How much are the deaths of over 6000 soldiers to you?

reply to post by David9176


The deaths of all these soldiers, and all these civilians, matter very much to me.

War is a horrible thing, backed by evil forces, and as long as this world commits war we are heading for our downfall.

It is ridiculous that humans keep fighting other humans when we should be trying to save our planet.

If I was in a UFO, I would steer well clear of this planet, because as soon as I landed some idiot would either kill me or force me into a war.

reply to post by NatureBoy


Read that already. I'm taking that to mean that you don't actually have proof since you've resorted to repeating yourself. Especially in light of the fact that you continue to ignore that not every soldier has been in a fire-fight and that many of those innocent people have been killed by insurgents not our military.

reply to post by Jenna


i repeated myself because i already answered that... EVERYONE in the ARMY is responsable for all deaths... if i slashed the army budget 99% and only left those people who actually fire guns then the army would be ruined right? it would have 0 combat effectiveness, everyone in the millitary industrial complex is responsable for the theft and muder they commit.

you know what a RICO charge is? they use it to bust big drug gangs and mobsters, anyone involved in a criminal enterprise is guilty of the crimes they help to commit -even mafia doctors, lawyers and chaplins - i'm just using the same logic.

oh and to reiterate the other point as well, the freedom fighters of afghan and iraq wouldn't need to plant IED's if we hadn't invaded them! Of course the region has been in turmoil since before last century began - we've been in and out of those oil fields more times than you can count.

As for 911, you realise of course that most the suspected hyjackers came from saudi-arabia, that lovely little kingdom we're such good friends with? that house of saud we in the west put in power and have used to subjugate the arab people ever since? THEY are on our side money wise so of course we didn't need to pay them a visit, saddam however wanted to switch from petroDOLLAR to the emerging EURO market - thus the petro dollar would have been in a peralous position and american fiscal dominance might have been jepodized... thus we load up some ships with idiots and go regium change to someone more on side (oh and yes, they're back tradeing in petro dollars for now, china and russia won't be able to get a fair deal on oil trading for a while yet so well done)

The reason osama gave for the 911 attacks was that international world trade as controlled by opulent western powers was a force of evil sucking the life and wealth from the arab lands - it was a RETALIATION against western economic imperialism. I abhore the use of terrorist tactics, certainly if innocent people are killed but i'm not a closeminded fool so i understand how they justify it - it's no better than how we justify OUR terrorist acts in arab lands.

Had we rather than waste billions on a futile war (and ruin our economy along the way) invested in updating out infrastructure and society to move away from a hydrocarbon based energy solution into a more sustainable one which was based on efficent use of localy generated green (solar, wind, hydro, tidal, etc) or brown (wood, ethonol, etc) power (not black power which is coal, oil, etc) while switching to modern production methods, localised dsitribution and efficent living and industrial practices (working from home rarher than the office, repair not replace, etc) then we could have reduced our need for oil to a degree at which local oil supplies would be sufficant to supply the need.

Not being reliant on arab oil we could then impose propper sanctions on people like saddam, iran, etc and maybe we could convince them to update their business practive and social systems too. The real plus would be that the cold war between russia would actually be over for real this time, the brewing cold war with china would be nipped in the bud before it starts and the currently friendly and productive trade relations could be maintained, the great powers of the world working together could easily police the rest of the world (i know this is evil but our safety must come first, well second to human right but you know what i mean ) -- This would create a world in which every move any nation makes isn't bound by the tangled web of petrochemical dependency, thus much of the back stabbing and real politk would fade away, rather than as with the current situation of constant war esculate every day into a tighter and tighter noose which is chokeing the world.

Of course there are two main reasons this hasn't and might never happen... #1 the people like you in this world who believe in maintaing the status quo no matter what.
#2 those who should know better, the government and industry heads who are enjoying being on the top of the heap and make vast amounts of money from the system as it is - they do NOT want to rock the boat.

I think i've provided more than enough of an argument for you now, i haven't even dropped a propper ad hom in for the last few posts - will you PLEASE offer me some counter argument now? i'm very interested to know how you feel the invasion of iraq and later afghan was justifyable -both on a moral and economic standpoint.



[edit on 26-9-2009 by NatureBoy]

Maybe I am a naive Brit.

I thought war was protecting ones country against probable invasion, there was no WMS in Iraq more people have died since Sadam lost poer and as for the training camps in Afghanistan, well blow me down they are trainig people in 14 other countries.

We should care about each and every life lost in this futile Afghanistan problem which will turn out to be another Vietnam.

Donovan summed it up

www.youtube.com...

My thought as well,

people who die are no importance to you unless they are a friend or family.

reply to post by NatureBoy


I asked for proof that every soldier has personally killed innocent civilians. You have not provided that. Claim you have all you like, I've seen no proof.

The logic you're using isn't very logical. By your standards if someone dies in surgery at a hospital every person who works in that hospital is responsible, after all if there wasn't any support personnel then that surgeon couldn't have been performing surgery. If someone dies in a car accident due to faulty brakes everyone in the automotive industry is responsible, after all if they wasn't an automotive industry there wouldn't have been a car with faulty brakes to begin with. Point being not everyone who works at a hospital or in the automotive industry is responsible if someone dies, and neither is every soldier responsible for the civilians that have been killed.

I suppose you consider suicide bombers and car bombs that have been targeted at civilians in local markets to be justified as well? Hate the military if you like, doesn't make a bit of difference to me. But to claim that the only reason civilians are dying is because of our military is frankly quite laughable. Do a bit of research on who exactly those bombs in market places are targeted at and who is doing the targeting and then try to tell me that our troops are solely responsible.

As I told a previous poster, had you read my posts in this thread you would know my thoughts already on both Afghanistan and Iraq. Invasion I disagree with, going after the SOB's responsible I fully support.

Originally posted by David9176
I keep seeing all the attacks on spending...which to me is justifiable as I'm against the insane government debt we have accumulated.

BUT....

You cannot be against the debt and PRO-WAR as it is a huge part of our debt...not to mention DEATH.

So let me ask you this...

How much are the deaths of 6000+plus soldiers the last 8 years to you? Was the cost worth it? What about the innocent people that have died? What about the innocent children that have died? Were the 6000 plus soldiers a good trade off for the 3000 that died in the world trade centers? What is a justifiable cost for you in that regard? Against abortion? How can you be against abortion if you are FOR DEATH?

Yet again...the same applies for the opposite...

How can you be AGAINST the war and FOR Abortion.....you support death your you don't....

Why are people so hypocritical in this regard?


Anyway...as my topic states....

How much are the deaths of 6000 soldiers to you?

I know what the answer to this question is. I know that some will try to justify one over the other.

Justify it.

(this comes from a post in another topic...decided to make it a thread)

[edit on 25-9-2009 by David9176]

How does abortion in anyway compare to a soldier's death in a war? Being anti-war and pro-abortion isn't hypocritical at all.... I'm not pro-war, but this is a logical fallacy.... For one, can you really call what looks like a clump of gum life? It has no feelings, it feels no pain, it has no thoughts.... It is simply in the early stages of development... I am for abortion in the first few months of pregnancy.... Anything after that can be debated....

The deaths of 6,000 US soldiers is of little or no consequence in the face of the misery and death that they are spreading under the false guise of bringing freedom and democracy.

Perhaps they are killing innocent people because they truly believe that the US is helping - I don't know how they can be there, and still believe it.

It would be nice if every single American soldier was killed off - then the world would be a much better place - however, it would be far, far better if all those soldiers woke up and realized they are tools of the death merchants, of the controllers, of the scum - and that it is those who order them that are evil - not the innocents, and patriots of the countries they are aggressively invading.

It would be salvation of the entire world if the US soldiers threw off the shackles and turned on the real enemy, the controllers of the western governments - and destroyed them. Then they would indeed be heroes, not villains - and their deaths would be a tragedy, and have meaning.

reply to post by Jenna


Hi. Wanted to apologize and say we can just agree to disagree. I'm an opinionated jerk but not that big of an opinionated jerk. Have a good weekend.

Originally posted by Amagnon
It would be nice if every single American soldier was killed off

Wishing death on people you don't even know? I can't imagine being so hateful and self-righteous as to wish death on a group of people simply because they belong to a certain group.

In the interest of not breaking the T&C's I'll keep the rest of my opinions to myself.


reply to post by concernedcitizan


Sounds like a plan to me, and one that I can agree with.

For what it's worth I don't think of you as a jerk.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Jenna]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Yeah whatever walkerfox, your opinion is what most I think most would consider,,

"unique" and how you interpret that is up to the reader.

Originally posted by Amagnon
The deaths of 6,000 US soldiers is of little or no consequence in the face of the misery and death that they are spreading under the false guise of bringing freedom and democracy.

Perhaps they are killing innocent people because they truly believe that the US is helping - I don't know how they can be there, and still believe it.

It would be nice if every single American soldier was killed off - then the world would be a much better place - however, it would be far, far better if all those soldiers woke up and realized they are tools of the death merchants, of the controllers, of the scum - and that it is those who order them that are evil - not the innocents, and patriots of the countries they are aggressively invading.

It would be salvation of the entire world if the US soldiers threw off the shackles and turned on the real enemy, the controllers of the western governments - and destroyed them. Then they would indeed be heroes, not villains - and their deaths would be a tragedy, and have meaning.

As someone who has served and still has friends serving, I think I have met the enemy, and it is ignorance.

YOURS!

Originally posted by AlexG141989

How does abortion in anyway compare to a soldier's death in a war? Being anti-war and pro-abortion isn't hypocritical at all.... I'm not pro-war, but this is a logical fallacy.... For one, can you really call what looks like a clump of gum life? It has no feelings, it feels no pain, it has no thoughts.... It is simply in the early stages of development... I am for abortion in the first few months of pregnancy.... Anything after that can be debated....

Was it david that said this or alex?, From outer space, earth looks like an insignificant dot but their are many living things on it that would have you know they are more than significant.

That justifying the killing of any INNOCENT person not guilty of a capital crime is not what we are about. Calling that person a "it" or "clump" whatever the needed word to distance yourself from the fact that the yare a human being with every right to have a shot at life without someone deciding they don't because they still look like a clump of gum, as YOUR mother gave you.

That pain registers have been hooked up to babies just 2 and half weeks into the fetal stages of life and have been measured against pain levels of various kinds of torture. babies going through saline abortions measured no differen't than someone pouring sulpheric acid all over your naked body doused you in gasoline and set you on fire.

Those things you said aren't reason, to do it, they are excuses to get away with it and without guilt.

Soldiers make an informed decision to fight knowing they may die.

Not even close to the same thing.



[edit on 26-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by YourForever
I'm amazed you let this one slip out. There is no existing difference, only the lines drawn up in your mind. I knew there was something wrong with you when you were talking about avenging 9/11 victims. Whatever makes you feel proud and sleep at night...

There is a difference and if you can't see it, sucks to be you.

And I sleep well each and every night.

Originally posted by Amagnon
It would be nice if every single American soldier was killed off - then the world would be a much better place -

I love ATS. If I had posted that I hoped every anti-war protester and hippie were killed off, I'd be banned. It's OK to say that it would be nice that every US Soldier would be killed off.





[edit on 26-9-2009 by jerico65]

reply to post by Jenna


No because the task of a hospital is to SAVE lives, they never once try to purposely take a life - Car's are for getting people from A to B no one sells a car designed to do extra damage when you run someone down, rather they add in as many saftey fetures as possible in an attempt to SAVE lives.

The army is single purpose thing, they kill people. The army don't buy all thos big rockets and bombs to help the afghans with their farming.

You've been argueing this stupid point long enough now, what would it matter if i just conseded it? (i won't and dont /btw) - - - What does it change?

Those people weather their hands have blood on them or not - they are part of an invading force.

wanna see some quick statistics about the middle east conflict?

US service men killed by Iraq or Afghan's in the united states - 0%
US service men killed on boats in american / international waters - 0%
US service men killed in the middle east - 100%

Kinda clear cut isn't it? The people who died are part of a force trying to invade someone elses nation - thus they died because the defenders managed to defend. WELL DONE DEFENDERS. GOOD GUYS WIN.

I know this hurts you to hear, i'm sure it hurt the national pride of many Germans when people said that hitler was bad for example. We need to face upto the fact that we aren't always the good guys, sorry.

justified

Did i say i thought any killing was justified? no i didn't, i said i know how #they# justify such things to themselves and its with the same stupid abhorrant logic that you are using to justify US killing THEM.... gettit?

========

Right let's draw a line, lets say that all the silly childish arguments about semantics and wordplay are over - rather than prove some loop hole in linquistic logic lets actually debate the issues - i'm sure most army people would be just as shocked to hear you say the signals aren't a vital part of the invasion as they would be to hear me say i couldn't careless, nay am pleased, when they die.

Lets try and debate some imporrant and weighty issues?

1.we shouldn't be there.
2.we shouldn't be there.
3.we shouldn't be there.

Would you respect and honor the men and women of the britsih army if on a whim prince charles was to decide to retake the empire and they landed in maryland guns blazing? No, of course not - you would side with the freedom fighters, as most people on the planet would do, even many english people i'm sure. --- How then can you still maintain that our troops in iraq and afghan deserve anything but defeat?!?

I would be interested in hearing after i've expounded at length the real reasons for the conflict how you can still justify invasion, if to 'get dem dat dun it' is really the best you can come up with then how about explained who did what and how destabalizing an entire global region, alieanating and angering the population is going to either get 'vengance' or further the stated aim of making the world safer... indeed it seems that this is the total opposit of what it's likely to do and what indeed it has done so far.

reply to post by jerico65

Are 6000 dead worth the 3000 lost in the WTC? A friend of mine told me this:

"It doesn't matter where I was on that day.

It matters where I have been since that day and where I am now.

Have not forgotten, am not forgiving.

When I crumpled my first Muj, I told the guy next to me 'two thousand nine hundred and seventy five'.

I will stop when my number reaches zero. I still got a long way to go....."

can anyone show my any possible way of reading this that isn't tottally amoral?

i dunno but i guess muj is short for mujahadeen? the terrorist fighting force which was funded, trained and armed by the west to fight the russians in one of the many proxy wars fought during the coldwar and whixh helped to destabalize the region and cause the situation we see today? or is it just a more pc way of saying towlhead, sand#igger, etc and just another racist term for arabic people living in the middle east? -which would be worse im not entirely sure.

If my brother went psychotic and killed two of your family - does that mean I who was uninvolved should die so you can have vengance? (apparently not if it's true that the american service personal who don't fire guns are totally innocent of the crimes and killings (weather you deem them legal or not) commited by those who do.....)

I don't even really know how to argue against something so out and out evil, all i can say is i hope that this egotistical show of bravardo is nothing more than the flapping gums of someone carried away in talking tough and not the actual thought out and held belief of anyone.... i've been kind enough to rationalize and debate my seemingly abhorant (but actually morally justified) statement i started with, i hope you will either consider the implications of what you've said and retract it OR offer a well reasoned and complete defence of your gastly hatespeech.

reply to post by David9176


6,000 deaths + 35,000 wounded divided by $1 Trillion dollars conservatively is

the value and money that the war machine has already spent on the wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan to date.


War is extremely profitable for those corporations who develop the war

machine of weapons and arsenals of destructive weapons. No price can be

put on 6,000 human lives lost with each soldier having an eternal soul.


Men create wars in the stuffy smoke filled back rooms behind the scenes as

though they are playing a game of chess and the warriors being their pawns.

The money flows into the pockets of those who control and profit from wars

and when the money runs out and that is soon approaching the wars stop

until the country with the most money on this Earth starts the next war. ^Y^


[edit on 27-9-2009 by amari]

reply to post by jerico65


why don't you rather than smugly smerk that you know the secret answer which proves us wrong actually hit a few more keys and enlighten us?!? That's why we came here, i didn't bother writing a full and frank set of arguments just to have someone giggle and say, oh no actually i know better -just take my word for it because i'm telling you how great i am so i must be right.

Ever here the words DENY IGNORANCE? it's sorta a motto around thsse parts, people flock to this sight to read and participate in the frank and open sharing, debating and contesting of ideas - just telling us you have the magicly correct answer but not sharing it is an insult to everyone here, including yourself.

reply to post by NatureBoy


I haven't been arguing a point. I've been asking for proof that every single soldier is responsible for the deaths of innocent people. Something you've yet to actually provide though you are still acting like you have. It's ok though, I know you can't provide proof of your claim simply because it doesn't exist.

You say every single one is responsible for the deaths of innocent people, but fail to consider the fact that the military is only able to function due to tax-payer funding. So if every soldier is guilty by association, then the tax-payers are also guilty for funding the military. If there was no funding there could be no military. You are funding the military, assuming you pay your taxes. Does that make you guilty as well?

You are correct that people working in hospitals try to save lives, but so do military doctors and medical support personnel. Apparently their attempts to save lives mean nothing though since they are guilty by association.

Did i say i thought any killing was justified?

Umm, yes.

if they signed up to fight then i'm glad they're dead.

If you are willing to sign up to fight to protect anglo-american dominance of the middle eastern oil pipelines just because you're unwilling to educate yourself and do something worthwhile then quiet frankly the world is better off without those people.

Well done for guessing i've never been in the army, did u get that from when i said anyone stupid enough to join the army deserves to die?

How can i possibly rationalize this? simple, they are willing to kill or be involved in the killing of innocent people

i couldn't careless, nay am pleased, when they die.

If you think they deserve to die simply for being in the military, then you think all their deaths are justified.

What I find really interesting though is this:

If my brother went psychotic and killed two of your family - does that mean I who was uninvolved should die so you can have vengance?

So if your brother kills innocent people, you being uninvolved in those killings are innocent. But if a soldier kills an innocent person, another soldier being uninvolved in that killing is guilty anyway. This is why your logic makes no sense.