Iraq Body Count at 25,000

Alas the answer is yes...

War? Hardly, Ulrika. Hardly.

It was an (admitedly) unprovoked attack that accomplished nothing, to no end, to futilely teach someone a lesson you felt they needed to learn in a method doomed by it's very methodology to not accomplish it's own goals.

So no, not war. Sounds a wee touch like something else being discussed, though.

That said, why do people respond to topics like this? Really? Do you honestly think your going to accomplish anything? I'm asking this honestly, I'm confused. Do you HONESTLY think ANYONE is going to change their view based on this thread? Or any forum thread?

Alas, the lady is serious.

So was it force-based politics or a cruel lesson by analogy? If it were force-based politics, I certainly succeeded in crippling dissenters. If it were a cruel lesson by analogy, I made an excellent case for dialogue over force. In the end, regardless of the outcome I admit culpability and seek retribution against myself for those that I wronged. It's not something you see everyday.

What's interesting is that the world stage is much like a forum, where individuals with different ideologies vie for supremacy. Within the world stage or forum, there are certain rules that one is expected to adhere to and when one violates those rules other members of the world stage or forum become upset.

Is the U.S. not a belligerent force in the world much like I was in this thread? Does the U.S. have the right to apply force to a sovereign nation? Do I have the right to apply force to individuals in a forum? Is a personal attack a cheap shot? Is war a cheap shot? If no one learned anything here, what does that say about the final outcome of war? Fascinating.

~Ulrika~

I remain in awe of you, Ulrika. WHile I sometimes disagree with your politics or your approach, it is a fascinating comparison.

Over the last forty years, the United States has given over four hundred billion dollars in aid to African nations. If that much money hasn't helped them, may in fact have increased their misery by going to weapons purchases by corrrupt totalitarian governments, how is throwing them even more money going to help?

No, we in the US helped with the formation of the state of Israel. The UK had occupied it since taking it from the Turks after World War One. The British actually tried to prevent Jews from emigrating to Palestine since they knew that the Jews were mostly zionists wanting to form their own nation. Many of the Palestinians were actually paid by the British to move to Palestine from Egypt and Jordan in order to keep the population balanced. The British forces in Cyprus were actually sinking ships and shooting down planes which were bringing Jews to Israel after World War Two was over.

Oh, and Hadassah is a charitable organisation run by Jewish women in the US.

As usual the apologists will simply ignore this bit. It'll be somehow our fault that corrupt governments misused that money ... or something.

Yup. They won't be happy until we are all soylent green eaters, paying 75% income taxes to support the 3rd world and riding around in hydrogen powered buses - whilst they, the "enlightened ones" ride around in limos and dine on tenderloin.

haha...

Sad but true, or so it seems at times.

The typical "blame the gun manufacturer" for the shooting mentality. It's really just a way to disguise the fact that there's some other agenda, motivation, or goal going on behind the scenes. The agenda in this case being "the Iraq war was a waste of money" in order to oppose support of the war, which is an entirely separate issue...

I don't have the same opinion as Jsecure that if you don't know the people personally then you can't grieve and I have been touched by all the words of good wishes from other countries - thank you. I also grieved on 9/11 - how could one not.

I decided some time ago that I would never reply to the originator of this thread - this person is an attention seeker and I personally will not feed that need.

Below is an extract from one post:

Meh. I'm bored to death with the forums and I thought I spice things up by picking on the skinny kid. I full expect a formal warning with some possible time off for that post but it is worth it.

I haven't been counting but seriously wonder how many formal warnings can a person get before being banned? Surely this person's time is up.

Alexa

Grieve used to be a word that meant people saying goodbye to their loved ones. You kind of hijacked that one and used it as a replacement for media circus.

But don't worry, I have something that will help you with your "grieving". I bet the guys in London who died would appreciate this, we Brits are famed for our ironic sense of humour.

===

Oh what a circus, oh what a show, America has gone to town, over the death of some people, they did not know. We've all gone crazy, mourning all day and mourning all night, falling over ourselves to get all of the misery right.

Oh what an exit, thats how to go
When theyre ringing your curtain down
Demand to be buried like the guys in London.

Its quite a sunset
And good for the country in a roundabout way
Weve made the front page, of all the worlds papers today

But who are these London people?
Why all this howling, hysterical sorrow?
What kind of goddess has lived among us?

How will we ever get by without them?

They had her moments, they had some style
The best show in town was the kids
Outside the kitchen door crying, "we want dinner"

But thats all gone now
As soon as the smoke from the funeral clears
Were all gonna see and how, we don't recognise their face...

I challenge you to provide a link to these statistics. I can't adequately respond until I see this broken down -- it doesn't say anything about which countries, what the aid purchased, or when the aid was given. 40 years is a broad, broad stretch of time.

thanks

Yes, I do believe a forum post can change peoples minds.

I mean look at the information the pro-war have believed thus far.

We started a war in Iraq to a) liberate their people and b) create a hotbed for the terrorist so they would fight there and not here.

If people believe that, they'll believe anything, including a forum post.

What a disgustingly nationalistic post - yet another Eurocentric bullshit generalization about America. Where is this wild outpouring of grief, which by the way means sadness if you are going to play a lame semantics game? I checked the news, and right now everything is about the hurricane. I felt sadness when I heard of the bombings, just as I feel sadness when I read every day of what is happening in Iraq. I also felt sadness today in hearing that 32 people died in Cuba from a hurricane. You don't get to dictate anyone's grief - that is supremely arrogant. Mock it all you want, since that is all you can do, though I am not sure why you feel the need to.

Right after the terrorist attacks in Madrid, over a million Spaniards came together to protest, to stand united, and to grieve. I am sure you think they are just stupid lemmings who should just go on with their lives and not give a fuck about something that didn't happen to them or their families. Well you know what? Most people are not that myopic.

The bombing in London is also a very real reminder to the US and other countries about how vulnerable we all remain to terror. People do feel genuine fear, especially when something like this happens. Yeah yeah, you've been through it all before. How exceedingly brave of you. However, IRA bombings don't make others around the world feel less safe outside of the areas affected. The same with the Irsael-Palestine conflict, or what is going on in Iraq. However, when something like this happens, it becomes a question of when and where it will happen next. Will it be Paris, Amsterdam, Miami, Toronto, Caracas? Or maybe some small town in Switzerland, or during rush hour in Los Angeles. That sense of unknown causes fear, and contributes to the sense of grief and stress people are legitimately feeling.

Attack it all you want - personally, I would appreciate words of support and encouragement from others in a difficult situation instead of just spitting on it.

"Attack it all you want - personally, I would appreciate words of support and encouragement from others in a difficult situation instead of just spitting on it."

I would, too, and, of course, most do.

coco

Forum warfare insults and alienates people. Forum diplomacy has some chance of getting people to consider ones' point of view.

Flame wars are futile. The best flame wars might improve debating skills. But flame wars will never convince people to change their minds.

Why do all controversial posts have to be called flame wars? It's perfectly possible to have a normal debate about something like this without it being a flame war. And it can change people's minds, or at least get them to understand their own position better, it's the same as any other discussion. Well, unless it really IS a flame war.... then it's just fun to watch if you're not involved. The thing is most people never can admit to being wrong, learning something new, or to changing their mind about something, so you rarely see it here publicly.

Cristiano: Last post, good one.

Neehai: Liberating the Iraqi people was mentioned in Iraq war speeches as one of the reasons, no matter how minor it was considered, to invade. The exploits of Saddam's sons were popular topics...

The idea of "drawing terrorists into Iraq" to stop them from acting elsewhere, I do think is a more recent idea. (Not that it can be strongly proven or disproven, although I believe it's a definite factor.) That idea *has* to be more recent, because the administration didn't predict the level and length of the insurgency there now. So obviously they couldn't have had the insurgency as a goal before the war started... if any Iraq liberation supporter says otherwise they'll be wrong.

What DOES bother me is that the same people who were saying "no terror attacks during all these years means our strategy is working" does not prove that our strategy is working, are NOW saying that this one terror attack, all the sudden, proves that our strategy is NOT working. Seems hypocritical to me. This type of argument is bad if it doesn't support your view, but all of the sudden okay if it does support your view? That's a bullshit argument. It goes both ways!

("Your" above does not refer to anyone in particular.)

Fairly recent, but the President used it as part of his re-election platform.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041025-4.html


Well I don't accept that this was a real strategy. I also never thought the lack of a terror attack was a sign of success. Therefore, you are correct, I do not see this recent attack as a sign of failure. However, it is a failure of an ideal for those who believed it to begin with.

The reasons for war change so frequently, I can't see how anyone can justify them from day to day.

First it was to protect from WMDs.

Then it was to get back at Saddam for 911.

Then it was to liberate the Iraqi people.

Then it was to spark democracy in the middle east.

Then it was to draw the terrorists there and away from us.

It is honestly comical to me at this point. I don't believe my President anymore.

I'm not sure I understand what that last sentence means, maybe I'm just being dense...



This is where alot of misunderstandings are... I don't believe these things were brought up one by one over time like that, most of them have always been there but I guess they took turns being the "main" reasons that were being talked about, or something. Maybe the media's to blame for not being able to focus on more than one concept at a time.

-WMDs were indeed one of the original reasons (there were more than this) initially.

-Iraq was never about 9/11, at least not according to the offical word; many people incorrectly connected the two but doing so is wrongwrongwrong. Afghanistan was pretty directly connected though. That's probably why people thought Iraq was too.

-Liberating the Iraqis was also an original reason--the media and most everyone else didn't pay much attention to this but it was always mentioned in speeches. (I believe also alongside the "human shredder" and "torture chambers", and such.)

-Changing the face of the middle east was also an original, primary, long term, general goal (which involves more than just Iraq). Part of it is simply putting pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia (who actually listen to us, somewhat) to crack down on bastards.

-Drawing terrorists was NOT an original goal, nor was it planned in any way. It's a debatable possible positive side effect of the Iraq war which could possibly go either way, I guess. For this to be an "original" goal, a long term insurgency would have had to be predicted and expected, but the administration has already admitted that the strength of the insurgency has far supassed their expectations.

That's how I see it.

If this post snapped you out of your mourning stupor and reminded you that life goes on, you didn't know the dead people, their families, or their families, and you have your life to lead way out west in the US somewhere, I would say it did it's job better even than I expected

A dose of reality is sometimes much needed.

Well war is a horrible thing, terrorism is a a more horrible thing.

So you aren't effected at all when you see 9/11 or London images on TV?

Nah, your posts just confirmed what I already thought about you. It is not a "dose of reality" - your reality is your own, you don't get to define reality for anyone else. Having gone through the death of a parent in the summer of 2001, followed by the loss of a another family member in the 9/11 attacks, I know plenty about life going on without your surpreme wisdom to guide me. I wasn't in any stupor over what happened in London, though it did instantly bring back reminders of what happened here, and the continued arrogance you show in your posts is far more sickening than people grieving over the loss of life. The sickening part honestly is that you are totally indifferent to it.

Here's a bit of reality for you then: we don't all wear cowboy boots and live out west, somewhere, you know. That way of life has been pretty much been dead the last sixty years or so, except for wealthy escapists. I think you would be well off to actually come here sometime, and despise us for valid reasons, rather than your misplaced and innacurate - though no doubt charming - notions.