Originally posted by Raskolnikov
175,000 killed in the 9/11 hijackings? Try around 3,000. Your number is 58 times too large. So who is it that's buying propoganda now? (PS: it was 19 hijackers on the planes, not 13).

Haha. Yeah I guess I did make a mistake, and not to make excuses but I wrote that at 3 am in the morning. I was wrong but the numbers isn’t the point I am trying to make. The point is the ratio of dead from each side, 3000 to 19 is still something you can not ignore. BTW I didn’t get that from propaganda, so you can’t say I’m buying anything. Sorry my bad on the numbers.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Sorry, but when I make a point, it's backed up by multiple sources; you're spewing a lot of exadurations (this is a prime example), and a great deal of information that is simply out of context.

That’s great you cleared that up after I stated that in the post before. I know your posts are taken from what you hear in the news, I don’t disagree. I, on the other hand, don’t believe everything I hear. So what I’m saying might be exaggerations to most, but before you take action you should always look at the consequences also. Especially in war, and those my friend are NOT IN THE NEWS!! I’m thinking not just listening. This is what I see coming out of this military aggression on Iraq. In all fairness, everything that you have posted supporting war only shows the positive side of going to war. This so clearly shows pride or ignorance. Is it that our government thinks their is no negative side to war? And there is no way we can lose or make things worse?? Now of course they’re not going to show the negatives to the public, because they are trying to get support from the people. This is all the more reason not to believe everything, or I should say not to strictly believe everything. “oh yeah we’re going to bomb bagdad, throw Saddam out of power, and turn their government in a democracy, it’s just that easy”. YEAH RIGHT!!!! You can believe that if you want, but I am open to more possibilities. I am not making my theory based on what the news says, I am aware of that. I’m just trying to show you that that there are others things that could happen besides such an easy and perfect victory. Everything I say is taken from what is actually going on and how the enemy is responding to what is going on. They’re actions in the past, and what their tactics and resources are now. If your going to try to rebut what I am saying give me a solid reason why such things can not happen. You know why you can’t?? Cause anything can happen in War, and that should always be taken into consideration before you start one.

What is out of context?? Is it my examples?? I put examples to show the results from similar incidents in the past, so you can see their potential effectiveness now. I only use incidents that are clear possibilities of this war. Kamikazes, well they may be called suicide bombers now. I am illustrating the similarities and effectiveness of such attacks which are a type of military attack in the middle east today. If it is my views of the future, if war broke out. Yeah, these are my theories based on play by play after an attack. Based souly on the conditions and views of the middle east, along with pretty much everyone involved. So how am I out of context???

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Now, as to the Kamikaze attacks; Initially effective because they came completely as a suprise, but ultimately became inconsequential as 1). it wasn't a suprise any more and so were shot down a lot more easily, and 2). the quality of pilots trying to make Kamikaze attacks deteriorated rapidly, again making them much easier to shoot down before they could attack their targets. As a specific example, in the battle of Leyte Gulf - the first mass Kamikaze attack of the war - only five ships were sunk. Considering the US fleet consisted of several hundred ships at this point in the war, trying to say Kamikaze attacks sunk anything resembling "most" of the Pacific Fleet is totally innacurate.

I know about the kamikaze pilots, but I don’t think they failed if you look at it‘s effectiveness. Yeah we were able to shoot down the majority of them and invade Japan, but when you ratio the numbers. Around a few hundred kamikazes died while nearly a thousand marines and navy men died (56 ships). That’s a pretty lob sided victory in terms of casualties. We can’t claim victory by saying that we shot those pilots down, cause they were planning on dying anyways. Our victory relied on the fact that there were so few kamikazes in WWII, there just wasn’t enough to be victorious. But now we are facing many more, and much more devious ways of carrying out a suicidal attack.

I can not believe you are discounting this, considering the amount of attacks from these people in these ways. This is how these guys fight, so unless you can point out a way to stop it (when no one else can). I think you should take this into consideration cause as of right now there is not much of a defense or offense for something like this.

But let me take the fact that after 9/11, we placed maximum security in airports. Once war starts, security will go down to minimum again. So I guess it’s more important to fight a war over in Iraq than to protect our own people here in America.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
I also fail to understand how Iraqi refugees living in the US who left to escape Saddam and still talk to relatives in Iraq are more prone to propoganda than the rest of us who've never even been there.

Frankly, it would be the same if an American left the US to live in Jamaica. Then told everyone how he hated the area he lived in, and he likes Jamaica much better. There are a lot of people who complain about their situations, and once they get away, they tell you how horrible it was. Take a job you once had and hated. It’s not much different, except the conditions of course we’re much worse for Iraq. I’m not saying Iraq is a paradise. But if you are talking to a friend about jobs and his worst job came up, he’s sure as heck is not going to tell you the good points. It’s the same if a news reporter asking a Iraqi about Iraq, and of course he’s going to talk about the bad conditions. Guess what, since we’re trying to go to war with Iraq. What part of the story is going to be played on the news. This is just another way for the government to gain support. The period after war became an option, everything on the news was mostly anti-war related, now it’s mostly everything supporting war. Even when the reasons for us enforcing war are being settled or have been settled. You don’t hear much about the first reasons for war, I wonder why?? Now it’s just propaganda about how messed up Iraq is. To me it’s a weak and feeble attempt for support of war.

The bottom line is war with Iraq is unnecessary. We have many more problems to deal with than a piece of crap like Saddam. I ask anyone who supports war, why can’t our government swallow it’s pride (and Bush’s revenge for his father) and focus it’s concerns on the American people?? Saddam is not a threat, he can talk all he wants but the UN is not planning on lifting the sanctions that keep him strung like a puppet. So why is it so necessary to go to war with Iraq??

War is what Saddam wants. It’s the only way he can get free from the sanctions of the UN. Right now he can not make weapons or at least use them and expect victory, but if he is attacked the UN can not keep him from defending himself. The UN has stated this when Bush first showed signs of aggression towards Iraq. So please, let us fall right into whatever trap Saddam has planned for the world. If you’re looking for reinsurance in the Gulf War. I’m pretty sure Saddam knows that too and if he’s half as intelligent as the we say he is, he knows not to insinuate a war which he thinks he can not win.

I will support war if the Un lifts it sanctions or if Saddam attacks. That’s pretty much it, but I leave myself open to unforeseen possibilities.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Fist off, the "ignorant" nation of Iraq sports a 70% litteracy rate. Second, expatriated Iraqis (even those who don't agree with war) and people who've been in Iraq recently and have been able to talk to Iraqis out of sight of government officials consistantly report that there is virtually no loyalty to Saddam outside of the Ba'ath party and the Republican Guard. That means mass defections of soldiers and quite possibly an uprising of the people just as soon as they know help is coming. I might be wrong, but I think the average Iraqi takes Saddam's propoganda about as seriously as I take the "Pot = Terrorism" advertisements on the TV here in the US.

Take this statistic closer to home. US citizens who are often illiterate are often most adapt to being street smart. This is a different intelligence, you can not rate all intelligence on the fact of reading. Humans have been on this planet for 3 million yrs, yet reading and writing in only 3000 yrs old. Our survival is based on the ability to adapt in the environment, in fact all creatures are. I’m sure these Iraqis are well able to adapt better in Iraq than any American who went to college for 8 yrs.

Now take the idea of no Loyalty toward Saddam and relate it to criminals in the United States. If a criminal is arrested with association to a much bigger criminal, and is also threatened or maybe not. Either way, do you think that the smaller criminal is going to admit he was involved with the bigger criminal? I highly doubt it in either situation. You can’t trust these people, even if they are friendly. It’s war and as far as we know these guys are enemies. If an Iraq guy came up to a soldier, and the soldier thought he was alright and asked him if he was one of Saddam’s men. Now if the man says “no”, would you invite him to check out our military facilities?? I hope not, for this sort of scenario would be like taken a cobra into a nursery.

About the “pot = terrorism“, that’s our governments propaganda to try to get the public to stop smoking weed, right?? Yet you still base your beliefs on these events by the same propaganda, written by our government to get support for a war?? Sounds kind of funny. Our government also does the same thing as Saddam to get support, believe it or not.

On the second and third paragraph on your latest post, I would have to agree for the most part. Saddam is most definitely still producing weapons, I will not contest to this. But as the UN stands, if he was to use any of those weapons on another country. The UN would crush him in a second. It wouldn’t just a be a coalition of the US and other supporters, but the entire UN attacking him in retaliation. This is a far worse outcome for Saddam than if we were to attack him first, and splitting the UN in half. By the way, most the of UN is against the war so most of the nations would be against us. Our part of the treaty says we will not attack Iraq just as much as Iraq says they can’t use weapons of mass destruction. It really is a game of who will break the rules first. However, letting the UN continue to keeps this threat supervised leaves us with a stalemate. Having the US attack first just lets the whole thing go. Nations against nations will be the outcome. I don’t know how to put this in any other way.

My response to the documentation you quoted. I only believe half of it and there are many reasons. One is why did this guy become a traitor?? You should never trust a traitor, even if it’s in your own benefit. They’re are very unloyal and they have less dignity. They could easily be betraying us just as they betrayed Saddam, or he could be a spy dressed in the disguise of loyalty towards us. He said a lot of things that suggests insincerity.

Taken what he said into account, I would say and have believed since 98 that the inspection should be much more strict. He is getting away with a lot, and as the inspection process declines. He will get away with more, which is just as worse as going to war. Our focus on this situation should be to this end, not war because Bush doesn’t get what he wants. Playing the game like this would also let us concentrate on other problems facing our nation.