<p>As one of the "they," I do not masturbate out of joy at innocent civilians being killed, Muslim, Iraqi, or otherwise. I don't get off on thousands of innocents murdered in the 9/11 plots (my own countrymen). I find it somewhat sick that someone from my own country, who may not share my political beliefs would draw such a generalistic conclusion. Your script is very defensive, almost out of insecurity in your own beliefs.</p>
<p>Zaphod: Thanks for your condolences. I worked in the World Trade Center for 6 years for the Port Authority of NY & NJ - it was our headquarters. In addition to my three friends, I knew about 80 other Port Authority employees who were murdered on 9.11 with whom I worked on a regular basis. One of my murdered friends was a former Navy Commander who in 1993 stayed behind in the stairwells to help the handicapped evacuate the building. I'm sure he was doing the same on 9.11. Another friend was the brother of my secretary - he worked in building administration - he stayed behind in the lobby of WTC One to talk on the remote speakers to the people trapped in the elevators and to calm them down. That's where he was when the building collapsed.</p>
<p>Confused23 - I honestly feel sorry for you. My comment had nothing to do with connecting Saddam to 9.11. Can you read? Did I say anthing about Iraq? If you go back and read everything that President Bush had to say about Iraq, his focus was on shaking up the Middle East so that the political corruption and despotism that is rampant and breeds the 9.11 killers might change. Saddam attacked Kuwait and we pushed him out - there was a peace "treaty" yet Saddam went on to attack our aircraft - that alone should have been provocation for war imder any President except Billary.
Back to my point - we are also fighting in Afghanistan - is that ok with you? Or is it ok for countries to harbor terrorism and activiely support attacks on the US? Personally I think we should be sending out Delta teams to take care of the bankers, document forgers, internet operators, smugglers, et.al. who are supporting terrorism. We need to fight this war assymetrically - I'd take the best and brightest of the junior officers in our Armed Services and have them come up with new ways to disrupt and kill the Islamofascists.</p>
<p>Saddam killed over 350,000 Iraqis. So, that's OK? As long as Iraqis kill Iraqis.</p>
<p>And, Confused, what should we do in Darfur? Are you sending postcards and attending rallies urging President Bush to do something - as long as there's no military force involved?</p>
<p>My son posted this on his email away message - unfortunately it's become so true for the Harvards and Stanfords that don't permit ROTC - "The state taht separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." Thucydides </p>
<p>Unfortunately we're halfway there - or will be if Confused ever does any thinking.</p>
<p>I am imagining what it would be like to cite wikipedia in a scholarly paper.</p>
<p>The challenge to C23 is to provide backup--real backup--to some of his claims. He is prone to making outlandish statements without any backup.
Earlier, for example, he claimed the true number of Iraqi dead to be 350,000. Maybe its true; the question is where did he get his number from? A respected source or, as is suspected, is this just a regurgitation of something he heard from a friend who read it in some website.</p>
<p>He was challenged to put all of his beliefs on one website so that others could understand better what it is that he is trying to say. He was challenged to post his accomplishments, his bona fides, his background in foreign affairs, intelligence, policy, etc. Anything that would establish him as a person more knowledgeable than us old fools. </p>
<p>He either refuses to do so, is incapable of doing so, or, as is likely, he simply is no more qualified than anybody else on this site to say some of the things he does, i.e. incredible. Without credibility. Just a blathering 17-year old with no claim to nothing except that he volunteered for a congressman one summer.</p>
<p>Good for Harvard and Stanford for not allowing ROTC programs at their schools. I wish my school, UC Berkeley, would join some of these progressive schools and ban military recruitment at college campuses. I realize, however, that the only reason that Berkeley does not prohibit the ROTC is because, as a state school, they recieve some funding from the federal government and they would have that funding cut if they banned the ROTC. However, i am am glad to know that Berkeley has the smallest ROTC program west of the Mississippi and that military recruiters are greeted with hostility when they come to recruit on campus. Hopefully, there will be some law passed that prohibits military recruitment at any college or high school. It is, in my opinion, horrendous that the military recruiters go to schools and persuade young, impressionable students to enlist.</p>
<p>You know what? ROTC is a great way to pay for college. Some of us don't make $600,000 a year to send our kids to whatever college they want.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I realize, however, that the only reason that Berkeley does not prohibit the ROTC is because, as a state school, they recieve some funding from the federal government and they would have that funding cut if they banned the ROTC.
[/quote]
In other words, they value money over principle.</p>
<p>How very "progressive" of them. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
i am am glad to know that Berkeley has the smallest ROTC program west of the Mississippi and that military recruiters are greeted with hostility when they come to recruit on campus.
[/quote]
How very "tolerant". :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Where is Sweetney when you need him? I point something like this out and get called "hateful". Meanwhile, the real hatred goes ignored.</p>
<p>Again, how very "progressive". :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Z, not that you need it, but you have my full support in turning loose on ignorance such as this. No PMs saying that you may have stepped over the line. There is no line when it come to thinking like this.</p>
<p>I'm sure his/her parents are very proud of what they have produced.</p>
<p>ab-med--
I know some Berkeley ROTC students (my daughter turned down Berkekey last year to attend West point) and they don't relay to us any hostility towards them or their program from the general population there. I think you generalize to a fault without really understanding much. As far as recruiters taking advantage of Berkeley students who are "young and impressionable" I would have thought that a school with such a good reputation for academics as UC Berkeley would maybe attract more students who were not so "impressionable" and perhaps a shade more mature. Maybe not, but I tend to think you are the exception, even there, not the norm. Good luck with your education.</p>
<p>ab_med ~</p>
<p>Ban military recruitment? No ROTC? Who is going to preserved the freedom and liberties that you enjoy in this country? How do you expect to remain safe? Who will protect you from another 911?</p>
<p>HOW DO YOU RESPOND??<br>
Adam's Mom</p>
<p>Wikipedia is merely an encyclopedia that has articles that are based on sources, but do you really need proof that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 , dunce. As for the 350,000 number Lancet Report estimated probably around 140,000 Iraqi civilians had died by 2004. That was in 2004, before suicide bombings and an increase in sectarian violence. More than 2 years later 350,000 would not be a wild estimate seeing that Americans are killing civilians and people in wheelchairs( again, Haditha) indiscriminately on a daily basis. I wouldn't think I would need to prove the number of casualties at such a number or that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11 since I would expect that I am dealing with educated people. What a terrible mistake!</p>
<p>Then again when Bush heard that sectarian violence was increasing he probably called his Chief of Staff to see when they could invade Sectaria.</p>
<pre><code> Bill, do you really think that I could produce all that information in a matter of two days. My ideas are a little bit more thought out than yours, and would take more time.
</code></pre>
<p>So, in other words, you just made up the 350,000 number based on your vast experience with these matters? </p>
<p>Lancet report * "estimated probably" * . . . . Very authoritative citation.</p>
<p>In response to nurseypoo, I assure you that many , including Zaphod, do get off on such accusations. Go search his previous posts and see how many times he mentioned that we should have blown Mecca into the air after 9-11, because he knows his geography very well and know that Mecca is in Afghanistan or how the military should have turned ALL of the Middle East into a plate of glass after 9-11. This recieved a lot of support from the other people in this forum after he mentioned it too. See what kind of crowd I am talking too.</p>
<p>In response to adam219, stop with this blind remark about how the military is protecting freedoms and liberties. YOU RESPOND and tell us how the military is keeping US SAFE by invading Iraq and killing civilians. If anything this is making America less safe because it is increasing anti-Americanism and support for terrorism.</p>
<p>In response to BigGreen, Bush's MAIN reasons were WMD's and connection to Al-Qaeda. Neither of which were true. He would have gotten very little support from anyone if he would said he was going on a democracy CRUSADE.
So Saddam killed 350,000 Iraqis, so you went and killed 350,000 more. 2 wrongs don't make a right, douchebag. And if the losses are equal, what makes us any better? You mentioned the shooting of aircraft. WHERE WAS THAT AIRCRAFT? U.S. had created a NO_Fly ZONE OVER IRAQ , but had sometimes gone past areas where they were supposed to be to go and look for locations to bomb in the 2003 invasion! They were going to be shot out, because they were violating the terms of that treaty you mentioned.</p>
<p>And I would like a military force in Sudan,but in Sudan there is an active genocide. There was no ACTIVE genocide in Iraq,it occured during 1991 after the US encouraged Shia's and Kurds to rebel against Saddam, but left them cold and dry and decided not to invade Iraq. I wouldn't have supported invading Iraq then either, but when you tell people to rebel agaisnt an oppresor and then don't help them you are asking for a genocide. So 1991, 2003, kind of a delayed response if you were trying to stop a genocide that was already over.
P.S. Sudan has no oil. Bush wouldn't go there. If America wanted to stop Saddam from killing Iraqis, where was the invasion in 1991. It actually had the support of the people back then, so why didn't it happen. Because America doesn't care about Saddam killing Iraqis , it cares about oil.</p>
<p>In response to DMEIX, your first quote says there was no collobration, so so what. Praising it doesn't imply involvement. Zaphod was praising what happend in Haditha, doesn't mean he was involved, just means he's sick.
And wait a second, you are using Colin Powell as a SOURCE, a political official who we already know lied about WMD's and a connection to Al-Qaeda as a SOURCE and complain to me about Wikipedia. No dice. He's a liar, I don't give a damn what he says. And let me follow your logic, let's assume a few citizens in Iraq may have been giving assistance to Zarqaqi, but not the goverment and that implies a need for invasion. That's fallacious logic. So if UK finds out some of the 7/7 bombers had connections to U.S. citizens, but the goverment wasn't involved, the UK should invade US? You are terribly confused, my friend. Plus, that's a lie from the beginning. If you knew anything about the Middle East, you would know that Saddam Hussein is secular and Al-Qaeda is a religious group. More than once Bin Laden denounced Hussein and called for a coup there. Why would Hussien be harboring his followers then? Clueless, I tell you. Don't post anymore when it comes to Middle East because this shows you have no knowledge of the region and are simply quoting people.</p>
<p>I put the probably there, don't try to argue semantics. They were SURE 140,000 died. They said up to 190,000 though. Bill when you argue semantics, you know you lost. The 40,000 number that you get off IBC isn't even small enough to be a absolute minimum. Here's a quote from their site.</p>
<p>"We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war"</p>
<p>Here's this part to re-emphasize "Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported."</p>
<p>Well, quoting those concrete sources provides a much better base for facts than 'estimating' a 'probable' amount of casualties.</p>
<p>like Bill said... "Very authoritative citation"</p>
<p>Real academic studies use estimations because they don't see everything as black and white and know there is a certain amount of uncertainity in such things.</p>
<p>Perhaps this thread should be put to bed (no rhyme or pun intended). The opposing sides are NEVER going to find common ground and poor word choices, such as "douchebag," are vulgar. No one is a vaginal flush for expressing opposing opinions.</p>
<p>Beside, I don't even know who IBC is much less quote from them/it/he/she. Did I say somthing about 40,000 whatever it is that you say I said?</p>
<p>As is typical, you just make things up and then say that others said it so that you can bolster your weak arguments that rely on estimations that only seem to maybe suupport what you might be saying.</p>
<p>Confused - do you have love for anyone or anything? All I ever hear from you (beside unsubstatiated rantings) is hatred toward our country (are you an American citizen?), hatred of our president & ridicule of our military. </p>
<p>Just so you understand - most of the people who I've met in the military are motivated to do so out of love - love of their country, love of their families & maybe even a love of God in that they want to do something good with their lives. </p>
<p>I hope one day you will understand what it is to love something more than yourself, to give more than dissent, and to know that God has been right there beside you all along. This kind of wisdom comes with age (unless you're like our kids who "got it" early on!), and we might have to wait a very long time for you to recognize these things, but hopefully one day you will - before your entire life is a waste.</p>
<p>In the meantime, please refrain from the vulgar name-calling. These are mostly adults here and deserve more respect from such a snot-nosed little kid. Didn't your parents teach you any manners? Such childishness undermines your credibility - oh that's right, you don't have any. Keep tryin' there, junior - you might "get it" one day...</p>
<p>Those "young, impressionables" serving are what secure your freedom to unleash your opposing liberal verbal vollies. Some of these youngsters feel lost and need to get involved in something positive (see US military) and go on to become the defenders of your other freedoms, aside from speech, which you use abundantly. God bless the recruiters in nothern California!</p>
<p>My previous post is for ab_med.</p>