Narc's FE Guide: Index

I don't always believe news, because every news producer (or station) is biased in some way. For instance CNN doesn't cover the good news of Iraq, however they do cover the bad news about Iraq.

Good news about Iraq: less civilians to worry about every day!

We were worried?

We were worried?

About what?

Iraqi civilians.

Quote from: narcberry on August 05, 2008, 08:58:11 PM

We were worried?

About what?

Exactly.

I don't always believe news, because every news producer (or station) is biased in some way. For instance CNN doesn't cover the good news of Iraq, however they do cover the bad news about Iraq.

Seriously, what good news of Iraq are you referring to? 

The fact that there are less car bombings and US soldiers being killed. But if you think 40,000 people is a lot, then look at the millions that died in WWII (all countries...about 500,000 to 1,000,000 Americans died)

The fact that there are less car bombings and US soldiers being killed. But if you think 40,000 people is a lot, then look at the millions that died in WWII (all countries...about 500,000 to 1,000,000 Americans died)

This really brightened my day!

Are you serious or are you making fun of the Iraq thing?

The fact that there are less car bombings and US soldiers being killed. But if you think 40,000 people is a lot, then look at the millions that died in WWII (all countries...about 500,000 to 1,000,000 Americans died)

A couple things.

First of all, WWII was a far more justifiable war than Iraq.  In WWII half a million Americans died for a noble cause.  The war in Iraq has been senseless since the beginning.

Second, is there a number of deaths that must be reached before it's considered a "bad" thing?  What's the cutoff point?  Evidently a few hundred was an atrocious number to bear on September 11, 2001.

Third, do you just not consider the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians that take place all the time a bad thing?  Do you think the only problem  Americans have with the war in Iraq is the American deaths that have been caused?

There is absolutely nothing good about the war in Iraq, and your statement here only emphasizes that fact.

All wars are bad, but that doesn't mean that a way is meaningless. The war is here because the insurgents took over Iraq/Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden killed innocent lives. If we wouldn't have gone there then there would be more innocent lives killed. Also, they had killed 2-4,000 US citizens. That's not good, would you look at that and be like... "Ah, it's ok, they're not suffering or anything."

All wars are bad, but that doesn't mean that a way is meaningless. The war is here because the insurgents took over Iraq/Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden killed innocent lives. If we wouldn't have gone there then there would be more innocent lives killed. Also, they had killed 2-4,000 US citizens. That's not good, would you look at that and be like... "Ah, it's ok, they're not suffering or anything."

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden or terrorism.  Talk about being misled by the media.  And there are other countries we could have actually justifiably invaded in the war on terrorism.  By choosing to invade Iraq instead, we are actually allowing terrorism to flourish, in addition to all the other problems it's caused.

And even with all our motivation to control Iraq, we can't even conquer a couple dunes of sand.

In WW2 we took over Asia and Europe, after our allies had all tried and failed.

In WW2 we took over Asia and Europe, after our allies had all tried and failed.

Now now fellow FE'er - careful what you say....

We didn't take over all of Europe and Asia, we destroyed them? Yes, but we help them rebuild. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are examples of how we destroyed them then rebuilt them.

We didn't take over all of Europe and Asia, we destroyed them? Yes, but we help them rebuild. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are examples of how we destroyed them then rebuilt them.

We're such saints.

lol@justifyinghiroshima/nagasaki

All wars are bad, but that doesn't mean that a way is meaningless. The war is here because the insurgents took over Iraq/Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden killed innocent lives. If we wouldn't have gone there then there would be more innocent lives killed. Also, they had killed 2-4,000 US citizens. That's not good, would you look at that and be like... "Ah, it's ok, they're not suffering or anything."

Insuregents didn't take over either of those places because in order for their to be an insurgency there must be an occupying force. What did happen was theocracies took over those places and were subsequently taken over by the larger theocracy of the United States. The insurgents are trying to rid themselves of invaders. If an army from Saudi Arabia invaded the United States, and told you they were liberating you from oppression, and then continuously murdered your countrymen on a daily basis, you would be insurgent as well. Of course, in this argument I only use Iraq as an example because Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT the same thing despite your seeming use of them interchangeably.

EDIT: United states soldiers have killed more innocent Iraqis than were killed in September 11th, but of course with all your flag waving why would you care about a few dead "a-rabs".  And also, before you get on my case, I am not against the troops, I AM against murder...under ANY circumstance.

You Europeans should be glad we gave you back. IMO, you should be paying U.S. taxes for all our work.

EDIT: United states soldiers have killed more innocent Iraqis than were killed in September 11th, but of course with all your flag waving why would you care about a few dead "a-rabs".  And also, before you get on my case, I am not against the troops, I AM against murder...under ANY circumstance.

Ah, where did you get that bull?

Reality.

You Europeans should be glad we gave you back. IMO, you should be paying U.S. taxes for all our work.

Well, I'm from Canada, and we burnt down the whitehouse...after partying in it for three days, keep that in mind.

Quote from: narcberry on August 06, 2008, 07:41:39 PM

You Europeans should be glad we gave you back. IMO, you should be paying U.S. taxes for all our work.

Welp, I'm from Canada, and we burnt down the whitehouse...after partying in it for three days.

The War of 1812; arguably one of the best keggers in human history.

Quote from: Guessed on August 06, 2008, 07:51:18 PM

Quote from: narcberry on August 06, 2008, 07:41:39 PM

You Europeans should be glad we gave you back. IMO, you should be paying U.S. taxes for all our work.

Welp, I'm from Canada, and we burnt down the whitehouse...after partying in it for three days.

The War of 1812; arguably one of the best keggers in human history.

Sig'd for lulz

One could argue the war in Iraq is justifiable if it is successful, as a large, democratic Iraq allied to the west is favourable to our (the wests) interests. There is nothing inherently wrong with acting in your own interest; western governments acting in there own interest is what has led to our prosperity today.

I'm just glad we didn't democratize North Korea, since they don't have WMD's either.

Pfft, who needs North Korea. There's no point in invading them. They have few resources and their country is of almost no strategic value to the West. Any potential value is more than equalled by S.K. and completely irrelevant next to Japan. Besides, eventually China will be a semi-ally too- everyone's scared of China, but the fact is that Western and Chinese interests are now and for the forseeable future highly similar. Taiwan is a touchy issue, but there's no way either side would allow a full-scake war over it.

China and Russia are all smiles and hugs, but sooner or later they'll come into conflict over something, and the West will sweep in, support China and isolate Russia. At this point, North Korea may have developed a nuclear device capable of damaging your hearing or possibly eyesight within a radius of 6 feet, and may have a firework powerful enough to just about get to another country some of the time; mst of the time if they use photoshop. This will scare Japan, who'll cry a bit, and we'll have to pretend we care some more. Meanwhile, they will go on starving and being shit. The end.

Another note:
We feed North Korea (read as people will starve and die without free US imports of food). Why are we doing that?

Another note:
We feed North Korea (read as people will starve and die without free US imports of food). Why are we doing that?

because we care, just because the leadership is jacked up does not mean the populace needs to suffer