Is the Iraq war just a modern day crusade ?

[Damocles]

Damo a matter of semantics. We send our kids to Iraq knowing they have a chance of dying, so we do send some to die. Just the facts, ignoring the end result does not change things.

Is it time for you to bring up how many die on the roads here at home now ?

No, I am being clear. We send them to fight, not to die. They send them to die to fight. It is more than semantics, it is reality.

When 3K have died in this war, compared to how many suicide bombs have gone off you just begin to scratch the difference.

It is a directed imperative that you stress we do "the same as they do". We do not. Mostly because we do not have to.

 

[uscitizen]

Those that we are battling often do. You keep making these silly remarks.

You stated we sent our kids there to die. I have shown that we do not. We don't say, "Go and die for our glory." They often do. Pretending that it is the same is pretense only and not based in reality.

If it was the same, many more of our kids would be dead because it would actually be their job to die.

So, once again. USCit, when was the last time we actually literally sent a kid to die in a war? Yes, we send them to fight knowing their chances of dying are high, but we have never, as far as I know, sent in our kids to commit suicide for the better glory of us or our religion.

We actually had many "suicide" missions in WW2. Where you were not expected to come back.

 

[Damocles]

We actually had many "suicide" missions in WW2. Where you were not expected to come back.

There is a difference between saying, go there, blow yourself up. And, we have an extremely dangerous mission that you can volunteer for.

Once again, those people were not directed to kill themselves. In fact they were expected to try to live.

 

[uscitizen]

Damo, everytime we sent troops into battle we know we are sending some to their deaths, many time we knew most of them would not come back, we just don't know which ones. Also those muslim children probably volunteered anyway. Perhaps we killed their mother and father or something and their hatrred swept over their reason and love of life ?

 

[Damocles]

Damo, everytime we sent troops into battle we know we are sending some to their deaths, many time we knew most of them would not come back, we just don't know which ones. Also those muslim children probably volunteered anyway. Perhaps we killed their mother and father or something and their hatrred swept over their reason and love of life ?

Yet we do not send them with the directive to die. There is a difference, a large one. We expect them to work to survive while we know some will not be successful.

We do not send them in with the order to die.

Just as we send people into surgery knowing some will die. We aren't "sending them to their deaths" we expect them to fight to survive.

It is not the same thing, it is more than semantics and pretending that it is exactly the same thing is simply working in a desperate attempt to make everything equal. Not everything is.

 

[uscitizen]

Agreed on you point except in a few cases, where we do not expcet any to come back.
My main point is that the end result is pretty much the same.
And I can understand why some muslim children have no problem commiting suicide to fight the "evil USA". can't say I would be much different if I were in their shoes. just a sucky situation, that Bush caused.

I conceed to your point of not or very seldom sending them to die, now will you discuss my other points ?

 

[Damocles]

Agreed on you point except in a few cases, where we do not expcet any to come back.
My main point is that the end result is pretty much the same.
And I can understand why some muslim children have no problem commiting suicide to fight the "evil USA". can't say I would be much different if I were in their shoes. just a sucky situation, that Bush caused.

I conceed to your point of not or very seldom sending them to die, now will you discuss my other points ?

As I said before, it is a sign of desperation and another indication of the downfall of the muslim civilization from a world power that the christians were attempting to get back at, to desperate kids as weapons.

 

[Cancel7]

Agreed on you point except in a few cases, where we do not expcet any to come back.
My main point is that the end result is pretty much the same.
And I can understand why some muslim children have no problem commiting suicide to fight the "evil USA". can't say I would be much different if I were in their shoes. just a sucky situation, that Bush caused.

I conceed to your point of not or very seldom sending them to die, now will you discuss my other points ?

I agree. Dead is dead.

 

[uscitizen]

As I said before, it is a sign of desperation and another indication of the downfall of the muslim civilization from a world power that the christians were attempting to get back at, to desperate kids as weapons.

I view the Iraq debacle as a downfall of western Christianity as well for supporting it.

 

[Damocles]

I view the Iraq debacle as a downfall of western Christianity as well for supporting it.

Whatever, most Americans are christians, and most do not support it.

Another large difference is what I pointed out earlier. The Church is not out there promising you paradise if you fight and die in the Crusade. The church has little or nothing to do with it. The Catholic church came out 100% against it before it began, the Anglicans are against it. So forth.

That a portion that you don't like are "for" it, doesn't make it all of christendom fighting against those "heathens" for the sake of getting to paradise.

 

[Damocles]

I agree. Dead is dead.

Right, dead is dead...

So, the man who murders a baby should get nothing, because heck that baby could have died in a car accident, or been aborted and "dead is dead". Since there is no difference in HOW the death happened there can be no way to punish those for doing something "wrong".

"dead is dead" is simplistic. How and what one is doing is important to the person as well as to others. We don't send kids there "to die" we send them there to "fight" and that is a major difference with Grand Canyon size of a difference.

If we sent them there "to die" so far there would be over 300K AMERICAN deaths. Since we send them there to fight there have on ly been 3k to 4k or so... Just that in itself should tell you the immensity of the difference.

 

[Cancel7]

Right, dead is dead...

So, the man who murders a baby should get nothing, because heck that baby could have died in a car accident, or been aborted.

"dead is dead" is simplistic. How and what one is doing is important to the person as well as to others. We don't send kids there "to die" we send them there to "fight" and that is a major difference with Grand Canyon size of a difference.

If we sent them there "to die" so far there would be over 300K AMERICAN deaths. Since we send them there to fight there have on ly been 3k to 4k or so... Just that in itself should tell you the immensity of the difference.

We send them there, with full knowledge that some of them will die. We are in the position to send hundreds of thousands of "them" anywhere, so we can take the comfort that we need not send any one particular individual to die. Other countries, or factions, are not in the same position. They do not have hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

I see the end result being the same, and the motives as the same as well. The only difference lies in resources.

 

[Damocles]

We send them there, with full knowledge that some of them will die. We are in the position to send hundreds of thousands of "them" anywhere, so we can take the comfort that we need not send any one particular individual to die. Other countries, or factions, are not in the same position. They do not have hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

I see the end result being the same, and the motives as the same as well. The only difference lies in resources.

We send them there to do a dangerous job. We also send people up in planes to jump out of them for entertainment, knowing full well there is a chance they could die... We are not sending them up there "to die".

It is not the same thing. Also, please read the thread you are going over points already answered and this is becoming repetitive. Your view is simplistic.

I have already gone over the fact that they use suiciders as weapons because they are desperate and they need weapons to fight a larger more powerful entity. You act as if you came up with something that I haven't already spoken of.

 

[uscitizen]

Whatever, most Americans are christians, and most do not support it.

Another large difference is what I pointed out earlier. The Church is not out there promising you paradise if you fight and die in the Crusade. The church has little or nothing to do with it. The Catholic church came out 100% against it before it began, the Anglicans are against it. So forth.

That a portion that you don't like are "for" it, doesn't make it all of christendom fighting against those "heathens" for the sake of getting to paradise.

turn back the clock a few years Damo, could you say that most did not support it then ?
I personally heard "just nuke em all and let god sort em out" in the church parking lot after service.

And my point is that it is not an overall muslim desperation, but the desperation and hatred of a minority.
If the EVIL USA invaded my home and killed my family I might strap on a bomb as well. WE caused the majority of this not the muslim religion.

 

[Cancel7]

We send them there to do a dangerous job. We also send people up in planes to jump out of them for entertainment, knowing full well there is a chance they could die... We are not sending them up there "to die".

It is not the same thing. Also, please read the thread you are going over points already answered and this is becoming repetitive. Your view is simplistic.

I have already gone over the fact that they use suiciders as weapons because they are desperate and they need weapons to fight a larger more powerful entity. You act as if you came up with something that I haven't already spoken of.

LOL. I'm not "acting" like anything. I already read all of your posts on the topic. This, above, is my opinion on the matter, your arguments, notwithstanding.

 

[Damocles]

turn back the clock a few years Damo, could you say that most did not support it then ?
I personally heard "just nuke em all and let god sort em out" in the church parking lot after service.

And my point is that it is not an overall muslim desperation, but the desperation and hatred of a minority.
If the EVIL USA invaded my home and killed my family I might strap on a bomb as well. WE caused the majority of this not the muslim religion.

Did they support it because they were Christian? No, that wasn't why they supported it and you know it. It is grasping attempting to equate a nationalistic movement made in anger, and the church's effort to gain more people.

As I stated, most of them came out against it before it even began. The Anglican and the Catholic church two of the most notable.

 

[uscitizen]

Your view is simplistic.
//
Not as simplistic as yours. I actually try and feel what the other side feels.

 

[Damocles]

LOL. I'm not "acting" like anything. I already read all of your posts on the topic. This, above, is my opinion on the matter, your arguments, notwithstanding.

Like I said. If "dead is dead" is all you have then there is no reason to hold courts anymore. There is no moral difference between a murder and a natural death.

No reason to stop drinking and driving. If they kill somebody there is no moral difference between that death and any other. So forth.

The argument is simplistic. The cavernous difference between sending them to die (300K deaths of American soldiers) and to fight (3k to 4k) is very clearly a difference of large proportions if not just in the numbers.

I am not saying that they are immoral, I was giving it as a reason that this is far far different than the crusades. You would know that if you had read my posts. I have mentioned serveral times it is a sign of desperation, one of the few ways to fight a more powerful force and because of that there is a large difference between this and the crusades.

I have also mentioned many other differences. So, if you think I was speaking of morality, I was not. I was speaking in the interest of being exact. In posts where I am not exact people flip out... I am therefore being exact.

 

[Damocles]

Your view is simplistic.
//
Not as simplistic as yours. I actually try and feel what the other side feels.

What? So do I. Hence my assertion it is a desperate way to fight against a larger force. Do you never even read my posts?

 

[Cancel7]

Like I said. If "dead is dead" is all you have then there is no reason to hold courts anymore. There is no moral difference between a murder and a natural death.

No reason to stop drinking and driving. If they kill somebody there is no moral difference between that death and any other. So forth.

The argument is simplistic. The cavernous difference between sending them to die (300K deaths of American soldiers) and to fight (3k to 4k) is very clearly a difference of large proportions if not just in the numbers.

I am not saying that they are immoral, I was giving it as a reason that this is far far different than the crusades. You would know that if you had read my posts. I have mentioned serveral times it is a sign of desperation, one of the few ways to fight a more powerful force and because of that there is a large difference between this and the crusades.

I have also mentioned many other differences. So, if you think I was speaking of morality, I was not. I was speaking in the interest of being exact. In posts where I am not exact people flip out... I am therefore being exact.

Well, it's made quite a difference! lol