Author Topic: meanwhile, back at the debators society (Read 1080 times)

Raider179 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 22, 2005, 02:56:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
While were at it,, I would like to ask you something that have bothered me a little. If the veterans association had about 27000 applications for military personal wounded in Iraq prior to spring 2004 (pre Falluja), how comes The US Goverment only acknowledge roughly half of these figures wounded? Even claiming that many returned to service?

The applications were for veterans benefits not necessarily for wounded benefits. I would say most of these are from soldiers suffering Post tramatic stress syndrome (probably after returning home) and are therefore not counted by the government as casualties although they probably should be.

JB88 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 22, 2005, 03:08:43 AM »

thanks raider

patrone · « **Reply #18 on:** January 22, 2005, 03:09:07 AM »

ok, further question, about wounded: sorry

Ramstein surgons claim that they recived like 10,000 wounded from Iraq by end of fall 2003. About 3000 amputation had been perfomed, would you claim this to be BS?

Further more, there is claims that there are atleast 30,000 greencard holders serving USA defence forces in Iraq and that their deaths/wounds are not reported. A person that dies after coming under medic care is claimed not to be counted as a "death". Could there be any truth in this?

Could the real figures of dead US personal in Iraq, Already be much higher than it was after the first 2 years in Vietnam?

JB88 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 22, 2005, 03:11:44 AM »

i declare this thread officially "non topic"

roll with it.

whatever it is.

patrone · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2005, 03:25:11 AM »

Sorry for "stealing" it....I will behave

back to the "meanwhile, back........."

JB88 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2005, 03:34:17 AM »

no. seriously.

i like it.

its an interesting question.

thats why i am saying, lets make it off topic here and roll with it or whatever else stems from it.

its not like my post was all that interesting anyways...lol.

patrone · « **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2005, 03:44:10 AM »

No, seriously, it would only cause poblems an emails and.....better stop here.

I have another question though. Is it true that Rumsfield Won´t parpeciate in the Security conference at Munich, Germany, because he is affraid of getting prosecuted for war crimes?

press play

I think that Germany would´nt dare, not as long as Rumsfield are holding his office.
But Powell, he should stay at home, just like Kissinger been doing

JB88 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 22, 2005, 03:56:56 AM »

i know nothing about that. is the article that you posted a reliable source or is it the german equivelent of the new york post?

a fair question yes?

and the casualties. where are you getting this information from?

patrone · « **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2005, 04:03:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB88
i know nothing about that. is the article that you posted a reliable source or is it the german equivelent of the new york post?

a fair question yes?

and the casualties. where are you getting this information from?

To tell you the truth, about the German newpaper, I dont know.
The casulties? It was discussed at CNN a while ago (june I think). I safe stuff like this in text files, because "issues" like this are quickly burid and the links disapere, its a mistery, really.

JB88 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 22, 2005, 04:11:13 AM »

thats just it.

so much information to process.

pops in. pops out.

i cant say as its a completely outrageous possibility. but id like to think that it is.

then again immigrants have often been enlisted to fight in wars historically so i suppose its possible.

anyone killed in action should be accounted for irregardless. i dont think anyone would disagree with that.

patrone · « **Reply #26 on:** January 22, 2005, 04:20:12 AM »

You see, just like the Russians did´nt like Stalin, they still formed up behind him when the Germans attacked.

Same thing is happening in Iraq. They did´nt like Saddam all that much, but years of suffering from embargos and stuff, kinda had the opposite effect then the Naive Bush thought.

Instead of embracing the invaders, they are bombing them and shooting them when ever they can.

Before he got re-elected, he could´nt admit defeat in Iraq. But now, he will, just wait until after the elections are over in Iraq.
By the end of March, the last US soldier will have left Iraq.
And security will be uphold by UN-troops from Russia, France, Germany, etc, etc

Saintaw · « **Reply #27 on:** January 22, 2005, 04:26:35 AM »

Boo! Hiss!

There, I saved 'them' a lot of time.

patrone · « **Reply #28 on:** January 22, 2005, 04:28:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saintaw
Boo! Hiss!

There, I saved 'them' a lot of time.

hehehehe,,, you ol´brusselsprout.
How ya doing?

JB88 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 22, 2005, 04:44:58 AM »

i just dont invision american forces withdrawing anytime soon. though many of us would like to see it happen.

as powell spoke of the pottery barn principle "you bought it, you own it" so it is, though i am genuinely sorry to see him go and i feel that he was generally underutilized in his role. he certainly never had the visible clarity of view that baker had,

i think that he was probably pretty forward about it all in the war room...probably a bit of an idealist and that didnt sit well.

anyway, its there. were in it.

i have a tendancy to think that we should try to find a way to make it come out positive, to keep tweaking it until its right, but im not sure i see that happening either.

i also have a tendancy to believe that free will is more of an incentive to a people than force, but that is only because my logic speaks it. we can say that is what we are doing there, opening the door to it, but i am skeptical of that. some of americas good friends give thier people no sufferage whatsoever.

i was for the war in afghanistan because it was a clear retaliation for an attack on the US. not just our military (pentagon) but our people and our way of life.

i was against iraq because i genuinely felt that it represented everything that is bad about the imperialistic side of our, and many other countries historical culture.

i also have a tendancy to believe that we have the ingenuity to reduce our dependency on oil rather than trying so hard to continue smoking it. (the great big ball of tar that is the mid east crack pipe and the dealers that come with it)

but that is because i am an idealist.

and maybe it is true what you said, because i am somewhat nationalistic...i happen to like american ideals and most things about our way of life.

so i too want to defend it. to me, freedom of mind and spirit and the right to question authority are a large part of that nationalism.

but projecting it on others is something else entirely.

projecting freedom upon it when we dont elsewhere is suspect to me. i see iraq as pure economics.

its interesting to consider that the soviets established the eastern bloc as a defensive shield against the west.

(not a good thing for them was it?)

but im pretty sure that thier excursion into afghanistan was for less than defensive reasons.

america was outraged by that one.

reagan was for sure.

but then, the globalization map is an interesting thing isnt it?

as far as maps and mapwatchers go. theres only one game in town.

its been that way since when.