who is winning in Iraq

[Steve_TPF]

Can we have some references please?

[ReDemption]

Originally Posted by Pimpin4life30

Most the soldiers want to finish the job in Iraq.

+1 The Iraq war may not be a good thing but when cant pull out now, or every soldier well have died for nothing, i wish i knew what needs to be done to pull out, but i dont even know anymore

[bloodlusta]

Defense Tech: Iran Supplying Iraq's Bombs?
Equipment of the Iranian Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jrly]

Originally Posted by ReDemption

+1 The Iraq war may not be a good thing but when cant pull out now, or every soldier well have died for nothing, i wish i knew what needs to be done to pull out, but i dont even know anymore

So we should still be in Vietnam than, with a couple million more American dead?

Originally Posted by FerretBone

Today Canada estimates there are at least 300 AWOL US soldiers living in Canada. Hardly a big deal.

In my opioion they are about the only few who have the right to speak out against the war. Because they deployed to iraq, and have direct experience on what their arguing. Its the ones who have never left home and have no clue whats happening in iraq who should be ignored.

The AWOL soldiers probably think it is a big deal.

So to be able to voice my opinion and have it heard, I have to go to a place the US shouldn't be and get shot, is that right. So no one who has ever had an abortion shouldn't be able to speak about it.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by jrly

The AWOL soldiers probably think it is a big deal.

Murderers caught red handed are in the same boat as AWOLs. Why do I care about one or the other?

Originally Posted by jrly

So to be able to voice my opinion and have it heard, I have to go to a place the US shouldn't be and get shot, is that right. So no one who has ever had an abortion shouldn't be able to speak about it.

Yes, and no, Depending on what you use to support your arguement.

If they are using politics as the base of their argument, then yes. They have a right, or better yet, some business in being heard. As long as they don't stray from that topic.
But If they are using internet rumors, media highlights, political gossip, and what they THINK they know about what is going on in the war, as the base of the Iraq argument, then that person is being a fool. Unless they have been down range.

You see Mr. Jrly, you used both politics and rumors in your question to me. You stated the US shouldn't have been there in the first place. Ok, fair enough!
Then you stated something about getting shot at if you were in Iraq. Thats like me saying you have a better chance of being shot at as a fire fighter in New Orleans.

Now don't come at me with some per capital statistics or dissect this down to nothing. I'm just saying, don't be some bandwagon fool who uses what others made up to support your argument

[jrly]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

You see Mr. Jrly, you used both politics and rumors in your question to me. You stated the US shouldn't have been there in the first place. Ok, fair enough!
Then you stated something about getting shot at if you were in Iraq. Thats like me saying you have a better chance of being shot at as a fire fighter in New Orleans.

Is that a joke? Cause weren't there some shot at after Hurricane Katrina? What I meant was that you said the people who never left home should be ignored and I was being ironic, I think thats what it is, because the way I understood what you were saying I have no reason to speak out against the war and I should be ignored, so to be able to make people listen to me I would have to go to a place that I don't want to be in and get shot at. I am trying to make what I am saying clear but it is a little confusing.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

You see Mr. Jrly, you used both politics and rumors in your question to me. You stated the US shouldn't have been there in the first place. Ok, fair enough!
Then you stated something about getting shot at if you were in Iraq. Thats like me saying you have a better chance of being shot at as a fire fighter in New Orleans.

jrly was referring to your statement:

Originally Posted by FerretBone

In my opioion they are about the only few who have the right to speak out against the war. Because they deployed to iraq, and have direct experience on what their arguing. Its the ones who have never left home and have no clue whats happening in iraq who should be ignored.

When Jrly said:

Originally Posted by jrly

So to be able to voice my opinion and have it heard, I have to go to a place the US shouldn't be and get shot, is that right.

I believe that line should have had a question mark at the end. jrly was asking you to clarify your apparent view that people who have not participated directly in the war have no right to talk about it. (Correct me if I'm wrong jrly.) Following that logic, Commander-in-Chief George Bush shouldn't be saying anything either, unless he has actually picked up a rifle and been in a firefight.

Aside from that, this is a discussion forum. Everyone has a right to speak here. Additionally, if jrly is a voting, tax-paying citizen like myself, he has the right to voice his opinions on his countries actions.

I really don't know where your comment on New Orleans firefighters was coming from.
BTW, what "rumor" were you referring to?

[jrly]

That is what I was trying to say Steve, thanks.

[FerretBone]

[quote=jrly;49001]Is that a joke? Cause weren't there some shot at after Hurricane Katrina?[quote] Yes a few were shot at in new orleans

What i meant by that was, I could never say, dont be a fireman in new orleans because the locals are shooting fireman. My logic comes from what ive seen on the news and heard second hand. But i dont know dick about firemen, the dangers of being in New Orleans, or how likey it actually is to be shot at as a firemen in New Orleans. I could pretend to believe its very risky when obviously its not.

I unsuccessfully tried to compare that to someone using what they think they know about every day life or dangers in Iraq. Anyways forget about my firemen in new orleans commit because it probably doesnt make any sense.


In the case of the VAIW guys. I read through some of their opioions. To support thier opinion they used a lot of events from the trenches. Which i feel are the only ones who can be taken with any seriousness when using those stories and reports.


My point was I dont feel anyone should use infomation and reports from the ground thats probably rumors or false to begin with to support their arguments about Iraq unless they were there.
If your using politics, justification, strategics, policies, principles, and educated
wisdom for your reasons in your argument then have at it.
But, i do ignore people who use second hand info and spot-lighted events from the ground in their argument against iraq. Unless they have been their first hand.

[Beyond]

Originally Posted by jrly

So we should still be in Vietnam than, with a couple million more American dead?

A couple million didn't die in the first place so how could a couple million more die? I think the actual figure was in the 55,000-60,000 range for US casualties.

[jrly]

Originally Posted by Beyond

A couple million didn't die in the first place so how could a couple million more die? I think the actual figure was in the 55,000-60,000 range for US casualties.

Ok, so 58,000 Americans died, but a lot more would have died if the US would have stuck around for another thirty years, What I should have said was a couple million more people would have died seeing as 1.3 million soldiers died on both sides and 2 million civilians died.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

If your using politics, justification, strategics, policies, principles, and educated
wisdom for your reasons in your argument then have at it.
But, i do ignore people who use second hand info and spot-lighted events from the ground in their argument against iraq. Unless they have been their first hand.

jrly wasn't using a media spotlight in his argument. His opinion (and mine,) is that the war was a bad idea in the first place. He wasn't claiming to know how it is on the front line, just asking if he had to actually go to Iraq and be shot at before you would allow him to express his opinion.

[Core Entropy]

Originally Posted by Beyond

A couple million didn't die in the first place so how could a couple million more die? I think the actual figure was in the 55,000-60,000 range for US casualties.

58, 169 Americans killed (11, 465 were teenagers)
304,000 Americans wounded.


But you people are missing the point. We are not discussing the point another member made or whether he was correct we are discussing the matter of who is winning this war on terrorism.

What was announced by the bush administration recently is that we have won the war on terrorism. But there are still car bomb, there is not definite answer on whether Osama bin Laden is still alive, and there are still Jihad and Taliban recruiting innocent children into their camps. In my opinion this war is a stalemate and as soon as we leave the Terrorist Forces will just rise again.

[Beyond]

Originally Posted by Core Entropy

58, 169 Americans killed (11, 465 were teenagers)
304,000 Americans wounded.

Thanks for confirming what both he and I already knew.

[color=red]But you people are missing the point. We are not discussing the point another member made or whether he was correct we are discussing the matter of who is winning this war on terrorism.

I wasn't discussing anything anything related to terrorism, don't try to pull me into this debate. I was clarifying his statement in hopes that someone that didn't know the official casualty count wouldn't be misled.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

jrly wasn't using a media spotlight in his argument. His opinion (and mine,) is that the war was a bad idea in the first place. He wasn't claiming to know how it is on the front line, just asking if he had to actually go to Iraq and be shot at before you would allow him to express his opinion.

Good to know you free thinking anti war liberals post in packs.


Believe me, i get what both of you are saying. Jrly used him self as an example while trying to clarify my remarks.

jrly

So to be able to voice my opinion and have it heard, I have to go to a place the US shouldn't be and get shot, is that right.

me

you used both politics and rumors in your question to me. You stated the US shouldn't have been there in the first place. Ok, fair enough!

As a "tax payer", its his job to voice his concern.

Then jrly stated something about getting shot at if he were in Iraq.

I do make exceptions with guys who seem to have done a little research like you steve, and sometimes jrly, but generally people who make statements like the above have no idea what they are talking about. They get their info from media spotlights, and supposed facts from the front line. So I pass them off as talking out of their ass.

In order to be taken serious, a person had better have their facts straight using this kind of material in their argument. Honestly most people do not. So then I quickly ignore that person.


I read reports, studys and opinions for 2 minutes or so, and instinctively within 5 seconds identify the flaws in the study. I read critiques on the web and generally don’t like them. I prefer my own critiques, and I defend them until I am satisfied that I am wrong. My rightousness comes from my knowledge of the very underlying structures that define the world. I don’t need to be told by a handful of researchers doing a privately controlled report to tell me about the nature of an event. I take the time to read their opinions quickly, identify the parts which are flawed and conclude that given the flaws, the argument was not compelling enough to change my solid worldview. Generally I look down, not up at reseachers, reports, and others opinions. I guess that makes a big difference. I need to be impressed. Or, I consider it unworthy.

[headcase]

Quick remark; it's easy to claim you've been to Iraq. After all, I've ridden in Santa's sleigh, therefore aren't I the only one qualified to comment of the colour of that sleigh? If we're basing our argument on who we are or where we claim to have been (all of which is pretty unverifiable) then the next person into this thread could be the lord Jesus Christ himself.

JC Edit; you tell 'em headcase!

However, if we all provide independent references for our claims then we'll be a lot more focussed, won't we?

Back on topic;

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by headcase

Quick remark; it's easy to claim you've been to Iraq. (all of which is pretty unverifiable)

Didn't you learn from the last time you tried to call me out on my deployment status? Or were you just giving us more of your infinite pearls of wisdom?

Would you like me to prove to you I've been down range? I'd have to go out of my way but I'm sure I could?

[Draven]

Well here is soldier's view point and no I haven'r been to Iraq. The only people who win in war is the people who invested their money in bullets and coffines...