Software

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Fighting a futile war

0 helpful
485 replies

by jardinier

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

As a spinoff from Maxwell Edison's latest global warming rant, Mr Absolutely suggested in response to a post of mine that a new thread be started regarding the criminal actions of George Bush and Co for the invasion of Iraq.

I have just received from a friend who is currently in China (she is half Chinese and actually lives in Australia) this link which is actually about chain emails, but strongly addresses the wrongfulness of the war in Iraq.

Read the whole item as there is a mixture of comments about chain emails and comments on the war itself.

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2008/01/another-reason-why-chain-letters-ought.html

485 replies

by mjd420nova

I present to you the scenario where Gore is elected president and 9-11 still happens. But instead of us going into Afganistan and Iraq, the terrorists are on the streets of New York and it is American citizens being killed by those suicide and car bombers. Think about the weak spined Gore and his administration that would cowtow to his lies about what is happening, just like his movie "Inconvient Lies".

by j-mart

But as a species we haven't reached the maturity to see this. When we reach this point and learn to put the wasted effort and resources of warfare into much more beneficial uses we will solve our problems and advance a lot faster.

The thing I find most interesting about all of the conflict in the middle east is at a fundamental level the 3 conflicting religions actually believe in the same God and recognize the laws from God given to Moses. They all seem to have forgotten the one about "thou shall not kill".

I think the legal profession came into existence at this time as though this seems to be as plain as black and white to me, the religeons involved have managed to find the small print that justifies them slaughtering each other in the name of their God, or could it just be another case of man creating god in his own image.

by protiusx

It has been a very long time since I?ve posted to these forums. This is by circumstance as well as by choice. There is so much lunacy on the Internet these days that I had to take a step back from it all. That is not to say that I have not been reading from time to time but for the most part I had to take a break. I did, however, receive an update email from TR which enticed me to return and see what dribble my irrational, illogical and rabid communist friends where spewing forth.

So what is it that I read first but a statement by j-mart that ?all war is wrong?. Even the qualifying statements are infantile and absurd. Let me begin at the beginning ?

You state that we as a species haven?t reached the ?maturity? to understand that all war is wrong. Man kind will forever bring war to this planet; death and destruction to one?s neighbor. This is the condition we are born to. We lie, cheat, steal and all because we inherently think of our selves first to the detriment of others. No level of ?maturity? will change the entire human race.

Secondly, you state that the three conflicting religions of the region believe in the same God. This is not true. If you ask any Imam whether Allah is the same God as Yahweh he will tell you emphatically NO. Likewise, if you were to pose the same question to the Jew they would answer just as strongly ?No!? There is a movement known as the ?Druze? or ?Druzism? that is an Israeli form of Islam which like the Gnostics and the neo-Platonic movement before them believe in a common or unifying deity. Most Islamic Imam?s disclaim the Druze as Infidel?s though.

Finally, I will address your comments about the commandment ?Thou Shall not Kill?? The Hebrew word for ?Kill? in this instance is more directly interpreted as ?murder? so the commandment should read ?Thou shall not commit murder...? and the two are not the same. God himself in the Old Testament lays waste to hundreds of thousands of people and actually uses murderers for great works. Remember that Moses himself was a murderer.

So, in summation what I am saying is that Man is a vicious, cruel, evil creature who is more concerned with personal gain, fulfillment and pleasure than the lives of his fellow. It?s the way we are wired and we?re not going to ?mature? out of it.

by locrian_lyric

Wars are fought for a variety of reasons.

Would a war against Germany after the invasion of Czechoslovachia been the wrong thing to do, or would it have saved millions of lives?

a small war against Rwanda's murderous regime would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Refusing to defend south vietnam led to the slaughter of 25% of the population of cambodia.

by Member 25348569

but so I absolutely don't agree with the scenario you paint that I have to post. 911 was no justification whatsoever for the invasion of Iraq. I repeat - NONE. It put your fellow citizens - and mine - at greater risk of terrorist attacks rather than reducing that risk by hugely increasing the number of terrorists and their supporters. Citizens of London were killed by suicide bombers [b]as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq[/b].

Stop fantasising! Gore wasn't President. That arse Bush was. We didn't GET your scenario. What we got - and still have - was so much worse. "Inconvenient Truth", I might say...

Neil

by jdclyde

The difference is people for NOW should be worried about "what now?". If there is a burst water pipe in your home, only a retard wastes the time to bitch about who's fault it is the pipe burst. Fix the problem and THEN worry about the blame.

What now?

by jdclyde

You hate Bush, and you think he should be brought up on charges.

If you were wishing to talk about "fighting a futile war" wouldn't you put forward some ideas on how to either fight it better (if in favor of it) or how to get out of it (if against it)?

by jdclyde

but no real meat to the story?

Every time I show up, I give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't expect much out of this one other than conspiracy theories and Bush hate, and nothing positive will come out of it.

Maybe howling at the moon will do them some good?

by jardinier

because I did not receive my email alerts about the discussion. So I assumed it was still-born.

The longer this "war" continues, the worse it will get. Mr Bush and his administration should have acknowledged three years ago that the invasion had not been planned properly and complete success was an impossibility. But of course America wants a PERMANENT base right there in the middle of the oil-rich nations to ensure oil supplies.

I apologize for our now FORMER Prime Minister John Howard getting Australia involved just so he could play in the major league and be able to say: "George and Tony are my buddies."

America and its allies should have cut and run two to three years ago. I feel sure that this would have resulted in less bloodshed and loss of lives in the long run.

by Member 25348569

but it wasn't me who posted "what if?" I'm past assigning blame - I KNOW who is to blame - and there's no reason at all to bring Al gore into this thread.

What now? Admit defeat and get out. It IS possible.

by jdclyde

They will remember the last time TWO times you ran, allowing those left behind to be wiped out. Happened in gulf war, will happen here.

by dadspad

That is a great example of what sudden withdrawal from a war looks like. It was all recorded by the media, just like this one will be.

The media made it look like the US ran scared. A very powerful look at the US to the rest of the world.

And there was no part of Vietnam that wanted to take over the rest of the world.

by Member 25348569

is EXACTLY what you (and we) have managed in Iraq.

Neil :)

I do think that you meant to post "burying your head in the sand", by the way.

by Member 25348569

except for mjd420nova bringing up Al Gore. Now, I know you all don't like him but I don't think he's relevant in this thread.

by jdclyde

but no, I would not have brought him into this discussion.

Clinton and Kerry maybe, as both said that Saddam was a global threat, but that is all besides the point....

by jamesrl

My philosophical approach is this:
No human is purely good, no human is purely evil.

War is evil and wrong. No one should love war. But war is at times unavoidable. And once a war has started, the best thing is to work towards its end.

Sometimes that can be accomplished through negotiations, but more often, wars have to be fought until one side is victorious. No doubt that causes pain heartache and suffering to the innocent of both sides.

You can try to avoid it as much as practical, but some civilian casualties in war are inevitable, and regrettable.

Also understand that war does not always resolve all conflict - we have too many examples to count there.

I hope that some day we will mature out of it, but whether thats going to happen by the time of my great great great granchildren, I'm not certain. But I can only hope that we get better over time.

And I do see hope. I do see that for most fo the world things are slowly getting better. Wars may be bigger, but they are less frequent(we've never had worldwide peace). We may get epidemics, but for the most part, we are curing more diseases and people, even in the worst conditions, are living longer.

James

by santeewelding

If that is all there is to it, there can be no faculty or measure or wiring to say so.

In summary, James must have his head up his ass.

by jackofalltech

Why must you attack the person? Here we were having an interesting, civil discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of war, but you had to change the subject to the presumed anatomy of one of the posters.

Can we please refrain from personal comments and just stay on topic?

by santeewelding

I do presume the head in this case midsaggital with the ass. Do you suggest the man's anatomy to be otherwise?

Now, that would constitute an attack most uncivil.

by jamesrl

I don't quite follow your train of thought.

I'm not an autodidact, though philosophy was not my major.

I posted my opinion, you are free to post yours. Your resort to a petty insult doesn't enlighten me as to why you feel the way you do.

James

by Member 25348569

It's Greek, innit! OK, so "Thesauri" can be forgiven because the Romans used "Thesaurus" but the root word for English [b]and[/b] Latin is Greek.

:D

Ah, the joys of pedantry.

by jiminpa

You know what?! We are D@mned if we do and d@mned if we don't. Ok whatever palMr. Bush is a criminal and Sadam Hussien was a saint. Whatever! I am so fed up with America bashing. If it were up to me we would stop all aid pull out all of our troops from all bases around the world. Kick out anyone who isn't supposed to be here, use all of our troops to fortify our borders and not let anyone in who doesn't come from a country who is actually a true ally.

If we did that...

Then everyone would hate us for that. So what do you suggest we do? That was a retorical question because I don't care what you have to say because last time I checked New South Wales wasn't in the United States.

Perhaps you have forgotten that WE were attacked by cowards and these cowards are being habored by the countries we went into but likely as not you don't care.

by jdclyde

What you don't realize is the same people screaming to get out are the same ones that were saying we DESERVED 911.

I don't understand how people can hate their own country, and think that WE were/are the evil force in the world.

I actually heard an asswipe in the store talking to his little buddy and say that WE have killed more than Saddam has. WFT world is this fuckwit living on????

by jiminpa

those dillweeds who thought we deserved it. It just irritates me to no end that all these places hate us so much but when something happens who is the one supposed to step up with humanitarian aid?

There will always be those dilusional people in the world who think all the worlds problems and all their differences can be settled with a hug.

Most of these numbnuts that make dumb statments like we've killed more people than Saddam probably couldn't even tell you where Iraq is.

signed- a proud American who makes no apologies for where I'm from

by mrabevigoda

Could you provide a link to the assertion that "the same people screaming to get out are the same ones that were saying we DESERVED 911". The only people I remember hearing say that we "deserved" it (9/11) was Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and their ilk (the religious right) because of the depravity of our nations peoples i.e. homosexuality, same sex marriage, abortion, basically anything that does not fit in to their theological mindset. I do not recall hearing Gore, Clinton, Kerry, or any other Democrat saying that we "Deserved it".

Thanks, looking forward to being more informed about your claims!

by kjell_andorsen

Maybe I just missed something, but could you kindly point out which Iraqui citizens attacked the US?

Last I checked the vast majority of the 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi nationals, a country the US is very prominently NOT at war with.

by mrabevigoda

"Last I checked the vast majority of the 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi nationals, a country the US is very prominently NOT at war with."

Correct!!! Can you say the Carlyle Group??? GWB may be an idiot but his father is not, he knows not to sh!t where you eat!

Halliburton stock has more than doubled since the "war" in Iraq started. Worth every drop of American blood spilled !

by jiminpa

where in my post I accused and Iraqi citizen of attacking our counrty?

While it is widely publicized that no Iraqi citizens were involved, the point no one seems to dispute is that that backed it. Either by financial means or providing them a place to hide.

by jdclyde

we will hear how it is all Bush's fault that the killing fields start to fill thanks to the Democrat retreat.

by j-mart

I hope that human kind will one day move past warfare and violence as a means of settling disputes. Of course the politicians who decide to go to war are always well away from the killing and death and those that always suffer the most in a war on the ground are always those with the least power and control over going to war in the first place. Man has always been good at creating his gods, suposedly a superior being on a much higher level, with all our human failings and emotions.

Unfortunatly warfare is still acceptable with humanity but who knows mabe one day we will be able to move passed this, we once found slavery and not allowing women to vote aceptable ,but have managed to move passed these imoral points of view. So we might one day be able to move passed warfare as well.

by locrian_lyric

But on the topic...

We are there, we must win.

Fighting the war by half-measures was insanity and is what has been causing all the trouble.

by highlander718

I agree to the fact that things in Irak are not going exactly as hoped or planned. That being said I find the Irak war as the the war in Afganistan totaly justifiable and just altough obviously not very efficient.
I despise the so called pacifists who are ready to kiss and hug with terrorist organizations, or like Carter, to trust that you can actually have faith in and negotiate with organisations like Hamas. That is the real danger in my opinion.

by Member 25348569

The war, its legality and its aims, are seen differently over here. We didn't have 911 to "avenge" so although you hit the wrong target for the right reasons, we didn't even have any sort of "justification" for Iraq.

Anyway you cut it, though, the NAIVITY of your planners boggled my mind the day the war started. You really had some idea straight out of Hollywood - Disney, even - in the way it was assumed that Iraqis would flock to "Democracy" as defined by the US. Oh, so wrong!

Neil :(

by locrian_lyric

10,000 dead in one day.

Funny thing about war is that it never goes the way you think it should.

Patton was frequently short on supplies because he was gaining ground faster than the supply chain could follow.

Or as the old adage goes, "all military planning goes right out the door once the first shot has been fired."

by jiminpa

Kinda nice to live in a country where you can speak your mind without fear of being beheaded isn't it?

by $$$$$$$$$$

[i]That being said I find the Iraq war as the the war in Afghanistan totally justifiable and just although obviously not very efficient.[/i]

Let's leave Afghanistan out of this and just talk about reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

by jiminpa

Let's say there are laws in this country against oh I don't know, let's say having hand grenades in your house. Then let's say I walk around eluding to the fact that I have a whole bunch of hand grenades hidden all throughout my house and I'm going to use them on the police station and the police get wind of this. They come to me and say, we hear you have grenades in your house and I say oh no I have no grenades but continue to do everything thing in my power to make people think I have grenades.

When the police come to my door with a warrant and search my house I have no one to blame but myself. When they find nothing and I go around telling all the neighbours want the police did and how they violated my rights will I get sympathy? Maybe from some and not so much from others.

That is exactly what happened here and the useless windbags from the united nations sat around and did nothing! What do they care? When some nut job terrorist gets ahold of a nuke where do you think they are gong to detonate it? Some small country in Africa or South America? No sir! They are going to do it right here in the good old U.S of A.

Were we justified? Hell yes we were! We aren't talking about flying a plane into a building we are talking about potentially killing millions of people. It's time for all these folks sitting so high and mighty to take their head out of their butt and realize this.

by jamesrl

... though not invariably the worst choice, war is always an obscene horror. Ellen Glasgow.

?I have never advocated war except as a means of peace.? US Grant

I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another. Thomas Jefferson

It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it. Robert E Lee

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. Ask the infantry and ask the dead. Ernest Hemingway

So I'd say I'm not alone.

Attacking Germany after Czecheslovakia would have been preferable to letting Hitler take it. Preferable still would have been preventing him from taking through peaceful means - negotiation, if possible. I think inevitably Hitler would have invaded someone somewhere.

Rwanda was really a civil war, and I was in favour of intervention when the slaughter, but of course, it would have been preferable to find another way. The Canadian General (Romeo Dallaire)on the ground was begging to seize the arms caches before things got out of hand.

The slaughter in Cambodia was before Vietnam invaded it. The communist Vietnamese invaded, kicked out Pol Pot and ended the killing fields. So I don't think its clear that a South Vietnamese victory would have prevented them.

James

by locrian_lyric

While this is of course true that war is all hell, there are worse hells to be in.

Peaceful means work only against enemies who value life and seek peace.

Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi faced opponents who were loathe to use extreme violence.

The same methods in Tianemin square China had very different results.

I imagine that Jews marching through arab territories demanding peace would not recieve a very nice welcome either.

It is foolish to take war off the table or to grow too soon or too easily weary of it because those who lust for it and never tire of it will take that opportunity to sieze all they can.

by jamesrl

I've got military in my family, going back generations. My wife has the same.

I tried to join the militia, but have a problem that prevented me(in a combat unit and that was the only one in my area). I was very dissapointed, cause my childhood dream was to be a fighter pilot.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we start beating our swords into plowshares. I'd like to, but I'm not naive.

I'm from the "pray for peace, prepare for war" camp. I am also from the "war is the last option, but an option nonetheless" camp.

James

by Member 25348569

What you need to do is define "winning".We may not agree. I suspect that most Iraqis will also not agree.

This is the real problem. I, a citizen of a country that has significant numbers of troops in Iraq, do not know AT ALL why we went in and have no idea what we want to get out of it now!

Out, intact will do for me.

Neil :)

by highlander718

To your question ?why did we get in? I would say that one can always go with the conspiracy theory, corporate or personal interests, oil, revenge for Bush senior?whatever. From where I sit it looks like the world got rid of a crazy dictator. If only for that, and I have reasons enough. As for ?what did we get out of it? I agree that the results are less than stellar, not sure if someone could calculate or be sure of the results before the fact especially in the case of war.
The option would?ve been to sit back, relax and do nothing ?

by Member 25348569

would have been to do something DIFFERENT.

Iraq was NOT connected with 911 and did NOT have WMDs at the time of the invasion and - however much you disliked him, you had NO RIGHT to depose the Iraqi leader. Tell you, more people dislike/hate YOUR leader than the erstwhile leader of Iraq. Do we have the [b]right[/b] to invade the US and execute him?
Just asking...

Neil :)

by locrian_lyric

Easy to define.

1)A stable government.
2)A gvt friendly to the west.
3)A country free of jihadists (we were able to rid Japan of state-shintoists.
4)A demonstrated willingness to remain as long is it takes to do the job. (Aren't we still in Germany 63 years after WWII?

by highlander718

he is not my leader, but I am afraid your comparison is at least slightly forced. Americans do not live under constant terror, at the hand and will of a maniac dictator. I did live in a comunist country, I lived for 7 years in North America and I now live in western europe, so I do know the difference.
I don't care about the WMD or the link to 9/11, Saddam had many other reasons to be deposed, unfortunately it was not enough for all the so called allies.

by jamesrl

While there are still US bases in Germany, I don't believe it has anything to do with occupation or reconstruction. Its part of NATO obligations.

Because WWI did not leave Germany in a stable position, and that instability allowed the facists to seize power, Marshall, who was charged with creating the plan to "reform" Germany, sought to bring it economic and political stability. Massive amounts of infratructure, industrial and other aid were brought in, on a scale that dwarfs what is happening in Iraq. But there had been a brief democracy in Germany, and Germany hadn't always been belligerent or an enemy - note that Germany had joined the British against Napoleon (ok Prussians, Germany wasn't "whole" then).

Japan was shaken to its core by the Atomic bombs and the loss of the emporer's "divine" status. It became a pacifist nation(in its new consititution).

Both nations allied themselves to the US under the threat of communist growth in the 40s and 50s. No suprise there.

Germany and Japan were both stable after about 10 years of occupation. But there wasn't the same level of internal threat as there is in Iraq. I have no doubt that if the US pulled out, there would still be war between the Shia and Sunni for power, the same way that Yugoslavia devolved into a civil war after communism fell. I do think that having the US in Iraq may attract more "foreign" fighters, but no doubt some level of them would be there even without the US - look at the number of foreigners who were involved in the Taliban regime long after the soviets left.

James

James

by jamesrl

So unless you were counting Germans(and the numbers there are sketchy).

The definition of a casualty in WWII was someone who could no longer fight. The D Day invasions suffered about a 1:3 ratio of killed to seriously wounded.

Logistics has alway been a big part of war, one of the reasons Alexander failed in India is that having come through what is now Afghanistan his troops were exhausted and had not enough food.

James

by mrabevigoda

As far as Reverend Wright, he is just another religious zealot no better or worse than the right's religious leaders I named.

I drew the conclusion (wrong of me) that the other poster was referring to people in the political arena for longer than this nut jobs 15 minutes.

Still, there was no link or documents or even a quote as to what exactly HE said.

Oh well, I really don't care to track down the rants of ANY religious nut job, nor do I expect you to. So, I'll just have to say touch? to you James!

by mrabevigoda

I Could not help it, I had to look.

The Quote from Rev. Wright was "the country brought the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on itself through its own tactics abroad." Which is different than saying we "Deserved it because of our sinful ways", as the Right's Religious Zealots actually said!
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/30/america/NA-POL-US-Elections.php

I would go as far as saying he was right in his assertion that our foreign policies DID have a direct affect on peoples that carried out the 9/11 attacks (and more).

More so than the sins of the American people of a more personal nature, if you will. (such as homosexuality, abortion, etc.)

Can anyone else give me an example of the people (politicians and such, NOT just a loud mouth bigots) claiming both, that we should "get out" (of Iraq) AND "we deserved it" (9/11)?????

by $$$$$$$$$$

Have you seen the Republican debates in South Carolina? I was horrified at how ill-informed the other Repugnicans are.

by jdclyde

I never said it was because of sin, did I?

No, it is people saying exactly what you did, that we brought the attack upon ourselves.

by locrian_lyric

But I would not say that war is the *last* option, for no other reason than the fact that it tends to make the tyrants out there a little too comfortable.

As an aside, I also tried to enlist, but was rejected (bad hearing)

by jardinier

I did not know how to start the discussion and would have preferred that an American did. But this woman in China who contacted me through a matchmaking website is a goldmine of information and sends me several interesting items every day.

While the item -- in the context that it was sent to me -- was about chain emails, I considered there was enough anti-war information to kick off a discussion. Apart from a couple of narks who get their jollies from criticising me personally, obviously the item WAS sufficient to fuel a serious discussion.

by jdclyde

You were going to talk about Bush and the legality of the war. Or is that still on the back burner?

It is a completely separate issue than what is being discussed here.

by $$$$$$$$$$

[i]If there is a burst water pipe in your home, only a retard wastes the time to bitch about who's fault it is the pipe burst.[/i]

An intelligent, informed person starts by turning off the water main. You and George W. Bush, by contrast, stay the course; you send others to clean up your mess, while increasing the pressure.

[i]What now?[/i]

1. We get out of Iraq.
2. We end all subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies.
3. We pass a responsible energy policy, with all oil subsidies re-allocated to solar and wind energy development.

by locrian_lyric

1) We tell the world we are weak, and watch terrorism against the USA take a giant leap forward, as it did after Carter let Iran pants the USA.

2)Oil companies divest in the dollar for the Euro, move their bases to the more corporate friendly nations and the mess we are in now will look like a picknick in comparison.

3)I'm sure it will be as great a success as ethanol....

by $$$$$$$$$$

[i]1) We tell the world we are weak, and watch terrorism against the USA take a giant leap forward, as it did after Carter let Iran pants the USA.[/i]

I think the rest of the world is sufficiently convinced of our willingness to defend our legitimate interests. We're belaboring that point, and in the wrong places.

by jdclyde

not even Obama, the most liberal and least experienced would be stupid enough to pull out and allow the blood bath to start.

HOW to get out of Iraq without the killing fields to start again has to be answered.

Speak for yourself, not me. I never said "stay the course" and feel Bush has done to little, to late all along.

by tony hopkinson

If you are going to invade another country, and impose your culture on it, don't f*** about with half measures.

Tell them to stand under the stars and stripes swear in as a ctizen of the united states, and if they refuse kill them.

If you aren't prepared to do that, stay the the hell out.

Appease/ignore or obliterate, nip over there annoy the hell out of them and then go home, causes more problems and solves none.

by $$$$$$$$$$

Watch Ryan Crocker refuse to give Obama a straight answer to the question, "If we're in the same place a year from now, can you please describe to me any circumstances in which you would make a different recommendation, and suggest it is now time to start withdrawing our troops. Any scenario, any set of benchmarks that have not been met."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a8cKrODCXk&feature=related

I'm satisfied with Obama's attempts to get an honest, realistic description of "progress" in Iraq that will be sufficient to start bringing the soldiers home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jxWxg95LrI&feature=related

by $$$$$$$$$$

[i]HOW to get out of Iraq without the killing fields to start again has to be answered.[/i]

The question to Petraeus and Crocker also [b]has to be answered[/b]: what are your standards, if any? When would you finally admit, this is not working, and it's time to leave?

by $$$$$$$$$$

[i]The option would?ve been to sit back, relax and do nothing ?[/i]

Even assuming all the half-baked reports of yellow-cake and missiles capable of striking London had been backed by a grain of truth, it was irresponsible to initiate another [b]major[/b] military operation, with so little international assistance, and to divert any resources from Afghanistan.

by $$$$$$$$$$

I hear the argument far too often that criticism of the political decisions to put soldiers in harm's way is betrayal of the soldiers themselves. In fact, if anything, it is an act of respect and concern for the soldiers. It is also a patriotic act of concern for the welfare of the Republic to sacrifice soldiers' lives only when absolutely unavoidable. Iraq certainly does not fit that description.

by tony hopkinson

that first lit the blue touch paper on TR for me, causing me to unload on the numpty who called me unpatriotic.

I'm happy to support 'my' armed forces, the politicians who sent them to die, not the same thing at all.....

by tony hopkinson

being silenced, deported, ostracised, demonised, flown to unusual holiday destinations, a little S&M role play in with some nice people in uniform, locked up with no trail, a nice stay on carribean island followed by a kangaroo trial, I'll admit....

Like you I'm always grateful to be part of a civilised society.....

It's very easy for anyone to sit in judgement, if they don't have to pay the price for exercising it.

by Member 25348569

where the rule of law is something that we all (should) live by. The invasion of Iraq by British forces was [b]illegal[/b] under our law and under International Law.

If we single out Saddam Hussein - as we have - then we show our hypocrisy.

by jdclyde

over whelming force and destroy any and all enemies. If not willing to fight to win, each and every time, don't fight at all.

The US could only be defeated by us holding ourselves back.

by mjwx

The invasions on D Day went better than planned, all beaches except Omaha faced little resistance as the Calais ruse orchestrated by Eisenhower worked. Omaha beach only faced fierce resistance because the Germans stationed on the beach were in the middle of an anti-invasion exercise at the time. German High Command would not permit the release of the reserve Panzer units as Hitler was not awake, they did not get around to doing this until 6 hours after the invasion by which time the allied forces were too deeply entrenched for the tanks to be of any use.

Expected casualties on the allied side were expected to be an order of magnitude higher than what they actually were.

There are many historical examples of the best laid military plans falling to ruin for no other reason but bad luck but Overlord was not one of them.

The old saying goes, "no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy".

by mjwx

Scares me more than any threat of Islamic extremism.

It also demonstrates that you don't actually have a working knowledge of your enemy. The goal of terrorism is not to actually be a threat but to make you believe there is a threat or a vastly bigger threat than actually exist hence why it is called "[b]terror[/b]ism".

By giving creed to an ineffectual enemies threat you give that threat power that it would not have possessed if the threat had been ignored.

Islamic extremism will never become the threat you imagine. First of all, Islam has no central authority therefore is in no position to enact decree's over the entire religion. Secondly, Islam is fragmented, without external enemies this would lead to more inter-Islamic conflicts in the Mid-East. Thirdly, Islamic Extremism is a problem that mainly stems out of the middle east due to the poor conditions of the people living there.

I've spent time in Muslim nations (Indonesia and Malaysia) and have in no way felt I was under the threat of being "beheaded" in those nations let alone in my own nation.

by jiminpa

Was one of the counrties you went to Iraq? It wasn't? Oh. Then I fail to see your point since I thought that is what we were talking about.

I never said anything about muslims and resent the implication that I have displayed any bigotry towards muslims. I was simply referring to in insane dictator who never would have stood for that type of outward expression of feelings. Do you dispute that?

by boxfiddler Hot topic

While many propose that the media is 'in the pocket of the politician', I propose the opposite. The politician is 'in the pocket of the media'.

I am frankly not surprised at the ignorance of our politicians. They have no minds of their own.

freakin' darn keyboard gremlins

by $$$$$$$$$$

It puts the United States in the position of world police force, a role that George Bush explicitly promised to put to an end in his first campaign. It was seen as taking the "moral high ground" to keep U.S. troops out of other nations' quarrels, in 2000, and Clinton's willingness to commit troops to UN missions in Bosnia and Somalia was portrayed as pragmatic, and contrary to a traditional US ideology, that we do not instigate wars. Any "saber-rattling" that Saddam Hussein was doing was more to appear strong to his own populace than to try to intimidate the United States, Europe, Israel or the United Nations. He was certainly an immoral person, but our national security depends on our own observance of international law, which is very clear about invasion of sovereign nations.

Dick Durbin, United States Senator: "And the information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same as the information being given to the American People. I couldn't believe it. Members of this administration were in active, heated debate over whether aluminum tubes really meant that the Iraqis were developing nuclear weapons, some within the administration saying 'of course not, it's [u]not the same [b]kind[/b][/u] of aluminum tube,' at the same time that members of the Administration were telling the American People to be afraid of mushroom-shaped clouds!" But he was prohibited by law from sharing what he knew, which was classified information. I think he misjudged. He knew that the President and the Vice President were lying, and that was a greater crime than he would have committed by revealing classified information, and preventing a war. Exaggerations about foreign threats are not just words. They are literally incitement to violence, and not protected by the First Amendment. Even the President is not above the law, in the United States of America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnQhMIdkOrA&feature=related

Non-intervention is exactly what George Bush promised us, and now the same ideal is dismissed as "isolationism"? Ron Paul would not waste your life fighting wars for his corporate sponsors' petroleum fortunes, or his Vice President's affiliation with Halliburton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvPtXNaXixg&NR=1

by jiminpa

I tip my hat to you.

I do not agree with you and likely never will. That is the beauty of this great country of ours. Because your answers do not sting of mud slinging and name calling however, you have my repsect.

I will agree with one point of yours, I do not believe we should be the world police nor do I ever want to see that happen. It is not our job. I believe the government has an obligation to protect us though.

Since we could go on playing point counter point (there is plenty of material and links we could throw at each other until the end of time) I will simply leave this thread with one final thought.

I believe that we were justified in our actions. I believe the timing was all wrong. It should have happened during the gulf war. I believe that no matter how long we are there, until the Iraqi people truely want to be free no matter how you define it, there will always be another dictator waiting to step in and take over.

Cheers my friend, maybe we can start another thread and talk about the best places to hunt black-tail deer in the great state of Oregon.

by $$$$$$$$$$

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY&feature=related
Ron Paul, R-TX: "Also, it is said ... that there has been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at our airplanes. The fact that he has [b]missed every single airplane[/b] for [b]twelve years[/b] and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown indicates the strength of our enemy: an impoverished Third World nation, that doesn't have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or have a navy. But the indication is that "because he shot at us," therefore it's an act of aggression. But you know what is cited as the reason for [u]us flying over the no-fly zone[/u]? It comes from UN resolution 688, which instructs us, and all the nations, to [b]contribute to humanitarian relief[/b] in the Kurdish and the Shiite areas. It says nothing about no-fly zones. It says nothing about bombing missions over Iraq. So, to declare that we have been attacked: I do not believe for a minute that this fulfills the requirement that we are [b]retaliating[/b] against aggression against this country.

There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American People for the taxes that will be raised, and the possibility of a military draft, which may well come!"

Obviously, he has thought through the consequences of the actions being proposed at that time. No wonder so many people love him, and so many others are so desperate to ignore, discredit and dismiss him.

by jiminpa

All you folks who really believe this war is about oil really need to get your head out of the sand.

by jdclyde

is when they are used for politics and not to resolve this issue.

Yes, there has to be a goal.

No, you do NOT tell the world, or the people you are fighting, your f'en plan on how to fight, or how long you plan on fighting. to do so is stupid. The should remain behind closed doors.

Back when there were standards in this country, we showed a unified front to the world because our squabling ended at the borders.

Now, we have people screaming to the world that we should pull out NOW, sending a mixed message to everyone involved.

To the enemies, it shows if they can get a few more bodies on the news, they can drive us out.

To the allies, it shows that in the course of an election, they can be left hanging in the wind, waiting for the death squads to come get them after our hasty retreat.

Yeah, that will really encourage people to make a stand, right?

[i]"this is not working, and it's time to leave?"[/i]

Time to leave, or time to try something else?

We are in the sad state we are in now because do hold back the dogs of war while in the middle of a war. Fight to win, each and every time, or don't fight at all. We have not been fighting to win.

by tony hopkinson

That no private individual is allowed to 'bear' arms.

So by your analogy it would have been perfectly OK for us to nip over the pond, put GWB out of office, shoot Charly Heston, and force you to follow our laws?

As far as where is the mad terrorist bleeder going to crack off a nuke. Possibly somewhere where the people believe might makes right, and who have a history of cracking them off against defence populaces as a terror weapon, maybe ????

What's with the liberalist fig leaf, very few people would have a problem with, he p1ssed up off, we wanted to kick his ass, and we saw a chance to grab some oil as bonus feature.

All perfectly understandable reasons to go to war, not to liberate the common iraqi. An excuse like that makes you insane and or a lying b'stard.

You can trust someone from Alabama who says "I do not like ayrabs", someone from Washington who says it's for your own good, who would trust that?

by jiminpa

Iraq having nukes is against international law. And Charlton Heston is passed on so show some respect.

As far as you coming across the pond well, you didn't fair so well in 1776 or in 1812 so forgive me if I seem unafraid.

by kjell_andorsen

Pretty much all sources, even the Administration have had to concede they could find NO link whatsoever between Iraq and Al Quaida. No link, NONE, no ties.

Al Quaida didin't really startt operating in Iraq at all until AFTER we'd invaded and gotten rid of Saddam.

But thanks for playing

by jiminpa

I might have to agree with you.

I don't believe everything the media spoon feeds me.

But thank YOU for playing... funny I didn't know this was a game.

by boxfiddler Hot topic

the version I posted above is a version frequently discussed in certain circles in my midwestern neck of the woods. I love it here in the midwest, but sometimes we really are 50 years behind the times.

by locrian_lyric

unless you're talking about marks made in the park benches during fighting.

PLUS, if you telegraph your intentions to the enemy, what is to stop them from lying low until your 'benchmarks' are met and you pull out?