Al-Qaeda leader al-Zarqawi killed

[lickmyballssuckmy]

Both. It's a war. At least we don't do it on purpose with the possible exception of Haditha, if that story is true.

If we don't do what we do, terrorists will eventually kill far more innocent civilians than we do accidently. They already have as a matter of fact. Every day that goes by the news is THEM killing innocent people ON PURPOSE. And occasionally you see a story that some innocent civilians were caught in crossfire and killed accidently by a military force.

That's the reality. If you're upset at us and not them, your priorities are out of focus. And if you're upset at them but you think we should do nothing, you're asking for more 9/11-type attacks on, get this, innocent civilians. Weird, huh? A little perspective please.

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Terrorists or civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by lickmyballssuckmy

That's the reality. If you're upset at us and not them, your priorities are out of focus. And if you're upset at them but you think we should do nothing, you're asking for more 9/11-type attacks on, get this, innocent civilians. Weird, huh? A little perspective please.

This is the black/white mindset that drives me nuts. Obviously something should have been done about bin Laden twenty years ago (or maybe we shouldn't have even supplied him weapons and training so he could fight the evil Russians), so no I'm not "blaming Bush." But we're STILL not doing anything about bin Laden now! We're not even looking for him.

However, there is not an "either/or" dichotomy here. There is a broad spectrum of actions that could have been taken after 9/11. For instance, we didn't even allow the weapons inspectors to do their job and discover that there were no weapons of mass destruction before we went ahead and invaded the country. My opposition to the Iraq war does not automatically mean that I think we should have done "nothing" after 9/11. I think that Iraq was completely unconnected to 9/11, and we ignored the people who did attack this country in order to conduct a military invasion that had been planned years in advance. We are completely ignoring other countries with extremely dangerous terrorist ties (such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE) because we are in bed with them on a business level. Hell, Bush wanted to hand port inspections over to the UAE when their government partially funds terrorist activity! We ignore genocide in the Sudan because there is no oil to syphon from them.

To make this clear, I understand perfectly that the men and women in uniform are not making the decisions to go to war or even how to conduct the war. They've made a commitment to their country and are serving their duty based on that commitment. Soldiers are being sent home when they are injured and spent and getting cut off from the services they need to be healthy after the horrible things they've gone through. They are being sent to into combat without the basic equipment that they need to survive, or even enough food in some cases. On the other hand companies like Halliburton are charging our government exhobitant fees to perform substandard services that soldiers are trained to do themselves for far less salary. Since the occupation began, over $9 billion just disappeared and to this day no one knows where it is. To me it's our leadership that is corrupt, greedy, and far more vested in corporate interests than in their own citizens. The soldiers are doing the best they can under horrible circumstances, some of which are preventable by our own government.

I didn't mean to unload like this, but being told to "get some perspective" based on an inaccurate assumption about my beliefs just pissed me off. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[benjita]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

This is the black/white mindset that drives me nuts. Obviously something should have been done about bin Laden twenty years ago (or maybe we shouldn't have even supplied him weapons and training so he could fight the evil Russians), so no I'm not "blaming Bush." But we're STILL not doing anything about bin Laden now! We're not even looking for him.

However, there is not an "either/or" dichotomy here. There is a broad spectrum of actions that could have been taken after 9/11. For instance, we didn't even allow the weapons inspectors to do their job and discover that there were no weapons of mass destruction before we went ahead and invaded the country. My opposition to the Iraq war does not automatically mean that I think we should have done "nothing" after 9/11. I think that Iraq was completely unconnected to 9/11, and we ignored the people who did attack this country in order to conduct a military invasion that had been planned years in advance. We are completely ignoring other countries with extremely dangerous terrorist ties (such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE) because we are in bed with them on a business level. Hell, Bush wanted to hand port inspections over to the UAE when their government partially funds terrorist activity! We ignore genocide in the Sudan because there is no oil to syphon from them.

To make this clear, I understand perfectly that the men and women in uniform are not making the decisions to go to war or even how to conduct the war. They've made a commitment to their country and are serving their duty based on that commitment. Soldiers are being sent home when they are injured and spent and getting cut off from the services they need to be healthy after the horrible things they've gone through. They are being sent to into combat without the basic equipment that they need to survive, or even enough food in some cases. On the other hand companies like Halliburton are charging our government exhobitant fees to perform substandard services that soldiers are trained to do themselves for far less salary. Since the occupation began, over $9 billion just disappeared and to this day no one knows where it is. To me it's our leadership that is corrupt, greedy, and far more vested in corporate interests than in their own citizens. The soldiers are doing the best they can under horrible circumstances, some of which are preventable by our own government.

I didn't mean to unload like this, but being told to "get some perspective" based on an inaccurate assumption about my beliefs just pissed me off. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Thank you! Someone else who has the EXACT same view as I. These were the reasons I voted against Bush in 2004 (I didn't vote for Kerry as much as I voted against Bush). I don't think the true "Terrorist" population is in the six figures, where True Terrorists as in those who commit attacks for no justifiable reason (As in the World Trade Center bombing). I don't consider the Iraqi people fighting against American occupation to be Terrorists. We're invading their homeland. They're defending, and fighting for what they believe in. Don't get me wrong, I'm not cheering for these people, but slapping the "Terrorist" label on people defending their homeland is wrong. Resistance, maybe, not Terrorist.

[lickmyballssuckmy]

I didn't mean to go off either. I agree with a lot of what you wrote here, Blitzgal. However, I was obviously talking about terrorists and you chose to take a shot at the military. Disagree with the war if you want. It's America. But, the military is over there representing America well and it upsets me when people take potshots at them like you did.

Fact is, civilians die in war. My point is that at least our military doesn't kill them on purpose and it is a mischaracterization of what is going on there if those accidental deaths are what pisses you off. Meanwhile the news every day is about insurgents killing innocent civilians on purpose. Just be pissed off at them too and say so. That's what I meant by perspective.

A few cans of worms we could discuss or put the lid back on:

The people who are roaming the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for Bin Laden would disagree that we're not looking for him.

It is very black/white/naive of you to think that, just because huge amounts of WMD were not found after we went in, he didn't have WMD. The UN was trying to not find them and succeeded.

I never said Iraq and 9/11 were related. They're not. What I was saying, and maybe didn't say well, was that if we weren't over there killing terrorist insurgents by the tens and hundreds, my bet is that some of them would be here and would have already got off another attack. WIth terrorism, we truly are in a "kill them before they kill you" situation. We didn't choose that. They have set the rules of the game and we really can't just choose not to play.

All your other points about Bin Laden on the CIA payroll, Haliburton, UAE, Saudi, corruption, missing money, etc. are completely valid. Although, don't believe Senator Murtha when he says the Army is "broken" and soldiers are going without food and all of that. Those are lies. He is getting away with sedition.

Soldiers will tell you that they are eating very well in Haliburton dining facilities. Steak and lobster. Good food and enough for everybody. Soldiers routinely give their food to Iraqi's because that's the kind of people they are. They're not starving or broken. It does behoove the Democrats that as many people as possible believe that, though.

benjita,

1. We HAVE killed over 100,000 insurgents.

2. Most insurgents we are fighting over there are not Iraqi citizens. They are "surging in" and being paid by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and all kinds of groups that magically fall in the category of terrorist and hate you. This is not Iraqi citizens "defending their homeland". Nobody is taking their homeland away so what would be the point? You have posted some of the most intelligent and level-headed stuff I've ever read. But, I think you are missing something on this one.

[DanClass]

does anyone else get confused between benjita and lickmy's avatars?

you two quit posting in the same threads

[DEPjrTX]

Originally Posted by DanClass

does anyone else get confused between benjita and lickmy's avatars?

you two quit posting in the same threads

this from a guy with a Team Creepy avatar? don't all of you have that avatar?

Spook Spook!

[benjita]

Originally Posted by lickmyballssuckmy

benjita,

1. We HAVE killed over 100,000 insurgents.

2. Most insurgents we are fighting over there are not Iraqi citizens. They are "surging in" and being paid by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and all kinds of groups that magically fall in the category of terrorist and hate you. This is not Iraqi citizens "defending their homeland". Nobody is taking their homeland away so what would be the point? You have posted some of the most intelligent and level-headed stuff I've ever read. But, I think you are missing something on this one.

From the CIA website (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...geos/iz.html):

Originally Posted by CIA Website

Political pressure groups and leaders:
an insurgency against the Iraqi Transitional Government and Coalition forces is primarily concentrated in Baghdad and in areas west and north of the capital; the diverse, multigroup insurgency is led principally by Sunni Arabs whose only common denominator is a shared desire to oust the Coalition and end US influence in Iraq

Currently, the Sunni are the minority at about 35% of Iraq. They are opposed to the progression of Democracy in Iraq. Many have boycotted the elections because of this. There are no proven ties between these Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda terrorist cells. I understand that SOME of the activity in Iraq is due to Al Qaeda, but not all. Those that are only fighting against American troops in an attempt to drive out foreign influence I wouldn't call terrorists. Those that are taking advantage of this fighting to stage attacks to cause more chaos, I WOULD call terrorists. There is a marked difference in my opinion, and I just cringe when people blanket the term "Terrorists" across anyone who is attacking Americans.

Don't get me wrong, here. I'm against anybody killing anybody else, and wish each soldier a safe return home, but many people misunderstand terminology, and press does not help to clarify anything. If they were around 240 years ago, British press would be calling George Washington a "Terrorist". Don't believe EVERYTHING you hear on the news. We may have caught some Al Qaeda in Iraq, but not all the insurgents in Iraq are Al Qaeda.

As I understand, the Iraqi death toll overall is only around 40,000, including civilians AND insurgents. Where did you get 100,000 from?

[DanClass]

Originally Posted by DEPjrTX

this from a guy with a Team Creepy avatar? don't all of you have that avatar?

Spook Spook!

touche

i shall change my avatar to..... bullshit!


CREEP CREEP

[benjita]

Originally Posted by DanClass

does anyone else get confused between benjita and lickmy's avatars?

you two quit posting in the same threads

I think Dr. Dan's mind is on vacation this week.

[DanClass]

Originally Posted by benjita

I think Dr. Dan's mind is on vacation this week.

fuck you for being right

spook spook?