| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2006/9/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44518 Activity:high |
9/25 World is safer? not according to CIA and 15 other spy agencies
in USA... you know, those agencies are known for their liberal bias
\_ which leaves out other 15 spy agencies who is obviously
have "liberal bias."
http://tinyurl.com/qslue (NY Times)
\_ More danger = more funding
\_ Repeat of "Liberal CIA undermining..." post below
\_ which leaves out other 15 spy agencies who is obviously
have "liberal bias."
\_ Would the world be safer if the US had taken some other course of
action and what action would that be and how can we know?
\_ couple things. 1. it's not cool for those opium/heroine
to be exported. Neighboring countries tend to get a bit
testy when opium production is up. 2. opium production
is a good reverse indicator of how much central government
is in control. high opium production implies that
Afganistan central government is not controlling its
population. 3. opium money can be used in varity of ways,
don't get suprised when some of the extreme islamic
activities are funded by opium.
\_ err... finish up the job in Afganistan instead of take on
another country size of California. You do know that opium
production in Afganistan is at all time high and exceeding
the average world demand, right?
\_ What does opium have to do with anything?
\_ couple things. 1. it's not cool for those opium/heroine
to be exported. Neighboring countries tend to get a bit
testy when opium production is up. 2. opium production
is a good reverse indicator of how much central government
\_ so we should continue our course of action...
1 or 2 US soldiers, ~100 Iraqi death a day?
is in control. high opium production implies that
Afganistan central government is not controlling its
population. 3. opium money can be used in varity of ways,
don't get suprised when some of the extreme islamic
activities are funded by opium.
\_ You still can't know that a different course of action would
have resulted in a superior outcome today. And no I didn't
know but if they're over producting then they're desperate
for cash to pay their soldiers and likely to collapse and fall
\_ casulty rate from Iraq is actually very
high. casualty typically defined as
death + wonded / total force. You obviously,
conveniently, switch between "casualty" and
"death" as if they are the same. You are
welcome to compare the casulty rate of this
Iraq war versus WW2, Vietnam, and Korean War.
It is not as low as you think.
while you are at it, i suggest you divide the
40k+ car accident death divided by number of
total car drivers, and compare.
in line with the UN supported government. What was your
interpretation of over production?
\_ I think it's 100% safe to say that if we didn't invade
Iraq, Iraq wouldn't have become a giant clusterfuck. -tom
\_ sorry but your ultra left wing rant is getting old
\_ so we should continue our course of action...
1 or 2 US soldiers, ~100 Iraqi death a day?
\_ True. It'd be the same old clusterfuck it was before.
\_ Indeed. A contained one that our allies were willing
to help us with.
\_ It wouldn't be OUR clusterfuck. It'd be Saddam's.
\_ The same old clusterfuck minus 2500+ dead and 10,000+
severely wounded US soldiers.
\_ 40K+ people die in car accidents every year. I
don't wish to be insensitive, but I think the
casualty figures need to be put into perspective.
\_ casulty rate from Iraq is actually very
high. casualty typically defined as
death + wonded / total force. You obviously,
conveniently, switch between "casualty" and
"death" as if they are the same. You are
welcome to compare the casulty rate of this
Iraq war versus WW2, Vietnam, and Korean War.
It is not as low as you think.
while you are at it, i suggest you divide the
40k+ car accident death divided by number of
total car drivers, and compare.
\_ You disingenuous motherfucker. Setting aside
the obvious scale disparities, there is no
moral comparison between a car accident and
dying in active duty. Fuck you.
\_ I'm not sure which one you are saying is
morally superior. Both sets took risks.
The soldiers when they signed up and
the rest of us when we get behind the
wheel every day. I'm guessing you have
no family in the military like I do.
\_ Did I say anything about superiority?
I said comparison. Your apples vs.
my oranges. And yes, I have family
in the military. Again, fuck you.
\_ I am just saying that you need to
look at that 2500 number relative
to something else and not as an
absolute. I bet that many people
have been murdered in LA since 9/11.
\_ When you drive a car, the choice
is your own whether or not to take
the risk. To a bit lesser extent
where you live is also your own
choice. A servicemember is obliged
to follow the order given. As
members of a democracy, our
responsibility to those lives is
higher. Your perspective is
skewed. Fuck you.
\_ Soldiers had a choice whether
to accept risk or not when they
signed up. Also, most soldiers
actually support being in Iraq,
despite the risks.
\_ Thoroughly beside the point.
The nation decides when they
are deployed, not the soldier.
Thus, the nation bears the
responsibility for their
deaths. Most soldiers also
think that they're in Iraq
because of 9/11. You think
they came up with that idea
on their own?
\_ The problem with your point of view
is that the 40K+ dead people from
car accidents can be balanced by
the positive rewards drivers get
from the driving. In fact, if it
wasn't worth it/necessary people
would not be driving, but clearly
it is. These dead soldiers,
however are not worth it since all
the positive rewards from the Iraq
war turned out to be bogus:
Increases rather than decreases
terrorism, There was no imminent
threat, no WMDs, making Iran more
powerful, etc. WW2 killed many more
soldiers but it was worth it to
defeat the Axis.
\_ There are a lot of positive
rewards to being a soldier.
Without them, no one would enlist
\_ But whether or not being a
soldier is rewarding or not
is not the point, the point
is whether or not losing
all these soldiers was worth
it.
\_ What number of soldiers
killed makes it worth it?
2? 200? You tell me.
\_ Zero, since we're not
getting any benefit from
the war.
\_ See, I thought this
was the case. So
it is not really
relevant what
the number is
from your point
of view. If we
could overthrow
Saddam and establish
a democratic Iraq
at the loss of
2 soldiers you'd
still have an issue.
\_ No, if the war
meant getting rid
of a REAL threat,
disarming a danger
ous dictator, and
all the things
BushCo claimed
before the invas
ion AND not a
gigantic cluster
fuck civil war --
in addition to
being a recruiting
poster for global
Jihad, then yes
I would concede
it would be worth
it, just like it
would have been
worth it to take
out bin Laden
& associates if
that would have
prevented 9/11.
The problem is
that the whole
Iraq war is based
on BS and is
being horribly
managed, making
us less, not more
safe.
\_ Forgot to mention the multiple hundred Billion
dollar price tag.
\_ Yes, but people don't mention that as
often as they mention the bodycount - as
if the bodycount being zero would make it
all fine.
\_ Also forgot all the dead Iraqis and the
damage to our nation's reputation etc.
\_ Final cost will be $1-2T. We could have
saved far more then 3,000 lives per YEAR
if we invested that kind of money in our
transportation infrastructure. The Iraq
War is going to go down in history as the
biggest mistake the US ever made.
\_ Yes the world would have been safer if we had taken
almost any alternative course of action, rather than
invading Iraq. We can know this by the simple application
of common sense. It would have made more sense to send
a monkey to Mars than invade Iraq. |
| 7/8 |
|
| tinyurl.com/qslue -> tinyurl.com/tinyurl.com/qslue 404 - Not Found |