Article 45.1

[insein]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Reported no casualties? Tell me sir, how many innocents died in the WTC whose bodies were never found? You can't say civilians didn't die because no bodies were found, that's absolutely ridiculous. Nor can you convince me that a major institution like a TV station does not have at least some people in it at all hours of the day. I will admit there is a possibility no one was hurt, but I maintain my position that it is a reasonable to assume that in a large public building like a TV station there is someone in or near the building at all times.

And in case you weren't aware, the TV station wasn't the only place we bombed. We blew up power stations, for instance. You probably aren't aware that a 2000 lb bomb has a potential kill radius of up to 1 kilometer. Just because we are hitting our targets does not mean innocent people aren't being hurt. You probably also weren't aware that 15%, or 4.2 kilotons, of the munitions dropped during the bombing campaign were conventional "dumb" bombs.

Yes and in the WTC it was stated just how many people did not turn up within a few weeks of that tragedy. We knew the full range of the destruction when they told us 3000 people died. Your reports don't even mention an injury. All 3 of them.

Ill say this to you in the simplest way possible. Your a fucking knob. That about sums it up.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by OCA
Guess Jethro ran off to lick his wounds.

Wow, you made an entire post without thinking about gay sex!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
Way to go Eric. You might have broken his Shield of Retardness with your post there.

More than likely he had to get to bed because its a school night, but hey we can dream can't we.

Sorry buddy, I work night shifts. I'll still be wide awake when you're dreaming about whatever it is you dream about.

 

[spillmind]

1) Yes. Every war plan accounts for possible civilian losses.
2) No. No.
3) I agree Bush is our president yes. He is ultimately the commander in chief so yes he's responsible for everything. A war plan is approved by him and Rumsfield. Casualty estimates are conveyed. War should not be waged by men without a conscience for then those lives that are lost will be in veign. Bush knows whats at stake.

dude, you rock.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Spidy---If I say America comitted a crime would you be happy? Is this the point you want to make?

If you said THE PRESIDENT comitted a crime I would be happy.


Can you people distinguish between your country and your government AT ALL? Are they ONE AND THE SAME for you? If so, that's really, really sad. I hope a government never comes around that you disagree with, because you'll be forced to agree with it, or in your mind you will hate your country.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Sorry buddy, I work night shifts. I'll still be wide awake when you're dreaming about whatever it is you dream about.

I usually dream about Katie Holmes and Tiffany amber Thiesan in a threesome. Hey its my dream damn it.:wank:

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Dude all anyone has to do is read the freakin thread to see evidence.

Well if its so easy, why can't anyone point any evidence out to me?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Well if its so easy, why can't anyone point any evidence out to me?

Because you refuse to acknowledge it. Not our problem.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
No because if we waited for all our threats to be imminent, then it would be too late. Youd know this if you were paying attention to like the last decade history.

You and I have different philosophies then. You will start a war to prevent a war, which is kind of like cutting of your hands to keep from shooting yourself, whereas I would only start a war if I believe war is inevitable. Its obvious then you prefer war to peace, as you will gladly be the one to start a war when there is a possibility there does not need to be one. I hope you don't consider yourself a Christian, as the "Just War Theory" which was invented by Christianity firmly states that the only time starting a war is just is when the threat of the enemy starting the war is clear and present (imminent). Note the term AND.

I'd advise you get your supporters together and run for President. We have no time to lose, most all nations of the Earth have weapons and armies, and we can't afford to wait and see if any of these nations will or will not invade us. Therefore, we must conquer the world, to prevent all war.


I should also mention that you and Shrub's phlilosophy of invading foreign nations you think might someday pose an imminent threat is unique in American history.

 

[spillmind]

Spilly, I know that you are not for this war, but you really cant tell me that you are agreeing with his thought that our military is purposely killing innocent people! I know you know what it all means, or at least I hope you do!

the way i feel about it is that YES, we do KNOW we are killing innocents with intent of erradicating terrorists. that means, YES, we are PURPOSELY killing innocent people. but the thing is, i actually think that we(the AMERICAN PEOPLE), believe that in doing so, we are doing it for the bigger picture. as much of a contradiction i think this is, i know that the people that support the war actually think we are doing the right thing. and for the most part, it IS the right thing. but it's been a very BAD road so far, man, from the start to currently as we post. just because we are acting with good intentions and trying to make things right, doesn't mean we can be absolved of accountability when we mis-step. no one is perfect, but there are a LOT OF PEOPLE DYING. and some things need to be answered for.

I always gave you respect for the most part with your posts even when I dont agree as I did with this clown originally, but I never seen you post something quite as outrageous as this either!

bro, i know you want what's best for our country, i think we all do, or we wouldn't post here. it seems he's ticked you off a lot. because i agree with a couple points doesn't mean it's me and him against you and the other guys. it's when this stuff gets off topic and into defamation of character that this stuff gets outrageous.

 

[spillmind]

pre-emption is ALSO a terrible standard set by our current fearless leader.

what's not to love?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
You and I have different philosophies then. You will start a war to prevent a war, which is kind of like cutting of your hands to keep from shooting yourself, whereas I would only start a war if I believe war is inevitable. Its obvious then you prefer war to peace, as you will gladly be the one to start a war when there is a possibility there does not need to be one. I hope you don't consider yourself a Christian, as the "Just War Theory" which was invented by Christianity firmly states that the only time starting a war is just is when the threat of the enemy starting the war is clear and present (imminent). Note the term AND.

I'd advise you get your supporters together and run for President. We have no time to lose, most all nations of the Earth have weapons and armies, and we can't afford to wait and see if any of these nations will or will not invade us. Therefore, we must conquer the world, to prevent all war.


I should also mention that you and Shrub's phlilosophy of invading foreign nations you think might someday pose an imminent threat is unique in American history.

Actually you are totally wrong on my philosophy which doesnt surprise me at all. I dont believing in srtarting war to prevent one. Im in favor of starting wars against people who already want us dead now, and suffering few casualties rather than waiting for them to attack us on our soil and cause many more casualities. Im in favor of making terrorists and regimes that support terrorists pay for wanting us dead rather than watch my brothers and sisters at home suffer and die and end up fighting a war anyway.

You obviously didnt learn the lesson from World War 2. If we had stopped Hitler early rather than try to appease him, we could have finished him at the cost of alot less lives than we had to give to stop him. It would have been easier to attack him and prevent him from invading Austria, poland, and France then having to taken back each nations with our blood.

Its a simply situation of making a choice that sucks, and a choice thats far worse. You would rather wait till America is attacked again before we act. Thats fine. but most people arent.

 

[spillmind]

Actually you are totally wrong on my philosophy which doesnt surprise me at all. I dont believing in srtarting war to prevent one. Im in favor of starting wars against people who already want us dead now, and suffering few casualties rather than waiting for them to attack us on our soil and cause many more casualities. Im in favor of making terrorists and regimes that support terrorists pay for wanting us dead rather than watch my brothers and sisters at home suffer and die and end up fighting a war anyway.

i'd sure like to see this 'who wants you dead' meter you've got there. you think i could borrow it? i sure hope it's been calibrated!

 

[spillmind]

You obviously didnt learn the lesson from World War 2. If we had stopped Hitler early rather than try to appease him, we could have finished him at the cost of alot less lives than we had to give to stop him. It would have been easier to attack him and prevent him from invading Austria, poland, and France then having to taken back each nations with our blood.

too bad Hitler was on the warpath, oppressing on a grand scale and conquering other countries. almost like saddam under strict sanctions... but not quite.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by spillmind
it's funny to see how many people totally missed the sarcasm/loaded question of the post's header!

spidey is shredding you guys to ribbons! (and here i was shredding waves all day!)

i'm assuming that once one is finished, you won't remember it anyway, so what the hell?

it seems the justification has become elusive? why can't anybody give him a straight answer?

now you know it's serious when eric steps in:

:rotflmao: *snort* too much!

or like insein, who can't even use 'you're' correctly: and the funniest thing is, these guys DON'T EVEN NOTICE THEIR OWN FLAWS WHEN DEMEANING OTHER'S INTELLIGENCE!


with all this calling a spidey a fag and an american hater, why haven't ANY OF YOU ANSWERED HIS QUESTIONS IN A FORTHRIGHT MANNER?

could it be pride won't let you admit that you are wrong??!!! (you should try it once in a while, everyone posting here has been at one point in time)

could it be that you are so blinded with patriotism that you have totally skewed reality and blocked out anything that challenges that great ol' US of A???

i've known since we held those prisoners at guantanamo bay without declaring their official status, and i also agree that this is in violation of the geneva convention. but we've violated that treaty so many times lately, it's almost a useless treaty. no one is going to punish the USA for it. i also don't agree with this either.

let's keep telling ourselves 'they hate us because we are free'. it would be hilarious if it weren't pathetic.

we KNEW we were killing civilians, but somehow all the proponents of the 'war' have justified this in their conscience. they are willing to go to war and 'do what is right'. as long as 'what is right' means risking no harm to 'our people' by carpet bombing cities instead of going in after them on foot- because protecting 'our people' who are 'doing what is right' is actually the 'more right' thing to do. even i can't follow that, and i typed it.

1) these guys WON'T answer your questions, because it's easier to call you gay and all kinds of other names, and simply try to destroy your character (anyone ELSE notice a common theme?!).
believe me, i've knocked my head against that brick wall. and i'm, doing it now.

2) no, they CAN'T leave clinton out of it, because:

a) the economy boomed during his time, and they HATE THAT

b) they all seem to be these pious christians that think that screwing an intern deserves hell. how their heads don't explode from freaking cognitive dissonance is beyond me!

you are correct, spiderman tuba, in your assertions. it's too bad your self proclaimed opponents are too proud to think that we are capable of error, and also intended 'error'. it would be a better country if we all could see what was wrong with it. (and yes, there IS SOMETHING WRONG, and yes! this inlcudes the LEADERSHIP), and work together to truly do what is right.

even if we all did, we'd have a long way to go.

btw, good luck getting through!

Shreding them to ribbons. The funny thing is, they're so blinded by their misplaced patriotism and unyielding devotion to their dicta.... I mean, President, they really can't see how iditioc they all look!


I would point out though that "carpet bombing" refers to the act of randomly dropping bombs on a city, a common tactic later in WWII and in Gulf War I I do believe. The "shock and awe" technique that we used in our recent acts of aggression involved lots and lots of bombs, like "carpet bombing", but all the bombs are targeted and not dropped randomly.

I would also point out though, to all the warmongers, that ICBM's are also "smart bombs" and do not "target civilians", at least, they do not "target civilans" in your minds because they are all aimed at "legitimate" military targets.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Sorry buddy, I work night shifts. I'll still be wide awake when you're dreaming about whatever it is you dream about.

Does your employer allow you to spend so much time on a message board while at work?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by spillmind
too bad Hitler was on the warpath, oppressing on a grand scale and conquering other countries. almost like saddam under strict sanctions... but not quite.

a dictator doesnt have to be invading countries to be a future threat. All they need to do is develop WMDs and be willing to use them. Maybe you were willing to risk WMDs in the hands of terrorists. I wasnt.

 

[spillmind]

a dictator doesnt have to be invading countries to be a future threat. All they need to do is develop WMDs and be willing to use them. Maybe you were willing to risk WMDs in the hands of terrorists. I wasnt.

dude, i hate to be the rain on your parade, BUT THE TERRORISTS ALREADY HAVE THEM.

i mean really: type in the words:

smuggle tajikistan afghanistan pakistan plutonium

into your fav search engine, and shrug odd the naïveté. let me guess, we NEED that missle defense system to protect us against that suitcase too, right?

how on earth are we any safer now?

 

[spillmind]

I am really thinking the sun has gotten the best of you!

could be! :scratch:

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
So you disagree with us going to afghanistan as well? You disagree with our intervention in the first gulf War? In Somalia? Yugoslavia? Korea? WW2? WW1?

Some were humanitarian in that we helped stop an evil dictator from killing lots of innocents. Even in those we killed civilians. Some were to stop the spread of communism. Not a direct threat but an indirect one. Civilians were killed in those as well. And the last 2 we decided to come to the aide of our allies. In doing so with our primitive technology, we bombed the shit outta Europe and more civilians died in those two wars than is the population of Afghanistan now.

So has every war that we have every gone into been unnecessary?

A) Correct me if I'm wrong, but Al Qaeda was headquarterd and basically run from Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda attacked us first.

B) The first Gulf War - Iraq attacked an ally of ours, Kuwait.

C) Somalia - what good did we do?

D) Yugoslavia - honestly, I don't know about this one. I really wasn't all into politics when it happened, I was more into "youthful indescretions" as CowBushie would put it. I've been meaning to go back and research some of the details though, as soon as I feel knowledgable enough about the issue to form an informed opinion, I'll let you know. But if I had to give an answer right now, it would be no.

E) Korea - no. We were not justified. North Korea posed no threat to the US

F) WW I - U boat attacks, Zimmerman. Need I say more?

G) Japan attacked us first and Germany declared war on us first.

If you think we entered WWII WWI to come to the aid of our allies you are sorely mistaken. America was in a period of isolation before both of these wars, and we responded only when directly provoked.

Furthermore, what makes the invasion of Iraq different from WW I, Korea, others is that Iraq was not at war until we decided it would be at war.

It is not the responsibility of the United States to go around the world waging wars to correct injustices. Welcome to the planet Earth, there will always be evil dictators and always be injustices. The responsiblility of the United States government and its mililtary is to protect US, not anyone else. Or at least, it should be that way.