Wow... You are seriously stupid if you don't understand what an analogy is. Do you think for one second that is what Ottomaton was saying. I imagine you gave no thought into what he was saying and just enjoy rephrasing others thoughts into garbage. If you could follow a line of logic that you don't agree with and argue the LOGIC of opinions instead of playing "52 distractions" it wouldn't be necessary to try and explain things as if one were talking to a 5 year old.
Here's what he wrote. My referenced lines in bold: The first statement (We liberated Iraq from a dictator.) is like saying I killed the man who was trying to rob you, so now I have a right to rape you. The second (It's not the Americans who are piling up dead Iraqi bodies anymore. )is only marginally true. Americans are still killing as many Iraqis as ever, but the mess we stirred up has resulted in a large upswing of Iraqis killing Iraqis. We are still killing plenty of Iraqis. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I see no confusion. Otto clearly implies that because we are still there we are raping Iraq after saving her from a ruthless dictator. If he meant something different, I'd like to see his translation. Regarding the second point, I'm bumfuzzled. If you want to count terrorists we are killilng who are killing Iraqis as Iraqis we are killing, Otto may be right. I don't count them though as they are dogs who murder wantonly. The Iraqis I'm concerned about are the Iraqis who are sacrificed by other Iraqis in the vain pursuit to kill a soldier or two. Thirty-seven children at the re-opening of one water treatment facility as I recall. Had Otto meant something good about our participation in Iraq, I'm sure he could have come up with another analogy besides RAPE. C'mon. You lose points when you stoop to insulting.
1. No but its damn funny that usually the people who want war and fighting are the ones who are too damn scared to sign up and possibly fight themselves. Ive asked it a million times. If its so noble, and the military is so stretched thin, why dont you join up for a year long run...that will get rehashed into several tours by the Bush White House. Lets all remember how Bush himself hid from the Vietnam war like the coward he was. 2. And it doesnt matter. Aint no one that needs to claim "Better watch it" or "demoralizing the troops". Troops arent going to get demoralized by one soldiers comments. But they will get seriously demoralized by having to pull extra tours in Bushs administration. 3. How high of you. You are the super/changer of minds/show them the wayer.
so what is the truth? iraq has wmds? iraq was involved in 911? iraq has harmed US pre war? iraq war was a worthy cause? iraq war is winnable? iraq war has made the US and the world safer? iraq war has made terrorists weaker? bush and his cabal told the truth why we need to attack iraq? bush and his cabal told the truth on how the situation in iraq is going? that you "support" for the troops even if they're fightin an unworthy cause and unwinnable war? that you "support" for the troops but don't want to enlist yourself? well since majority of US are against the war I would assume majority of the military including generals and current and former admin official agree with him.. don't pretent to act like tillman is in the minority..
What about the collateral damage caused by our bombs? Have you considered that dropping a bomb on a wedding party to kill a couple of possibly terrorists might kill a lot of Iraqi's who have done nothing to us?
While I agree with a lot of what the Kevin Tillman says I can't help but feel bad for him because of the bitterness I see in his letter. Totally understandable bitterness regarding the circumstances of his brothers death and for what he sees to be an unjust war. I hope for his sake and the Tillman family that they can get past that sometime and remember and honor Pat's life without the pain and anger he is feeling now. Let me emphasize that I'm not saying any of this to detract from his message just that its never a good thing to hold onto such bitterness.
I'm so old I'd have to come in as a general. With my back, my re-constructed left knee and my ruined right ankle they wouldn't even let me in anyway. It's a volunteer army; people join because they are willing to or wanting to go into battle if necessary. You don't need to project your feelings about it onto the decisions of others. It was YOU who claimed a lead on the truth not me. I realize that most of what I express is an opinion; you should likewise.
Good question; I don't think anybody knows. Much intel said they did. We have quotes from both prominent Democrats and Republicans which indicated the mindset that they belief was they did. True we have conflicting evidence; is it better to just wait and see if something worse than 9/11 occurs? Overstated rumor attributed to the Admin. More than a decade of flaunting the UN counts for something. See Saddam's trial transcripts. It is hard to win a war when the enemy is factionalized. How do you get them on the same page to realize that they are not effecting changee-- only killing innocent people? That's a loaded question because incidence of violence is sure to go up in a struggle. Do you feel less safe? Many are dead. Many of the top leadership is dead. The ranks are up but that could fizzle as the moderate Muslims start to demand a return to normalcy and the zealotry burns out. I don't reply to questions which use the word cabal... They are politicians. Your opinion. I'm old enough that I'd have to be a general. I'm rickety enough that they would never take me. Snapshots. I said that TIllman was a "celebrity."
It is an ugly reality that any war will have collateral damage. That incident was an accident and a mis-recognition of events going on wan't it? Our contribution to those kind of tragedies is largely over. My point is that the current Iraqi body count is due to the insurgents' wanton killing not to our military action.
Nobody was waiting for something worse than 9/11 happened. Not invading, doesn't mean that you are waiting. In case you missed it Iraq was contained and held in check. They couldn't go anywhwere or do anything because we had 2/3 of the country under no-fly and had had inspectors inside Iraq finding out the veracity of the reports on WMD's. Nobody was just sitting around waiting. Imagine if we had let the inspectors finish their jobs, and concfirm there were no WMD's. We would still have Saddam contained. There wouldn't be foreign terrorists using Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, and thousands of U.S. troops wouldn't be dead or wounded, families would still be whole, the good name of the U.S. would not be tarnished, etc. Please don't give the false idea that our only two choices were to invade or do nothing. That is a false choice, there were other better options.
I wish I had the confidence in the inspection process that you do. Many criminals evade capture for years in spite of the coordination of local police force and FBI et al. Some dozen or more bureaucrats trudging around looking for WMDs in a country the size of California seems like a big job and one where it would be easy to be fooled. Iraq was held in check but they flaunted the UN and the world for a dozen years. They couldn't re-invade Kuwait but just about anybody could settle there. The pre-supposition based on intel was that Saddam had WMDs. There's plenty of evidence of that. Saddam strove to give the impression that he had WMDs. He had even used the bio-chemical kind before. The fight has turned out to be bigger and harder than anticipated. I don't see how that makes it wrong.
The only reason I had any faith in the inspectors is that they had been successful before, and were successful at that time. Some were far from being bureaucrats and were experts at their job. Furthermore it isn't like convicts on the run from the FBI. That is an irrelevant analogy. Furthermore there was a possible opportunity for CIA and FBI agents to be stationed there in addition to the inspectors who wanted more time. Where on earth did you get that anybody could settle there? That certainly wasn't the case in Saddam controlled areas of Iraq. He ruled with an iron fist, going to extreme measures to keep his area free of Islamist terrorists. Your statement is about as far from actuality as it could be. I understand what the intel said. The inspectors and possibly our own intel agents would have been able to provide new and more accurate intel. That is why we should have let them do their job, and not relied on old faulty intel.
To absolve Bush of any blame or responsibility... Actually it's just a nifty little service that I subscribed to and being like Victor Kiam.... I bought the company.
