solid enemy you could face at the time, and, there was every chance that there COULD have been a war, had one side slipped up...so was that spending then justified, even just as a safety net?


With our current situation, again there is massive spending, but there is no real target, terrorism is not centralised. The benefits/detriments of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars aside, is the spending at home justified?

The war technically is already on, attacks are happening, is the spending now, in an attempt to get that safety net justified to stop these attacks from happening again?

Would the government actually be willing to forego this spending? Either way it is a lose/lose situation. They stop, the attacks continue, they continue, the attacks continue, but maybe some of them are stopped, and of course they get drilled for wasteful spending. Not a good situation to be in.

[superman321]

I suppose this is specifically directed at FTB, and this isn't mean to sounds angry or anything like that, just meant to give me a better understanding to my position. When you first replyed to my post you said once our troops were there, they must be supported.

Would you say it is wrong then to essnetially neither support them nor the insurgents? I ask this because I think to say you must support them is to ask many epople to go directly against their conscience and support a descision our gov. made in utter disregard for what the majority of people wanted. Really, there is a difference between not supporting troops, and actively hoping they are killed, supporting insurgents etc.

[Fadingtoblack]

Would you say it is wrong then to essnetially neither support them nor the insurgents? I ask this because I think to say you must support them is to ask many epople to go directly against their conscience and support a descision our gov. made in utter disregard for what the majority of people wanted. Really, there is a difference between not supporting troops, and actively hoping they are killed, supporting insurgents etc.

Ok. Well my opinion is that since our troops have been sent into combat, whether we agree with that decision or not, that we stand behind them and support them fully. You can say, "ok, I don't agree with the reasons you are there, but now you are, do the best that you possibly can to finish the job and get home soon"

Now the problem is that while supporting neither side is a better option than wanting our government to be taught a lesson by supporting the insurgents and hoping for their success, where does that leave our troops when they come home?

I just don't want these guys who are only doing their duty and following orders to come home and feel as if they are as hated as the people they were sent their to fight. I have to mention the Vietnam vets again, we don't want to make those mistakes again.

I believe we have to somehow separate the people involved from the government calling the shots.


Does that explain what I mean a little better, it's just hard to really put it into words like that!

[superman321]

yep, okied okie dude. Just wanted to draw the response past 'you support them no matter what' sort of thing which is all that some people seem to be able to say - never giving a reason to the viewpoint.

[flickn]

we dont like to kill people , just shake them up , cause a few concussions , allow them to see our country flag on the side of our uniform then watch them bleed to death

Why? Do you get off on this?



6 kids died getting Zarqawi the other day. You just as happy for that?

if you harbor a terriosts you are a terriosts ,


the bush doctrine

[superman321]

flickn, Kids don't chose to harbour terrorists, adults may do but kids don't. the very fact they don't own houses etc. means they can't. So that argument is crap.

[Danallica]

Its always terrible if children are caught in conflict and are killed, unfortunately it is a reality of war. As Flickn says, if you harbor a terrorist you are one, whilst i agree with this i think its stretchin it a bit far to say that young children could be harbouring terrorsits. Without doubt many children would support terrorism against the West due to the fact that they have fucked up parents, but its not neccassarily the childs fault that he/she believes what they do.