"War Is Swell"

Go ahead, get it off your chest.
User avatar
mkilly
Ice Cream Man
Posts: 1227
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:22 am
Instruments: guitar
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

"War Is Swell"

Post by mkilly »

I was reading this Slate piece and found myself agreeing all the way through. I'll copy it here for posterity:

"Winners and Losers: Next Monday marks <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00187.html" target="_blank">the 60th anniversary</a> of America's victory in World War II. After the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, America and its allies needed just three years and nine months to win the bloodiest war and defeat the gravest threat to freedom in human history.

"What of our time? Nearly four years have passed since the September 11 attacks – and <strong>we've not only yet to win the war on terror; we can't even <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/polit ... N3aYVnEgbw" target="_blank">decide what to call it</a>.</strong>

"What happened? In the immediate aftermath of September 11, every American felt the same surge of patriotic anger their grandparents had felt 60 years earlier on December 7. We were ready for four years of Liberty
Bonds and Victory Gardens. Instead, over the past four years, our biggest collective sacrifice has been <a href="http://www.fox.com/simplelife/" target="_blank">watching reality shows on television</a>.

"Sixty years ago, FDR summoned all Americans to do their part for the war effort. This year, the Bush White House summoned a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02792.html" target="_blank">Duke expert on wartime public opinion</a>. The administration concluded that the way to maintain public support for a war is to keep telling the people we're winning. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00115.html" target="_blank">So much</a> for that theory.

"FDR and Harry Truman had a better way to maintain popular support for a war: actually winning it. That's a novel concept for Americans under the age of 50, who've been conditioned to believe that wars are won in an instant (like Grenada and the Gulf War), or drag on until the American people lose interest (like Vietnam and Iraq).

"<strong>Thirty Days: </strong>Democrats sometimes criticize President Bush for being obsessed with the war on terror. <strong>His real problem is just the opposite: he's not obsessed enough.</strong> Bush is making history in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01703.html" target="_blank">August 2005</a> exactly the same way he did in <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... cation.htm" target="_blank">August 2001</a>: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2098861/">by taking a month off for vacation</a>.

"<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/ ... efault.stm" target="_blank">Unfortunately, the enemy is not on holiday</a>. You won't see Osama bin Laden <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushb ... -brush.jpg" target="_blank">clearing brush</a> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/virtual/editions/eur ... clude.html" target="_blank">outside his cave</a> on the Pakistan border.

"FDR worked himself to death during World War II. Woodrow Wilson did the same in World War I. George Bush is in no such danger.

"If winning the war against radical totalitarianism were Bush's single-minded obsession, he'd listen to John McCain: stop Washington from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/virtual/editions/eur ... clude.html" target="_blank">spending like drunken sailors</a>, ask every American to <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur ... ccain.html" target="_blank">give something back</a>, and hire a <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6708495/" target="_blank">defense secretary</a> who stands up for his troops instead of blaming them.

"It's no surprise that a national tragedy like September 11 would make the President feel <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... over_x.htm" target="_blank">a divine calling</a>. It's harder to understand why, when the moment cries out for another FDR, Bush thought God was calling him to be Calvin Coolidge."



If you're a war president, why are you spending all of August in the Texas's armpit? If you're hurt by every troop death, why are we still "staying the course" that's so far taken 1,833 American soldiers? If the mission was accomplished and major combat was over in May 2003, why is there a new major operative announced every other week? If you're so concerned by every little God damn fucking thing that god damn ah jesus. why are pell grants underfunded. why is the peace corps and americorps underfunded. why don't you veto or threaten to veto anything except bills that stop american-led torture and stem cell research.

I just get so bothered when I think about our president's policy. I remember when he was attacking those dern Mass'chusets libruls last year, there was this comment: did you miss the memo? you're president of the United States of America, not the United States of The South, Midwest, Texas, And the Inner Northwest. He's been the president for four and a half years and he still hasn't stepped foot in Idaho, but my homestate voted for him, 68% to 30% Kerry.
"It is really true what philosophy tells us, that life must be understood backwards. But with this, one forgets the second proposition, that it must be lived forwards." Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
mico saudad
Mean Street
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:34 am
Location: San Francisco

Post by mico saudad »

While there were dissenting voices, the Democrats as a whole (who represent the only force strong enough to hold the administration accountable) have been content to wait until only now to really call for stepping back from Iraq. Too little too late. These calls have everything to do with elections and little to do with standing up for what's right.

If you're pissed off with the administration, I'm pissed off at you, and me, and the rest of us whose impotency relegates our discourse to vanity.

At least Jon Stewart makes me laugh sometimes.
User avatar
jack
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 3820
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:41 am
Recording Method: ProTools, Logic, Garageband
Submitting as: brody, Jack Shite, Johnny in the Corner, Bloody Hams, lots more
Location: santa cruz, ca.

Post by jack »

The Big Lie

make it your mantra next election day.
Hi!
User avatar
roymond
Beat It
Posts: 5188
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 3:42 pm
Instruments: Guitars, Bass, Vocals, Logic
Recording Method: Logic X, MacBookPro, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2
Submitting as: roymond, Dangerous Croutons, Intentionally Left Bank, Moody Vermin
Pronouns: he/him
Location: brooklyn
Contact:

Post by roymond »

I got slammed for using the word "swell" in a song about W. I will support you if this becomes an issue.
roymond.com | songfights | covers
"Any more chromaticism and you'll have to change your last name to Wagner!" - Frankie Big Face
Hoblit
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 3669
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:48 pm
Pronouns: Dude or GURRRLLLL!
Location: Charlotte, NC ... A big city on its first day at the new job.
Contact:

Post by Hoblit »

Lemme play devils advocat on ONE THING. (As I am too tired of these ongoing warS)
<i>
"If you're hurt by every troop death, why are we still "staying the course" that's so far taken 1,833 American soldiers? " -
</i>

It's over 2000 now btw. Still, realize it or not, like it or not, that is a very LOW number of fatalities. Not even considering the losts the enemy have taken or the number in collateral damage, this number is low in itself.

Do not get me wrong, it's not that I don't care about human lives or their lives as soldiers. But, war isn't free, and it's not even cheap. It's very costly. However, those soldiers signed up. It was their duty to carry out orders. Even if you do not agree with the orders or why the orders exist in the first place.

We lost 2,500 American Soldiers invading Germany on June 5th and 6th, 1944. (Some historian organazations claim even thousands more) A third of that on ONE beach. Thats more on ONE DAY than in FOUR YEARS. This alone doesn't make it right. But it may help put it into perspective. We as americans are becoming impatient with war, understandably, but perhaps a bit pre-mature. Ah, but WWII was a justified cause and we needed to go. YES, but I (and I'm not alone) would argue that we needed to go a lot sooner. If we had gotten involved sooner, there might not have been a need to attack a beach foothold. (300,000 by the end of the war) An ounce of prevention ...

I know, none of this means a thing if we weren't supposed to even go in the first place. Right? there were no WMDs right? However, even the U.N. suspected Saddam was up to something. Also, lets not forget he was firing at our jets in the 'no fly zone' established in the first gulf war'. Does anybody think that he wasn't ever gonna be a problem in the future? An ounce of prevention?

All I'm saying is that we can protest the war, not agree with it, have our opinions..but until that death toll is way out of hand compared to absolutely NO RESULTS...then we have a problem. Right now, that number is way too low to use it as an arguing point.

I hate Bush, and if I had the chance, I'd tell him. I'd tell him that he is one of the worse presidents in america history. However, he is our president and we have to hope that in this god awful great mess of things, his administration can fix this crap. We can't, so he has to. Lets concentrate on finishing this war, not how many people we might lose doing it.

<b>fightmasters, please delete this post...it doubled for some reason.</b>
Last edited by Hoblit on Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hoblit
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 3669
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:48 pm
Pronouns: Dude or GURRRLLLL!
Location: Charlotte, NC ... A big city on its first day at the new job.
Contact:

Post by Hoblit »

Lemme play devils advocat on ONE THING. (As I am too tired of these ongoing warS)
<i>
"If you're hurt by every troop death, why are we still "staying the course" that's so far taken 1,833 American soldiers? " -
</i>

It's over 2000 now btw. Still, realize it or not, like it or not, that is a very LOW number of fatalities. Not even considering the losts the enemy have taken or the number in collateral damage, this number is low in itself. Why not stay the course? Should we pull out now and let everyone over there get screwed by Islamic warlords and terrorist organazations? Certainly re-draft the game plan, but don't let up the foot hold.

Do not get me wrong, it's not that I don't care about human lives or their lives as soldiers. But, war isn't free, and it's not even cheap. It's very costly. However, those soldiers signed up. It was their duty to carry out orders. Even if you do not agree with the orders or why the orders exist in the first place.

We lost 2,500 American Soldiers invading Germany on June 5th and 6th, 1944. (Some historian organazations claim even thousands more) A third of that on ONE beach. Thats more on ONE DAY than in FOUR YEARS. This alone doesn't make it right. But it may help put it into perspective. We as americans are becoming impatient with war, understandably, but perhaps a bit pre-mature. Ah, but WWII was a justified cause and we needed to go. YES, but I (and I'm not alone) would argue that we needed to go a lot sooner. If we had gotten involved sooner, there might not have been a need to attack a beach foothold. (300,000 by the end of the war) An ounce of prevention ...

I know, none of this means a thing if we weren't supposed to even go in the first place. Right? there were no WMDs right? However, even the U.N. suspected Saddam was up to something. Also, lets not forget he was firing at our jets in the 'no fly zone' established in the first gulf war'. Does anybody think that he wasn't ever gonna be a problem in the future? An ounce of prevention?

All I'm saying is that we can protest the war, not agree with it, have our opinions..but until that death toll is way out of hand compared to absolutely NO RESULTS...then we have a problem. Right now, that number is way too low to use it as an arguing point.

I hate Bush, and if I had the chance, I'd tell him. I'd tell him that he is one of the worse presidents in american history. However, he is our president and we have to hope that in this god awful great mess of things, his administration can fix this crap. We can't, so he has to. Lets concentrate on finishing this war, not how many people we might lose doing it.
User avatar
jb
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 4158
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:12 am
Instruments: Guitar, Cello, Keys, Uke, Vox, Perc
Recording Method: Logic X
Submitting as: The John Benjamin Band
Pronouns: he/him
Location: WASHINGTON, DC
Contact:

Post by jb »

Disregarding death toll, how about economics?

http://www.costofwar.com


jb
blippity blop ya don’t stop heyyyyyyyyy
Hoblit
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 3669
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:48 pm
Pronouns: Dude or GURRRLLLL!
Location: Charlotte, NC ... A big city on its first day at the new job.
Contact:

Post by Hoblit »

jb wrote:Disregarding death toll, how about economics?

http://www.costofwar.com


jb
Yeah, econimically this war is a nightmare. As on most counts, this war is a terrible terrible thing.
pegor
Somebody Get Me A Doctor
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:50 pm
Instruments: stratocaster
Recording Method: blaming the equipment
Location: 39°5′50″N 120°57′14″W

Post by pegor »

Hoblit wrote:Lemme play devils advocat on ONE THING. (As I am too tired of these ongoing warS)

It's over 2000 now btw. Still, realize it or not, like it or not, that is a very LOW number of fatalities.

... SNIP of some very interesting observations ...

All I'm saying is that we can protest the war, not agree with it, have our opinions..but until that death toll is way out of hand compared to absolutely NO RESULTS...then we have a problem. Right now, that number is way too low to use it as an arguing point.
I think if lives lost is the currency/cost of war then modern war is cheaper then WWII war. What I mean is smart bombs and such make it easier to accomplish war without lives lost. so the premium has gone down. It might have taken 100 deaths to destroy a command and control bunker in Berlin. Today It takes 1 smart bomb and no deaths. So i don't think we can use lives lost in WWII as a metric. I think those 2000 American lives would not have been lost if Saddam had been left alone.
I hate Bush, and if I had the chance, I'd tell him. I'd tell him that he is one of the worse presidents in american history. However, he is our president and we have to hope that in this god awful great mess of things, his administration can fix this crap. We can't, so he has to. Lets concentrate on finishing this war, not how many people we might lose doing it.
I think the weapons inspectors were ignored because Bush is was on a "neocon/avenge my daddy/Im the hand of god" trip. I heard a guy on the radio this morning say that LBJ was public about all the soul searching he did over vietnam (The same could probably be said of FDR and WWII) but Bush just is charging ahead without consideration. Much as one would expect from a person who has never been held accountable for his own failures (oil biz failure, Guard deserter)

The big question in my mind is what is the finishing point? We can't unite a country that is so ethnicly divided - impossible. We can't cut and run - then we will suffer from a cowardly reputation.

Failure is the only option, we either need to establish a puppet dictator like the good old days or run away in shame and defeat. and Its GWs fault.
Hoblit
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 3669
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:48 pm
Pronouns: Dude or GURRRLLLL!
Location: Charlotte, NC ... A big city on its first day at the new job.
Contact:

Post by Hoblit »

pegor wrote:
1. I think if lives lost is the currency/cost of war then modern war is cheaper then WWII war. What I mean is smart bombs and such make it easier to accomplish war without lives lost. so the premium has gone down.

2. i don't think we can use lives lost in WWII as a metric.

3. I think those 2000 American lives would not have been lost if Saddam had been left alone.

4. The big question in my mind is what is the finishing point?

5. We can't unite a country that is so ethnicly divided - impossible.

6. We can't cut and run - then we will suffer from a cowardly reputation.

7. Failure is the only option, we either need to establish a puppet dictator like the good old days or run away in shame and defeat. and Its GWs fault.
1. Absolutely, thats sorta my point actually.

2. I agree, it can't be tit for tat, but again, this is where #1 balances in. Exact metric, no. Notice the differences between lives lost / saved , yes.

3. Yes, again, absolutely. That isn't to say that other people wouldn't have died though..and this is where we start to weigh the quality of the lives lost. We saved lives from an administration(s) that would have gone on to murder more people. (remember, this is what Saddam's trial is about) This at a cost of OUR troops to their civilians ratio. And again, neither one of us can see into the future. We don't know if we would eventually had to send our troops under the U.N. in the future. Maybe? Maybe not.

4. My mind too. How long is this going to last. WHEN is it enough, when will we win? Will we win?

5. Impossible? I don't think so. Extremely difficult, perhaps more than we can handle? Yeah, afraid so. We need help. I don't think it's impossible. Our country may not be AS ethinicly divided, but there sure are a lot of different types,backgrounds,religions(including islam, jews, suni...etc...) living here in the United States. Admittedly, those folk over there appear to be a bit more adament in their intolerance for each other.

6. No, we can't cut and run...but not for 'cowardess'. We did this last time. We left a lot of people who were later affected by our withdrawl.

7. See Six. Yes, this is George Bush's fault. :-)
User avatar
erik
Jump
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:06 am
Submitting as: 15-16 puzzle
Location: Austin
Contact:

Post by erik »

Hoblit wrote:All I'm saying is that we can protest the war, not agree with it, have our opinions..but until that death toll is way out of hand compared to absolutely NO RESULTS...then we have a problem. Right now, that number is way too low to use it as an arguing point.
That's utterly ridiculous. That's like saying movies are better nowadays because they make more money than movies 50 years ago. Well of course they do, 50 years ago it didn't cost $10.00 to go to the movies. You have to adjust for inflation.

In the case of wars, you have to adjust for technology. A crapload less people are dying in this war than in other wars? Well duh. Soldiers in WW2 didn't have night vision, smart bombs, body armor, or any of a buttload of technological advances that were designed specifically to save lives. The fact that less people have died in this war than in wars past doesn't mean that this one is any less serious than wars from days gone by. The numbers SHOULD be lower. What we need to seriously look at is how many people have died compared to how many were expected to die, and compare that to how far off the mark they were with their predictions for WW2. Yes, a crapload of people died in that war, but fricking everyone expected it.
User avatar
jack
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 3820
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:41 am
Recording Method: ProTools, Logic, Garageband
Submitting as: brody, Jack Shite, Johnny in the Corner, Bloody Hams, lots more
Location: santa cruz, ca.

Post by jack »

not to mention these war dead numbers you guys are throwing around doesn't even scratch the surface of the civilian casualties inflicted.

multiply these numbers by 10. at least.
Hi!
Hoblit
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 3669
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:48 pm
Pronouns: Dude or GURRRLLLL!
Location: Charlotte, NC ... A big city on its first day at the new job.
Contact:

Post by Hoblit »

erik, I disagree. Technology saves lives, thats the point of it. And yes, it does take the edge off of casualty numbers. But war still costs a number of lives and in WAR MATH, these numbers are still at an acceptable level.

jack, yeah, I know...collateral damage has been taken too lightly. I did mention that in my first post.
User avatar
erik
Jump
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:06 am
Submitting as: 15-16 puzzle
Location: Austin
Contact:

Post by erik »

Acceptable war death tolls change over time. You can't prescribe beforehand whether 2,000 or 10,000 or 200,000 will be the acceptable level for this war. The only way to tell if the level is acceptable is to pay attention to whether the American people feel it's acceptable.
Last edited by erik on Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jack
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 3820
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:41 am
Recording Method: ProTools, Logic, Garageband
Submitting as: brody, Jack Shite, Johnny in the Corner, Bloody Hams, lots more
Location: santa cruz, ca.

Post by jack »

just the fact that YOU are referring to needlessly sacrificed human lives as "collateral damage" is frankly pretty sorry and disappointing.

if it was your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, child, it wouldn't be "collateral damage" anymore would it?
Hi!
User avatar
mkilly
Ice Cream Man
Posts: 1227
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:22 am
Instruments: guitar
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by mkilly »

Ultimately the question with casualties, to me, is this: Is it a just war? Are we doing everything we can, within reason, to prevent further casualties? Is there an exit plan for American troops?

To me the answers are, respectively, no, no, and no. The war wasn't right to begin with and we shouldn't let ourselves fall to the sunk-cost fallacy: that to honor the dead, we have to keep fighting and dying. No, to honor the dead we have to reexamine why we're there and what realistic objectives we have. We aren't doing everything we can to prevent further casualties--Iraqi troops have to share bulletproof vests. I recently read of an account of two guards that switched off every four hours or so. Similarly, we still have unarmored Humvees. There's one plant in the entire nation--world, in fact--that does the armor plating, and Congress hasn't mandated or allowed anybody else to do so. I believe I said in my original post to this thread, that we're being told it's a war, and we have to take it seriously, and that criticism undermines US forces and is more or less treasonous, but nobody's being asked to make sacrifices. We aren't selling war bonds, and we aren't making more armor. We don't seem to have an exit plan. The Republicans shot down the Democrats' proposal to ask for the beginning stages of a timetable, and replaced it with a nonbinding resolution asking the guys in charge to give us a report every so often about how we're doing. Nevermind that that was mandated in one of the Iraq spending bills, by law, and it still hasn't been delivered.
"It is really true what philosophy tells us, that life must be understood backwards. But with this, one forgets the second proposition, that it must be lived forwards." Søren Kierkegaard
Hoblit
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 3669
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:48 pm
Pronouns: Dude or GURRRLLLL!
Location: Charlotte, NC ... A big city on its first day at the new job.
Contact:

Post by Hoblit »

jack wrote:just the fact that YOU are referring to needlessly sacrificed human lives as "collateral damage" is frankly pretty sorry and disappointing.

if it was your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, child, it wouldn't be "collateral damage" anymore would it?
Now you are arguing Political Correctness symantics. It's the actual term or definition. Would you prefer I call them the survivor challenged? It's not ME that is referring to these sacrificed lives as collateral damage, it is the term that accurately describes them in a military battle type atmosphere.

Erik, I agree...you're right. But thats my point, we DON'T know know, and we can't determine beforehand how many deaths a situation will cause. Thats a two way street as well, we don't know how many it has saved either. As far as paying attention to the American people to as whether or not this is an acceptable level of casualties...well, I'm part of the american people too you know. Thats also part of what I am talking about, as <b>I feel </b>that the collective 'American People' have very little in the way of 'concept' of military loss in battle. For that matter, what IS an acceptable loss? Only one thousand? Only five hundred? Three thousand? Ten thousand?

I don't know. I don't want a single soldier to die. Not one more. I don't want there to be another victim at all. But as long as they are aiming weapons at our soldiers, I imagine they will be in constant danger. This was part of the deal when they decided to join our military. God bless them and I hope that they don't have to make that ultimate sacrifice.

<b>mkilly</b> I agree, the war isn't being handled correctly. It should be re-examined, and there should be changes. I don't think it's a complete fallacy though. I think the pre-text to it is. However, I've noticed that we are actually at war. In THAT sense we have to just forget the pre-text. We can argue about whether the war was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do and why and why not until we are blue in the face. It won't change the fact that we are actually at war or at the very least, in dangerious military action. We have to asess the situation as it is now and move from there. This is where we should sit George Bush down. I think we can all agree he's dropped the ball big time on this one. This military operation (war) is a complete mess and does need to be 're-examined'.
HeuristicsInc
Beat It
Posts: 5297
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:14 pm
Instruments: Synths
Recording Method: Windows computer, Acid, Synths etc.
Submitting as: Heuristics Inc. (duh) + collabs
Pronouns: he/him
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Post by HeuristicsInc »

I'm not trying to make any point here... but:
How many deaths is that per day, just out of curiosity?
when my brother-in-law died in an accident in the Army, I talked to the lady who started this organization: TAPS. She told me that even in peacetime, between accidents, natural deaths, illness, etc. there is an average of 5 military deaths a day... that statistic kind of surprised me.
By the way, I see lots of "support our troops" stickers on cars. Makes me wonder what these people do to support them.
One way is to remember the families of those that have died. Every year I go to the annual Memorial Day Survivor Seminar and there are so many families, wives, children, parents, husbands, girlfriends, siblings, etc. And more every year. If you have a bit of cash left over, TAPS is a great organization to remember in your charity giving. These people really need the support...
-bill

PS my nephew's in that picture at the top of the page.
152612141617123326211316121416172329292119162316331829382412351416132117152332252921
http://heuristicsinc.com
Liner Notes
SF Lyric Ideas
User avatar
mkilly
Ice Cream Man
Posts: 1227
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:22 am
Instruments: guitar
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by mkilly »

Oh, also, Hoblit, it isn't more than 2000 deaths in four years, it's more than 2000 deaths since March of 2003. That's less than three years.

So, two deaths every day, about.
"It is really true what philosophy tells us, that life must be understood backwards. But with this, one forgets the second proposition, that it must be lived forwards." Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Caravan Ray
bono
bono
Posts: 8647
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:51 pm
Instruments: Penis
Recording Method: Garageband
Submitting as: Caravan Ray,G.O.R.T.E.C,Lyricburglar,The Thugs from the Scallop Industry
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Contact:

Re: "War Is Swell"

Post by Caravan Ray »

mkilly wrote:
"What of our time? Nearly four years have passed since the September 11 attacks � and <strong>we've not only yet to win the war on terror; we can't even <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/polit ... N3aYVnEgbw" target="_blank">decide what to call it</a>.</strong>
I still can't work out what Australia's invasion of Iraq has to do with combatting terrorism. Maybe I'm just a bit dense.
Justincombustion
Push Comes to Shove
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:28 am
Instruments: Drums. Drums. Drums.
Recording Method: Whatever that stuff in Glenn's basement is.
Submitting as: HalfRacks, Drink/Drank/Drunk, Baby In the Corner, Chuck the Bear
Location: Porland, Oregon not Maine
Contact:

Re: "War Is Swell"

Post by Justincombustion »

I still can't work out what Australia's invasion of Iraq has to do with combatting terrorism. Maybe I'm just a bit dense.[/quote]


Because there may or may not have ben weapons of mass destruction. Now, did those WMDs destroy the World Trade Centers? Did those WMDs blow up the nightclubs in Bali? Nope. Did Saddam? Nope, your attention has successfully been diverted.
"When you can balance a tack-hammer on your head; you can then head off you opponent with a balanced attack!"
Hoblit
Hot for Teacher
Posts: 3669
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:48 pm
Pronouns: Dude or GURRRLLLL!
Location: Charlotte, NC ... A big city on its first day at the new job.
Contact:

Re: "War Is Swell"

Post by Hoblit »

Caravan Ray wrote:
mkilly wrote:
"What of our time? Nearly four years have passed since the September 11 attacks � and <strong>we've not only yet to win the war on terror; we can't even <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/polit ... N3aYVnEgbw" target="_blank">decide what to call it</a>.</strong>
I still can't work out what Australia's invasion of Iraq has to do with combatting terrorism. Maybe I'm just a bit dense.
As Justin C pointed out...not much as far as recent attacks on Western targets.

However, Al Queda doesn't have a monopoly on terrorism. Saddam was quite litterally writing checks to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. There was no 'hey, if you suicide bomb a place in Isreal I'll write your family a check' policy...but none the less, it was happening. If you are a poor palestinian brewing with hate for jews...this might be the chance of a lifetime opportunity. (pardon the pun)

<b>Mkilly</b> correct, less than three years, right. My bad on the four years call. I'm sure that there have been more than 2000 deaths if you include the four year item that includes Afghanistan. Which isn't part of the equation in the Iraq war we have been discussing. This doesn't change my opinion though. Also, the death toll in for U.S. troops in Iraq doesn't include domestic accidents and other locations. So that 2 a day may be making a total of 7 a day if the past average is still accurate.
Post Reply