The Dixie Chicks should be President

[Dago]

Why is this stupid thread still going?

[MORAY37]

Laz...

You think fixing the roads, upgrading the electric grid so that a squirrel can't short out the entire east coast, and rebuilding cities hit by disaster.....SOCIALIST?

You're a nut job.

[LEADPIG]

Originally posted by Dago
Why is this stupid thread still going?

Who Knew?......

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Did I say you did? no.

I posted that you insulted Tango by suggesting that his ability to engage in intelligent discussion was compromised.

You defended your suggestion by saying it was true.

so I posted, by showing you something called an example, that even if an insult is true, it is still an insult.

OK wordboy, if you are speaking of Tango to me, and we are talking about insulting Tango, and you state, "If I called Someone and idiot", then one might take it that you were still on the topic of Tango.  Now, back to your manipulation.

[Holden McGroin]

Well Nonword boy,

I didn't call Tango anything. So when I state, "If I were to call someone an idiot, " why would you think I was talking about you calling Tango an idiot?

I refers to me, you refers to you. I didn't say you, I said I which, once again, does not refer to you.

Once again I used an hypothetical example to illustrate a point.

Which means of course that it was me, not you, that was trying to paint a word picture so that you, not me, could understand my, not your, point.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by LEADPIG
They obviously foretold what was going to happen before Bush's entire cabinet had a clue what was going to happen. Who cares how they said it. Bush still doesn't have a clue, either that or he knows and doesn't want to admit he screwed up at the expense of 4,000 dead soldiers.  

People don't want to believe their lying eyes about the failure that is the Iraq war and ultimately resort to parroting the same old tired emotional patriotic cliche's rather than admit bushs dumb idea has failed as many told him it would.

Its probably a-lot more than almost "4000" dead, in 2000 it appears the .gov re-defined what a death is.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_notes.htm

Previous definition DOD Instruction 7730.22 Jan 20th 67 - Mar 73:
"Reports of U.S. Casualties in Combat Areas": Vietnam war casualties to be reported were all those occurring within the designated combat areas and those deaths occurring anywhere as the result or aftermath of an initial casualty occurring in a combat area.

The current related document, DoD Instruction 1300.18, Dec 18, 2000 "Military Personnel Casualty Matters, Policies, and Procedures" , makes no mention on this matter.... Now, for example, casualties whose next-of-kin are not notified or cannot be contacted/located do not appear to be counted in the official tally... I believe there are a few dozen KIAs this applies to currently.

The official numbers look out of whack; nearly 15,000 troops were sufficiently sick / injured to require evacuation from the theater, but only 10 are officially reported to have died.

The ratio of those evacuated due to "combat wounds", over 1,500 as of 01 August 2004, to those who died subsequent to evacuation; 8 officially. Thats a ratio on the order of 200:1.

Over 4,000 were evacuated due to "non-battle injuries", yet only 2 were reported to have subsequently died. Over 7,000 were evacuated due to disease, yet not one of them died.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
Its probably a-lot more than almost "4000" dead, in 2000 it appears the .gov re-defined what a death is.

Here ya go Marine a list of those killed in 4 1/2 years.  (for historical perspective, 6,825 were killed, 25,851 wounded in 36 days for some little airfield in the Pacific in '45)

[LEADPIG]

One thing that really bothers me is the mental injuries caused to these soldiers. Some will never be the same. Due to post traumatic stress disorder or depression. Every so often i hear a story of a soldier who returns within a certain amout of time and commits suicide. It always hurts me to see, they make it that long in war zone and they're so hurt that they come home and are effected in such a way that they commit suicide.....Sad. Their family members explain how their soldier was never the same after returning, so much so that they can't function. I've seen those old films of WW1 soldiers, and the effects on human beings of the first "Industrial War". Legs and limbs twitching involuntarily, deformed walking, damaged speach all without suffering a physical injury. Then there's always the idiots such as Patton, who slapped a soldier in WW2 for being effected in such a way, (like the soldier could help it). I really believe war must actually short circuit the nervous system or do something to the brain in a structural way  that causes this to happen that medical science has yet to understand. I guess that's war, but a hate to see people being effected like this over such a misguided attempt to kill the enemy as this one.

[Tango]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Well Nonword boy,

I didn't call Tango anything. So when I state, "If I were to call someone an idiot, " why would you think I was talking about you calling Tango an idiot?

I refers to me, you refers to you. I didn't say you, I said I which, once again, does not refer to you.

Once again I used an hypothetical example to illustrate a point.

Which means of course that it was me, not you, that was trying to paint a word picture so that you, not me, could understand my, not your, point.

Holden, you may as well give up.

He asked 3 questions and I answered them. Instead of responding he resorts to attacks. He is more interested in insulting and flaming than debating.

here are the answers I gave to his 3 questions:
\

Originally posted by Tango
1 - So attacking our planes that were patroling the no-fly zone is not an act of war? That in itself is reason enough to end the cease fire. WMDs or not.

2 - Saddam wanted nothing more than more power and oil. He proved that by invading Kuwait. He was a threat to our Allies over there. Kuwaitis celebrating after we invaded and defeated his army proved that. Not to mention his own people. I have a nephew who spent a tour in Northern Iraq with the Kurds and he said they are extremely gratful to us.

3 - Yes, he was supporting terrorism. He was giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers families who were killing innocent people in Israel. Israel is one of our closest allies in the ME. Reports dating back to the Clinton administration even were saying that he was and that he was looking for and striving for nukes. Why the anti-war activists seem to forget this to put the blame on Bush saying HE lied and was simply looking for an excuse to go into Iraq baffles me. The attacks on our air patrols would have been enough excuse to end the cease fire if that was true. With the info he had [which goes back several years BEFORE he was even in office] showed that there was evidence. There was even an Iraqi general who defected that stated this as well.

Why he resorted to insults instead of responding? Only skyrock knows.

[LEADPIG]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Here ya go Marine a list of those killed in 4 1/2 years.  (for historical perspective, 6,825 were killed, 25,851 wounded in 36 days for some little airfield in the Pacific in '45)

I don't know if your trying to compare the two. Iwo Jima against the war in Iraq, but there is a definite difference. War against a known, identifiable enemy, across a specific enemy line, to achieve an acheivable objective. In Iraq you have, war against an unknown enemy, that is not easily identifiable, across no enemy line, against an almost surely unacheivable and unidentifiable objective. Not the same. One war cost effective for the suffering necesary. The other an inefficient and misguided use of force against a heavily unrecognisable enemy, who has no particular means of identification, with wich to target and focus a use of force to wipe out a nameless almost faceless enemy.

[john9001]

Originally posted by LEADPIG
with wich to target and focus a use of force to wipe out a nameless almost faceless enemy.

don't worry pig, when they come knocking on your door you will know who they are.

ally ackbaa.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by LEADPIG
I don't know if your trying to compare the two.

Just putting in perspective some numbers.  I could have put up numbers for the battle of the Wilderness; some 18,000 Union deaths, 3 days.

On your own, you added a bunch more stuff to those numbers.

[WMLute]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just putting in perspective some numbers.

Go back a few pages, I already tried that.

(as I said in that post, I personally feel the "war in Iraq" is going incredibly well, with very little loss of life.  There are cities in the U.S. you are more likely to get murdered in vs. Iraq, but I dont' see people freaking out over that)

[Tango]

How many have we lost in Afghanistan?

Wonder why they aren't screaming about getting out of there. Its a hotter war going on there than in Iraq.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Tango
How many have we lost in Afghanistan?

Wonder why they aren't screaming about getting out of there. Its a hotter war going on there than in Iraq.

You know why we aren't yelling about Afgahanistan, about getting out?  Maybe cuz, the people who actually attacked us fled to there. Not the imaginary terrorists bush wanted us to see in iraq.