If war told by someone else, becomes a drama queen to your eyes, GO SERVE YOURSELF, so you'll see first hand whou's a drama queen :o.

Toyboy is right on this, you seem to fail to appriciate what someone else is doing with their lives to keep you, caugh, caugh, "safe". Think I might do the same as you, as you did toward Nic. Beyond that, I wonder if you ever got stuck @ learning passed beyond kindergarden.

Strangely enough, i'd rather go back to the movie i was watching, Freejack, then elaborate to you the principles of why every human has got the right to live under what so ever regime that is keeping them alive. Even tho Saddam was a saddistic pig about his citizen dying off for no reason, I fail to see the difference between you two. More iraquies have died under the occupation in a year, then they did under his entire oppressive regime. Even chem Ali had more heart toward it's citizen, even tho he did unspeakable thing, than the Bush adm have toward it's own citizen.

Yep, gotta love that patriot act, getting emprisonned without counsel and a trial... wait, doesn't it sound like the saddam regime, yet? :dunno:

Mazer, i do apologize for pointing out those biblical examples to be honest they were a cheap shot. However i do have a really hard time to find any justice and/or fairness in the death of 165 children, whether it is from an earthly standpoint or a devine one. But I guess that is my problem.

The bible is in my opinion a dangerous source of wisdom Mazer, don't get me wrong here if it is helpful to you than by all means use it. But history clearly showed that it has devided humanity more than it united us. Not to mention the fact that it was written by mortal men and badly while they were at it.

In an earlier post you wrote that free will was a gift yet i am pretty sure that you received your religion from your parents - or at least that is how it goes in i think 90% of al cases - so i am wondering did you 'search' for other religions or did you stick to the one you were brought up with? and is/was that your own free will (if there is such a thing anyways) there are religions out there that will turn families against each other if one of them tries to leave that particular church and there are entire countries where if you fall out of a certain religious group your life turns into a living hell (no pun intended)
Since i am not in the habbit of pissing people off when it comes to religion i would like to make clear that i do not mean your church with my previous remark

If you really meant it about stoping that self proclaimed ''religious rant'' feel free to pm me

Oh no...you're going to put me on ignore! But I so enjoy trying to figure out what you're saying in your awful english and then I have to figure out what you think I said to make sense of your reply, and then I get a headache....

A drama queen is a person who overacts to impress others with their sensitivity and caring.

I think your math stopped at the kindergarden level if you think the occupation has killed more people than Saddam.

Enjoy Freejack. Interesting plot but not that good.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not offended in the least and I oppolgize if I came off that way. I can talk about religion from an academic standpoint and I actually quite enjoy it. I know others find it a touchy subject but it takes a lot to get under my skin. Religion is too important to take too seriously. ;)

Being a member of a church that is sometimes quite contraversial I understand these issues. I've heard stories about people becoming Mormons only to be rejected by their families and closest friends, and yet these converts tend to have the strongest testimonies. I was raised by Mormon parents, though they weren't very active in the church and I've had some exposure to other faiths as well, so I've thought about my faith a lot recently. I agree that such a document as the Bible that is so obviously flawed and so open to interpretation can be dangerous, which is why revelation and prophecy is still needed. I get that from the LDS church and from no where else, and that's what it all boils down to for me.

Anyway, people don't seem very receptive to my ideas tonight so I'm really gonna stop this time.

by James Dunnigan
September 8, 2004

In Iraq, American combat losses continue at a historically low level. Since March, 2003, American troops have suffered 7,900 casualties (including 976 dead.) This is an unprecedented killed to wounded ratio of 1:7. In past wars, the ration had been 1:4 or 1:5. American combat deaths over the Summer were 42 in June, 54 in July and 66 in August. There are the equivalent of three American combat divisions in Iraq, each running several hundred patrols and other combat operations each day. Never have combat divisions, operating in hostile territory, kept their casualties this low. The news media, concentrating on any losses as the story have generally missed the historical significance of the low casualties. The American armed forces have developed new equipment, weapons and tactics that have transformed combat operations in an unprecedented way. This is recognized within the military, but is generally ignored, or misunderstood, by the general media.

The health ministry announced that 2,956 people were killed and 11,669 injured because of anti-government violence and terrorism in the last four months. That's a death rate from the violence of 48 per year per 100,000 population. This is much higher than the death rate from crime in the United States, of 5.6 per 100,000. But lower than the rate of 58 in crime ridden South Africa. However, the rate in Iraq has more than tripled, from 15 per 100,000, earlier in the year. However, the fighting has been concentrated in a few areas, as have the casualties. Najaf, where the al Sadr gunmen fought police and American troops, and in Sunni Arab areas to the north where anti-government gunmen sought to retake control of the country. Najaf accounted for 18 percent of the dead. Baghdad accounted for 28 percent of the dead. Baghdad is the target of many terrorist attacks, as well as a large Shia population, and the source of most of the al Sadr gunmen. Baghdad was also the home of many of Sadam Hussein's most dedicated followers. Only ten percent of the casualties are women and children (who make up some two thirds of the population), indicating that the losses are largely from anti-government forces fighting, without much success, coalition troops.

Clinton's military did a hell of a job, eh? :tu:

too bad these these precious assets got wasted in Iraq, when they could have been used to finish the job in Afghanistan...

WOW, thanks for pointing the fucking obvious albed, that english is a second language I had to learn and type aswell. Can't reply something coherent so you felt the need to attack on trivialities such as, "awful english"


Maybe not yet but i fear that it will reach that mark pretty soon :o

Put you on ignore, na, you're to much fun to study

heshe

Kill people in one place or kill them in another; what's the difference to you? You've said often enough you don't think it's worth a single soldiers life.





Heheh. The heshe wasn't bothering me it was just opening a thread to find it was the only thing all the time.

Clinton's Military...bah!!!!



These assets did not get wasted in Iraq because Iran or Syria will be next if they don't smarten up. ---- "Iran has continued to support terrorism in Iraq, and elsewhere. Iran has long maintained terrorist training and support camps, but has kept quiet about it. But the camps are not invisible from above, and terrorists are constantly getting caught with evidence linking them to Iran. Both Iran and Syria fear retaliation from the United States and Israel, initially in the form of air raids on their terrorist camps. The terrorists can then be moved to urban areas, although it is feared that American intelligence agencies will discover where the terrorist safe houses are and continue hitting them with smart bombs. This might escalate to an invasion.

So why do Syria and Iran continue with the terrorist support? Partly it is so the secular (in Syria) and religious (in Iran) dictators can stay in power. By supporting terrorism, you have a bunch of deadly and ruthless people available to you to deal with any internal dissent. This is how the Taliban used al Qaeda to help control the Afghan population. Another bonus is that the "threat" of attack from the United States or Israel can be used as nationalist propaganda to divert popular attention from the dislike for the local dictatorship. This is one of the first things you figure out once you become a dictator. Get yourself a foreign enemy to occupy your peoples' attention, otherwise they will come after you.

Syria and Iran are playing a very dangerous game. Being known as the only countries on the planet that support terrorism could turn into a very deadly liability."----

he he...the neocons hate that fact, but it's true. those whizbang hi-tech troops that routed Afghanistan were, in fact, bred, raised, and funded in the Clinton administration. irrelevant to the topic, but a fun fact, nonetheless :BL:

are we talking about the same Iraq war? coz there is nothing that is happening in Iraq that oughta make Syria and Iran worry, and there is nothing being accomplished there that indicates that invading Iraq was a smart thing to do.

I bet Saddam and his sons would disagree with you....well if his rapist, muderous sons were alive that is...........




Nothing? are you sure about that? Is that what you really honestly believe?

The U.S. is using 8 year olds as soldiers?

One of us is out of touch with reality.

Must be that "Human Growth Hormone" stuff.

I really need to keep up with this fast changing technology.

....and so every other murderous thug in the world gets to move up one place in line. and why should Syria and Iran worry? we're stretched to the limit in Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan.

as for what i believe, it's what i believed about this from day one - nothing about the war on Iraq justifes the cost. it is an unwinnable, untenable position we are in....and a tragic waste of our country's resources.

btw, if there's a realistic exit strategy, let's hear it.


i know but it's actually one of your more interesting characteristics :p

do the math - 9/11 occurred 9 months after Bush took office in January 2003- by October 2003 we're in Afghanistan. when do you think all those soldiers enlisted? when were the funds appropriated for their training? when was the weapons and technology they used approved, purchased, tested, and deployed? you think all that happened after Bush took office? hardly - budget decisions for all that were made in prior years. for better or worse, the military that Bush deployed in Afghanistan was overwhelmingly the military that Clinton left him.

u're all fooken crazy!
 

NOW this is important~~~

http://www.syblescreativeart.com/clearvue/index.html


The future is in plastics, I say.

(and here's to u Mrs Robinson..................................)



I actually have one of these, only it isn't made of plastic. It is totally kewl tho. :ND: