Imagine:

[Havensdad]

And we wouldn't be over here (right now, again I will not debate the beginning of the war. I am dealing with the reality here and now) if the terrorists would quit killing innocent civilians, and quit attacking us.

Tell me something. How can you go, "I will not debate the beginning of the war," when the WHOLE REASON for the terrorist activities, is that beginning? We have been active in Afghanistan LONG before the terrorism started.

Firstly, produce the reports. Secondly, sanctions do not count towards ANY body count from us. People dying due to sanctions is not our responsibility at all. To not sanction countries who are engaged in aggressive behavior is to promote their behavior.

Sanctioning countries is idiotic. It only hurts the poor. It does not work.

The 500,000 are JUST the sanctions...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm

http://brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

http://www.zcommunications.org/more-than-1-000-000-iraqis-murdered-since-2003-invasion-by-orb

Then you don't know the people here. If they don't like you, they let you know. They know that we don't retaliate against civilians. If we go into an area that is Taliban friendly, we get rocks thrown at us, and the children steal things off our trucks. But these instances are in the minority compared to those friendly to us.

So they like you...except the ones that don't like you. And any that don't like you, you label as "Taliban friendly" and dismiss any possibility that they just don't like foreign troops on their soil?

Of course they don't want us there. But they appreciate us there. Huge difference.

Glad you admit it.

Links, please.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/terrorism.afghanistan2

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/08/afghan19766.htm

http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html

http://www.comw.org/pda/0201strangevic.html

 

[Havensdad]

Personally, I enjoy living in a safe country...I don't know if "havensdad" has realized this or not, but we have not been attacked on American soil in 10 and a half years...although you may not appreciate that fact, I do!!! May God bless all of our military as they protect our country and protect our freedom. Its because of American soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom that allow ignorant people to have these anti-military, anti-freedom, anti-Bible views... "a time of war, and a time of peace." Ecclesiastes 3:8 KJV God bless our military, and God bless America!

Nothing anti-Bible about not blowing people up. "Anti-Freedom"? Really? But TSA groping and the NDAA stripping away our rights is freedom?

I appreciate our troops, and do not blame them. I blame the policy makers in Washington. Please do not paint an attack against political policy as "Anti-military." That is just stupid. It is also stupid to think that blowing up peoples Dads, moms, sisters, and brothers in a foreign land, makes us safer here. It just stirs up the hornets.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Imagine you are a kurdish farmer witha wife and 4 small children living in Northern Iraq.

One wonderful, sunny day, you, your wife and your children are sitting outside having a picnic. laughing and loving and sharing with one another.

And suddenly, an iraqi war plane belonging to Saddam Hussein flies overhead and drops nerve gas on all of your family.

You watch as the gas slowly kills your sons and infant twin daughters, and your wife is screaming as she is vomiting and slinging snot uncontrollably. But you are helpless to do anything for them, because you are dieing too. The two babies are the weakest, and you watch them convulse puke, and bleed out of all of their eyes, ears, nose and mouth until finally they lay still in death.

This was reason enough to take out Hussein

John

 

[Havensdad]

Imagine you are a kurdish farmer witha wife and 4 small children living in Northern Iraq.

One wonderful, sunny day, you, your wife and your children are sitting outside having a picnic. laughing and loving and sharing with one another.

And suddenly, an iraqi war plane belonging to Saddam Hussein flies overhead and drops nerve gas on all of your family.

You watch as the gas slowly kills your sons and infant twin daughters, and your wife is screaming as she is vomiting and slinging snot uncontrollably. But you are helpless to do anything for them, because you are dieing too. The two babies are the weakest, and you watch them convulse puke, and bleed out of all of their eyes, ears, nose and mouth until finally they lay still in death.

This was reason enough to take out Hussein

John

So, instead of working diplomatically, we go and kill ten times as many people in just a few years, as Saddam killed during his entire reign?

Not to mention that we are the ones who propped up and armed Saddam in the first place (Iraq was considered a "buffer state" to the Soviet Union)!

 

[seekingthetruth]

Imagine you are an Iraqi father of a young woman who is engaged and soon to be married to a young man that you like a son.

And one day, just before the wedding, your front door is broken done, and Saddam Hussein's two sons, Uday and Qusay Hussein, burst in with a squad of heavily armed body guards, and they take your daughter from you, drag her from your house, and you never see her again.

later you find out that the Hussein brothers had kept your daughter for several weeks in bondage in the palace, raping, torturing and demoralizing them until they got tired of her.

Then, they simply shot her in the head and dumped her body into the city trash dump.

This was reason enough to take out hussein

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

So, instead of working diplomatically, we go and kill ten times as many people in just a few years, as Saddam killed during his entire reign?

Not to mention that we are the ones who propped up and armed Saddam in the first place (Iraq was considered a "buffer state" to the Soviet Union)!

Yep. without even blinking an eye.

Hussein is responsible for this, not Bush or any American.

We armed Hussein because of the threat of another invasion by Iran, and hussein didnt keep his word afterward.

John

PS....newsflash for you. Now that we have left Iraq unsecured, Iran will invade again, and we will be back there, this time fighting an all out war against a well armed Army. I say 2 years, Max

 

[Havensdad]

Imagine you are an Iraqi father of a young woman who is engaged and soon to be married to a young man that you like a son.

And one day, just before the wedding, your front door is broken done, and Saddam Hussein's two sons, Uday and Qusay Hussein, burst in with a squad of heavily armed body guards, and they take your daughter from you, drag her from your house, and you never see her again.

later you find out that the Hussein brothers had kept your daughter for several weeks in bondage in the palace, raping, torturing and demoralizing them until they got tired of her.

Then, they simply shot her in the head and dumped her body into the city trash dump.

This was reason enough to take out hussein

John

Yeah, and we knew about it, and did nothing, until he started jeopardizing our political interests.

And, again, killing ten times as many people than you are saving is not logical or justified. There were alternative ways of dealing with this. We should promote our standards by example, not by force of arms. Saddam could have been dealt with without mass bloodshed...

 

[seekingthetruth]

Peace in the middle east , at least for now, depends on stabilizing Iraq, disarming Iran of nuclear weapons, the free flow of oil, and protecting isreal.

Pulling out of Iraq too soon has jeopardized all of these.

Obama will soon regret this politically motivated, militarily ill advised decision.

John

 

[Havensdad]

Yep. without even blinking an eye.

Hussein is responsible for this, not Bush or any American.

So, if a mad man kills someone, and runs into a building with thousands of people, and you just blow up the building to get him, your not responsible? Sorry, but that is stupid. We are responsible for every death we cause.

We armed Hussein because of the threat of another invasion by Iran, and hussein didnt keep his word afterward. John

Which goes to show we shouldn't be involved.

PS....newsflash for you. Now that we have left Iraq unsecured, Iran will invade again, and we will be back there, this time fighting an all out war against a well armed Army. I say 2 years, Max

Yeah, because Israel and Iran's other enemies in the region (not to mention the Iraqi guard, who now presumably possess at least some U.S. military hardware), are just going to smile and nod at them as they walk (Iran has no serious air force) by...

Please. The fourth most powerful country, Israel, is right there in the region, with a military that dwarfs any other. They could thrash Iran, should the need arise.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Yeah, and we knew about it, and did nothing, until he started jeopardizing our political interests.

And, again, killing ten times as many people than you are saving is not logical or justified. There were alternative ways of dealing with this. We should promote our standards by example, not by force of arms. Saddam could have been dealt with without mass bloodshed...

Not without risking an invasion by Iran. If Hussein and his sons were taken out, and we werent there in force, civil war would have broken out between the different Muslim factions over who would rule.....and Iran would just march in and defeat both sides.

We CANNOT allow iran to have iraq. Not just because of the oil, but mostly because of the strategic location of iraq to Isreal. This would force other Arab countries to choose a side and then the war expands, drawing in western countries, like US

This cannot happen

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

So, if a mad man kills someone, and runs into a building with thousands of people, and you just blow up the building to get him, your not responsible? Sorry, but that is stupid. We are responsible for every death we cause.



Which goes to show we shouldn't be involved.





Yeah, because Israel and Iran's other enemies in the region (not to mention the Iraqi guard, who now presumably possess at least some U.S. military hardware), are just going to smile and nod at them as they walk (Iran has no serious air force) by...

Please. The fourth most powerful country, Israel, is right there in the region, with a military that dwarfs any other. They could thrash Iran, should the need arise.

And you think the Isreal's other enemies will just sit back and watch that happen?

Listen, it would be an all out mid east war....and Europe, Russia, China and us will be forced to get involved.

i dont think you have really researched this or thought it out. You are full of left wing talking points, but it is all fantasy.

John

 

[Havensdad]

And you think the Isreal's other enemies will just sit back and watch that happen?

Listen, it would be an all out mid east war....and Europe, Russia, China and us will be forced to get involved.

i dont think you have really researched this or thought it out. You are full of left wing talking points, but it is all fantasy.

John

They are not "left wing talking points." They are just common sense. Israel has somewhere around 300 tactical nuclear missiles. Iran is not going to match that anytime soon.

Why not reach out diplomatically? Why not make friends? They have a right to be ticked at us, you know. We, after all, are the ones who busted up their blooming democracy and civil rights movement to protect British oil interests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWZIR6BIGSQ

 

[billwald]

>Your Father or Mother was at work in the twin towers

A person is more likely to be killed by lightning than by a terrorist. Americans are terrible at risk analysis.

If you feel so strongly about nukes then you want to eliminate ours?

 

[preacher4truth]

Why is it when we get bombed in our own country, its "terrorism," but when we bomb innocent civilians in another country, its "protecting freedom"?

When did we get "bombed?" Pay attention, OK?

In answer to your ludicrous statement above: When we see an enemy attack us, and brag about it, and threaten more, it necessitates we go after them to attempt to put an end to it for the sake of others. The latter is called protecting freedom, and the former is called terrorism. See?

It's like if someone hurt someone in my family, and then bragged about it, and threatened more, I as a man, well, they'd pay for it. I wouldn't worry about what someone like you wanted to label it, I'd just take care of business and let the PC crowd think what they've been conditioned to think.

The former in the above scenario? They would also be called terrorists. My campaign against it? That would be called protecting freedom. See? It's rather easy to grasp.

Stop watching conspiracy theory videos on youtube and crack open your Bible. Afterall, you're pastoring now, correct?

You've been thoroughly hoodwinked by the media and political correctness.

"Congrats," you're exactly the product they desire.

 

[preacher4truth]

And you think the Isreal's other enemies will just sit back and watch that happen?

Listen, it would be an all out mid east war....and Europe, Russia, China and us will be forced to get involved.

i dont think you have really researched this or thought it out. You are full of left wing talking points, but it is all fantasy.

John

Don't worry seekingthetruth, I'm certain folks like him were complaining when the Israelites went on an God ordained military campaign as well. The naysayers have always been here.

 

[Don]

For those that are reading Haven's appeals to emotion, please consider this: in several responses to Seeking, he mentioned Americans killing more than the terrorists killed.

These comparisons are false. Many of the reports used to show American-caused casualties include attacks by insurgents upon their own countrymen. Again, the term "collateral damage" means nothing to the terrorists.

Something you have to understand about the difference in the way cultures think and respond:
http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/glob...gallery/2008/1201a/20081125adf8246638_038.jpg

In front of the vehicles are concrete barriers; you can see a bumpy surface in the ground that runs in between those concrete barriers. Those bumps are Iranian helmets that were buried there as part of the pavement. This length of road was actually a military parade ground; whenever the troops marched through there, they marched over the helmets of their Iranian enemies. You see, in the middle east, there's a mindset that something beneath your feet is as low as it can get (biblical equivalent is from Genesis, where God ordained that woman would ground the serpent beneath her heel). Showing someone the bottom of your foot is an insult, as is throwing your shoe at someone (like the individual who threw a shoe at President Bush, and the recent individual who threw a shoe at the Iran president).

Imagine: a ruler who has such a disregard for another country, he uses as pavement the helmets of their dead soldiers--soldiers who were sons, brothers, husbands, fathers.

Yep, I can imagine.

 

[Havensdad]

For those that are reading Haven's appeals to emotion, please consider this: in several responses to Seeking, he mentioned Americans killing more than the terrorists killed.

These comparisons are false. Many of the reports used to show American-caused casualties include attacks by insurgents upon their own countrymen. Again, the term "collateral damage" means nothing to the terrorists.

Something you have to understand about the difference in the way cultures think and respond:
http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/glob...gallery/2008/1201a/20081125adf8246638_038.jpg

In front of the vehicles are concrete barriers; you can see a bumpy surface in the ground that runs in between those concrete barriers. Those bumps are Iranian helmets that were buried there as part of the pavement. This length of road was actually a military parade ground; whenever the troops marched through there, they marched over the helmets of their Iranian enemies. You see, in the middle east, there's a mindset that something beneath your feet is as low as it can get (biblical equivalent is from Genesis, where God ordained that woman would ground the serpent beneath her heel). Showing someone the bottom of your foot is an insult, as is throwing your shoe at someone (like the individual who threw a shoe at President Bush, and the recent individual who threw a shoe at the Iran president).

Imagine: a ruler who has such a disregard for another country, he uses as pavement the helmets of their dead soldiers--soldiers who were sons, brothers, husbands, fathers.

Yep, I can imagine.

Don,

I agree that as a whole, our troops are honorable, and certainly try to make the best out of a bad situation. But that does not equate to it being a good idea, or profitable, for us to be there.

Can you HONESTLY not empathize with these people? Can you HONESTLY not put aside your American exceptional ism for a moment, and just think about how you would feel in their situation?

 

[Havensdad]

When did we get "bombed?" Pay attention, OK?

In answer to your ludicrous statement above: When we see an enemy attack us, and brag about it, and threaten more, it necessitates we go after them to attempt to put an end to it for the sake of others. The latter is called protecting freedom, and the former is called terrorism. See?

No, I don't see. When did the 93 innocent civilians at the farm 25 miles north of Kandahar that were bombed and killed, "Threaten" us?

It's like if someone hurt someone in my family, and then bragged about it, and threatened more, I as a man, well, they'd pay for it. I wouldn't worry about what someone like you wanted to label it, I'd just take care of business and let the PC crowd think what they've been conditioned to think.

Yeah, you might go kill THEM, but I pray you wouldn't walk up to their family and their kids while they were having a picnic, and start spraying rounds. Then say, "Well, those kids were just collateral damage. Regrettable, but unavoidable."

The former in the above scenario? They would also be called terrorists. My campaign against it? That would be called protecting freedom. See? It's rather easy to grasp.

Not at all. Actually, you would both be guilty of the crime of murder. You would also be guilty of vigilantism, which is a crime in and of itself.

Stop watching conspiracy theory videos on youtube and crack open your Bible. Afterall, you're pastoring now, correct?

You've been thoroughly hoodwinked by the media and political correctness.

"Congrats," you're exactly the product they desire.

I have not been "hoodwinked" at all. Why is it Christians want a Christian nation, in every aspect but the "Love those who hate you" part?

I am afraid it is YOU have been hoodwinked. TURN OFF FOX NEWS AND THINK FOR YOURSELF>

 

[Don]

Don,

I agree that as a whole, our troops are honorable, and certainly try to make the best out of a bad situation. But that does not equate to it being a good idea, or profitable, for us to be there.

Can you HONESTLY not empathize with these people? Can you HONESTLY not put aside your American exceptional ism for a moment, and just think about how you would feel in their situation?

"Can 'I' not empathize with them?" You'll recall that it was I who corrected your terminology that is insulting to them.

Let me ask this: Have YOU spent time in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or any other middle eastern country? Have YOU spent time with Saudis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, or Afghans? If I asked "cheetor astee?" would you know how to respond? (please pardon spelling; I'm spelling phonetically)

I met a fellow service member in Afghanistan who I thought had the worst job in Afghanistan. His job was to QC the porta-johns to ensure the contracted porta-john cleaners were doing their jobs. That's right: he put on a uniform and traveled thousands of miles so he could inspect porta-johns. But he informed me there was someone with a worse job. You see, porta-johns aren't a new concept to Afghans; they've had them for quite a while. So this fellow serviceman and I agreed the worst job in Afghanistan has to be the Afghan porta-john businessman who delivers the porta-johns.

Why, you ask? Because he is constantly being held up by his fellow Afghans who want to "tax" him to travel on "their" roads; he is constantly being shot at or sabotaged by his rival Afghan porta-john businessmen; and myriad other dangers that existed before Americans arrived on the scene, and have nothing to do with us being there. His job, in my opinion, is the worst job because who wants their headstone to read "He died for a porta-john"?

BTW: you previously asked a question about what we expect Afghans to say when they're faced with an American holding a rifle. Another facet of the middle east culture that you're apparently unfamiliar with is the profileration of weapons. I would expect them to look at my M-4, and then show me their AK-47. Or, if they're Afghan National Army, show me their M-16. One of my subordinates came in from his daily "advising" session, which required us to pass through several Afghan checkpoints, and commented: "You know, if you haven't had an RPG pointed at you, then you're not doing your job."

 

[Don]

I'll tell you what I empathize with: the fact that they're just like you and me. They want to feel secure; and they want opportunities to better themselves.