The War in Iraq

[PanzerTekk]

One thing bush has done in my eyes that is an abuse of his power....

Start the development of a new class of nuke. (his mini nuke....bunker buster)

NO nation has produced a new class of nuke since the cold war.....until now.

All that nuke disarmament for nothing...*sigh*

 

and with all the WW2 stuff...its very likely that the books etc that I've read and the information it contained have not seen your eyes. Most people only know/are taught the mainstream causes/effects/events that transpired during that time.

I could go into a giant post about how the allies were given the exact date and time of the invasion of poland and did nothing.....but ya. If you wanna chat some time on msn give me a shout.

dfect_@hotmail.com

 

But anyways....some people may read this and see a heated topic...but its not. I'm not fuming on this end...actually.....I'm more frustrated at my allergies right now hehe. god damn sniffles...

 

We need some form of alien invasion to bring this damn wortld together and get rid of all this racial tension/infighting....BRING ON THE EWOKS FROM THE STARS!!

^^ cold medicine talking.

 

p.s I want a storm trooper armour set.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by PanzerTekk

We need some form of alien invasion to bring this damn wortld together and get rid of all this racial tension/infighting

 

That's weird, I had this same discussion with my father last night. The problem with humans is that we need a sense of community, a sense of belonging. And the way we DO that, is by creating an 'us' and a 'them' We've seen it in separation of the sexes, racial segregation, homosexual discrimination.

 

If anyone here is from a small town community, you probably know that there is almost always a fierce rivalry between your town, and the next closest small town. It's us versus them, but if both of your towns are together in an event that involves people from other states, you will group together, because now them is people from out of state.

 

I think the only chance humans have of surviving as a species is if we can finally put our petty differences aside and unite as a whole. And I think the only way that can happen is if we find or are found by an alien race, and we have a new 'them' to bind us together.

[PanzerTekk]

I agree. Just the knowledge that we aren't alone in the galaxy may be enough to do exsactly that, but hey....this is just speculation.

 

Hopefully we are going in the right direction with the euro. I wouldn't mind seeing us on the way to a world government in my lifetime.

[B1GC]

Yes I do wish we could all be united as one race, but it is against human nature. Even in an advanced culture such as Star Wars you will see seperations, such as the rich and poor. The Rich and Poor have always been seperated and probably always will. It is just a fact of life, a sad fact but one that exists.

 

The only solution was socialism, but as we all know it works better on paper then in reality. In my opinion the only way communism would have worked is if the whole world went to it at once. The problem is USSR could not keep up with capitalist prices and ultimatly failed.

 

- Just to comment a little on world history. History has seen many powerful nations. Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, Mongolia, France, Britian, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Russia, India, China, Japan, US. During each nations most powerful times (the climax of their power) it seems they have been able to go to war with whomever they choose. War has been a factor of every powerful nation that ever was. For thousdands of years countries went to war jsut to expand their riches and land. Every nation in the world is responsible for doing this. Every country i mentioned did it. People for all those years fought and died for causes that were no their own. But this is the 21st century times have changed you say. Or have they? -

 

Regardless of whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong. The leaders wished to protect their interests, both personal and national.

 

Yes, I am for the war in Iraq. I think that the casues behind the war are good ones. Even if they are not I will put on my "ignorant happy american face" and say that if the war is not being fought for any d*mn good cause other than it is the American machine stretching its muscles and using its power. I mean countries did it for thousands of years so what the h*ll we can too. And I can say I dont care what any other country says about it I do what want and say it was for good causes.

 

Dont take this the wrong way, I do hope there were good reasons behind the war.

[PanzerTekk]

Man....dont even call it a war. When you step on a few ants.....is that a war?

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by B1GC

Regardless of whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong. The leaders wished to protect their interests, both personal and national.

fact is, leaders should protect our interest, and those of human race. but they don't, none of them does.

 

Yes, I am for the war in Iraq. I think that the casues behind the war are good ones. Even if they are not I will put on my "ignorant happy american face" and say that if the war is not being fought for any d*mn good cause other than it is the American machine stretching its muscles and using its power. I mean countries did it for thousands of years so what the h*ll we can too.

err.. we used to burn witches. if you got my point. it's not our fault that the world is like our ancestors made it, but it'll be our fault if we don't change the things which are outdated. and war is a method we should not necessarily teach our children as a way to solve problems.

 

Dont take this the wrong way, I do hope there were good reasons behind the war.

there are many american and iraqi people who lost members of their family, children lost their fathers and/or mothers, and parent lost their children. that is, i hope, any good reason against any war.

[Shadowman17]

Nobody is ever going to be able to stop terrorism. As long as human beings exist, then there will be those who have a complete disregard for the lives of other human beings. We can never banish hatred completely. So let us not blame any single person, Democrat or Republican, for not "stopping" terrorism.

[VanLingo]

But by the same token, you can't blame them for trying.

 

Whether or not we can stop it, the less there is, the better.

[El Sitherino]

the best way to fight hatred is with kindness.

[yaebginn]

no its not

[El Sitherino]

sure it is, war only creates more hatred.

[yaebginn]

but if you dont, then u get killed and eliminated.

[El Sitherino]

if it happens it happens.

[yaebginn]

? do u really beleive that is the way to go?

[Ray Jones]

sure, why not? isnt it what 'god' tells you to do as well? being peaceful and kind?

[VanLingo]

Absolutely not. Not in a situation like this.

 

Take Samuel 14 for example: God literally knocked down 20 trash-talking Phillistines, which Jonathan and his armor-bearer walked through and killed.

 

Or in Second Kings 2: Children of the city of Jericho mocked Elisha's bald head. And just for making fun of a priest, God caused two bears to come out of the woods and eat 42 little kids!

 

Killing for spite, hatred, or judegement is not what God ever intended. However, killing out of service to another -- be it God, your country, or in defense of another human -- is not only acceptable, but condoned.

[El Sitherino]

didn't jesus teach turn the other cheek? Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I remember after you know... reading the bible.

[Lord Blackadder]

I've got a great idea, how about we leave all the undeveloped and uncivilized countries to their own devices and if any of them start showing aggression to anyone outside their own borders we wipe the whole of their country off the face of the planet? I mean let's face it, most of them have nothing to contribute to the world and are a drain on money and resources. Then we can end wars and concentrate on more important things like exploration and research in to new technology.

[Ray Jones]

is peace the message of your religion or is it war and hatred?

 

different opinions and views will never come together if violence is involved.

 

i can see a very reason a "hurt me and i hurt you" behaviour. but war just doesnt works like that.

war is killing more people than necessary. war is killing innocent people. war is killing our children. and i dont mean american or iraqi people. i dont speak about american or iraqi children. i mean HUMANS.

and war destroys our nature. war influences our climate. starting a war is plain just not the proper way to solve problems in the year 2004. of course starting a terrorist attack isn't much better either. but this is not a reason for killing many innocent people who wouldnt even support any terrorist attacks, just like a terrorist attack kills innocent people, who not necessarily are the terrorists main target.

 

the problem of terrorism is not solvable with war. you go in with bombs and whatnot. but have you ever thought about that there is no terrorist where your bombs are? the terrorist is somewhere else. he is thousands of miles away and blows up a train in the rush hour with hundreds of righteous people on their way to work. mamas and papas on their way to work. whole families. is it that you want to hear? "hey, sorry pal, but.. your mom was blown up this morning" or "sorry, your wife is dead.", will you love it to explain this **** to your kid? where mama is? and isnt it the same thing as if american bombs kill innocents? have you ever thought about that? have you ever REALLY thought about what should all this give to anyone of us? do you really feel safe where you are just because there are some soldiers somewhere on the other side of the planet?

 

also if you support a war outside of your country you must support a war inside of your country too.

[yaebginn]

Our religion isnt about peace as much as it is do whats right. I mean, there will be eternal peace in Heaven, but on Earth, there isnt, so we have to do whats right. It is a tradegy when people when they didnt need to. They are called collateral damage. It's a terrible thing, very sad. But what you're sounding like is justto let the terrorists carry on with their way and to stop fighting them. Thats just sick. We may not be able to stop it completely we can greatly diminsih it.

[Ray Jones]

i just have to disagree. and i dont say let the terrorists do their stuff. i basically say "dont do it like the terrorists and kill innocent people". and i give a rats ass what you may call it, although i am well aware of what it's called. it's killing innocent people.

 

and if it's that what your religion says then it is pure crap. it isnt worth anything because it doesnt gives a **** about human lifes. innocent lifes. lifes from here and now. not somewhere sometime in heaven or hell. right now here on earth. this is where we live. get that. and basically, what you sound like is, do what's right and kill innocent people? how's that supposed to be "right", not to talk about being morally arguable.

[boranchistanger]

Time to jump back in.

 

Regardless of whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong. The leaders wished to protect their interests, both personal and national.

 

Really? I guess that risking the chance of not being reelected is a personal interest for Bush? It was known that the War in Iraq would most likely hurt Bush more than it helped him and that has been the case. If Bush loses the election it will be because of Iraq and nothing else.

 

I mean countries did it for thousands of years so what the h*ll we can too.

 

Because we're above all those other "great nations." We don't build empires, we don't enslave people under our rule. Unlike the empires that you mentioned the US helps its neghbors more than it hurts them. How much money did the British Empire give to Ireland to help stop the potatoe famine? None. How much does the US give to Africa a year to help fight AIDS there? Billions. In all fairness Canada give 250 million.

 

Hmm, I wonder how many Roman soldiers died trying to bring peace to Persia during one of its many civil wars? Maybe one drunk soldier who wound up in Persia when he took a wrong turn at Arabia. How many Americans died in Somalia? How many died in Bosnia? Hundreds.

 

Hmm, I wonder how many Soviet soldiers died in the Korean War? Hmmm... none! How many American soldiers died defending Europe's butts in WWI, WWII? Hundreds of thousands. And what does the US get in return? Anti-Americanism!

 

fact is, leaders should protect our interest, and those of human race. but they don't, none of them does.

 

They don't? I guess fighting terrorism isn't in our interests and isn't in the interests of the human race. Like I said earlier, we went into Iraq for one simple reason: To establish a democracy in the Middle East. Terrorism cannot thrive in a stable democracy. Like I explained earlier democracy will spread once Iraq is a stable one. Iran and Saudi Arabia are already beginning to rebel while the Syrian government becomes less and less popular.

 

err.. we used to burn witches. if you got my point. it's not our fault that the world is like our ancestors made it, but it'll be our fault if we don't change the things which are outdated. and war is a method we should not necessarily teach our children as a way to solve problems.

 

OK, I give in. You're right. Here is how we should have treated Iraq. Bush and Blair should have invited Saddam to a nice tea party with lots of pink flowers. There President Bush should have asked Saddam to give up his WMD's. Remember Mr. President, you have to say please. That very nice gentleman Saddam would have then said "sure, OK. Here they are." Then, Mr. Blaire should have politely asked very nice man Saddam to stop harboring terrorism. Nice man Saddam would have then said "OK". Then, President Bush should have asked Very sane Saddam to make Iraq more democratic. Mr Saddam would have then said "OK". And there you have it, the problem is solved.

 

there are many american and iraqi people who lost members of their family, children lost their fathers and/or mothers, and parent lost their children. that is, i hope, any good reason against any war.

 

Hmmm, even when we aren't at war we seem to lose quite a few people. Terrorist attacks during the CLinton administration against innocent Americans resulted in thousands dead. 911 resulted in 3000 deaths. In Iraq over 500,000 people died for no reason under Saddam. All of this to innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

 

Clinton COULD have stopped terrorism.... but he was too busy getting his "you know what" sucked.

 

I hate when people say that. That is not the case at all. Clinton couldn't have stopped terrorism, nobody could have. Was there things he could have done to prevent 911? Yes. I don't think launchiong a cruise missile at an abandoned Al Queda camp will teach anybody a lesson. I'm no Clinton fan, however I don't blame him for the situation we are in now.

 

I've got a great idea, how about we leave all the undeveloped and uncivilized countries to their own devices and if any of them start showing aggression to anyone outside their own borders we wipe the whole of their country off the face of the planet? I mean let's face it, most of them have nothing to contribute to the world and are a drain on money and resources. Then we can end wars and concentrate on more important things like exploration and research in to new technology.

 

Ughhh. (Shakes head). Let's see here, what will help the world more. Stabalizing and reforming the third world so that trade increases, humanity flurishes, the environment is saved and so forth or will landing 4 guys on Mars to put up the American Flag be better?

 

Is it just me or is everything black and white to Republicans? It's like there is no gray area. Abortion is murder period. War is alright period.

 

Republicans think war is alright period? Let's look at the rundown of who started all of our major wars here. (Stars mean preemptive wars)

 

Tripoli: Thomas Jefferson (Democrat)

War of 1812: Madison (Democrat)*

Mexican War: Polk (Democrat)*

Civil War: Buchanon (Democrat)

Spanish-American War: McKinley (Republican)

World War I: Wilson (Democrat)*

World War II: Roosavelt (Democrat)

Korean War: Truman (Democrat)

Vietnam War: Kennedy (Democrat)

Persian Gulf War: Bush (Republican)

Somalia: Clinton (Democrat)

Bosnia: Clinton (Democrat)*

Kosovo: Clinton (Democrat)

Operation Enduring Freedom: Bush (Republican)

Operation Iraqi Freedom: Bush (Republican)*

 

 

Seems the Democrats have quite a history with starting wars.

 

If the fetus is terminated before it has a chance to develop a nervous system, then I don't think it's any more murder than using a condom during sex. All you're doing is stopping the growth of a group of cells that may or may not become a human being, but at the time, I don't believe it IS a human being.

 

Within two weeks of the union between sperm and egg you have a human being with a heart-beat. Once the heart beats, it is alive and is a human. Abortions usually take place well after that time.

 

I don't condone it as an act of birth control, and mothers deffinately need a limit on how many abortions they are allowed to recieve, but overall I support choice.

 

Understand that only 2% of all abortions are done because of rape or when the woman's life is in danger. Only 2%! That means 98% of the 2 million+ abortions every year are done as a form of birth control. Murder is not birth control!

 

What would you do, assuming you're old enough to be able to think about this, if you had a daughter who was 16 years old. Still in high school, planning on college and a good career. Suppose she gets knocked up by a guy who doesn't want to be a father, and will probably leave her when she has her baby. Having that kid could very well ruin her life. High school won't be easy, having to manage a kid, she'll probably drop out. She won't be able to have the normal life a 16 year old girl should have, she almost certainly won't be able to go to college, and the financial strain will probably reach all the way to you. What are you going to do? Force your daughter to carry and birth the child to uphold your set of morals? Or give her the choice to make with her life. Assuming you're old enough to understand what it would be like to have a daughter whom you love unconditionally, that's no black and white situation.

 

Think about these things ET.

 

1.) She had a choice of whether or not to engage in sexual activity with that man knowing the consequences that may happen because of her actions.

 

2.) Under federal law the father must pay up some cash. The father is as equally responable as the woman in this.

 

3.) Like I said, the girl knows the consequences of her actiuons. She knows that having a child will put a strain on your life and may in fact ruin your future. Therefor, she should have waited to engage in this kind of activity until she was truly ready. She must now accept the consequences just like murderors do when they kill someone.

 

-Boran

[Shadowman17]

First of all, up until around 1930 or so, the Democrats were the right wing party, and the Republicans were the left wing. F.D.R. was one of the first liberal Democrats. Second, the election of Lincoln was what caused many states to secede, and Buchanan wasn't even in office when the confederates fired on Fort Sumter. Third, Wilson did not 'start' WWI, he only intervened after it became appperant that the Allies would not win against Germany on their own.

 

Might as well have all of the facts.

[boranchistanger]

First of all, up until around 1930 or so, the Democrats were the right wing party, and the Republicans were the left wing. F.D.R. was one of the first liberal Democrats.

 

That's a very incorrect statement. The period between Lincoln and the end of the Taft administration has been known as "The age of the conservative Republicans." Roosevelt was definately liberal, but so was Wilson, Cleveland and other Democtats. Don't try to rewrite history plz.

 

Second, the election of Lincoln was what caused many states to secede, and Buchanan wasn't even in office when the confederates fired on Fort Sumter.

 

During the last days of Buchanon's administration the south seceded. Buchanon did absolutely nothing other than condemn the war. Regardless of whether Linoln or Douglas won the election the couth was going to secede because of Buchanon's disasterous policies.

 

Third, Wilson did not 'start' WWI, he only intervened after it became appperant that the Allies would not win against Germany on their own.

 

I was referring to bringing the US into the war. Wilson did it for absolutely no reason other than personal gain. The guy tried to paint the Germans as "evil imperialistic huns who want to take over all of us" which was not the case at all. An intellegent person would have kept us out of the war. A German victory actually would have resulted in a much better world after WWI.

[Shadowman17]

From the Wilson biography on http://www.whitehouse.gov:

 

"His growing national reputation led some conservative Democrats to consider him Presidential timber. First they persuaded him to run for Governor of New Jersey in 1910. In the campaign he asserted his independence of the conservatives and of the machine that had nominated him, endorsing a progressive platform, which he pursued as governor.

 

He was nominated for President at the 1912 Democratic Convention and campaigned on a program called the New Freedom, which stressed individualism and states' rights. In the three-way election he received only 42 percent of the popular vote but an overwhelming electoral vote."

 

Wilson was indeed a conservative Democrat. Also, the KKK, a right-wing extremist group, was at one time associated, however unofficially, with the Democratic Party.

 

Lincoln, was in fact, a liberal. Douglass wish to negotiate a way for states (new and old) to determine for themselves wether or not they would be slave holding states. This follows the classic, conservative, states rights formula. Lincoln, on the other hand, said that slavery would not extend beyond its current bounderies, the classic, liberal, Big Government formula.

 

The southern states were worried that the election of Lincoln would be the end of their 'noble institution' of slavery. The election of Lincoln, then, sent them into an uproar. Almost immediately, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas seceede from the Union.

 

On another note, I have said this before, but there has been a stable democracy in the Middle East for 81 years now, and it is Turkey. Just because it is a Muslim state does not mean it is a monarchy, dictatorship, or oligarchy. Just in case you are, for some reason, of the opinion that Turkey is not in the Middle East, then I turn your attention to a map of the world, which shows that Turkey is right above Syria and Iraq, and part of its eastern border with Iran.