Why is Everyone so Against the War?
- Thread starter clown boy
- Start date
dogstar
Active Member
Los Angeles Times September 2, 2007 : BAGHDAD - Child fighters, once a rare presence on Iraq's battlefields, are playing a significant and growing role in kidnappings, killings and roadside bombings, U.S. military officials say. Boys, some as young as 11, now outnumber foreign fighters at U.S. detention camps in Iraq. Since March, their numbers have risen from 100 to 800, said Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone, commander of detainee operations.
jovial
Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
OK. I'll send the question back to you? What do you expect me to do? Spend trillions of dollars fighting one faction in Iraq, when the one that would blow up the building I'm in, lives right around the corner from me? You have a single-minded logic where you think terrorism will end if we just take care of the one's in Iraq. HELLO! MCFLY!! IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!! I don't how to make it any clearer to you. There's no 'dodging' the question. It's a simple answer - wasting our money and troops lives in Iraq will not stop terrorism, nor will it keep one of the fanatical idiots from blowing up the building I'm in. I don't care if you kill 2,500 of them, or 25,000,000. Terrorism as we know it will never go away.
Sorry Biff
, but the way dialog works is that one person asks a question and the other one answers. That's Ok, dont answer. Maybe you can help my single mind to understand your position more clearly if you came up with some soloutions.
Since you believe taking them out will only cause more to exist. If you were in charge, what would you do differently at this point in time, please remember that we cannot change the past?
or
Since terrorism cannot be eliminated, what do we do to reduce it? Should we ignore it and do what makes them happy in hope that this will pacify them.
To answer your question, what do I expect you to do? Why not start by providing some ideas. Lets hear them.
OK. I'll send the question back to you? What do you expect me to do? Spend trillions of dollars fighting one faction in Iraq, when the one that would blow up the building I'm in, lives right around the corner from me? You have a single-minded logic where you think terrorism will end if we just take care of the one's in Iraq. HELLO! MCFLY!! IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!! I don't how to make it any clearer to you. There's no 'dodging' the question. It's a simple answer - wasting our money and troops lives in Iraq will not stop terrorism, nor will it keep one of the fanatical idiots from blowing up the building I'm in. I don't care if you kill 2,500 of them, or 25,000,000. Terrorism as we know it will never go away.
Sorry Biff
Since you believe taking them out will only cause more to exist. If you were in charge, what would you do differently at this point in time, please remember that we cannot change the past?
or
Since terrorism cannot be eliminated, what do we do to reduce it? Should we ignore it and do what makes them happy in hope that this will pacify them.
To answer your question, what do I expect you to do? Why not start by providing some ideas. Lets hear them.
jovial
Member
Originally Posted by Ozmar
Cool. Thanks. This makes a lot of sense. When you kick over an anthill, you get an immediate surge of ants. It makes sense that our agressive tactics would initially cause a surge of resistance among the islamic world. Over time, though, we'll hopefully see this tendency reduce.
One should keep in mind, also, that our intelligence service isn't always correct in their reading of the global situation. We should learn from the past 6 years that our intelligence services are not nearly as competent as we would like (and should expect) them to be.
Good analogy, which is why you should be prepared with a can of Raid.
Cool. Thanks. This makes a lot of sense. When you kick over an anthill, you get an immediate surge of ants. It makes sense that our agressive tactics would initially cause a surge of resistance among the islamic world. Over time, though, we'll hopefully see this tendency reduce.
One should keep in mind, also, that our intelligence service isn't always correct in their reading of the global situation. We should learn from the past 6 years that our intelligence services are not nearly as competent as we would like (and should expect) them to be.
Good analogy, which is why you should be prepared with a can of Raid.
deltablack22
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
Thankfully, I have not heard of children being used. I would hope that you if you ever had to shot a child you'd think long and hard about it after the fact...they are innocents being taken advantage of by very bad people.
As unfortunate as it may seem, they lose their innocence when they commit a hostile act or show hostile intent toward American forces and are now considered an enemy combatant. No matter the age, race, or gender...
Thankfully, I have not heard of children being used. I would hope that you if you ever had to shot a child you'd think long and hard about it after the fact...they are innocents being taken advantage of by very bad people.
As unfortunate as it may seem, they lose their innocence when they commit a hostile act or show hostile intent toward American forces and are now considered an enemy combatant. No matter the age, race, or gender...
deltablack22
Active Member
Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
You've never seen children? There are plenty of videos of children holding guns and weapons in the Middle East and Africa. But if a child was threating my fellow soldiers, I wouldn't shoot to kill, maybe to wound, but I would never want to kill a child. I don't think I could live with such a memory.
I dont know if you are in the military (im assuming army with the fellow soldiers comment) but you should reconsider your thoughts on this issue. Obviously situation dictates - but if I consider my life to be in imminent danger I will use nothing less than deadly force - and as a member of the armed forces you can and should use the same level of force to protect yourself, as well as those around you. And if you arent in a combat capacity it is foolish to even talk on the subject.
You've never seen children? There are plenty of videos of children holding guns and weapons in the Middle East and Africa. But if a child was threating my fellow soldiers, I wouldn't shoot to kill, maybe to wound, but I would never want to kill a child. I don't think I could live with such a memory.
I dont know if you are in the military (im assuming army with the fellow soldiers comment) but you should reconsider your thoughts on this issue. Obviously situation dictates - but if I consider my life to be in imminent danger I will use nothing less than deadly force - and as a member of the armed forces you can and should use the same level of force to protect yourself, as well as those around you. And if you arent in a combat capacity it is foolish to even talk on the subject.
mike22cha
Active Member
Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
I dont know if you are in the military (im assuming army with the fellow soldiers comment) but you should reconsider your thoughts on this issue. Obviously situation dictates - but if I consider my life to be in imminent danger I will use nothing less than deadly force - and as a member of the armed forces you can and should use the same level of force to protect yourself, as well as those around you. And if you arent in a combat capacity it is foolish to even talk on the subject.
I have no combat expierence, and I guess I'd use all force necessary, but dang that stick with you for the rest of your life. Sure hope no one is put into that kind of situation.
I dont know if you are in the military (im assuming army with the fellow soldiers comment) but you should reconsider your thoughts on this issue. Obviously situation dictates - but if I consider my life to be in imminent danger I will use nothing less than deadly force - and as a member of the armed forces you can and should use the same level of force to protect yourself, as well as those around you. And if you arent in a combat capacity it is foolish to even talk on the subject.
I have no combat expierence, and I guess I'd use all force necessary, but dang that stick with you for the rest of your life. Sure hope no one is put into that kind of situation.
deltablack22
Active Member
Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
I have no combat expierence, and I guess I'd use all force necessary, but dang that stick with you for the rest of your life. Sure hope no one is put into that kind of situation.
True, but I would rather have nightmares and see my son grow up than have him grow up without a father because I hesitated.
I have no combat expierence, and I guess I'd use all force necessary, but dang that stick with you for the rest of your life. Sure hope no one is put into that kind of situation.
True, but I would rather have nightmares and see my son grow up than have him grow up without a father because I hesitated.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
I dont know if you are in the military (im assuming army with the fellow soldiers comment) but you should reconsider your thoughts on this issue. Obviously situation dictates - but if I consider my life to be in imminent danger I will use nothing less than deadly force - and as a member of the armed forces you can and should use the same level of force to protect yourself, as well as those around you. And if you arent in a combat capacity it is foolish to even talk on the subject.
dude that mikecha22 is like 12.
I dont know if you are in the military (im assuming army with the fellow soldiers comment) but you should reconsider your thoughts on this issue. Obviously situation dictates - but if I consider my life to be in imminent danger I will use nothing less than deadly force - and as a member of the armed forces you can and should use the same level of force to protect yourself, as well as those around you. And if you arent in a combat capacity it is foolish to even talk on the subject.
dude that mikecha22 is like 12.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
The Presidential Address.... didn't listen... but heard critiques...
Sounds like Bush is trying to pass/authorize new orders in regards to this conflict that would place our military in Iraq just like we are in Korea and Germany... so that any president afterward can not bring them home... We've been in those places for 40-60 years. Do we want our soilders and the goverenment commited to Iraq for the next 40 years?
I'm not personally attacking you but I question your judgment on quality sources. Take out my personal opinion that most media today has the dems in their back pocket. You can have 20 people listen to the same thing and take totally different things that what was really in the content of the speech. So simply listening to responses is a poor source of information no mater what your belief system is.
In a stats class we took we had a lecture about ethically taking polls. So he took a study made by some acadamea some were.
It placed the subject in an official position and it asked if you had to make a choice do something and "save" 1/3 of your people or do something and "kill" 1/2 of your people.
Then it had a second poll asked to different people it inverted the numbers asking the subject to choose between doing nothing and "killing" 2/3 of the people or doing something and "saving" 1/2 of the people.
The numbers weren't quite as simplistic. But it concept is the same.
Both polls 2/3 of the people chose to "save" the people. Choosing different options failing to realise that doing something saves 50% of the lives.
I think that is what people's responses do. They twist the responses to facilitate their agendas. (both sides do it) So if you really want a good source of information you ahve to read or listen to the stuff yourself.
The Presidential Address.... didn't listen... but heard critiques...
Sounds like Bush is trying to pass/authorize new orders in regards to this conflict that would place our military in Iraq just like we are in Korea and Germany... so that any president afterward can not bring them home... We've been in those places for 40-60 years. Do we want our soilders and the goverenment commited to Iraq for the next 40 years?
I'm not personally attacking you but I question your judgment on quality sources. Take out my personal opinion that most media today has the dems in their back pocket. You can have 20 people listen to the same thing and take totally different things that what was really in the content of the speech. So simply listening to responses is a poor source of information no mater what your belief system is.
In a stats class we took we had a lecture about ethically taking polls. So he took a study made by some acadamea some were.
It placed the subject in an official position and it asked if you had to make a choice do something and "save" 1/3 of your people or do something and "kill" 1/2 of your people.
Then it had a second poll asked to different people it inverted the numbers asking the subject to choose between doing nothing and "killing" 2/3 of the people or doing something and "saving" 1/2 of the people.
The numbers weren't quite as simplistic. But it concept is the same.
Both polls 2/3 of the people chose to "save" the people. Choosing different options failing to realise that doing something saves 50% of the lives.
I think that is what people's responses do. They twist the responses to facilitate their agendas. (both sides do it) So if you really want a good source of information you ahve to read or listen to the stuff yourself.
deltablack22
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
dude that mikecha22 is like 12.
Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
You've never seen children? There are plenty of videos of children holding guns and weapons in the Middle East and Africa. But if a child was threating my fellow soldiers, I wouldn't shoot to kill, maybe to wound, but I would never want to kill a child. I don't think I could live with such a memory.
This statement sounded to me like he was Army with his wording - with the "fellow soldiers" comment. How am I supposed to know he's 14?
dude that mikecha22 is like 12.
Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
You've never seen children? There are plenty of videos of children holding guns and weapons in the Middle East and Africa. But if a child was threating my fellow soldiers, I wouldn't shoot to kill, maybe to wound, but I would never want to kill a child. I don't think I could live with such a memory.
This statement sounded to me like he was Army with his wording - with the "fellow soldiers" comment. How am I supposed to know he's 14?
ozmar
Member
Re: Child Warriors
Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
As unfortunate as it may seem, they lose their innocence when they commit a hostile act or show hostile intent toward American forces and are now considered an enemy combatant. No matter the age, race, or gender...
Yes, and let us not forget that if al Qaeda forces children into violent conflict with our forces, then it is al Qaeda which is responsible for the inevitable tragedy.
Ozmar the Child Protector
Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
As unfortunate as it may seem, they lose their innocence when they commit a hostile act or show hostile intent toward American forces and are now considered an enemy combatant. No matter the age, race, or gender...
Yes, and let us not forget that if al Qaeda forces children into violent conflict with our forces, then it is al Qaeda which is responsible for the inevitable tragedy.
Ozmar the Child Protector
deltablack22
Active Member
Originally Posted by Ozmar
Re: Child Warriors
Yes, and let us not forget that if al Qaeda forces children into violent conflict with our forces, then it is al Qaeda which is responsible for the inevitable tragedy.
Ozmar the Child Protector
Agreed.
Re: Child Warriors
Yes, and let us not forget that if al Qaeda forces children into violent conflict with our forces, then it is al Qaeda which is responsible for the inevitable tragedy.
Ozmar the Child Protector
Agreed.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Ozmar
Re: Child Warriors
Yes, and let us not forget that if al Qaeda forces children into violent conflict with our forces, then it is al Qaeda which is responsible for the inevitable tragedy.
Ozmar the Child Protector
Not true! It must be blamed on President Bush!!
Re: Child Warriors
Yes, and let us not forget that if al Qaeda forces children into violent conflict with our forces, then it is al Qaeda which is responsible for the inevitable tragedy.
Ozmar the Child Protector
Not true! It must be blamed on President Bush!!
mike22cha
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Not true! It must be blamed on President Bush!!
It wasn't congress who ordered the invasion of Iraq. And we're arguing what was the purpose to go in! There's something wrong if the people of a nation don't know why we didn't go into a war. And it's not because we're idiots and don't believe the lies of Fox News.
Not true! It must be blamed on President Bush!!
It wasn't congress who ordered the invasion of Iraq. And we're arguing what was the purpose to go in! There's something wrong if the people of a nation don't know why we didn't go into a war. And it's not because we're idiots and don't believe the lies of Fox News.
reefreak29
Active Member
Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
It wasn't congress who ordered the invasion of Iraq. And we're arguing what was the purpose to go in! There's something wrong if the people of a nation don't know why we didn't go into a war. And it's not because we're idiots and don't believe the lies of Fox News.
i would have to say that you are very knowledgable for your age . and i thought everyone under 25 was a democrat
It wasn't congress who ordered the invasion of Iraq. And we're arguing what was the purpose to go in! There's something wrong if the people of a nation don't know why we didn't go into a war. And it's not because we're idiots and don't believe the lies of Fox News.
i would have to say that you are very knowledgable for your age . and i thought everyone under 25 was a democrat