For or Against the war?

[Old and wise]

Enlisted in 1952. Three years in the Army. Injured in Korea in 1953.

A war for the right reason? Yes.
A war for a lie? No.

 

[Arch Enemy]

War? are we at war?

Damn, I leave these forums for one week and I come back to see that we've gone to war.


Seriously, I'm against it. War is never and should ever be a tool used by a stronger power to keep another power in check. I believe we have a tool for that... oh yeah, bullying!

 

[skabanger13]

Not doing that bad? O man, nearly 2,000 of our service personell dead. I thought the mission was "accomplished?" Why the **** are we still there?

our mission was accomplished we took the bath party out of commission and Saddam is on trial. we are still because if we left before a stable government with the power to defend it self was in place they would just be over run by insurgents and all the trouble we went through and all the soldiers we lost would be for not. as fare as the 2000 troops lost look at the Koren war, Nam, WW1, and WW2 in those wars we probably lost more than that in the first month.

 

[Old and wise]

It was not 'our' mission it was Bush's mission. He accomplished his mission and the rest of us are left to pay for it for many years to come.

I pitty the poor soul that will be our next President. I don't know why any sensible person would want to take over after Bush, considering what he is going to leave behind.

 

[skabanger13]

It was not 'our' mission it was Bush's mission. He accomplished his mission and the rest of us are left to pay for it for many years to come.

I pitty the poor soul that will be our next President. I don't know why any sensible person would want to take over after Bush, considering what he is going to leave behind.

i dont know why any one would have wanted to take over for clinton look what he left behind.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Typical conservative tactic. When in doubt, bring up Clinton. Sweet jesus.

 

[skabanger13]

Typical conservative tactic. When in doubt, bring up Clinton. Sweet jesus.

hay if y'all can sit hear and harp on Bush why cant we bring up Clinton, are y'all ashamed of him.

 

[FinnMacCool]

cause its irrelevant to the topic maybe?

I mean if someones says 'Bush did blah blah blah blah blah'

You respond by saying 'Oh yeah? Well Clinton did blah blah blah blah blah' its rediculous.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

I have always been opposed to this war.

It is now known that this war was launched on a false pretext.

Many experts are arguing that our presence in Iraq is fueling terrorism.

Iraq is worse off today, than it was under Suddam Hussein. There is less available electricity now and many places that once had running water no longer do.

 

[cnredd]

I have always been opposed to this war.

It is now known that this war was launched on a false pretext.

Many experts are arguing that our presence in Iraq is fueling terrorism.

Iraq is worse off today, than it was under Suddam Hussein. There is less available electricity now and many places that once had running water no longer do.

From a previous thread...

Here is what actually happened....

For decades, just like, every other resource, Saddam would take from the other communities and give to the Sunni community and, of course, Bagdhad.

The "Sunni Triangle" would have 100% power and the other places would have none....let's see if I could make that clearer....NONE...

Now, under the US Coalition, power is getting SHARED by the whole country, but it is still not ENOUGH for the whole country...but it is, indeed, more than what was there before...

This means "rolling blackouts"...The power that has been once stolen for the sake of the Sunnis have been reverted back to the country as a whole...

The stories of "not getting enough power" in these places are being reported as being a US failure, when, in fact, it is the US helping the places OUTSIDE of the Sunni Triangle to get their power BACK...


Don't know about the water, but I kept this link from a previous member who tried to run that false line about the electricity...

Iraq electricity surpasses pre-war levels
July 28, 2005

Iraq's electricity supply has risen above pre-war levels to 5,350 megawatts (MW) despite sabotage, boosted by hydroelectric power and more imports from Iran, Syria and Turkey, the minister in charge said on Thursday.

"Now electricity has reached a record after we broke 5,350 megawatts a few days ago for the first time since the war," Electricity Minister Mohsen Shalash told Reuters.

http://www.iraqdirectory.com/files/articles/article623.htm

 

[kal-el]

our mission was accomplished we took the bath party out of commission and Saddam is on trial. we are still because if we left before a stable government with the power to defend it self was in place they would just be over run by insurgents and all the trouble we went through and all the soldiers we lost would be for not. as fare as the 2000 troops lost look at the Koren war, Nam, WW1, and WW2 in those wars we probably lost more than that in the first month.

Our mission? I thought we were looking for WMDs? O, wait, none found? Now we are fighting terrorsim. Well guess what? There's hundreds of thousands more terrorists orchestrating attacks against Western interests. Everybody seems to forget about Bin Laden. Wasn't he the matermind behind 9/11? Didn't bush say he would get him dead or alive? It seems as though he's alive and well. O yea, and now there is Zarkawi. Another one we have to worry about. It seems to me Bush took his "eye off the ball" so to speak, only sending 10,000 troops to go after Bin Laden, and 160,000 to topple Sadam. You figure the intellect in that?

 

[SKILMATIC]

I swaer kal-el only likes that show casue of kristen kruk. I dont blame ya.

 

[kal-el]

I swaer kal-el only likes that show casue of kristen kruk. I dont blame ya.

Yea, she's smokin. I'd play "carnival" with her anyday. I'd let her sit on my face and I'll guess her weight. But, I also like the special FX.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Yea, she's smokin. I'd play "carnival" with her anyday. I'd let her sit on my face and I'll guess her weight. But, I also like the special FX.

?

That was an... interesting remark. A little inappropriate though... don't let that escalate.

 

[kal-el]

?

That was an... interesting remark. A little inappropriate though... don't let that escalate.

My apologies.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

My apologies.

No need. I wouldn't say you crossed the line just yet :lol: .

 

[SKILMATIC]

No need. I wouldn't say you crossed the line just yet .

No but he did cross the grand a$$ cracks. :lol:

Yea she is definetely a cutie. Lucky freakin superman.

 

[Chevalier]

As a person who got the "pleasure" of cataloging Saddam's meat grinding habits and marsh draining genocidal actions, I was opposed to the war before I was there, but two days after I got there, with rolls of film, I am a believer in the absolute human necessity to remove Hussein from power. There can be no criminality in this war that compares to what murderous regime. When you see human hair and bone in a meat grinder it changes your perspective pretty quick. So feel free to disagree but when the pictures can be released you will change your mind.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

As a person who got the "pleasure" of cataloging Saddam's meat grinding habits and marsh draining genocidal actions, I was opposed to the war before I was there, but two days after I got there, with rolls of film, I am a believer in the absolute human necessity to remove Hussein from power. There can be no criminality in this war that compares to what murderous regime. When you see human hair and bone in a meat grinder it changes your perspective pretty quick. So feel free to disagree but when the pictures can be released you will change your mind.

I don't think I'll be changing my mind no matter what pictures are released.

 

[skabanger13]

I don't think I'll be changing my mind no matter what pictures are released.

i thank even Gandhi would have approved of getting Saddam and his murderous regime out of power.

 

[kal-el]

i thank even Gandhi would have approved of getting Saddam and his murderous regime out of power.

That maybe so, but remember Ghandi was a pacifist. I'm sure he wouldn't agree with this illegal occupation.

 

[Chevalier]

I don't think I'll be changing my mind no matter what pictures are released.

First, let me say I agree with Gandhi>Bush in philosophy, but their reality perspectives are not the same, the former a victim of colonialism, the latter trying to correct the failings of colonialism, so there is no basis for comparison. You proceed from a false analogy.

It is apparent that you opposed intervention to remove Saddam Hussein, I was once naive like that too. Are you arguing then that the violence perpetrated against the Iraqis through colonialism, Cold War and Saddam Hussein eras of historic Iraq were appropriate and acceptable? The regime, you would have kept in power degraded a delicate eco-system and butchered people, is that then what you advocate for? Do you prefer a government that perpetuates children going hungry and infants dting for lack of incubators? Because that is the system you are advocating for, and if that is the system you advocate for, you do so either for political or racist reasons. Which is it?

I agree that war is always evil and the only good thing about war is its ending, but in a fallen world, war is a sometimes bitter necessity. War is never just, war is never good, but war is sometimes necessary. This was one of those times, but it could have been avoided if the UN had not waded into the bribes with both hands out. It could have been avoided if the UN stood firm on the principles espoused in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and denounced Saddam while working on a peaceful exile. But no, the UN dipped greedy hands into blood money and looked the other way, the French, Russian and Chinese interests were paid off and the UN Security Council lost all moral authority. And they sold Saddam down the river, telling him they would guarantee no one would attack and the sanctions would be lifted, knowing Bush would not relent. But it gained each of those interests control of 25,000,000 extra barrels of oil.

So feel free to not change your mind. I respect that as your right. Just don't pretend you are claiming any moral high ground. It's either greed, politics or racism that told Saddam, "As long as I get my cut do whatever you want to the Iraqis." And that is the policy you endorse.

 

[SKILMATIC]

i thank even Gandhi would have approved of getting Saddam and his murderous regime out of power.

Well actually I think(and correct me if i am wrong ghandi)that he beleives that no use of violence should be done in any case. He is a passivist(much like quakers). They belevie in no use of violence.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

i thank even Gandhi would have approved of getting Saddam and his murderous regime out of power.

He would not have approved of war.

First, let me say I agree with Gandhi>Bush in philosophy, but their reality perspectives are not the same, the former a victim of colonialism, the latter trying to correct the failings of colonialism, so there is no basis for comparison. You proceed from a false analogy.

Gandhi was against violence. Bush is feels differently about it. There are many ways to change things. One is Gandhi's way and one is Bush's way.

It is apparent that you opposed intervention to remove Saddam Hussein, I was once naive like that too. Are you arguing then that the violence perpetrated against the Iraqis through colonialism, Cold War and Saddam Hussein eras of historic Iraq were appropriate and acceptable? The regime, you would have kept in power degraded a delicate eco-system and butchered people, is that then what you advocate for? Do you prefer a government that perpetuates children going hungry and infants dting for lack of incubators? Because that is the system you are advocating for, and if that is the system you advocate for, you do so either for political or racist reasons. Which is it?

I am against a violent intervention. And when it comes to children going hungry do you know how many children died because of the sanctions on Iraq? I suppose if you do not support a violent intervention of the sanctions that makes you advocate the starvation of children. There are those that would advocate a violent intervention when it comes to sanctions. One of them Usama bin Laden as he outlines that specifically in his letter addressed the people of America.

Just because I am against bombing and shooting up a country in order to free it does not mean I support it's oppression.

I agree that war is always evil and the only good thing about war is its ending, but in a fallen world, war is a sometimes bitter necessity. War is never just, war is never good, but war is sometimes necessary. This was one of those times, but it could have been avoided if the UN had not waded into the bribes with both hands out. It could have been avoided if the UN stood firm on the principles espoused in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and denounced Saddam while working on a peaceful exile. But no, the UN dipped greedy hands into blood money and looked the other way, the French, Russian and Chinese interests were paid off and the UN Security Council lost all moral authority. And they sold Saddam down the river, telling him they would guarantee no one would attack and the sanctions would be lifted, knowing Bush would not relent. But it gained each of those interests control of 25,000,000 extra barrels of oil.

The UN is a great idea, but it thoroughly flawed and I will be behind the movement that demands certain reformations.

So feel free to not change your mind. I respect that as your right. Just don't pretend you are claiming any moral high ground. It's either greed, politics or racism that told Saddam, "As long as I get my cut do whatever you want to the Iraqis." And that is the policy you endorse.

Killing is wrong. That is the policy I endorse and it is not motivated by greed, political ambition, or racism, but motivated by what I feel is right. Killing is wrong. I don't pretend nor do I claim that to be a moral highground of any sort. It is what I believe, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Well actually I think(and correct me if i am wrong ghandi)that he beleives that no use of violence should be done in any case. He is a passivist(much like quakers). They belevie in no use of violence.

There is a difference between a "pascifist" and a "passivist."

The best example of a "pascifist" is Mohandans K. Gandhi.

The best example of a "passivist" is Neville Chamberlain.