^^by preventing a lot more tan 3,000 deaths in the future

10/26/2007 3:28:20 PM

2.4 x 10^12?

2.4E12?

10/26/2007 3:28:44 PM

^^ maybe you could help explain this concept (disregarding the 10,000's of Iraqi civilians already dead)

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 3:30 PM. Reason : a]

10/26/2007 3:30:42 PM

its a very simple concept...you take out your enemies...in the process you lose some lives...but the lives you lose pale in comparison to the potential lives you could lose if you let all your enemies do whatever they want

10/26/2007 3:33:13 PM

And were back around to the Iraq was or was not a threat to us again.

I thought you didn't care about any of this.

So why are you here again?

Oh I remember, it's to troll and insult me, and hope that I do a better job of it and I get suspended because you have befriended the mods!

10/26/2007 3:34:27 PM

please worry about yourself and not me

10/26/2007 3:36:13 PM

Take your own advice.

10/26/2007 3:37:37 PM

oh shit i did not realize Iraq had plans to launch long range cruise missiles at the US. Oh shit nvm that is what we do.

Saddam must have had his drop ships chilling in the Persian Gulf preparing to full steam to the east coast for jihad.

10/26/2007 3:39:42 PM

might as well suspend HUR along with me and Chance since he's just as worthless...joe_schmoe too while we're at it

btw...once again...vvvPLEASE WORRY ABOUT YOURSELF AND NOT ME

10/26/2007 3:43:04 PM

Can we get a dedicated thread for you two?

10/26/2007 3:49:57 PM

i figured i would jump on the troll train

10/26/2007 3:50:12 PM

Quote :

"Can we get a dedicated thread for you two?"

We tried it in Chit Chat, but this guy won't stay out of TSB. And the moment you point out his faulty logic he starts insulting you. theDuke doesn't care, so it is what it is.

10/26/2007 4:00:53 PM

If the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have an end result of some type of democracy in the Middle East, and a society where people learn some amount of respect and tolerance for others and are able to have freedoms and make their own choices, I think 2.4 trillion dollars is definitely worth it

10/26/2007 4:10:40 PM

And how many lives...?

10/26/2007 4:22:33 PM

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet

10/26/2007 4:23:48 PM

So, as omelets are primarily composed of broken eggs, societies are made up the bodies of those who die in conflict?

10/26/2007 4:26:19 PM

Well, you lost this argument.

10/26/2007 4:27:40 PM

^^Were the lives lost in WW2 lost in vain? Were they lost for nothing? Of course not

And I think the lives we've lost in Iraq and Afghanistan won't be in vain either

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ^^]

10/26/2007 4:28:02 PM

If that only applied to the war on terrorism 1 for 1, then you'd have a great point.

10/26/2007 4:30:00 PM

Iraq and Afghanistan are not even remotely comparable to WWII in any reasonable scale and only those trying to obfuscate the issue claim that they're similar. They're more comparable to Korea/Vietnam although they aren't perfectly matched in those cases either.

10/26/2007 4:30:13 PM

the only comparison is that there were lives lost in both wars...in WW2 the lives were not lost in vain...I don't think the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan will be in vain either...and a lot of people agree

10/26/2007 4:31:07 PM

Did the victims of the 9/11 attack die in vain?

10/26/2007 4:31:33 PM

fuck no

10/26/2007 4:32:46 PM

So basically, what you are saying is without some sort of militaristic intervention, ignoring other types of intervention (diplomacy, etc), that additional lives in the thousands would no doubt be lost. This is 100% certain?

10/26/2007 4:33:45 PM

Well no one wants to say their lives were lost in vain, the more applicable question is, was it worth it? I think the obvious answer for WWII is yes, American lives were sacrificed for the greater good and to protect our freedom. Germany was a threat to our freedom and would likely have attacked us on our soil if we hadn't joined in the European front.


I do not believe the same can be said for Iraq. It's a tragedy that Saddam Hussein was a shitty leader and killed his own people but I think we went too far by removing him from power and creating the nightmare we have there now. At the very least we should have tied up our loose ends in Afghanistan before moving onto a different country.

10/26/2007 4:36:05 PM

At the same time, Twista, I suspect you don't support additional 9/11-style attacks.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 4:36 PM. Reason : s]

10/26/2007 4:36:16 PM

^^Well I DO believe the same will be able to be said about Iraq...and not just Iraq, but Afghanistan and whatever other countries get involved...but we're still at war so we obviously don't have the 60 year hindsight like we do for WW2 to say whether or not the lives have been lost in vain

^Are you asking me whether or not I "support" another 9/11 type attack in America? Cause I would sure as hell hope that everyone's answer would be "No, I would not like another 9/11 type attack in America"

10/26/2007 4:39:18 PM

Quote :

"and a lot of people agree"

A lot of people are fucking idiots

10/26/2007 4:41:33 PM

But what about Vietnam, or even Korea? Those are more apt comparisons.

10/26/2007 4:41:52 PM

^^and a lot of idiots dont realize the importance of success in iraq and afghanistan...this thread has a lot of examples of those idiots

10/26/2007 4:42:56 PM

it really is amazing to me that people wont bat an eye lash at billions of dollars being wasted in a black hole thousands of miles away for a lost cause than spent here at home to better the fucking country.

really amazing the levels of idiocy people will ascend to in the name of partisanship

10/26/2007 4:42:58 PM

partisanship? how bout not wanting another 9/11...fuck your partisanship...everything is partisanship with you...everybody who doesnt hate bush is a faux news puppet...thats not fucking true at all so quit implying it...its not being partisan to not want to fail when our country is at war

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2007 4:43:48 PM

If someone blew me to pieces tomorrow, I'm rather certain my death would be in vain.

Unless, that is, you assume I'm more likely to detract from society than contribute to it, which is reasonably likely.

10/26/2007 4:43:59 PM

^during 9/11 the deaths werent in vain because they opened up our eyes that there are threats out there to address...there are enemies who want to kill us (and they wanted to kill us before bush was president)...sadly many of you have closed your eyes

10/26/2007 4:45:23 PM

yeah 9/11 opened out eyes to the threat of....

iraq???

stop trying to make that connection. it's been refuted infinity times. its disingenuous to even have 9/11 and iraq in the same breath.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ,]

10/26/2007 4:47:57 PM

Their deaths were in vain.


— in vain
1: to no end : without success or result <her efforts were in vain>


What did they succeed through their own efforts? They were murdered by some religious zealots and they had no choice in life or death.

10/26/2007 4:48:35 PM

we're at war in afghanistan
we're at war in iraq
i point out we're at war in two places in the middle east

why the fuck can't i mention them in the same breath?

and you guys wonder why people question your patriotism...fucking pathetic

10/26/2007 4:50:43 PM

because iraq and 9/11 have nothing to do with one another and never did?

10/26/2007 4:51:26 PM

we're at war in afghanistan
we're at war in iraq
i point out we're at war in two places in the middle east

and you say I'M being partisan...

does the whole rest of the world hate us? or just afghanistan...

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2007 4:52:39 PM

iraq

9/11

i never mentioned afghanistan

10/26/2007 4:54:02 PM

how convenient

Quote :

"^during 9/11 the deaths werent in vain because they opened up our eyes that there are threats out there to address...there are enemies who want to kill us (and they wanted to kill us before bush was president)...sadly many of you have closed your eyes"

i never mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence...9/11 was the catalyst...Afghanistan was the first stop...stop acting like Iraq isn't a part of the war on terror

10/26/2007 4:54:32 PM

yeah i guess the fact that i didn't even mention something that you're alluding to is pretty convenient

10/26/2007 4:55:17 PM

Quote :

"yeah 9/11 opened out eyes to the threat of.... iraq??? "

YOU MENTIONED IRAQ

10/26/2007 4:55:54 PM

If everyone else agreed to ignore this guy, I know for damn certain I would to.

10/26/2007 4:56:18 PM

:sigh:

I'LL PM A DETAILED EXPLANATION TO YOU OK

10/26/2007 4:57:02 PM

there are terrorists in iraq

i'm outta here...too many anti war non patriotic fools outnumbering me to attempt to have a coherent conversation

bring on all the shit talking after i leave...

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2007 4:58:34 PM

if you'd only never come back

10/26/2007 5:01:52 PM

Quote :

"too many anti war non patriotic fools"

god you republican hacks make me sick

10/26/2007 11:18:34 PM

10/27/2007 6:26:48 AM

Quote :

"stop acting like Iraq isn't a part of the war on terror"

well, it's only a part of the war on terror because we went in there, fucked it up, and made it a haven for terrorists. Iraq was pretty much devoid of terrorists before we went in there, except for Saddam. At least Saddam was only terrorizing his own people

10/27/2007 10:21:25 PM