Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
supercar

Obama NOT anti-war

70 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Odin11
my ears aren't deaf. so please do enlighten. thanks

Aroces reply showed that he did not understand my first post or he was just arguing for the sake of arguing. The point of the post is that no one wins when people die. That one death is a death to far, and that war should be used as a last resort. And suggesting that I was saying that “we wait for the enemies to do the bombings and that's it, they lose” is idiotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ravergirl
Aroces reply showed that he did not understand my first post or he was just arguing for the sake of arguing. The point of the post is that no one wins when people die. That one death is a death to far, and that war should be used as a last resort. And suggesting that I was saying that “we wait for the enemies to do the bombings and that's it, they lose” is idiotic.

Yeah I already gathered that. I thought you had furthur information supporting what you actually said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong
And who is bombing the Iraqis now into submission?

Fellow Iaqi's are now bombing each other along with a flood of Taliban comming in from all over, and your point being? Lets not forget about collateral damage as well. The Iraqi people are the one's paying the ultimate price for this war and anamosity towards the State's is very justified in there minds. Yes the war in Iraq has made this world a little less safe IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Aroces reply showed that he did not understand my first post or he was just arguing for the sake of arguing. The point of the post is that no one wins when people die. That one death is a death to far, and that war should be used as a last resort. And suggesting that I was saying that “we wait for the enemies to do the bombings and that's it, they lose” is idiotic.

War in Iraq was the last resort. 2 years was given for Saddam to comply, congress to approve the action, the UN to get the Weapon Inspection concluded and for the Coalition to form.

So cut the crap for the sake of arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Fellow Iaqi's are now bombing each other along with a flood of Taliban comming in from all over, and your point being? Lets not forget about collateral damage as well. The Iraqi people are the one's paying the ultimate price for this war and anamosity towards the State's is very justified in there minds. Yes the war in Iraq has made this world a little less safe IMO.

Yea, the Iraqis are paying the price and they are determined no to give in to those who wants Iraq back to the stone age ruling.

As you can see, the bomb are meant not only to scare the Iraqis but to fuel those who respond and listen to their bombs like youself.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
War in Iraq was the last resort. 2 years was given for Saddam to comply, congress to approve the action, the UN to get the Weapon Inspection concluded and for the Coalition to form.

So cut the crap for the sake of arguing.

War wasnt the last resort. That is NOT TRUE.

Perhaps if you are so sure that it was the last resort you can give a straight answer. No BS answers, a direct answer.

Why was war necessary on March 20th 2003? Why not the 21st? Why not the 19th?

Do you know the answer?

Seriously? WHY THAT DAY?

If you look at previous battles and wars, the dates are chosen for a reason. D-Day was chosen for a reason, Why March 20th? Come on Aroces, you are the expert on why we HAD to go in to Iraq when we did, so give us a straight answer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
War wasnt the last resort. That is NOT TRUE.

Perhaps if you are so sure that it was the last resort you can give a straight answer. No BS answers, a direct answer.

Why was war necessary on March 20th 2003? Why not the 21st? Why not the 19th?

Do you know the answer?

Seriously? WHY THAT DAY?

If you look at previous battles and wars, the dates are chosen for a reason. D-Day was chosen for a reason, Why March 20th? Come on Aroces, you are the expert on why we HAD to go in to Iraq when we did, so give us a straight answer...

Weather condition is the MAIN consideration in any military operation.

Now, what is it that you had in your mind now as the reason?

I want a straight answer as well...... ;)

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Weather condition is the MAIN consideration in any military operation.

Now, what is it that you had in your mind now as the reason?

I want a straight answer as well...... ;)

I didnt think you would be able to give a reason why it had to be that date. Too bad.

Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts...

oh...wait, no we dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar
Why was war necessary on March 20th 2003? Why not the 21st? Why not the 19th?

Obama's Vice Presidential running mate Joe Biden thought war was necessary in 1998:

As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process led to the elimination of Iraq’s WMD threat, Biden – in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war – insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, “As long as Saddam’s at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction.”

Calling for military action on the scale of the Gulf War seven years earlier, he continued, “The only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone,” telling the Marine veteran “it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down.”

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492

Thanks for cutting and pasting the rules though. I know how much you love to cut and paste things. Your Ctrl-c/Ctrl-v skills are second to none and I will have to give you top marks for that over your posting career here.

Typical example of anti-war people making personal attacks when they can't argue the facts. No anti-war people just aren't very nice at all.

Agree. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! For pointing all that out.

Try telling this to all those bush supporters and who think Bush is something Big and a great president.

As the saying goes "He has blood on his hands now"

The people who have blood on their hands are the people who criticize the Iraq war:

On Monday, the potentates of the press finally discovered a study completed last month by Harvard University researchers about what we have been saying for years: There is a direct connection between adverse U.S. news coverage about Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and intensified attacks on civilians and Coalition forces in Iraq. "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq," shows that negative media coverage — and adverse commentary by U.S. political luminaries — produce a statistically measurable increase in enemy activity. To produce the study, analysts researched the number of insurgent attacks and fatalities per week from the beginning of OIF in March 2003, to January 2008. They also examined the number of "anti-resolve statements" per week by U.S. politicians from November 2004 to January 2008 and American public opinion polls on the war from November 2004 to January 2008. The researchers found "a positive correlation" between spikes in war-critical statements in the media and the number of attacks and fatalities. They also showed that attacks increased between 7 to 10 percent following a spate of anti-resolve statements by leading political figures. The authors of the study, Radha Iyengar and Jonathan Monten, boldly state that, "We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases." Well, duh! This carefully researched study verifies what many of us who have spent months in the field concluded long ago: The drumbeat of negative "news" coverage about events in Iraq and the careless commentary from the political left in Washington have increased the jeopardy for U.S. troops and our allies.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342868,00.html

Are we stirring the hornets nest by being there? yes.

Stirring the hornet's nest? It's a proven fact when we put more troops in violence goes down:

linked-image

linked-image

linked-image

(charts prepared by General David Petraeus for testimony before Congress in April 2008)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Obama's Vice Presidential running mate Joe Biden thought war was necessary in 1998:

Typical example of anti-war people making personal attacks when they can't argue the facts. No anti-war people just aren't very nice at all.

Isnt saying that I am not very nice a personal attack? Does that mean you are antiwar now? Welcome to the team. good for you supercar, I knew you'd see the light.

So lets see if you can do it... Tell me supercar, why was it that March 20th 2003 HAD to be the day that we invaded? Aroces point that war was the last resort, my point was it was not, I was asking him to back up his point as to why it had to be March 20th and not the 18th or the 21st. He couldnt do that.

Perhaps since you "pro war nice people" are so knowledgeable, you can tell me. If war was such a last resort, why was that day chosen? Why not the day before or after?

No anti-war people just aren't very nice at all.

Do you read your own writing? If there was a prize for irony you would have it. By your grand logic warmongers are nice people with an excess of sunshine, lollypops, and Ms. Congeniality sashes across their chests who run about placing daisies in the end of rifles.

I keep repeatedly trying to explain something to you supercar, I have tried several times without success, so I think it is just something you just cant grasp so I will drop it after this, but believe it or not, I am not a democrat, or a liberal. Amazing huh? so I could care less what biden said. I could care less what democrats voted for the use of force in iraq. I know that it has been your tactic in the past to try and shut people up that were democrats when they tried to point out how stupid bush is in regards to Iraq(as if the fact the democrats voting for the use of force negates his choices). So when I say something about bush being an idiot, and you reply with your tried and true "neener neener neener, democrats did it too" attack, it has absolutely no effect on me. I am not here to defend the democrats. If the lied, then they should be held accountable.

I know it is hard to grasp, but because I disagree with the use of force in iraq and how the war has been handled does not make me a liberal or a democrat. I know that is your knee-jerk reaction, but you are wrong. Very wrong. I am used to that, and I have tried to correct you, but it doesnt seem to sink in, so if for whatever reason you can only classify people as war supporting/bush supporting republicans(True Americans), or the others that are liberal commie pinkoes...well then knock yourself out. I could care less what you think.

Perhaps you "pro war nice people" (Who have never actually been to war or the military- how convenient is that...hmmm I wonder why that is?) would like to argue the facts of the necessity of the war in iraq? perhaps we can start another thread for that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
The people who have blood on their hands are the people who criticize the Iraq war:

On Monday, the potentates of the press finally discovered a study completed last month by Harvard University researchers about what we have been saying for years: There is a direct connection between adverse U.S. news coverage about Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and intensified attacks on civilians and Coalition forces in Iraq. "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq," shows that negative media coverage — and adverse commentary by U.S. political luminaries — produce a statistically measurable increase in enemy activity. To produce the study, analysts researched the number of insurgent attacks and fatalities per week from the beginning of OIF in March 2003, to January 2008. They also examined the number of "anti-resolve statements" per week by U.S. politicians from November 2004 to January 2008 and American public opinion polls on the war from November 2004 to January 2008. The researchers found "a positive correlation" between spikes in war-critical statements in the media and the number of attacks and fatalities. They also showed that attacks increased between 7 to 10 percent following a spate of anti-resolve statements by leading political figures. The authors of the study, Radha Iyengar and Jonathan Monten, boldly state that, "We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases." Well, duh! This carefully researched study verifies what many of us who have spent months in the field concluded long ago: The drumbeat of negative "news" coverage about events in Iraq and the careless commentary from the political left in Washington have increased the jeopardy for U.S. troops and our allies.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342868,00.html

Stirring the hornet's nest? It's a proven fact when we put more troops in violence goes down:

linked-image

linked-image

linked-image

(charts prepared by General David Petraeus for testimony before Congress in April 2008)

Ahhh...fox news..gotta love it...parsing data to its limit. Do yourself a favor and widen your horizons a bit...

Your graph doesn't address my point. Unfortunately there is more to that picture than you'd care to admit. You are leaving out a point. My point was that made clear in earlier post and had to do with violence and death that occurs to civilians and how it spurs further aggression, not anything to do with the amount of troops in a region. Perhaps you'd like to pull out the graph of how many iraqi tribal leaders we are paying off right now in order to keep them quiet...keep them calm. Do you have that graph? Do you have a graph that addresses how things are going to melt down when we stop paying tribal leaders to keep them quiet and keep them from attacking each other?

Does your graph address the latest car bombs in the region of Camp Taji and how close those bombings were to firefights were with US troops in which apartment buildings had to be taken out to stop aggressors? Do you have graphs that address the relation of car bombings to US operations? Do a bit of searching between car bombings and see how close they are to major US operations.

You can parse data all day long to make it say what you want, but you are trying to apply the graphs you provided as some kind of response to my comment when it isnt even close, perhaps if you were to take the time to stop watching fox news(your first mistake) and get a hold of a copy of the latest US Army manual on counter insurgency operations( the folks that actually do it for a living) then you would know what the heck I am talking about.

For someone who claims to be such a supporter of the war, you seem to be so focused on the drivel fox news puts out that you dont even know what the US Army actually is saying...if fox news doesnt report it that is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar
Isnt saying that I am not very nice a personal attack?

Nope. I said 'antiwar people' were not very nice. When you single me out by name that makes it a personal attack.

By your grand logic warmongers are nice people with an excess of sunshine, lollypops, and Ms. Congeniality sashes across their chests

So it's OK if you call people 'warmongers' but it's not OK if I say antiwar people aren't very nice? What a hypocritical double-standard.

Perhaps since you "pro war nice people" are so knowledgeable

Wrong again. I am not pro-war. I am pro-victory with regards to Iraq.

I know that it has been your tactic in the past to try and shut people up that

Would you care to provide an example,a link to a thread or a post in this Forum,where I tried to shut people up?

I have tried to correct you

What an arrogant statement. You actually think it's your place to 'correct' people. This just confirms my belief that antiwar people think they're better than everyone else.

I could care less what you think

Thank you for proving my point about antiwar people being arrogant. And if you could care less what I think then why have you posted so much in this topic? Your actions belie your words.

Perhaps you "pro war nice people" (Who have never actually been to war or the military- how convenient is that...hmmm I wonder why that is?)

So someone who has never served in the military isn't good enough for you? President Franklin Roosevelt never served in the military. He beat the Germans and the Japanese but since he never served in the military I guess winning World War 2 just wasn't good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
supercar
My point was that made clear in earlier post and had to do with violence and death that occurs to civilians and how it spurs further aggression

Over 90% of civilians killed in Iraq have been killed by Muslim insurgents and militias,not American troops. There may be 3,000 Iraqis who have had family members killed by American troops but there are over 80,000 Iraqis who have had a family member killed by an insurgent group. This is why so many Iraqis have joined the 'Awakening' movement. The Iraqi people know that it is al-Qaeda and militias,not American troops,who are killing Iraqis.

Do you have a graph that addresses how things are going to melt down when we stop paying tribal leaders to keep them quiet and keep them from attacking each other?

You mean how things are going to melt down if Obama wins the election and pulls our troops out? Isn't that want Obama wants to do? Obama wants to end the war. Obama wants to pull troops out of Iraq. You've just admitted pulling troops out of Iraq will cause Iraqis to attack each other. You've just admitted Obama's plan will lead to more bloodshed.

Do you have graphs that address the relation of car bombings to US operations? Do a bit of searching between car bombings and see how close they are to major US operations

You call handing out candy to children a major operation?

July 13, 2005 BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A suicide bomber blew up a vehicle Wednesday near a U.S. military convoy and a large group of Iraqi children in Baghdad, killing 27 people, Iraqi police and hospital officials said. Iraqi police said most of the dead were children. The attack also left 20 people wounded. The U.S. military said at least seven children and a U.S. soldier died in the attack. Three U.S. soldiers were wounded. The soldiers were handing out treats to the children when the bomb went off, police said. The attack -- which happened around 10:50 a.m. (2:50 a.m. ET) in the eastern Baghdad neighborhood of al-Jaddeda -- also set a nearby house on fire, police said. "The car bomber made a deliberate decision to attack one of our vehicles as the soldiers were engaged in a peaceful operation with Iraqi citizens," Maj. Russ Goemaere said in a statement. "The terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked. The complete disregard for civilian life in this attack is absolutely abhorrent."

For someone who claims to be such a supporter of the war, you seem to be so focused on the drivel fox news puts out that you dont even know what the US Army actually is saying

Hello? The charts I posted are from the US Army.

That's why I posted this:

(charts prepared by General David Petraeus for testimony before Congress in April 2008)

The charts are available on this US Army website:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=128

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/Pre...eus_handout.pdf

Edited by supercar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
You mean how things are going to melt down if Obama wins the election and pulls our troops out? Isn't that want Obama wants to do? Obama wants to end the war. Obama wants to pull troops out of Iraq. You've just admitted pulling troops out of Iraq will cause Iraqis to attack each other. You've just admitted Obama's plan will lead to more bloodshed.

Guess what supercar. I have said this dozens of times, and may times to you, but it never seems to sink in, and it is telling. I am not obamas buddy. You seem to have some kind of mental block whereby any kind of negative reaction to the war in iraq gets an immediate alignment with democrats and liberals, I am neither. You keep having this kneejerk reaction to me that has become rather comical at this point.

Did I mention obama? No. Thats your little trip, not mine. I said no such thing. You are telling lies now. How desperate.

You've just admitted Obama's plan will lead to more bloodshed.

That is simply not true. You are now lying. Whats it like to be so out of control that you have to start inserting words in other peoples posts that were not there? Here was my post:

Ahhh...fox news..gotta love it...parsing data to its limit. Do yourself a favor and widen your horizons a bit...

Your graph doesn't address my point. Unfortunately there is more to that picture than you'd care to admit. You are leaving out a point. My point was that made clear in earlier post and had to do with violence and death that occurs to civilians and how it spurs further aggression, not anything to do with the amount of troops in a region. Perhaps you'd like to pull out the graph of how many iraqi tribal leaders we are paying off right now in order to keep them quiet...keep them calm. Do you have that graph? Do you have a graph that addresses how things are going to melt down when we stop paying tribal leaders to keep them quiet and keep them from attacking each other?

Does your graph address the latest car bombs in the region of Camp Taji and how close those bombings were to firefights were with US troops in which apartment buildings had to be taken out to stop aggressors? Do you have graphs that address the relation of car bombings to US operations? Do a bit of searching between car bombings and see how close they are to major US operations.

You can parse data all day long to make it say what you want, but you are trying to apply the graphs you provided as some kind of response to my comment when it isnt even close, perhaps if you were to take the time to stop watching fox news(your first mistake) and get a hold of a copy of the latest US Army manual on counter insurgency operations( the folks that actually do it for a living) then you would know what the heck I am talking about.

For someone who claims to be such a supporter of the war, you seem to be so focused on the drivel fox news puts out that you dont even know what the US Army actually is saying...if fox news doesnt report it that is...

Tell me supercar, where in there do I say "Obama's plan will lead to more bloodshed." You are seeing things that are not there, and that is a serious problem. Either that or you have lied. Which is it?

So give me a direct answer supercar, are you a liar or delusional? Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
You call handing out candy to children a major operation?

July 13, 2005 BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A suicide bomber blew up a vehicle Wednesday near a U.S. military convoy and a large group of Iraqi children in Baghdad, killing 27 people, Iraqi police and hospital officials said. Iraqi police said most of the dead were children. The attack also left 20 people wounded. The U.S. military said at least seven children and a U.S. soldier died in the attack. Three U.S. soldiers were wounded. The soldiers were handing out treats to the children when the bomb went off, police said. The attack -- which happened around 10:50 a.m. (2:50 a.m. ET) in the eastern Baghdad neighborhood of al-Jaddeda -- also set a nearby house on fire, police said. "The car bomber made a deliberate decision to attack one of our vehicles as the soldiers were engaged in a peaceful operation with Iraqi citizens," Maj. Russ Goemaere said in a statement. "The terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked. The complete disregard for civilian life in this attack is absolutely abhorrent."

Hello? The charts I posted are from the US Army.

That's why I posted this:

The charts are available on this US Army website:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=128

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/Pre...eus_handout.pdf

You are posting an attack that occurred in July of 2005? What does that have to do with this? How does that relate to what I have brought up? Because it mentions soldiers handing out candy? How does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? I realize that the charts are from the Army(and I pointed out they had nothing to do with what I was talking about), prey tell where was your news story from? Faux News! You cant even seem to find the recent attacks that have occurred?

The charts have absolutely no relation to what I was talking about. Nothing. I guess you cant grasp the concept. Too bad, because General Patreaus, the man who made the charts that you mistakenly posted surely does, and has changed the game plan because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Nope. I said 'antiwar people' were not very nice. When you single me out by name that makes it a personal attack.

And that comment followed my comment, who prey tell were you referring to, if not me? :huh:

So it's OK if you call people 'warmongers' but it's not OK if I say antiwar people aren't very nice? What a hypocritical double-standard.

Its OK if you say antiwar people arent very nice. ironic as all hell, but you can say it. I think the irony was lost on you.

Wrong again. I am not pro-war. I am pro-victory with regards to Iraq.

If not by war, how do you plan to win in iraq? Rock paper scissor contest? Indian Leg wrestling? Shin Kicking contest?

You cant possibly take your own above comment seriously. Good grief.

What an arrogant statement. You actually think it's your place to 'correct' people. This just confirms my belief that antiwar people think they're better than everyone else.

Thank you for proving my point about antiwar people being arrogant. And if you could care less what I think then why have you posted so much in this topic? Your actions belie your words.

.

Its funny you keep saying I am antiwar, just like you keep aligning me with obama. You keep doing it over and over again, even though i have said many many times to the contrary. I support the fighting in Afghanistan. I support wars that are necessary. I actually volunteered to fight in one, remember? I dont know what your block is about that, but I wish you could wrap your mind around the idea that a person can disagree with what is going on in iraq, and no be a democrat...its just silly to have to keep repeating myself.

I post in this topic because I want to. And I enjoy showing you for who you are.

So someone who has never served in the military isn't good enough for you? President Franklin Roosevelt never served in the military. He beat the Germans and the Japanese but since he never served in the military I guess winning World War 2 just wasn't good enough

Did I say that? Did I ever say that Roosevelt wasnt good enough? You are really busy putting words in my mouth. I simply tire of the pro war folks who have no idea what they are talking about who are more than willing to risk other peoples lives without risking ANYTHING of their own. Roosevelt risked a lot personally.

What did you risk personally to win this war?

I see by the little banner at the bottom of your posts you bash obama for not sacrificing anything for the war in iraq. I want to ask YOU what have YOU sacrificed to win the war in Iraq? You must have sacrificed a lot more than obama being such a great American, so now is your chance to let us all know what YOU have sacrificed to help win the war in Iraq.

Please do tell, give us a list...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

I to am curious, tell us Supercar, what have you done to help ensure victory in Iraq. Or are you just another arm chair general with nothing more than an obscure view of whats happeneing in Iraq. You want to throw out the 80.000 iraqi's have been killed by insurgants fine with me lets say it is 80.000, thats alot of people in a short time. How many Iraqi's died each year befor the war started? Just curious was Saddam the evil mastermind that threated the world with WMD's and global domination. Nope his troops actualy used sling shots but hey they kept the terrorists at bay didn't they, meaning Saddam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clocker

I'm sure the hornet's nest Fluffy was referring to wasn't just Iraq...but even to try to begin to explain the complexity of the situation would be futile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl
I'm sure the hornet's nest Fluffy was referring to wasn't just Iraq...but even to try to begin to explain the complexity of the situation would be futile.

kind of like Resistance would be.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
How many Iraqi's died each year befor the war started?

Hard to say for nobody know if there are more mass graves and how many have Uday and Qusay murdered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.