On the contrary, the US DID "just sit there" in a sense. When Bin Laden was holed up in the Tora Bora mountians, we were bombing the crap out of him. We had his entire western front sealed up. But then we shot ourselves in the foot by entrusting the Pakistani military to holding the east. We new Osama had two and a half buttloads of friends in Pakistan (especially on the border) and yet we trusted the military of a country who is more our enemy than friend (Most of the population is loyal to local tribe leaders [Al Queda supporters] and not to the government WE installed through a military coup d'etat [not very democratic]). And seeing as Osama is still running free, we didn't really "go after someone" did we?
aye, I dont say exactly what I mean. Go after someone was my way of saying somewhere down the line we had to start chaos. Here, it's war.12/12/2006 . Edited 12/12/2006 #32
Not necessarily. Take the British government and the IRA again. It might have taken a longer time, but England managed to make peace with the IRA and Sinn Fein disarmed several years ago. One of the things the English government did to assist this process was acknowledge and apologise for past and present wrongs- over 800 years of them. However, President Bush's stance that he will 'not negotiate with terrorists' only serves to alienate people, especially when 'terrorist' seems to extend to governments such as those in Syria and Iran. War doesn't stop terrorism and is heavily linked to actually building resentment and creating new terrorists- reports have confirmed this in many countries, from Afghanistan and Iraq to non-Islamic countries such as, again, Ireland and Sri Lanka. Muhammad Yunus, who works with the poor in Bangladesh, recently said that the best way to fight terrorism was by fighting poverty.12/12/2006 #33
Okay, I agree that war isn't the best way to solve problems. The only truly good thing war has ever done for us is create jobs.12/17/2006 . Edited 12/19/2006 #34
Aside from that, how many bombings have we commited in Iraq since the initial bombings of baghdad?
And if you look waaaaaaaaaay up in the thread, 2nd or 3rd post, there is something about petty weapons dealers being called terrorists. How many more people would have died if we hadn't caught them? They are helping the terrorists. It's like catching the guys that ship the drugs from columbia to here instead of going after the drug dealers. THe petty weapons dealers taken out of the picture will save at least a few lives. If we catch a weapons dealer, none of his weapons get out to the terrorists. With that, we are indirectly saving lives and stopping terrorists.
And the only news source that i've seen that's anywhere near balanced is Yahoo! News. The mainstream media is liberal, anti-bush. It won't publish a story saying they stopped three terrorists that were planning to bomb a store, they'll only tell you about the one they missed and the damage he caused.
i have nothing else to respond to in the forum that won't result in me repeating myself, or anything that isn't related to Iraq (I think I started to drift off topic anyways) so that's all i have to say.
PS. I'm not good with words.
(sorry for double posting, again)12/18/2006 . Edited 12/19/2006 #35
The faction that are fighting, if you can call it a 'civil war' (there is an inevitable real one that will come eventually), let them split! Split the factions into their own separate countries! cut the country as many ways as necessary, attempt to give them all a democratic form of government, and let them deal with their own problems!
Needed to get that off my chest...
yeah this topic is just about dead. We've all shown our points. ONETRACKMIND, check for some other topics everynow and then. Its good to hear from you. And everyone else.12/20/2006 #36
WOW. It's just AMAZING what you people will post these days.8/02/2007 #37
Well, it's nice to see that you guys like your nice little news stations. BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? Those news stations are not only BIASED, but they've caused casulaties themselves just by trying to go into areas that are already dangerous or where troops (and not just americans) are already doing top secret missions. So then you add them who only want a story, and not only do the troops get shot up/blown up, but so do these press coverage people. Way to go. Not only that, but they love a good story and to make a rise out of people. OBVIOUSLY.
As for prefering a specific government? You obviously have no idea how privledged you are. It's disgusting to hear people say crap like that; you have no idea what people go through that live there that Americans/Brits/Australians don't. You're talking about the same people who use their 5 year olds as sheilds and train them to shoot down troops AND cut off their own children's limbs just so that person can have pity. You're talking about the same people who are gruesomely tortured/blown up/hanged/etc., just because they might've said a WORD that maybe they didn't like their government to someone. You're talking about the same people who, when a woman gets raped, they blame the woman and stone her to death because evidently she can't control her sex drive.
We aren't there just to get oil. Are you that oblivious not to notice how much money we've spent just on TRAINING the Iraqi MILITARY? Just on trying to help rebuild the economy and send supplies there?
There is a difference between terroists and citizens. Have you spoken with these citizens? Have they personally TOLD you that they want Americans out? What is this, an immature version of the game telephone? Honestly people. As much as it may seem like it, we are saving lives. We ARE pulling out terrorists, not just weak arms person. Corruption is a pretty common thing there, so be careful just how much contempt you show.
Oh, and just for the record, I've spoken with American soldiers who know what they're fighting for and who WANT to go back into conflict even after they've just come home from being in the middle east.
And it's so barbaric there that one american soldier told me that the first thing he saw, looking out the windows in the cafeteria, was a hanged Iraqi citizen right outside the American compound.
Yes, maybe america lied about finding nuclear weapons, but you MUST be forgetting about the time when several middle eastern nations REFUSED to sign the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty made up by the U.N. As in, they WANTED to create these weapons.
We are helping the crises in Africa, by the by; but it's also difficult because you can't just barge into a country (even though we might've before) and demand that those people stop the genocide. We ARE NOT THE PARENTS and these are NOT CHILDREN. Also, take a look at the governments in Africa; they're all corrupted. So, not only do you people expect us to stop all of these crises, but somehow oust out everyone in the government and start anew. You have GOT to be JOKING.
Oh, and also, the U.N can't barge into the country without first asking permission. Remember the hell that was Bosnia and Croatia? Yeah.
I just wanted to say this, even though you said that this topic was dead. If anyone wants to raise hell with me about the points I've made here, go ahead and p.m me.
Thank you Mr. tabiscus. You seem to have livened up this topic.8/02/2007 #38
While your arguement is very clear and thought out, I would like to respond on the behalf of the "you people" category.
First of all, yes, we are putting a lot of money into training their military. Unfortunately, those same soldiers we train are more loyal to local militias than to the Iraqi government. Some of those same soldiers are members of death squads and guerrillas who attack Coalition soldiers. This is a major problem. And now, we have gone so far as to arm Sunni insurgents who promise to fight al-Qaeda. The same barbaric people you mentioned are now being armed by us to supposedly fight al-Qaeda.
Secondly, yes, there is a difference between terrorists and citizens. We have not proclaimed there to be none. However, anyone knowledgable in guerrilla warfare will tell you that the citizen base is the key element in continuing such warfare. Without the majority or at least a large chunk of people supporting guerrillas, then guerrillas will not last. We are not fighting a standing army, we are fighting enemies who go back to their day jobs (sometimes as policemen) after fighting. Surely, there are many cases in which insurgents have been captured thanks to citizens giving intel on their locations. However, the problem stated by many ground commanders is the lack of human intel. From this we can infer that many people support insurgents, and from that we may infer that they don NOT support the US or its installed government. It is more than just taking what news tells you. Furthermore, millions of the middle class in Iraq have fled to other countries. Those are the people who would support us, and they have fled in fear. That doesn't look very good to me.
As for talking to actual citizens of Iraq, no I haven't. But have you? They haven't TOLD me they want Americans out, but have they TOLD you they don't? That arguement is moot.
And yes, we have pulled out terrorists. Many very important ones, why just a couple days ago they bagged the al-Qaeda leader in Mosul. But the fact that we've killed and captured so many and they are still a fighting force is bad news. It shows they have the support of citizens to hide, allies in the government to assist foreign fighters in moving to Iraq, and allies in other countries to train them.
And you mentioned that we are saving lives. Yes, but we have a lot to save before it makes up for the lives lost in the "sectarian violence" since we invaded. Which is not the fault of the US or its coalition, but rather the fault of its invasion, which provided the oppurtunity for this power vacuum to begin.
As for Bosnia and Croatia, I can't tell how that was so bad. There is peace there now, the genocidal war was ended as smoothly as any war could be ended, and the people were split into three different independent countries.
Furthermore, you said that "we are not parents and they are not children" in reference to African crises. And yet you spoke of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and how some middle eastern countries WANTED those weapons (nuclear weapons). So how is it bad that Iraq has nuclear weapons but not if Pakistan has them. And if we decide who can have them and who can't (as we were doing with the pretense of invading Iraq) then that would make us like parents and them like children. So basically, they are our children to control when it is convient or profitable for our country.
The United States does not fight for freedom or democracy. It fights for power and political influence as much as any other country and possibly more. How else can one be a superpower? And one would be naive to think otherwise.
Perhaps you should stick around and discuss with those know as "you people."
I realize that news is all about ratings. Why do you think that they will chat on about the same goddamn thing for 3 or four days straight? ALL news is corrupted, not just TV. every report that comes from a human is tweaked, like how you described it, in a game of telephone, and by the time they get here, they will be warped to the preference of the outlet, a magazine, a tv news station, a website.8/04/2007 #39
If we were there to get oil, we wouldn't have to pay $50 to fill up our gas tanks.
Corruption is everywhere once you get east of Europe.
One more thing- F*ck the UN.
Where do you live, tabiscus?
I don't deny bias, either. I clearly stated how a came to my conclusion and its how its not just what I hear.8/04/2007 #40
As for oil, I believe its a far cry to say that we invaded Iraq for oil. But there is undoubtedly a large amount of profit being made by large corporations such as Halliburton and its affiliates. And the price of oil/gas is not based on current supply and demand as with most other products. Gas prices rise when companies see possible shortages and such created by political turmoil. The increased tension with Iran and Venezuela is the driving force of prices right now.
And corruption is everywhere, not just east of Europe. Your statement would imply that Asian countries can't run a government without being corrupt.
As for the UN...do you have a reason to ** the UN or are you just spouting what you've heard? Or would you perfer there to be no unified coalition for negotiations in the world?
Our government must be sorely misinformed then. Recently a scandal broke out because their (what... third?) excuse for joining the US invasion was actually given as securing oil for teh future.8/04/2007 #41
Corruption everywhere east of Europe? What, so Italy's NOT corrupt? So Australia IS corrupt? And of course America- North or South- wouldn't be, couldn't be corrupt in the slightest. And last time I looked, Africa was actually south of Europe, mostly lying directly south and a little bit on either way. How about looking at a map next time you want to make a sweeping statement like that? It isn't going to help your argument if it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
Oh yes, the UN are the source of all evil. Right.
Because they are giving Kim Jong il what he wants.8/04/2007 #42
Let me rephrase my corruption statement- All countries are corrupt.
Oh wow, tabiscus has made me interested in this topic again. Not that I wasn't before. I just stopped coming on Fictionpress because heh, school was going waaayy down. But now, here I am, having achieved the best grades I have ever got in my life, ready to add my oh-so-inspiring (ok, not really) view into this lovely topic.8/04/2007 #43
Firstly, I have to address one tiny, minute detail that I just saw now, after, heh, months.
@Miss Lordy: Melbourne? Oh cool, that's where I lived while I visited Australia! Yes, my cousins live there and they both went to the University of Melbourne, I think. Though, when I was there, it was really really cold.
Ok, back on topic.
@ONETRACKMIND: You mentioned, months and months ago, that the US had to do something after the attacks, not just "sit there". Well, considering that we were being attacked by Saudi Islamic terrorists, does it really make sense to go after a country that had virtually nothing to do with the attacks? I think LoF said it very well with the England/Ireland thing.
Bah, let me just address that wonderful tabiscus because he/she has got me really wound up.
Um. Yeah. You there. Don't just come into a thread and start yelling at us for holding views dissimilar to your own. You are certainly welcome to come in and present your disagreement in a civilized manner but calling us "you people" has a certain deragatory implication which I do not appreciate. However, I am super glad you didn't resort to crude profanity so cheers for that.
Now, news stations. Obviously, every news station is biased, as mentioned by the others who care to post in this thread. Have you not read this thread at all? Have you not seen me tell ONETRACKMIND that is a VARIETY of news stations--and not just one--that must be listened to? Have you not heard me mention that we must pick out the FACTS and not opinions? Perhaps you haven't. Perhaps you have simply cared to read the first couple posts and then assumed that you knew everything "us people" were going to say and then, responded to some fabricated idea that you have about what we think.
Now, you mentioned the press getting blown up. First of all, I am going to assume that they know the risks of wherever they're heading. Secondly, no one ever made the press to be innocent little holy saints NOR did we accuse them of total and vast corruption (before you made your post). So I don't know why you even brought that up. Perhaps you didn't want us blaming the US government for the casualties? Perhaps you thought you could deliver quite a nice little blow to the liberal side by telling us that the news stations which we so obviously, according to you, hold on a pedestal, are responsible for some of the damage.
Even if that were true--and I honestly don't know--I guess you haven't given thought that if there wasn't a war, there wouldn't be press people "getting others blown up".
Don't you dare, tabiscus, tell me I don't know how priviledged I am. How do you know that I haven't lived in a government similar to Iraq's in my life? No, think before you make statements like that. I honestly believe that no one will know what it's like to live under the Iraqi government unless you've actually LIVED there. Eyewitness accounts tend to be more dramatic than real life because people tend to report dramatic events more as opposed to normal, bland events. I am not, in any way, saying that the situation isn't bad, though. With the Iraq war, there are too many factors that remain vague and ambiguous because we don't know if what we're hearing is the whole and complete truth, which it probably isn't.
Hm...some of your points, Blackbird addressed and I quite like her(?) responses so I'm not going to address them.
I will add one thing though. You said that it is virtually impossible to stop the crises in Africa and "purify" their governments and such. Um, well, I said before that it was suspicious that the genocide in Darfur received the backseat to something like Iraq. I think that a genocide seems more pressing than a country which has suffered through political turmoil for years, like a lot of Third World countries.
I never said anything about purging African governments of corruption. All I wanted was for the genocide in Darfur seeing its end and it would be nice if the US did its part in it. I mean, sending Condaleeza Rice as a diplomat is great and all but we could have done more if we weren't so busy screwing things up in Iraq.
Ok, tabiscus, I'm done with you for now. If you care to address what I, or Blackbird, have said in response to your initial post, then by all means do so. I look forward to hearing from you some more.
haha. *him*. that's ok though, endeavor. People have made that mistake already. While the name refers to the spy plane, I suppose its feminine sounding to some. haha. all in good humor i suppose.8/05/2007 #44
Hmm... does that make me the ONLY FEMALE HERE?!8/05/2007 #45
whoa. i thought you were male. hence the "lord" part. But ok. hahaha. anyways...8/05/2007 #46
Oh, I'm sorry Blackbird. My apologies.8/06/2007 #47
And I thought LoF was a guy too...until she so graciously corrected me.
And no, LoF, you are not the only female here. I, also, am part of the "fairer sex".
I'm gonna enjoy this :]12/22/2007 #48
The war in Iraq is a lie because of the MEDIA. I bet most people in America couldn't answer this question, "What was Iraq like before America went there?"
Truth: The Government was killing their own citizens, Women were not allowed outside, you figure the rest.
Now, America is just trying to get Iraq from the cruel treatment.
Its not pointless at all. -.-
What? You think we believe Iraq was a happy place full of butterflys and rainbows?12/22/2007 #49
Yes the government was killing their own citizens. So is the government we back right now. The last defense minister under Malaki ran death squads against Sunnis.
Futhermore, there are plenty of other countries in which the government is killing their own people. Shall we invade them as well?
Also, "women were not allowed to go outside." Uh, yeah. Although it wasnt as strict in places like Iraq (more in Afghanistan), there are many laws in Islmaic cultures against women. Its their freaking culture! If anyone needs to change it, they can do it themselves. Many of them think its disgusting that we have women half naked on TV, but I'm sure you'd complain if they invaded and tried to right that wrong. You can't force your culture on others just because you think yours is right.
As for trying to get them from cruel treatment: no. That's as much a political tool as the media showing only the bad things. America isn't some do-good saint of a country. We do things just like everyone else in the world. No one helps people get out of cruelty just because it would be the right thing to do.
I hope you enjoy your next post, too. This board has been dead awhile.
Don't just blame the US, British armies are in Iraq too.12/26/2007 #50
Hitler was killing citizens in his country, we helped and it was a good result.
Iraq is killing their own citizens, we're helping and still trying. It may not seem like we're progressing but in the near future there may be a positive result.
Honestly, how can you believe the Iraq War is a waste?
Most Iraqis fled when Saddam took control. But a couple of months ago, around 50,000 citizens returned to their homes. That says something: They feel safe.
I bet you guys didn't know this. This is a wonderful reason as to why people should shut up about Bush.
Iraq has a nuclear weapon program, they were ordered by UN to cancel this. They refused the warning. In the war was Iran, Iraq had attacked the soldiers with chemical weapons. Which was also a part of the nuclear weapon program.
As for the women thing. About the invasion, I would not complain. I would not care one little bit that the whores on tv were being removed and a war would start.
Culture thing. Yeah, its their culture. But did EVERYONE in Iraq complain about our invasion? Yeah, maybe the government. But, I'm pretty sure citizens like seeing help, not people critizing the help.
I'm not sure if I already said this but.
Say your in a burning building and the firefighters know your in there. They say, "Well, maybe they like fire."
Its just like that.
The reason I we are focusing on the US is because we are the leaders of this coalition. The British wouldn't have gone in if we did not.12/27/2007 #51
Why is it that almost every time I discuss this with someone sharing your viewpoint, Hitler comes up? This is entirely different. But just for the sake of argument, we didn't declare war on Germany because they were killing their own citizens. We did it because they were invading their neighbors, bombing the British, and allied with the Japanese who bombed our country.
Honestly, now that I think of it the war hasn't been a complete waste. The Kurdish nation in the north is a great success. Not a single US soldier has been killed in their borders and they have exellent security. Unfourtunately the Turkish Army doesnt agree and that shiny story may come to an end soon.
And also, yes. I did know that thousands have returned to their homes. But you put that fact in the wrong context. The people returning recently are the ones who fled because of the mass murders in the streets against ethnic groups. Not because Saddam is dead. Look at the reports more closely and you'll see that fact.
Therefore, yes we did know this. And one good point arising after a hundred bad ones doesn't mean we should "shut up about Bush." This is America. You don't "shut up" about your government, you tell them what you want to see.
Yes. We also know that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. The key word being "had," they didn't have one when we invaded on that pretense. Yes they also used chemical weapons against the Iranians. Then they used conventional weapons that we gave them to use against Iran and their soldiers were killed by weapons we gave to Iran to use against Iraq.
No, of course everyone did not complain about our invasion. But many people did. Hence your expansive guerrilla resistance. And in response to your firefighter analogy: no. It's not just like that. This is the Middle East. People have been living under dictatorships since the beginning of recorded history. If they want to change, that is their choice. Europe and America changed through the Enlightenment period. No one had to depose their leaders through a foreign invasion. Obviously, the situation isn't the same. Nonetheless, who are we to decide that our way of government is the best? Who are we to spread that way of government where we please? There is something called national sovereignty and its there for a reason.
What you suggest would be like someone invading the US in the 1940s on the pretense that blacks had to sit on the back of the bus and couldn't use the same drinking fountains. Of course it's not right. But you can't invade a nation and use that as a means of justification.
If good will and justice were the reasons we invaded, then right now we ought to be gearing up for our invasion of Myanmar and Syria and North Korea and, heck, even Russia! But I'm sure everyone will agree that we were doing the right, kind thing by invading all those sovereign nations. You can't argue that their cultures are wrong, huh?
Just one thing I should state..12/27/2007 #52
We all live on Earth. It doesn't matter what everyone believes, it just matters that everyone is kept safe. America has every right to invade Iraq, just like they have every right to attack back. But NO ONE has any right to say we're doing wrong, because infact there is no right or wrong. We just made up those right and wrongs.
As for the Hitler thing, we didn't declare war on Germany. They declared it. Hitler had wanted the US to support them, instead we didn't. We had supported Iraq in the past, now we're invading their country to save people's lives and get rid of the programs. They DO have them. It was showed all over the news, I don't know when, of American Pilots destroying some of the camps.
I recently read a article in the News Paper about a elder man who went to Iraq for 3 months. He said, "It has come to my conclusion that I must honor the respect that Iraqis are giving the soldiers. Around 1,000 Iraqis come back everyday, not only because they feel safe with their new approved government, but because of the new security they now have."
Your right, we have no right to "spread" our way of life and government. But do you honestly believe the way Iraqis live is right? Yes, I would LOVE to live in a country where my leaders kill me. Yes, wonderful.
Again, this is Earth we live on. Technically, no one owns anything just because they signed papers. We are all the same creatures and its our duty to protect one another, even if it means war.
Stop bringing up other countries and focus on what America is doing right NOW. Not what they should of done. We are now with war with Iraq, theres nothing you can do about it. My cousin does not support the war one bit, but she does support the troops that are atleast trying to helping another country. Our way of life might not be best, but atleast we're keeping our people safe. If every other country was doing that, wouldn't life be better?
While I admire the idea that we all live on Earth and have to protect each other, it does not work in reality. People see themselves along racial, ethnic, religious, and national lines. Keeping everyone safe is near the bottom of the list of priorities for all nations.12/27/2007 #53
No one has any right to say we're doing wrong? No? Last time I checked we have the RIGHT to say our country is doing wrong. Isn't that what America is founded on?
"...there is no right or wrong. We just made up those right and wrongs." Yes, we did "make them up" because that's what morality is. Simply because we determine our own morals doesn't mean they don't exist.
Also, you contradict yourself. You say there is no reason to say we are doing wrong because there IS no right or wrong. Yet, later, you state "But do you honestly believe the way Iraqis live is right?" If there is no right or wrong, then no I don't think its right, but I don't think it's wrong either. If we can't possibly be doing wrong because wrong doesn't exist, then we can't be doing right because right doesn't exist either. Which brings us back to the point that everyone is acting in their own interest.
But personally, I do not believe the way they lived was right. Nonetheless, we cannot point a finger and say "WRONG" then invade a sovereign nation. It is destabilizing and destabilization causes more problems.
You said that there were videos all over the news of pilots destroying nuclear weapons programs? You should call the pentagon and tell them, because the entire controvesy is that there was never any evidence of nuclear weapons programs at the time of invasion. There were plenty of videos of destroying al-queda training camps in Afghanistan and Iraqi military installations in Iraq. I don't know where you are getting this information.
"Again, this is Earth we live on. Technically, no one owns anything just because they signed papers. We are all the same creatures and its our duty to protect one another, even if it means war."
Again, it'd be nice to believe that. Protect each other? From what? In war, you kill people which is the opposite of protecting them. How do we protect one another by warring with one another? I don't understand that logic. Who gets to decide who needs protecting and who needs to die? How do we decide right and wrong if there IS no right or wrong?
And, yes actually, there IS something we can do about being in a war. To suggest otherwise would suggest that our nation is no longer a republic. And anyone that doesn't support the war, still supports the troops. I support our troops too. I don't want to see them get killed or separated from their families any more. It is not their decision after all to be over there. So I am in agreement with your cousin. But don't suggest that things are the way they are and they can't be changed. That is never true.
"Our way of life might not be best, but atleast we're keeping our people safe. If every other country was doing that, wouldn't life be better?"
Would life be better if every country was protecting its people? Well, yes, that's what every country does. Some discriminate and protect only a certain group of their people. So, if they protected all their people, yes it'd be a little better. But, ultimately, gathering economic, political, and military power brings security to people. So protecting your people does not bring peace. In the end, nations protect their people NOT their neighbors' people. If we all lived on this Earth as you describe, then we'd be one big country. It'd be nice, really. But it is not reality.
Honestly, your really just twisting everything I say around.12/27/2007 #54
Yeah, there is no right or wrong. But, a right is what we believe in. A wrong is what we don't believe in. The right and wrongs that exsist today are from People's mind. They were "made up".
As for the contradicting myself, read above.
United Nations. Hence the, 'United' part. United States, states that help eachother. Don't say we don't. Lets see, September 11, Katrina, Floods. All those lovely things. If a country in UNITED NATIONS isn't doing to well, why can't America help? What we do may not be right in some people's thick skulls, but atleast we're trying. Unlike so many countries that are so absorbed in themselves that they could really careless.
The video, I can't say much of that. I know what I saw on the News, whether it was fake or not.
"Again, it'd be nice to believe that. Protect each other? From what? In war, you kill people which is the opposite of protecting them. How do we protect one another by warring with one another? I don't understand that logic. Who gets to decide who needs protecting and who needs to die? How do we decide right and wrong if there IS no right or wrong?"
Oh jeeze, I'm going to have to say this again. United Nations. We may not be able to protect every country, but one thats not so great will make a difference. Yes, we make enemies and allies. We protect our allies from their enemies. I never really said we could protect EVERYONE.
I can't see what you said and I honestly can't memorize...So...
"And, yes actually, there IS something we can do about being in a war. To suggest otherwise would suggest that our nation is no longer a republic. And anyone that doesn't support the war, still supports the troops. I support our troops too. I don't want to see them get killed or separated from their families any more. It is not their decision after all to be over there. So I am in agreement with your cousin. But don't suggest that things are the way they are and they can't be changed. That is never true."
I'm confused by all of that really. Its not their decision to be over there? You DO know that drafting is no longer in use? Its THEIR decision to be over there.
You keep saying that my point of view isn't reality. I just want to laugh and scream at the same time. "Impossible reality" shouldn't hold what I believe down. I really do think that everything on Earth could one day actually become a country. Its not impossible, nor is it not reality. Its just something thats a little hard to do.
I'm really not trying to twist what you say. Sorry about that. But I don't think just because we "don't believe in" a wrong means it doesn't exist. It's just that you said we have NO RIGHT to say what we are doing is wrong. And I disagree. I was merely stating that if we cant say something is wrong because wrong is "made up," then we can't say something is right for the same reason.12/28/2007 #55
Of course the United States help each other. I won't say we don't, that'd be ridiculous. But using the US as and analogy to the UN: You don't see Iowa invading Texas because Texas has the death penalty. But to Iowa, that's wrong. And to SOME people in Texas, it is wrong. That is what it is like for nations in the world just like states in a country.
Yes, America can HELP a country in the United Nations. And we DO! But you can't topple a government on such grounds as helping their people, unless there is full fledged genocide (and even then it's difficult to get support in the UN). It is simply international law, put in place for a reason.
"What we do may not be right in some people's thick skulls, but atleast we're trying."
It is not their "thick skulls" it's their point of view! And actually, many ohter countries hepl in humanitarian efforts. The Scandinavian countries are the top contributors to international aid. The US is not all THAT close to the top. And any country that isn't really producing much international aid simply can't afford it. They have their own problems. It's not that they are "absorbed in themselves."
I doubt the videos you saw were fake. They were just not nuclear weapons programs.
"Yes, we make enemies and allies. We protect our allies from their enemies. I never really said we could protect EVERYONE."
Again, by making allies and enemies you don't "protect" people. It causes conflict, it doesn't prevent it. Once again, who are we to decide who gets protecting and who is the enemy? Our enemies see us as evil, and we see them as evil. There isn't a fairy tale enemy that we know is evil and he knows it too.
What I meant by it is not their choice to be over there:
Yes. I know the draft is not in use. But they joined believing they were protecting their country. Not invading one to save some people halfway around the world from a dictator. They don't DECIDE where they go. They decide to join the military. Our leaders decide where they go. So, no, it is not their decision to be over THERE. It is their decision to be a part of the military.
"You keep saying that my point of view isn't reality. I just want to laugh and scream at the same time. "Impossible reality" shouldn't hold what I believe down. I really do think that everything on Earth could one day actually become a country. Its not impossible, nor is it not reality. Its just something thats a little hard to do."
Well, no, I did not mean it like that. What you suggest really is NOT reality...right now. Sure it could be someday. And yes, we SHOULD all help each other, but its just not going to happen in our lifetimes. Or for many, many more to come. Conflict by definintion will keep us from becoming one nation. Not to mention the economic stratification of rich and poor based on location.
I'd love to see what you're talking about come true. But by suggesting that one type of government, one type of economic system, or one culture is right more than another brings conflict. And conflict will make what you want impossible. Therefore, we cannot use invasion or military might to bring about unity. That has been tried time and time again in the past, and it does not work.
How can we bring about unity? I don't know. It's far above a PhD question. All I know is that one cannot preach unity through a fracturing war.
Instead of trying to prove what I say wrong, I would like to see you try to atleast say what you believe.12/28/2007 #56
This is what I got: You believe we should help a country, but not go in and invade their government?
Yes, we may be trying to take over their government, but all we really want to do is save people lives. So what if we're "taking" away their culture, killing people isn't right. Its frustrating to know that people in our country honestly go by the book rather than help people.
I don't want to say anymore. I haven't lost any pride, nor have I gained any by talking online. I don't see how you can be so cruel.
I have clearly stated what I believe prior to your arrival on this forum. However, you hit it on the head. That is just what I believe.12/28/2007 #57
It is not a matter of being "cruel." I am not a cruel person...far from. I don't believe what was done to the Iraqi people (or any other people under such a government) was right. But you simply can NOT save peoples lives through war. The point of war is to kill people.
After all, who fights in a war. Not the people you are toppling to "free" the citizen. The citizens are fighting. They man the bunkers, drive the tanks, and fire the rifles. In order to "save" their lives, we would have to decimate their military, which is composed entirely of these citizens. Then once we destroy their army and drop a couple bombs in the wrong spots, killing a bunch more of these people whose lives we are supposedly saving, we strip them of their government and let a power vaccum engulf the nation. Then there is six months of near civil war and mass murders and torture. Then we look reminiscent of Saddam's men when we haul people suspected of being "insurgents" to a prison where they are tortured.
At least they are free! I find that solution more cruel.
Besides, America didn't invade Iraq to free the people from oppression. They could rot there for years for all our leaders cared. The reason we invaded was because of a threat to OUR people (whether that threat was genuine or not is a whole other topic). As I said before, there are plenty of other countries with worse governments that we ignore. There have been worse government that we have INSTALLED ourselves!
War is not the answer to saving lives. War creates enemies, enemies create conflict, and conflict causes death.
Wow. This forum was alive for awhile.2/16/2008 #58
I found your last statement interesting. It seems common belief that war has only negative affects, and war is avoidable. Both statements are wrong. War is inevitable. It is created when two bodies, with maybe only slight differences, have a disagreement. Tension is created between the two bodies, and that tension leads to war. The larger the gap between the point of creation of tension and the war, the worse the war. But after the war, when there is a true victor accepted by the winning body and the losing body, there will be peace between the bodies for at least a few generations. And war does not only have negative affects. On the losing side, an adaption to the winning side's ways may benifit them in survival. On the winning side, the body gets both respect and fear for forcing the losing side into submission.
War is not made to kill people. War is made to resolve conflicts. It may not be the prettiest way, but it is the way that has longer-lasting results.
I'm a future military person from a military family and I say Iraq is a cluster **. We invaded them at random, there were no weapons, there was no tie between Saddam and Osama, it was to give a face to an enemy that didn't have one. We invaded Iraq to kill terrorists instead we created terrorists because now even mainstream arabs feel sympathy for insurgents.12/18/2008 #59
Onetrack I'm sorry but you're wrong. Sure your statement applies to a conventional war against a conventional enemy. We are fighting an enemy with MANY objectives and MANY goals. We aren't even fighting a few factions we are fighting DOZENS of factions. The media (Fox news especially) like to make it sound like we're fighting two factions, Shia and Sunni, when in fact we're fighting DOZENS within the Shia and Sunni there are many sub factions all fighting against one another. Your bit holds fine in a war like let's say WWII but in this one your speech was irrelevant.12/18/2008 #60
|Forum Moderators: Blackbird552|
|Membership Length: 2+ years 1 year 6+ months 1 month 2+ weeks new member|