El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I wonder, how is our soldiers fighting in a country with no connection to us or our welfare, fighting for our freedom? Technically aren't they fighting for the supposed freedom of the Iraqi's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior I think killing OTHER human beings and dying for a government who sent you to do these things based on a lie and a hidden agenda SHOULD conflict with EVERYONE's welfare. I think it's astounding how in war it's so easy to think, well our soldiers are dying for our freedom and be happy that they're doing that for us. But hardly ever is there an uproar over the fact that they are also KILLING for our freedom. HOW many Iraqi soldiers and innocents are dead? tens of thousands? Why are we not mourning them? They are human beings. They had hopes and dreams, a family that loved them, maybe wives or mothers or daughters or brothers. I think it's sad that people can just accept killing and dying in war as something that just happens. War is retarded. Now don't get me wrong, I have immense repect for our troops, I really do, and if they were fighting against an actual THREAT to the United States I wouldn't say a thing. I dont think THEY are in the wrong in Iraq either. They're soldiers they do what they're told. It's the administration that SENT them there that's in the wrong. I will NOT stand by and say, "oh looky our soldiers are so brave I support what we're doing" no matter the situation. We WERE wrong when we went to Vietnam, and we were wrong to invade Iraq. i am not going to debate whether or not vietnam was right or wrong, i mentioned vientam as a repelling of our troops, which is what is happening to our troops in Iraq beause of thinkers like you. Yes, you have to KILL to get FREEDOM, it is necessary, it happened in the Revolutionary war, the American Civil war, the world wars, in every war, we have been protecting someone or somethings freedom. in order to save some, some must die. that is how the world works, discussion doesn't solve anything, you need to back up your words with force(force lightning and mind trick work very well). And that is how it will continue until the end of time. People WILL DIE, people WILL SUFFER, wbut it is necessary for FREEDOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith the taliban were tied into Al Qaeda... and the taliban were terrorists that were helping Osama bin Laden, this was justified because it was actually for the war on terror, this war in Iraq is bull and taking away from the most dangerous man in the world. bin Laden attacked us, not Saddam. The only claim we made about the Taliban's connection to Al-Queda, is that they knew where they were, and we gave them the choice to turn them over and be spared. Al-Queda is constantly on the move, it is quite possible that they knew nothing that would satisfy us sufficiently. The Taliban was a cruel and horrible regime that needed to be removed, and 9/11 gave our leaders the momentum and support to take care of them. The only problem, was they tried to drag that support out farther, but the American people stopped supporting it. I bet in 50 years, some people will have theories about Bush and 9/11, not unlike those people have about Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor. i am mourning the deaths of the Iraqi civilians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin 9/11 gave our leaders the momentum and support to take care of them. The only problem, was they tried to drag that support out farther, but the American people stopped supporting it. balogna, people have and continue to support the war on terror, it was a fully justified war, one that is near impossible to win. But a justified one. We were attacked by bin Laden and Al Qaeda, not Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch People WILL DIE, people WILL SUFFER, wbut it is necessary for FREEDOM And the fact that people refuse to think any other way than YOU do is the reason why that is so. Discussion should NOT have to be backed up by violence. What is the point? "You may be smarter than me and you make a lot of sense, but I'm gonna kick your ass now so I win!" We're locked in a primitive stuggle to assert our manhood? We cannot evolve PAST the need for violence? I think man is doomed if we can never change this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch you need to back up your words with force you can present military force without actually going to war, bush just took his powers and jumped right in and declared war. He could have just used the military presence to pressure saddam, without having to go to war. just because people have always suffered doesn't mean they always have to. You can always try to change things with words. Violence isn't the only way to solve conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin i am mourning the deaths of the Iraqi civilians! But not the soldiers? who died only trying to protect their homes from invaders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 The arguement that war is the only way to achieve peace is the most bull**** arguement out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 you misunderstand me Sith, i meant that they were not able to extend the countries support to Iraq, not that they lost support over everything. also, you said that Bin Laden and Al Queda attacked the US. that is true, the Taliban did not! the two are not interchangeable. the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, Al Queda is a terrorist group that attacked the US. IMO, both the Taliban and the Hussein regime are terrorists, but they terrorized their citizens, not us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior And the fact that people refuse to think any other way than YOU do is the reason why that is so. Discussion should NOT have to be backed up by violence. What is the point? "You may be smarter than me and you make a lot of sense, but I'm gonna kick your ass now so I win!" We're locked in a primitive stuggle to assert our manhood? We cannot evolve PAST the need for violence? I think man is doomed if we can never change this. i'm being realistic here. there will always be some looneydictator who tries to infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. we will not be able to say"oh please mr. dictator sir, please be nice to these people" and expet him to say"oh my, what was i thinking, i'm sorry" you need to remove him from office. that can be done with a simple and quick assassination(which, IMO is a good idea). But he will have loyal followers who will fight back, which you need to repress with force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 old but still holds true. "fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior But not the soldiers? who died only trying to protect their homes from invaders? I was including them as civilians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith old but still holds true. "fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity" there will be no peace, it is as simple as that, as long as there is free-will there will be no peace. war supresses the opression of peace, it does not bring peace, the is a DISTINCT difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch that can be done with a simple and quick assassination(which, IMO is a good idea). Assassination is not a good idea! That is why we are hated in the world. We send the CIA to support some rebel group in getting rid of a dictator, but we dont finish the job! Removing a dictator is only half the battle, we have to leave something better behind. What we usually do just leaves a power vacuum that results in someone worse taking over (that or we put that person in charge). How do u think Hussein got into power? IMO, that alone is a good reason to get rid of Hussein, he is our fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin I was including them as civilians in that case I have immense respect for you in this area "fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity" Quoted because it's true. i'm being realistic here. there will always be some looneydictator who tries to infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. I was being realistic in that it is pathetic that people cannot even THINK beyond a need for violence. How many "looney dictators" has the US removed from power and in doing so helped out the citizens that were being oppressed? Two. How many are in the world? A lot more than two. So how come we're content to let those other dictators murder their citizens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin the Taliban did not! the two are not interchangeable. the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, Al Queda is a terrorist group that attacked the US. the Taliban supported, sheltered, and protected Al Qaeda, and many taliban warlords funded Al Qaeda events. They were a real priority in the war on terror, right next to Al Qaeda. I never said they were interchangable, if you got that impression I am sorry. MLK jr. tore down the walls of black oppression with non-violence. Ghandi tore down the horrible treatment of the Hindi people in India with non-violence. If they can do it, we can. You dont' have to kill to get people to do stuff, if they require leverage give it to them, war should always be only a last effort. What'd Bush do? he spent 3 months just talking to the UN about Saddam being a threat, then decided, we'll go to war. Three months is not long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior in that case I have immense respect for you in this area Quoted because it's true. I was being realistic in that it is pathetic that people cannot even THINK beyond a need for violence. How many "looney dictators" has the US removed from power and in doing so helped out the citizens that were being oppressed? Two. How many are in the world? A lot more than two. So how come we're content to let those other dictators murder their citizens? we aren't, it is just that the government gets a lot of flak from those instances and potential instances, so they cannot always succeed, it's the wishy-washy type who don't even know what they believe that are screwing over us all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jed Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Yes, you have to KILL to get FREEDOM, it is necessary, it happened in the Revolutionary war, the American Civil war, the world wars, in every war, we have been protecting someone or somethings freedom. in order to save some, some must die. that is how the world works, discussion doesn't solve anything, you need to back up your words with force(force lightning and mind trick work very well). And that is how it will continue until the end of time. People WILL DIE, people WILL SUFFER, wbut it is necessary for FREEDOM No, that is wrong. Discussion CAN work. It's the people with the itchy trigger finger that would rather see people die in order to get something done faster. And why Iraq? If they posed no danger to our country, why the hell did we "liberate" them? If the US is planning on being the cops of the world, then I expect several other campaigns for freedom, where we sacrifice our troops for no damn reason, to save other countries from brutal situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch it's the wishy-washy type who don't even know what they believe that are screwing over us all or perhaps you're just to closed up in your little propaganda bubble, that you don't realize what others are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 i am not caught up in the propoganda, i have believed these things since i was able to read... we liberated them not because they were a threat to us, but they were a threat to themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jed Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch i am not caught up in the propoganda, i have believed these things since i was able to read... we liberated them not because they were a threat to us, but they were a threat to themselves But WHAT makes Iraq so damn important in comparison to, let's say, the genocide in Sudan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 but I thought we went there because they could've nuked us... oh my which message from the president and his staff am I to believe?!?! ._.;; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Jed But WHAT makes Iraq so damn important in comparison to, let's say, the genocide in Sudan. they are both important because in both instances, peoples freedoms are being impaired, it was just very easy to gather support for Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Jed But WHAT makes Iraq so damn important in comparison to, let's say, the genocide in Sudan. OIL! Seriously we have most of our troops guarding the oil fields than we do protecting the innocent civilians from robbers, muggers, and killers. We have left practically no authority in the areas we've "liberated". There are innocent Iraqi's now being killed by looters and vandals because noone is there to uphold the law and protect these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch they are both important because in both instances, peoples freedoms are being impaired, it was just very easy to gather support for Iraq or maybe bush didn't wanna save the black people <_< I actually think it's easier to gain support to remove a genocidal rule from power. I mean all you have to do is make a hitler comparison and BAM! you got yourself a lot of people already wanting to help. Genocide is an evil practice and lots of people are saddend by the events happening in Sudan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.