Today the Iraq War surpasses WWII for US military involvement...

The easist way to descride the modern world is:
****** up
Unfair
Pointless
Sad
Worrying
And the forever immoratals: GET ON WITH IT!!!

You may asked why Did you just say that?
Because they say (goverement powers) there gonna do this stuff and they don't example
I heard on the radio that bristol is gonna spend left over cash on public transport... they've been saying for the 4 ****ing years, all those so called terrorist in prisons were just people with guns (like most middle easterns) who bounty have just taken to the US and then they give em a hard when they have planned virtually nothing against the west, they hate the US but if the worldest richest country came to your country to get some Oil you too would be annoyed.
Also you can't fight terrorism by going to other countrys that only incourages it their so they'll do terrorist attacks...

Hello? Oh god I just said all that... :embarassed: :shame:

Quote:

---

In the absence of any smilies or other clues, I shall take that quote as being serious.

You might not see much wrong with imperialism when you're the imperialist, but I don't recall the British ever signing up with enthusiasm for the "benefits" of being subjugated by a foreign power.

---

Maybe he is a Campbell:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

In the absence of any smilies or other clues, I shall take that quote as being serious.

You might not see much wrong with imperialism when you're the imperialist, but I don't recall the British ever signing up with enthusiasm for the "benefits" of being subjugated by a foreign power.

---

Surely you have seen the Imperialist Club I-III threads.
But that's by the by. Aenlic suggested Imperialism is enough to discount something someone says. It is wrong to simply say Imperialism is wrong and bad and evil. Also, I believe that was a common idea at the time, held by many countries and many people for many years.

Quote:

---

It is wrong to simply say Imperialism is wrong and bad and evil. Also, I believe that was a common idea at the time, held by many countries and many people for many years.

---

Yep , a common widely held idea at the time , like divine right , serfdom , slavery ,womens having no brains etc etc........
Of course it is wrong to believe that widely held views from the past are of a certain testicular variety .:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

Surely you have seen the Imperialist Club I-III threads.
But that's by the by. Aenlic suggested Imperialism is enough to discount something someone says. It is wrong to simply say Imperialism is wrong and bad and evil. Also, I believe that was a common idea at the time, held by many countries and many people for many years.

---

What is with this trend lately of putting words in other people's mouths?

I said:

Quote:

---

Kipling was a racist and an imperialist

---

How do you get from there to the following?

Quote:

---

Aenlic suggested imperialism is enough to discount something someone says

---

I suggested no such thing. You mentioned White Man's Burden, which is both racist and imperialist, as was Kipling. I made no representation one way or the other regarding anything beyond that.

I will, however, suggest that a basic inability to get the above distinction might very well be enough to make someone a candidate for discounting what they have to say. Are you standing for that post, Malcolm? :wink:

Also, just because something was a commonly held idea doesn't make it right. I suppose you think slavery, human sacrifice and other things are just fine because they were also once held to be acceptable practices? :inquisitive:

I'll second what Banquo's Ghost said, how does it feel, being the staunch imperialist that you are, to presently be a vassal state in the great American Hegemony espoused by the neocons who pretty much run the Bush administration? (PNAC Statement of Principles - pay particular attention to the names at the bottom and see if you can count how many of them are now in or have recently (:wink) been in power in the Bush administration)

And I'll echo Tribesman's thought and ask if you're a Campbell. I have Cameron blood, myself. Perhaps that the problem. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

I suggested no such thing. You mentioned White Man's Burden, which is both racist and imperialist, as was Kipling. I made no representation one way or the other regarding anything beyond that.

---

Dear God! I mentioned the poem because it is speaks about the US taking the Philippines. In fact it suggests the same thing you do. I was merely suggesting that what you said is nothing new.

Quote:

---

And I'll echo Tribesman's thought and ask if you're a Campbell. I have Cameron blood, myself. Perhaps that the problem. :grin:

---

No, my name is a part of the Clan MacDonald.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

Dear God! I mentioned the poem because it is speaks about the US taking the Philippines. In fact it suggests the same thing you do. I was merely suggesting that what you said is nothing new.


No, my name is a part of the Clan MacDonald.

---

Malcolm! You need to lighten up! I am just jerking your chain. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Malcolm! You need to lighten up! I am just jerking your chain. :wink:

---

This foruming business is hard work...

This is true. But it's fun and can be either mind-numbing or intellectually stimulating depending on which you prefer at any given moment. I find it relaxing right before bed and yet also stimulating in the morning to get my mental juices flowing. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

No, it is not $1 indicated with my middle finger, its $1.54 million as suggested by economics professor Orley Ashenfelter. That number can change depending on education, training both civilian and military but without knowing much more about you that’s it bud, $1.54 million, there’s a big difference between that and 400 billion, no?

---

You can't say the 400 billion spent competes with the 3000 dead, they are costs in the same column. The money has to be compared to the numbers that survive because of it... so if the money spent has saved 260,000 lives then you are economically ahead of the game. Same with the 3000 dead, if their deaths have meant that overall greater then 3000 others survive then if they had not died then again economically ahead of the game. Problem is that the 3000 dead are likely to be younger, more fertile and possibly greater long term economic activity then the average population.

Ok, I like to add something else here

What don't People Understand? Don't anyone who disargee with the War, on and off this Thread/board actually sit down and Think? People, do you know Why the US is sick of the Iraq War?

"because we tossing money away, we losing troops, and we not helping Iraq at all,only making it worse"

Mainly the 2nd one. If you was fighting a Guerilla War against the US, who invade your homeland, what would you do to make sure they fall back sooner or later? Kill their troops, and make them stay as long as possible. Why? They Send more troops, and waste more money on the war = Americans and rest of the world getting sick of it. We can't go into Iraq with these Stupid people Like GW and them, who didn't have a plan. IF we had a PLAN, we would be WINNING. Seems like they don't know how to Run a Army. Plus, people like Yesdachi who think money is more important doesn't help Ethier. I would like Yesdachi and Bush and them to go to Iraq, and see how it is..

You can all decry Yesdachi's insensitivity all you want, but I don't think it's disrespectful at all to moan about flushing 400 billion $ down the toilet. :shame:

That's the amount of money 260 000 Americans generate in the course of their entiry productive live. Or, at forty years of productive live, what 10 000 000 Americans produce in one year. What 3 500 000 Americans produce annually.

To put it differently, the productive effort of 3 500 000 working Americans is wasted every day on Iraq. Nice thought to keep in mind when your alarm goes off tomorrow morning and you're off to work...

Quote:

---

Still having problems with reading comprehension, I see.

At no point did I claim that the US won WWII alone. Is the weather nice on your planet? It's been the usual here on Earth.

---

Hmm.

Quote:

---

So, what have we done in those days which have now surpassed the days we were in WWII? What have we accomplished with those days? In the same period of time, with a military 60 years behind where we are now, we utterly defeated two of the biggest militaries in the world. We won a world war in that time frame. And in a now longer period, look what we've accomplished (or not) in Iraq. That was the point behind the comparison.

---

We did not win a world war. We were in a coalition that won a world war, and in fact our contribution of lives in ratio to our population was the lowest of all the major allied nations. Or are you trying to act as if you changed your use of "we" from refering to americans only to refering to the USA, UK, and USSR just for that post?

That little excerpt is just an example of what you have been trying to do throughout this thread; which is to distort and exagerate facts to fit an agenda of making the situation in Iraq seem worse than it truly is. (Which is completely unneccessary, the truth of the situation is bad enough.)

By the way, despite your statement:

Quote:

---

Simply saying the thread has no point other than pushing an agenda is rather vapid. This is the backroom. Of course the thread has an agenda.

---

I find that the best posters on this forum do not create threads with obvious agendas, instead focusing on topics that generate real discussion, not an exchange of talking points.

According to Bush there's a coalition in Iraq. It includes the Brits and the Polish and the Italians and used to include the Japanese. And last time I checked, "we" was a plural pronoun. You're assuming that we means only the U.S. and thus the reading comprehension question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles

I find that the best posters on this forum do not create threads with obvious agendas, instead focusing on topics that generate real discussion, not an exchange of talking points.

---

Indeed. And no one is forcing you to post in this thread or even read it. And you might also note that I made an initial post which took no stance one way or the other and then asked for opinions. I didn't jump back in until after 16 other posts in the thread.

Perhaps you think that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

During WWII, U.S. forces were officially at war for 1247 days. Today marks the 1248th day that U.S. forces have been at war in Iraq. Is that good or bad?

---

is biased in some way? That says more about your bias than about anyone else's bias, doesn't it?

No one can stop you from making a complete fool of yourself, Poodles; but feel free to continue posting in the thread attacking the thread itself without actually posting anything of interest on the topic. :smile: