Just curious?

[kentuck]

It is god-awful and "disturbing" to see pictures or videos of any children killed in war.

But, as "disturbing" as these latest pictures and videos are of the gassed children and civilians, from a purely personal emotional level, I am more "disturbed" when I see small children with their arms and legs blown off and screaming in agony. Just from a pure emotional level.

I know these latest pictures of gassed victims are supposed to be worse than anything we have ever seen in our lives. They are worse than any victims of any war ever.

Perhaps I have become jaded and accustomed to the violence of war.

It is all a terrible crime against humanity but it is heart-wrenching to see those small children with their limbs blown off by bombs and moaning in pain...

I do not comprehend the distinction the warmongers want to make with the posion gas videos?

[Andy823]

1. Ok

I have to say that a child that is a victim of war, one who has been injured by a bomb, by gas, shot, beaten, etc. should be disturbing to anyone, no matter how they were injured. Children who have lost their families, who are now on their own, this to should be disturbing. Children suffer the most from wars, but war is a terrible thing no matter who the victims are. If I had one wish it would be that wars would cease, never again would any child have to suffer from needless wars. So I do agree with you, no matter who the child is injured its outrageous.

Now I also want to ask you why you think that all the people who disagree with you are "warmongers"? I keep seeing this term used a lot, and for even though they may not think the way out do that does not make them a warmonger. It would have been easy to have said "I do not understand the distinction they want to make with the poison gas videos" without labeling them as "warmongers" wouldn't it?

Do you really think that our president is a warmonger, or that Kerry and all the others who have decided to back the president are all
warmongers?

[kentuck]

2. Because it is the "warmongers" that want us to make the distinction.

And they want us to see these videos as the worst thing that has ever happened in our lifetimes. I do not believe that everyone that disagrees with me is a warmonger. I don't think I said that? All I said was, "I do not comprehend the distinction the warmongers want to make with the posion gas videos?"
Why did you make such a jump to such a conclusion??

[Andy823]

3. So who are the warmongers

I did ask you if you thought the president was a warmonger, or Kerry and the rest of those who have decided to back the president. I also have seen the word "warmongers" used a lot lately to label those who support the presidents view on this. That's pretty much why I jumped to that conclusion.

A lot of people have seen these videos and have agreed with the president that Assad was to blame and that what happened was a terrible thing. Not just american leaders but those in Germany, France, etc. Are they all warmongers if they decide to support the presidents plan?

Just curious.

[kentuck]

4. I am not sure that the President wants to bomb Assad?

But I don't know about Kerry?

Warmongers are the ones selling the propaganda as if it is the worst thing we have ever seen. They promote war. They are not that hard to find. Some people are just naive, in my opinion, and will believe just about anything you tell them if it rings their emotional bells.

[Andy823]

5. Ok

"Some people are just naive, in my opinion, and will believe just about anything you tell them if it rings their emotional bells."

I couldn't agree more. The only problem is that it works for both sides of any issue. In many cases there are NO facts to support what someone is telling you, so should people accept what is said simply because it fits their view of things? If the facts are put out, and verified, shouldn't that count?

Right now there are a lot of post on this board that have no facts to back them up, yet many don't seem to care. They simply accept it because it backs what they "want" to believe. Even if all the facts are presented to disprove these posts, it won't change people minds.

I support the president, so I am called all kinds of names by those who don't support him. I hate war, I was drafted in 1971 and everyday of basic training were be prepared to go to Vietnam. I went on to AIT and all the training there was the same, preparing us to go to Vietnam. I was very lucky because I was sent to Germany as a support group, yet we all knew that at any time we could be sent to fight if we were needed. Many of those I went through training with were not so lucky, they went straight to Vietnam. Some never made it home. I hated the war, and I hated Nixon, but I did my job. Right now even though I support my president, I don't want to see another war started where more American soldiers will die, and I don't think the present wants to see that either.

I don't know what will happen with the Syria issue. I hope a solution comes to be before it's to late to turn back, but I have no control over that, all I can do is hope for the best. I have no ill feelings towards those here who are against any kind of military action. I understand the completely, but I think things have gotten way out of hand on this board, and there are a lot of people who's only agenda seems to be to attach the president no matter what he does, and that's where I draw the line. It's hell for the president to know that no matter what he does, millions of Americans will be angry, and no matter what he does, republicans are going to try and use it against him so he won't be able to accomplish anything in his second term. He knows that many on the left will do the same thing and attack him no matter what he does. I know one thing I would not want to be in his shoes.

Kerry was a soldier that fought in Vietnam. I have heard him called a "chicken hawk", "warmonger", and countless other names by many who have probably never served a day in the military. Using names like this towards a man who has seen battle is simply wrong in my book. People don't have to agree with him, but the nam calling is disgusting in my book.

Those who make huger profits off of war with no regard for the lives lost, those are the warmongers!

[kentuck]

6. Thanks for your comments.

But my post was really about another subject. I'm sorry it got hijacked with the warmongering comment.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

7. The young girl running down the street naked and in flames, in Vietnam was the worst...

and American troops did that.

[kentuck]

8. Emotional impact...

That was bad.

[pinboy3niner]

9. Actually, that was South Vietnamese troops

The napalm was dropped by an RVN Air Force pilot. Still, in the U.S. it became an iconic image of what was happening in the VN War (the "American War," as the Vietnamese call it).

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

10. Guess I thought it was part of the Mylai massacre.

[kentuck]

11. I was in country during MyLai.

That was pretty gruesome also. I heard the news from some Vietnamese people.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

12. I wasn't to leave the base when in country.

i was on my watch 24/7 and had to get an officer to stand my watch if I left, or went out of area. Once I went to the Army section of Cam Ranh Bay, once I went swimming at Tiger Lake. I had to let the duty driver know I was in the chow hall, or shower when I left my office, which had my bed, desk with tape player (reel to reel and 8 track) and file cabnets. I was the communications yeoman. I had the good fortune of things being quiet while I was there. A good friend of mine was corpman on a ship off the coast and saw the damage done first hand. He passed on a few years back, but I have his old dog still.

[Skittles]

13. notice the only time they push such pictures and videos

is when they want MORE war, not less

[Motown_Johnny]

14. then do the math

~2.5 year war

~365 days in a year

~100,000 combined dead from both sides

~1,429 killed in one day with chemical weapons



365 X 2.5 = 912.5

100,000 / 912.5 = 109.5 or ~110



So, without chemical weapons we have roughly 110 people killed, on average, in one day from both sides in the conflict and with chemical weapons we have roughly 1429 killed in a day on one side of the conflict.


Can you see the distinction now?