You just missed him. He left Hurlburt to go to Kadena in May of '98, and was at Tinker from '94 to '96. He was at Kirtland while you were at Tinker. He retired about a year and a half ago, and they now live in Ft. Walton Beach.

So enlighten me, snarky one. What's the point of asking in what military unit a supporter of the war has served?

Your example is a perfect illustration of your flawed ethical framework. If you suspect your neighbor of killing your kids, you would not go over there with a shotgun, shoot him, and take over his house and custody of his kids until they reached the age where they could take care of themselves. You would call the police, who would arrest him if they had probably cause. The DA would then prosecute the case and his fate would be determined by a judge and jury of his peers.

You apparently want to be judge, jury, and executioner of the entire world (with someone else doing the dirty work, obviously). But that's not how you view things domestically. Why you don't apply the same ethic to an international standing boggles the imagination.

yessssssss.........

I never mentioned police, nor did I mention American society. My example was society neutral and made no assumption about law enforcement. Surely, in a generic society, (Or, if you will, the State of Nature, or the country with an absence of law enforcement or what have you), you'd want me or anyone to stop senseless murder of innocents.

You'll note that your analogy of law enforcement is inexact since the only international institution we have is hamstrung my having too many cooks and too much politics. We don't have international police to go to. All we have is our own ethics.

-Anxiety

That sounds great, but the difference is that it is reasonable to expect that the local and state justice system would actually do something about it. It is completely unreasonable to think that the "international justice system" (I assume you mean that the UN should be contacted....) will ever do anything whatsoever.

What about the first Gulf War? That had the UN's backing, and it had manpower from half the nations on Earth. People were with us because it was the right thing to do. Saddam was an obvious threat. Now nobody is with us, and it's not because there are too much politics in the UN or because France was economically linked to Iraq, it's because it's a BAD idea.

That's quite funny.

Are you sure about that? :rolleyes:

Yes, it certainly did. But, if the UN were as you said, international police to clean up messes when genocide and death is being dished out en masse against innocents (as opposed to carefully attacking military targets in a war), then why aren't they doing so now? I could list numerous cases where we could go in a clean out a nest of evils like Darfur, and yet, where is this supposedly apolitical police like UN?

-Anxiety

Your whole example is flawed. You are contriving everything to make your answer correct. Back in the real world, we don't live in a state of nature for one thing, nor do we lack law enforcement, even on a global level. You may think we do, which is one reason why the entire world hates us right now.

Secondly, you are completely ignoring any kind of cost/benefit analysis. Taking out dictators is great and all, but how many lives did it end up saving? By some estimates, it may have cost more lives than Saddam would ever take in the future. And what about that $300b? That much spent on medicine and immunizations in Africa would save hundreds of thousands. Taking your rediculous example, it's like you saw a neighbor kill his kid, so you sent your kid to die killing his kid, while taking the food from the next door family so they starve to death. You just can't justify Iraq morally from that perspective.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"
Date = Yes = No
1/6-8/06 = 46 = 52

"Next, we'd like to ask you some questions about Iraq. First: In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

Date = Made a Mistake = Did Not Make a Mistake
1/20-22/06 = 51 = 46



Not only the rest of the world, but a majority of Americans believe it was a BAD idea.

I believe that there is a moral imperative to assist those less fortunate than oneself. When I have more money than I need, I give it away. When someone on the street comes to me and asks for money for food, I take him to a restaurant, when one of my students has problems paying for school, I give them a donation and tell them its from an anonymous donor.

That same moral imperative applies to safety. If I see a man killing innocents, and nobody else is available to jump in and save them, then I have a moral imperative to risk my safety, health and very life to do so.

I don't believe that groups of people have different ethics than individuals. We would never tolerate genocide in Alaska because it is taking place in America. Why turn a blind eye agaisnt genocide when practiced elsewhere?

Of course we can't save everybody, and of course it will cost us money and of course it requires a desire to sacrifice. Lives are simply more valuable, and even if you think Iraq is waste of time and resources, what about other countries where they cry for help and we pretend we are deaf? Where few lifes would be needed to save thousands, tens of thousands, and sometimes, hundreds of thousands.

If your UN is really a police force, then why didn't it end Rwanda?

In my estimation, all human life has intrinsic value. Not just American life.

-Anxiety

Cost/benefit. It's simply more cost effective (in terms of both money and lives) most of the time to have diplomatic resolutions to problems instead of going in guns blazing. From Iraq you should realize that countries do not like foreign troops on their soil, no matter how bad things were before they arrived. The UN is and has been actively engaging in talks with Darfur. The UN is not perfect by any means, but at any given time they have 15-20 peacekeeping operations ongoing throughout the world. That put's them in about 10% of the countries in the world at any given time.

That's right. After all, there's always Poland.

I'll note that you didn't answer my Rwanda question. That's one of the blackest stains on recent international history as essentially the entire world turned a blind eye to it. Tears fill my eyes at the concept of the tragedy that resulted from people with something doing nothing for people who had nothing and just wanted to live.

-Anxiety

And???

Yeah, aren't the Peacekeepers still in Bosnia BTW?
:rolleyes:

That's great, but you lost all perspective. We have spent $240B or so so far in Iraq. That amount could have:

- funded all global anti-hunger efforst for 9 years
- given health insurance to 140,000,000 children for one year
- given basic immunizations to every child in the world for 78 years
- fully funded global anti-AIDS programs for 23 years

etc...

Plus we killed tens of thousands of people. For what? It's like taking the tuition money from two students and giving it to one. It's a net loss. Or taking the meals you were going to give two homeless people, giving one of the meals out and throwing the other one away. It doesn't make sense. That's why the 'moral' reason for going to war in Iraq was always bunk.

I don't know what you are getting at here. The entire world including your own countrymen think that it was a bad idea, but you think it's funny, implying that it is a ludicrous idea, that I say that it is a bad idea?

OJ is on a golf course somewhere, doesn't mean our justice system doesn't exist.

NATO is another international 'law enforcement type' organization.

And the UK, Australia, Japan, etc.

Edit--- here is the actual list of countries:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

There you go just throwing out phrases you know you can't back up.

I hear where you're coming from, but the fact of the matter is that the populaces of the Western powers (including the U.S.) have shown time and time again they're not interested in expending substantial military energies to combat solely humanitarian problems. If they were, the Iraq War wouldn't have had to been sold on a cocktail of WMD, 9/11 terror links, and oppression, 2/3rds of which turned out to be false.

As our experience in Iraq has taught us, the Powell Doctrine is alive and well. If we hope to provide security for a state we've "liberated", we must do it with appropriate troops levels. Given this, any one of these interventions would require the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, with commensurate casualty levels. The U.S. public simply isn't willing to bear that price for that effort. If it was, you wouldn't see a majority of Americans now against the Iraq War, now that it's clear we aren't there for the reasons that were given to us.

So, your objetion to Iraw is that it costs too much money, as opposed to being a bad idea from an ethical standpoint or whatnot. So you'd be fine with us invading a small country where a dictator is killing thousands of people if it cost us less money, was over quickly, and didn't cause a loss of too much life. Is that a correct restatement of your view?

-Anxiety

Let's look at the three you mentioned:

Australia 66% believe not worth going to war:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...%5E601,00.html

Japan 70% want troops out now:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...2/s1538953.htm

Britian 60%-19% in favor of bringing troops home:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0426-03.htm

I think that backs it up.

A minority of Americans support the war. Fifty-six percent of Active-Duty troops support the war. Both numbers continue to decline. This is not a popular war, fought for goals upon which everyone can agree or support. Furthermore, this is a war in which many thousands of people, including Americans, suffer death and dismemberment.

Given all this I think it's only fair to ask the remaining war supporters about the depth of their convictions. And asking if they'd serve in this war is a perfectly legitimate way to do so.

Are you willing to die for whatever it is we're fighting for in Iraq?

I object to Iraq from many standpoints. Economically, morally, and practically. If it cost little, was over quickly, and didn't cause a loss of life the international community would be behind it. I don't know any country that wouldn't wave a magic wand if that's all it took. Back in the real world, it costs a lot of money, it takes forever, and it kills a lot of people.

That just because people *think* it is a bad idea doesn't mean that it is a bad idea. Hellooooooo!

Without those 380 troops from El Salvador, the war would be lost.

From the Christian Science Monitor, now I know it isn't Newsmax or WorldNetDaily....

As member nations consider another calendar year in Iraq, the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing" appears increasingly unwilling to commit to the cause indefinitely.

Last week, two countries finished withdrawing the last of their troops from Iraq, and two others decided to cut their forces by about a third. In all, the coalition has declined from a 2003 high of 38 nations and 50,000 troops to 28 nations and about 20,000 soldiers today.

In terms of military operations on the ground, the withdrawals mean little, analysts say. Only Britain has a substantial security role, and so far it has remained steadfast.....

....The coalition is perhaps the first sketch of that new security structure, but recent months in particular have altered the face of it. Bulgaria and Ukraine withdrew the last of their roughly 1,200 troops from Iraq last month. Last week, Poland announced it would remove 600 of its 1,500 troops by March, and the South Korean parliament voted to pull out 1,000 of its 3,200 soldiers - with the rest leaving next year.

The news comes as the coalition was already shrinking. Italy will withdraw 300 of its 2,800 troops this month as part of a phased pullout, and other nations - most notably Spain and the Netherlands - have already withdrawn either all or virtually all their troops.

So far, the Pentagon has looked at the fluctuations without great consternation. "We don't set any conditions on coalition members," says Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a spokesman. "Certainly, we'd like more, but we're grateful for what each and every nation feels it can contribute."

The ambivalence is born of the fact that - with the exception of Britain - coalition nations have not done the heavy lifting of fighting insurgents.

I never said that. You laughed when I said it was a bad idea, implying that it was a ludicrous suggestion. I'm wondering why you think that, since you offered no analysis of any kind.

Once again, flere, your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired. The question wasn't "are you willing to serve?" The question was "what unit were you in when you were in Iraq?" There's a difference.

I laughed (and literally I laughed out loud at two of your posts sitting at my desk) because:

1. you think that "no one" backed us because it was a "bad idea"
2. you offered polls of general populations as evidence that it was a "bad idea"
3. I found the above two things quite funny.

LOL, arguing with semantics. Thanks for the laugh. :D

Arguing about semantics - Step One. I think next on the right wing playlist is blaming Clinton or calling all liberals traitors....

While it's tough to get 100% of countries behind anything, a clear majority of the major countries of the world were against the war from the start, and nearly every country is against it now. Why is it that you think that is, if it isn't because it was a bad idea to begin with? Furthermore, I've made about a dozen or so posts in this thread alone detailing why it was a bad idea. I don't think I've seen a single post from you describing the opposite, but I could be wrong, it's a long thread.

Since we're throwing out (useless) polls, only 14% of Americans think we should immediately pull out of Iraq.

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat...1/21641853.pdf

What's that supposed to prove? I don't even support pulling out immediately, and I think Iraq was one of the worst ideas ever. Since 52% of Americans think Iraq was a bad idea, that just lends evidence to the suggestion that even more than two thirds of Britians/Japanese/etc think the war was a bad idea.

Well....duh. Even I don't think we should leave tomorrow. But people do believe we should have a timetable...

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"


.
Keep
Troops Bring
Home Unsure
% % %
1/4-8/06 48 48 4
12/7-11/05 49 46 5

"Do you think the U.S. should or should not set a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq?"


.
Should Should
Not Should Get
Out Now
(vol.) Unsure
% % % %
1/4-8/06 50 42 2 6
12/7-11/05 56 38 1 5

"Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?"
Prior to 6/04: "Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if that takes a long time, or should U.S. troops turn over control to Iraqis as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?"


.
Stay as
Long as
It Takes Leave
ASAP Unsure
% % %
1/5-8/06 49 44 7

"If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S. -- to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and remove them regardless of whether the U.S. goals are achieved by that time, or to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the U.S. achieves its goals there, regardless of how long that takes?" Options rotated. N=1,003, MoE ± 3.


.
Set
Timetable Stay Until
Achieve Goals Unsure
% % %
1/6-8/06 49 47 4



BTW...http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1378209

Only after the fact. It's only a "bad idea" now that people are dying. Just like SkyDog said, just because people think it's a bad doesn't actually make it a bad. There was once a vast majority that interracial marriage was a sin. Now, it's becoming more widely accepted. I realize that it's a smaller scale than a war, but I think you'll get the idea.

Besides, I was attacking (if want to call it that) your choice of words and not so much your political ideals. If everyone didn't like the war, the polls would read 100% against it and not 66.758955355%. It waters down your whole argument making those statements.

If you can't see the difference between "are you willing to serve" and a "what unit were you in while you were in Iraq", then there's really no point in continuing the conversation. One in a hypothetical that could make some conservatives (including myself) a bit uncomfortable in answering, the other is a snarky way of stating that if you haven't worn the uniform, you have no business supporting the war.

I'm starting to realize that with you, it's always blame someone else for your inability to carry on a meaningful conversation. And when in doubt, just make shit up. If I ever stop responding to your increasingly bizarre statements, you can just triumphantly say you got the last word and therefore "won" the argument.

I've stated my reasons in the past, and have neither the need nor the desire to go over the same ground again and again and again.

I wondered how this thread went on for 3 pages...

People think what they want to think; the magic of the United States (apologies to those boardmembers from other countries).

What date would you expect the armistace to be signed? And who do you expect to sign it?

Cause I did this correctly :D.

Aggressionist!

Hey, I just started the ball rolling. Not my fault if you can't stop ;).

Evil aggressionist!

Now I'm just posting to find out what word gets added to the front of "Evil aggressionist!" :D

Ludacris-speed evil aggressionist!

Sorry, I watched Space Balls last night...