• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What does "Support the Troops" mean?

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
How can they be there defending us when Iraq didn't do anything too us!? Supporting the troops in Iraq is supporting the illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. This is an illegal war.


:roll:

This war is justified in many means. First, if Saddam didnt want this war, he could have accepted the UN Inspectors to whatever facility they wanted. But no, he refused. That suggests something to us to not take this man lightly. If we were to so ok, JUST KIDDING SADDAM, you dont need to show us anything you dont want, it makes america look very very weak!

Second, Look at the iraqi's praising the U.S. in all these photos (anything from voting pics, to kids, to iraqi's citizens. The expression and joyous tears makes this war justified. The vast majority of iraqi citizens want this, a small, minuscule population of the iraqi's are insugents.

Thirdly, Saddam is being tried By Iraqi Judicials! It will bring forth knowledge to the every day citizen of the vast number of murders he commanded of his own people!

To say this war is unjustified is simply invalid. There is no solid evidence, only rhetoric. Yes, war causes death and its sad. BUT the overall cause will be good.
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
galenrox said:
Those are all good points, but think about this:
Why Iraq? I mean, there are many other countries who do a lot more that would merit war, there are many more who disgrace us everyday just by their presence (North Korea), there are countless worse dictators out there and countless other nations that are in a much more dire situation and need to be saved a lot more, so why Iraq?


The same question would be asked if we went into Syria or N. Korea or Iran... Cant do a bunch at once.. one step at a time i spose!

ONE CAN SAY: Well, if you want to believe Iraq is not related to terrorism, it is one of the leading dictatorships that is closer to the actual act and could POSSIBLY control it better! Though, thats just a way that SOMEONE COULD look at it
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
galenrox said:
True, but it would seem that if that was your goal Iran would be a prime choice instead of Iraq (noting Saudi Arabia would be best, but for some odd reason they're our allies, and so attacking them would be a little inappropriate)


Which would be easier and least amount of projected deaths?? Iraq or Iran?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Parmenion said:
Would you say that by breaking 15 articles of the Geneva Convention that the USA could be consider as much in breach of Human Rights as, say for instance the groups they are fighting?

Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity".

The prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28, religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38, access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).

They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.

The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.

Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, earlier last month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light.


I am not taking sides here, I am simply pointing out that two wrongs hardly make a right and that while you accuse certain groups of breaching certain documents - you may also wish to look at the international rules and documents which America is in turn breaching...

Good job quoting the geneva convention, learned that one from Kerry huh? Well since you are so informed in the Geneva convention you will also know that since these people who are being held were not wearing uniforms, they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva convention even if they were militia, as you claim, (allthough I wasn't aware that militia attack and murder their own citizenry) they would still have to wear uniforms if not they are not entitled to POW status. As far as not being released at the "cease of active hostilities," comment is concerned what freaking war are you watching?

Oh and you are taking sides don't kid yourself. I just love how you people would want to have these poor mistreated terrorists set ree.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
True, but it would seem that if that was your goal Iran would be a prime choice instead of Iraq (noting Saudi Arabia would be best, but for some odd reason they're our allies, and so attacking them would be a little inappropriate)

Saudi Arabia are our allies??? ROTFL! The smile at us, make our oil companies and the Bush families rich with their kisses while taking tens of billions of our dollars every year, along with our military technology, while that the same time spreading the most hateful, anti-semetic, anti-American message with their radical Wahabbism brand of Islam throughout the Arab world.

Do you think it was just a coincidence that Osama bin laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers who killed 3000 on 9/11 were Saudis?
 
Last edited:

Pub31321

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is hardly an illegal war. We are defending the Iraqi people. No Iraq has not done anything to us, but the suffering of the innocent people needed to stop.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pub31321 said:
This is hardly an illegal war. We are defending the Iraqi people. No Iraq has not done anything to us, but the suffering of the innocent people needed to stop.

How has bombing the hell out of their country, starting a civil war, and drawing radical terrorists from all over the ME into Iraq helped stop there suffering?
 

Pub31321

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you have any idea at all how Hussein murdered and tortured thousands of innocent people? All of this is steps in creating a peaceful nation. Ill agree a lot of people are dying because of this war, but that is innevitable. Creating a peaceful nation of democracy has its costs. And unfortunately these peoples lives are the cost for future generations to live out their lives without fear of having electro-shock utensils hooked up to their balls and getting the **** shocked out of them.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pub31321 said:
Do you have any idea at all how Hussein murdered and tortured thousands of innocent people?

No I do not. So much of what has been said about Iraq and Hussein has turned out to be wrong or fabrication I have become cynical about the "Hussein is satan" claims. I don't doubt he ruled Iraq with an iron boot. When there was a rebellion, he crushed it. We have caused 30,000 Iraqi deaths, many times more wounded, in 2 1/2 years we have ruled the place, so it appears to be a pretty tough place to rule.

From what I have read, most of the deaths attributed to Hussein occurred in the earlier 90s when he was quashing the Kurd rebellion. Kind of like what is happening now as we are quashing the Sunni rebellion, I suppose. I've have not seen credible evidence of mass murders in the last few years.

All of this is steps in creating a peaceful nation. Ill agree a lot of people are dying because of this war, but that is innevitable.

It was certainly not inevitable.

Creating a peaceful nation of democracy has its costs.

Isn't the concept of killing 30,000 in order to create a peaceful nation somewhat contradictory?

And unfortunately these peoples lives are the cost for future generations to live out their lives without fear of having electro-shock utensils hooked up to their balls and getting the **** shocked out of them.

Assuming that after the tens of thousands of more deaths that will occur as a result of our peaceful mission, Iraq doesn't end up with a government that is more radical than the one it replaced.

I don't think Hussein was a swell guy. If he was so unacceptable to the Iraqis, they had the opportunity to boot him out. But IMO, if our goal is to save the oppressed from dictators we better reinstitute the draft big time because there are a lot of countries we should be invading. If our goal is to stop radical Islamic fundamentalists we picked the wrong country because Hussein was not that. If our goal was to stop states that sponsored terrorists there were several above the list from Iraq; the evidence I have seen does not suggest Hussein was ever involved in a terrorist attack, and to the minor extent he arguably supported "terrorists" they were anti-Isreali Palestinians, not against America.
 
Last edited:

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
No I do not. So much of what has been said about Iraq and Hussein has turned out to be wrong or fabrication I have become cynical about the "Hussein is satan" claims. I don't doubt he ruled Iraq with an iron boot. When there was a rebellion, he crushed it. We have caused 30,000 Iraqi deaths, many times more wounded, in 2 1/2 years we have ruled the place, so it appears to be a pretty tough place to rule.

From what I have read, most of the deaths attributed to Hussein occurred in the earlier 90s when he was quashing the Kurd rebellion. Kind of like what is happening now as we are quashing the Sunni rebellion, I suppose. I've have not seen credible evidence of mass murders in the last few years.



It was certainly not inevitable.



Isn't the concept of killing 30,000 in order to create a peaceful nation somewhat contradictory?



Assuming that after the tens of thousands of more deaths that will occur as a result of our peaceful mission, Iraq doesn't end up with a government that is more radical than the one it replaced.

Then apparently you haven't seen the mass graves. Hussein enacted genocide on a scale not seen since nazi Germany, you're diluting yourself on purpose so you don't have to fess up to the awful truth that you support a megalmaniacal genocidal maniac akin to Adolf Hitler and would rather dis-agree on the known fact that Saddam did engage in mass murder than to agree that Bush and the U.S. were right in removing him from power. Because if you did so then all of your illusions and misconceptions about the war in Iraq would crumble like a house of cards in the wind. It is futile for me to argue this fact with you any further just as it would be to argue with a nazi the fact that the holocaust had occured.
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Billo_Really said:
What does this mean to you? When you say, "Support the Troops", what exactly does this mean? How does one "Support the Troops"? Prove to me this is nothing more than a slogan on a bumper.

Give them everything they need to fight effectively. Whether that be
guns, butter, hookers or IPods I don't care. Just let 'em fight like winners.

$.02

Open the flood gates, let the "We can't win" and "This war was illegal"
crowd chime in. I am not rationalizing the current war, just opining on your
opening question.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Then apparently you haven't seen the mass graves. Hussein enacted genocide on a scale not seen since nazi Germany, you're diluting yourself on purpose so you don't have to fess up to the awful truth that you support a megalmaniacal genocidal maniac akin to Adolf Hitler and would rather dis-agree on the known fact that Saddam did engage in mass murder than to agree that Bush and the U.S. were right in removing him from power. Because if you did so then all of your illusions and misconceptions about the war in Iraq would crumble like a house of cards in the wind. It is futile for me to argue this fact with you any further just as it would be to argue with a nazi the fact that the holocaust had occured.

Why weren't these mass graves part of the case brought against him on trial?

No, I don't support Hussein. I don't think the US should invade a lot of countries. That doesn't mean I support their governments.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Iriemon said:
Why weren't these mass graves part of the case brought against him on trial?

No, I don't support Hussein. I don't think the US should invade a lot of countries. That doesn't mean I support their governments.

The Iraqi Special Tribunal will try Saddam Hussein on charges arising from 14 incidents:

The 1987-88 Anfal campaign, in which hundreds of thousands of Kurds were killed or expelled from northern Iraq
The mortar bombardment of Kirkuk (undated)
The 1991 suppression of the Shia uprising in the south after Iraq was expelled from Kuwait during the Gulf War
The 1982 Dujail massacre, in which at least 50 Iraqis were executed in retaliation for an assassination attempt
The forced emigration of the Fayli Kurds from northern Iraq to Iran
The 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in which an estimated 5,000 people died
The 1990 invasion of Kuwait
The execution of 8,000 members of the Barzani tribe, a powerful Kurdish clan
The execution of prominent religious figures
The execution of prominent political figures
Crimes against religious parties
Crimes against political parties
Crimes against secular parties
The draining of the southern marshes after the 1991 Shia uprising

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1653226,00.html

Keep in mind that these are JUST the internal charges brought against him from a national standpoint...None of these are international crimes...They would probably come later...
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
Why weren't these mass graves part of the case brought against him on trial?

No, I don't support Hussein. I don't think the US should invade a lot of countries. That doesn't mean I support their governments.

See, this is where those on the left are constantly contradicting themselves, you cannot say that you do not support Hussein and then turn around and say that you don't support the mission to remove him from power. It's one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it to on this one, you're going to have to draw a line in the sand and state for all to know right here and now whether or not you supported allowing Hussein to remane in power to actively pursue his genocidal actions of mass murder against his own citizenry! Confess! The truth shall set you free.
 
Last edited:

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
See, this is where those on the left are constantly contradicting themselves, you cannot say that you do not support Hussein and then turn around and say that you don't support the mission to remove him from power. It's one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it to on this one, you're going to have to draw a line in the sand and state for all to know right here and now whether or not you supported allowing Hussein to remane in power to actively pursue his genocidal actions of mass murder against his own citizenry! Confess! The truth shall set you free.

See, this is how those on the right lead our country into terrible decisions like the invasion of Iraq.

Of course you can say you do not support a regime but also say you don't support the mission to remove it from power!

Do you support the Govt of France? If not we should invade?
Do you support the Govt of Russia? If not we should invade?
Do you support the Govt of Cuba? If not we should invade?
Do you support the Govt of China? If not we should invade?

How about Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Iran? Vietnam? North Korea? Venezuela? Etc. etc. etc.

Your argument -- that just because you don't support the regime in power means you must support a "mission to remove it from power" or you are being contradictory, is nonsense.

As to your last question, I have said before -- IMO it would be better for the US (though maybe not Isreal) if we did not invade and Hussein was still in power. In fact, I think it would be clearly better. IMO, this unjustified, erroneous, pretextual invasion has done a lot of damage to the US and we will feel the ramifications for years to come.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
The Iraqi Special Tribunal will try Saddam Hussein on charges arising from 14 incidents:

The 1987-88 Anfal campaign, in which hundreds of thousands of Kurds were killed or expelled from northern Iraq
The mortar bombardment of Kirkuk (undated)
The 1991 suppression of the Shia uprising in the south after Iraq was expelled from Kuwait during the Gulf War
The 1982 Dujail massacre, in which at least 50 Iraqis were executed in retaliation for an assassination attempt
The forced emigration of the Fayli Kurds from northern Iraq to Iran
The 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in which an estimated 5,000 people died
The 1990 invasion of Kuwait
The execution of 8,000 members of the Barzani tribe, a powerful Kurdish clan
The execution of prominent religious figures
The execution of prominent political figures
Crimes against religious parties
Crimes against political parties
Crimes against secular parties
The draining of the southern marshes after the 1991 Shia uprising

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1653226,00.html

Keep in mind that these are JUST the internal charges brought against him from a national standpoint...None of these are international crimes...They would probably come later...

If you believe these acts are true and justify the invasion and occupation Iraq -- it seems to me that it should have been done in the late 80s or early 90s, it is not a justification for invasion in 2003.

But this stuff wasn't the reason we invaded Iraq. Or at least it wasn't in 2003. It is an after-the-fact justification being argued now because the original reasons were false. Shoot more people than this have been dying in the Sudan. Why don't we have 150000 troops there?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
See, this is how those on the right lead our country into terrible decisions like the invasion of Iraq.

Of course you can say you do not support a regime but also say you don't support the mission to remove it from power!

Do you support the Govt of France? If not we should invade?
Do you support the Govt of Russia? If not we should invade?
Do you support the Govt of Cuba? If not we should invade?
Do you support the Govt of China? If not we should invade?

How about Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Iran? Vietnam? North Korea? Venezuela? Etc. etc. etc.

Your argument -- that just because you don't support the regime in power means you must support a "mission to remove it from power" or you are being contradictory, is nonsense.

As to your last question, I have said before -- IMO it would be better for the US (though maybe not Isreal) if we did not invade and Hussein was still in power. In fact, I think it would be clearly better. IMO, this unjustified, erroneous, pretextual invasion has done a lot of damage to the US and we will feel the ramifications for years to come.

So are you then in your round about way finally admitting that you do infact support Saddam Hussein remaining in power?

Yes I would have supported the liberation of Cuba thirty years ago but not now, China and France are two totally different scenarios, has China and France actively engaged in mass genocide recently? No they have not. I would have and do support the liberation of the Sudan, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea, however, due to the inaction during the Clinton era an assault on N. Korea is impossible due to their nuclear capability, Iran must be stopped before it's to late, the U.N. should already have announced the Sudan as a regime responsible for attrocities and sent forces to remove and hold accountable the people responsible for this genocide, Syria is actively financing and giving logistical support to the Iraqi insurgency and thus we should bring the fight to them.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
So are you then in your round about way finally admitting that you do infact support Saddam Hussein remaining in power?

Yes I would have supported the liberation of Cuba thirty years ago but not now, China and France are two totally different scenarios, has China and France actively engaged in mass genocide recently? No they have not. I would have and do support the liberation of the Sudan, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea, however, due to the inaction during the Clinton era an assault on N. Korea is impossible due to their nuclear capability, Iran must be stopped before it's to late, the U.N. should already have announced the Sudan as a regime responsible for attrocities and sent forces to remove and hold accountable the people responsible for this genocide, Syria is actively financing and giving logistical support to the Iraqi insurgency and thus we should bring the fight to them.

You support the governments of Cuba and China. Communist.

But you think the US should invade and occupy Sudan, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea. Well at least you are an honest warmonger.

Yes, I do support Hussein remaining in power as opposed to the US invasion. Let the Iraqis remove him if they wanted. No I do not support Hussein's government. But it was better than the alternative of the US invading.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
You support the governments of Cuba and China. Communist.

But you think the US should invade and occupy Sudan, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea. Well at least you are an honest warmonger.

Yes, I do support Hussein remaining in power as opposed to the US invasion. Let the Iraqis remove him if they wanted. No I do not support Hussein's government. But it was better than the alternative of the US invading.

First off China is more capitalist than Europe.

Secondly if it makes me a war monger to want to eliminate genocidal regimes who starve their own people so that they can live lavish comfortable lives then ya sure I'm a warmonger.

Third, now I know where you stand and I'll end with this: The only thing it takes for evil men to reign is for good men to stand by and do nothing.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
First off China is more capitalist than Europe.

Secondly if it makes me a war monger to want to eliminate genocidal regimes who starve their own people so that they can live lavish comfortable lives then ya sure I'm a warmonger.

Third, now I know where you stand and I'll end with this: The only thing it takes for evil men to reign is for good men to stand by and do nothing.

I disagree. I don't support the government of Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or lots of others apparently you do. You can support dictators; you are entitled to your opinion.

Evil/good men is a nice sentiment, and there is some truth to it. It is one of the reasons I am protest against the action of our government, if good men don't stand up, evil will prevail. Though that makes me a traitor to you.

I would give it more weight to the the Iraq situation if it really was the reason we invaded. The fact this government has ignored or cozied up to other evil government puts this justification in the "excuse" column.

The Iraqi people are the ones to decide whether their government is evil. That is not our decision to make for for every country in the world, not our duty to impose our judgment on them.
 
Last edited:

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
I disagree. I don't support the government of Cuba, China or Russia, or lots of others apparently you do. You are entitled to your opinion.

Evil/good men is a nice sentiment, and there is some truth to it. It is one of the reasons I am protest against the action of our government, if good men don't stand up, evil will prevail. Though that makes me a traitor to you.

I would give it more weight to the the Iraq situation if it was the reason we supposedly invaded.

The Iraqi people are the ones to decide whether their government is evil. That is not our decision to make for for every country in the world, not our duty to impose our judgment on them.

Because you consider taking out evil regimes unjustified, you look to blame America where as I prefer to stand up against the true perpetrators of evil namely genocidal regimes throughout the world, you have fallen prey to the propoganda from these regimes in that you seek to blame the U.S. as the source of all that is wrong with the world when the truth is that the U.S. has done more for the betterment of mankind and the pursuit of freedom than any other nation in the history of civilization. The U.S. is not the enemy of freedom and to the contrary we are the only ones who have the strength and the resolve to stand up to the tyrants of the world.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
Shouldn't you be more concerned about the marginal good that comes at the cost of a human life?
I mean, a lot more people died in World War II than will ever die in Iraq, but the actual amount of good done in World War II makes us believe that it was all worth it, since the amount of good that happened was more than the cost of all of those lives.
And the amount of good in comparison to the amount of deaths would be much better in Iran than in Iraq, considering Iran is much more of a terrorist threat than Iraq, and the people in Iran have it a lot worse than they had it in Iraq.

While I agree that Iran is a serious threat to global stability I am really not so sure as to how you came to the conclusion that the Iranian people have it worse off than those in Iraq. I don't think that the Mullahs and Clerics of Iran (allthough they are certainly despots) actively engage in genocide against their own citizenry and their people I feel are granted far more liberties and political openess than the Iraqis under the Stalinistic Baathist regime.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Because you consider taking out evil regimes unjustified, you look to blame America where as I prefer to stand up against the true perpetrators of evil namely genocidal regimes throughout the world, you have fallen prey to the propoganda from these regimes in that you seek to blame the U.S. as the source of all that is wrong with the world when the truth is that the U.S. has done more for the betterment of mankind and the pursuit of freedom than any other nation in the history of civilization. The U.S. is not the enemy of freedom and to the contrary we are the only ones who have the strength and the resolve to stand up to the tyrants of the world.

LOL who has fallen for propoganda?
 

WinterSun

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Private
Well I've seen many "support the troops" logos on the internet and message boards since the Iraq war started in 2003. They look very sickly with animated teddy bears decourated with blinking lights (to appear cuddly) and most people are ignorant of the details kept from the public. So to dare criticise them or question this Iraq invasion will already make some of us appear outlaws.

...the actual amount of good done in World War II makes us believe that it was all worth it, since the amount of good that happened was more than the cost of all of those lives.
And the amount of good in comparison to the amount of deaths would be much better in Iran than in Iraq, considering Iran is much more of a terrorist threat than Iraq, and the people in Iran have it a lot worse than they had it in Iraq.

What a load of garbage this is. Talk about getting whipped up by the media. :rolleyes:
Do you really believe that?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Iriemon said:
LOL who has fallen for propoganda?

You, name one country that has done more good to help the world than the U.S.?

You, and half the people on this sight who spout off Al-Jazeera talking points on a daily basis.

You, I have not heard an original thought come out of your fingertips since the begining of this discussion.

You, who denies the widely accepted fact that Saddam perpetrated genocide and crimes against humanity on his own citizentry negating his right to soveriegnty and giving the U.S. the right under international law to use force to remove him from power.

You and others on this sight, who even now as we speak attempt to revise history right in front of my very eyes in that you are calling this an illegal war allthough the U.N. passed a resolution threatening serious consequences against Saddam if he did not abide by the parameters of the dozen odd previous resolutions which he failed to do, and denying the fact that the President was granted expressed permission by congress for the use of force against Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom