Axis of Evil - Alive and Well

[Irvine511]

How do the dead ones feel about it?

I did not enlist in the Unitedd States Armed forces to bring freedom around the world.

That was not in my oath.

Even the most ardent ANTI-WAR poster on this board recognized the EVIL of Saddam.

There is only ONE reason sending troops into Iraq is acceptable, and that is there was an immediate threat to the US from Iraq.

 

[Teta040]

Sorry guts...Read my post in the
Scooter Libby" thread..don't have time tp post more. When you see it oyu'll know..
Pleade, pray for me. This is a tragedy. It is nOT financial. What more/How long, how long, to sing this song???

Read my post in the Scotte rthtread..you'll see...

 

[STING2]

How do the dead ones feel about it?

I did not enlist in the Unitedd States Armed forces to bring freedom around the world.

That was not in my oath.

Even the most ardent ANTI-WAR poster on this board recognized the EVIL of Saddam.

There is only ONE reason sending troops into Iraq is acceptable, and that is there was an immediate threat to the US from Iraq.

Many people on this board have yet to recognize just how evil and dangerous Saddam was in my opinion. I was not making a general statement about US foreign policy, but simply to refute this belief that people who simply support the war are somehow uninformed about the cost of it. The fact is, there is also a cost to not fighting this war which I think many on the anti-war side seem to forget.

I don't presume to know how dead people feel about the war. I do know the statement that millions of people in Iraq made when they voted in the January elections and just recently in the referendum. I'm also not ignorant of the fact that US national security is dependent on stability in the Persian Gulf region and has been for nearly 60 years now. Insuring that Iraq develops a stable government that does not seek to invade the Persian Gulf will insure that the United States will not have to fight a far more dangerous and costly war 20 or 30 years down the road. The entire Planet relies on energy from the Persian Gulf region and will only become more dependent as the global economy continues its current rate of growth. The sudden sabotage or disruption of Persian Gulf energy supplies would have a disasterous economic effect on the entire planet, one that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s seem like a vacation.

Everywhere the United States has had a major interest that directly effects its national security since 1945, it has always sought when ever it could, to foster whenever it was truely possible, the development of stable democratic governments. Doing so in Europe in the late 1940s and 1950s was vital to preventing Soviet invasion and occupation of the rest of Europe. It also set a strong foundation upon which to build a strong defense of Europe for many decades that the Cold War would take. The #1 reason why Europe is probably the most unlikely place for interstate war today is because every government is a democracy or at least a developing democracy. Economic interdependence is also playing a huge role in this as well.

Having stable democratic countries in regions that directly impact US national security does enhance US and global security and makes the probablity of war less likely under many circumstances. Its is not the chief goal of US foreign Policy in regards to national security, but it can and does play a vital role in helping to maintain security in regions of the world vital to this country's security.

 

[hiphop]

How do the dead ones feel about it?

That´s a valid question. I think I asked it about.. 2 years ago?

I guess the dead ones don´t feel anything.

 

[hiphop]

i also think that intellecutal justifications for war are best made by comfortable Westerners who don't have to live with things like collateral damage.

 

[STING2]

again, it's less the removal of saddam that is the issue, but how saddam was removed, and then the shocking lack of any sort of postwar plan that has turned iraq into the most dangerous place on earth.

you've got a very blinkered view of the situation, but it serves your narrow ideology well.

and, please spare us all by not ruining this thread with your tiresome postings about UN resolutions.

I'll post anything I feel like if its appropriate to the topic being discussed.

Any serious study of Saddam's regime and his capabilities will find that the only way Saddam's regime could be removed was through a military invasion. The only country or group of countries capable of accomplishing that was the coalition. Iraq has four provinces that are very dangerous, but the other 14 have very little if any fighting in them. Iraq is not the most dangerous place in the world and the postwar plan has led to Iraq's first true demorcratic election in decades where over 8 million people participated and just recently the referendum was passed with nearly 10 million people voting. Elections for a permanent government will happen in December. Iraq is well ahead of post war Germany or Japan was in the development of a new democracy by many years.

In additon, the new Iraqi military has over 100 Battalions now and in the recent operation to root out terrorist in Tel Afar on the border with Syria, 75% of the Brigades involved in the operation were Iraqi, not American! I find it amazing that the Iraqi military already has Brigade level units operating in combat along side American forces.

I have a blinkered view of the situation, but it serves my narrow idealogy? Is this your view of anyone that supports the war or the Bush administration?

 

[anitram]

How do the dead ones feel about it?

That´s a valid question. I think I asked it about.. 2 years ago?

I guess the dead ones don´t feel anything.

I'm sure they're tickled pink that their relatives voted.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And what of the victims of the regimes? the ones that slaughter innocent people deliberately at a more tremendous rate? Is that not an equally valid question?

I think its great that people can get high and mighty against war, its the easiest ideological position to take, it's principled and humanitarian, it's saying no to death, and best of all it doesn't have any responsibility to what evil men do with their achieved peace.

 

[hiphop]

And what of the victims of the regimes? the ones that slaughter innocent people deliberately at a more tremendous rate? Is that not an equally valid question?

I think its great that people can get high and mighty against war, its the easiest ideological position to take, it's principled and humanitarian, it's saying no to death, and best of all it doesn't have any responsibility to what evil men do with their achieved peace.

The question is valid but we have been stating for numerous times that the US and other countries´ reason to go to Iraq was the WMD and not primarily the removal of a dictator.

When we speak about the victims of dictator-regimes, us comfortable Westerners would have to invade about 20 countries at once. Instead of doing so, we invite another country with bad human rights records - that has been suppressing its minorities for decades - to be part of the EU.

Bad human rights records are not the standard reason for declaring a war. Maybe you would like if they were, well, that´s not the case.

Since you are so critical of international organizations (with all their scandals, tiresome at times, I know), but on the other hand you seem to be asking for an international regulation force in order to not allow regimes as Saddam´s to prosper, I ask you to review the principles on which those int. org. work. I know, you will tell me those organizations are ineffective and corrupt, but I still think that the only possible way the world can agree on using mil. force is through bodies like the Security Council.

The family of an Iraqi opposition politician (opposed to Saddam) who rotted along in a prison under the dictator will blame the dictator. The family of the three-yr-old Iraqi kid that was killed because of US bombs, like 20,000 or more other "casualities", will blame the US forces, no matter what "democratic" intention they have (note the underlying cynical tone).

Apart from that, you think the surviving Iraqi people give a rats ass about intention? I mean, come on. I kill your kid and then I tell you "Oops sorry this is collateral, my country just wanted to bring you democracy". I´d like to know your reaction.

And the dead ones will remain silent; all that remains to accuse the profiteers of this war - and there are HUGE profits - is their bodies in blood and dust. Unfair, isn´t it?

 

[hiphop]

I'm sure they're tickled pink that their relatives voted.

Yeah, wherever they are, for sure they drink champagne and sing a jolly good fellow to those who brought democracy.

 

[Antilarry]

Any argument based on 'let the people of country X thank us for liberating them' should be scrapped right now. Nobody gives a shit (or ever will) about the monstrosities in Zimbabwe because it neither a threat nor an 'opportunity' to anyone anywhere. Just to name one country.

It's about oil, the entire middle east is about oil, at least as it relates to 'us'. Anything else is mere window dressing. I would like to see our leaders go on TV and say "we must control this region because we need the oil at the right price, end of story." I'd at least respect them for honesty, though whether they would win an election ever again remains to be seen.

 

[STING2]

The question is valid but we have been stating for numerous times that the US and other countries´ reason to go to Iraq was the WMD and not primarily the removal of a dictator.

When we speak about the victims of dictator-regimes, us comfortable Westerners would have to invade about 20 countries at once. Instead of doing so, we invite another country with bad human rights records - that has been suppressing its minorities for decades - to be part of the EU.

Bad human rights records are not the standard reason for declaring a war. Maybe you would like if they were, well, that´s not the case.

Since you are so critical of international organizations (with all their scandals, tiresome at times, I know), but on the other hand you seem to be asking for an international regulation force in order to not allow regimes as Saddam´s to prosper, I ask you to review the principles on which those int. org. work. I know, you will tell me those organizations are ineffective and corrupt, but I still think that the only possible way the world can agree on using mil. force is through bodies like the Security Council.

The family of an Iraqi opposition politician (opposed to Saddam) who rotted along in a prison under the dictator will blame the dictator. The family of the three-yr-old Iraqi kid that was killed because of US bombs, like 20,000 or more other "casualities", will blame the US forces, no matter what "democratic" intention they have (note the underlying cynical tone).

Apart from that, you think the surviving Iraqi people give a rats ass about intention? I mean, come on. I kill your kid and then I tell you "Oops sorry this is collateral, my country just wanted to bring you democracy". I´d like to know your reaction.

And the dead ones will remain silent; all that remains to accuse the profiteers of this war - and there are HUGE profits - is their bodies in blood and dust. Unfair, isn´t it?

You really think every Iraqi family who had a family member killed as a result of collateral damage blames US forces and believes the invasion was unecessary. Did every family member of the 20,000 French civilians who died in the initial bombing to support D-Day in 1944 blame the Allies for murder?

Whats more on the topic of collateral damage, the United States and some other countries that invest well in defense spending now have technology that greatly reduces collateral damage. Without such technology, several hundred thousand people would have been killed in the first few days for the war in Baghdad.

Its true, that the primary reason to remove Saddam was because of the threat he posed to global security. But Saddam was a leader who had invaded and attacked 4 different countries in the space of less than 20 years threatening the planets primary energy supply with sabotage and siezure. How many more people would die in other countries outside Iraq if Saddam had been allowed to continue in power? Thankfully, the world does not have to find out, but we know the damage and the precarious situation he put the entire planet through his actions while his regime was in power. The fact is, the humanitarian benefits from the removal of Saddam extend well beyond the borders of Iraq.

In both Bosnia and Kosovo, there was indeed a security reason for the response in addition to a humanitarian one, but that does not change the fact that the lives of the people who live there were changed for the better because of the intervention.

The UN Security Council has done just fine in regards to Iraq. It approved the invasion to remove Saddam and has approved the occupation of Iraq in three different resolutions. The war was not about making profits for particular companies, it was a necessity in order to insure global security.

 

[Irvine511]

I have a blinkered view of the situation, but it serves my narrow idealogy? Is this your view of anyone that supports the war or the Bush administration?

no, its my view gleaned from you essentially posting the same sentences over and over and over again.

 

[STING2]

Any argument based on 'let the people of country X thank us for liberating them' should be scrapped right now. Nobody gives a shit (or ever will) about the monstrosities in Zimbabwe because it neither a threat nor an 'opportunity' to anyone anywhere. Just to name one country.

It's about oil, the entire middle east is about oil, at least as it relates to 'us'. Anything else is mere window dressing. I would like to see our leaders go on TV and say "we must control this region because we need the oil at the right price, end of story." I'd at least respect them for honesty, though whether they would win an election ever again remains to be seen.

The entire global economy is dependent upon the energy provided from the Persian Gulf. The sudden loss of this energy supplies through siezure or sabotage would plunge the planet into its worst economic depression with incalculable consequences for the future. The people to suffer the most in such a disaster would be much of the worlds poor, who can barely afford the price of energy as it is today. When the planets supply of energy is suddenly sharply reduced, demand for the remaining sources of energy dramatically jumps, and you get a massive increase in price.

 

[STING2]

no, its my view gleaned from you essentially posting the same sentences over and over and over again.

So if one supports the war and the administration, they should express it in a completely different way every time they post or else they have a blinkered view of the situation that supports a narrow idealogy?

How many times have we heard the same liberal rant in here about the Bush administration? Bush lied, they died etc.

 

[Irvine511]

So if one supports the war and the administration, they should express it in a completely different way every time they post or else they have a blinkered view of the situation that supports a narrow idealogy?

How many times have we heard the same liberal rant in here about the Bush administration? Bush lied, they died etc.

STING, you don't even make arguments, you simply hit "repeat" on the CD player.

everyone has been through this a million times with you, the same thing keeps happening, and you derail threads with your virtually interchangeable posts.

like a bucket of water onto a campfire.

 

[nbcrusader]

This whole place is a series of repetitive arguments, stances, rants, etc.

 

[Dreadsox]

How do the dead ones feel about it?

That´s a valid question. I think I asked it about.. 2 years ago?

I guess the dead ones don´t feel anything.

I must be drifting too far to the left...

 

[Irvine511]

This whole place is a series of repetitive arguments, stances, rants, etc.

and you see yourself as never having committed the above crimes?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Im sure not but it doesn't make it any less the case.

 

[hiphop]

Being conservative, or liberal for that matter, doesn´t mean one has to excuse each and every of his leaders mistakes.

We just make up our minds on certain things. Always said I don´t like to be labeled liberal, leftist, communist, red label or whatever. Categories just bore me.

You can be a conservative and be against the war. Don´t listen to people who try to tell you otherwise. I guess you can be a conservative and be for gays´ rights, against small arms and for fair trade. It depends on how you define it, not how someone else defines it for you.

It would fill me with great delight if some American conservatives found back to live the principles of the religion they cite with such great delight, while they betray its cause so often.

 

[Sherry Darling]

I must be drifting too far to the left...

 

[Irvine511]

Im sure not but it doesn't make it any less the case.

i agree that it is the case, but as with all pot/kettle situations, the sanctimony always feels so good.

 

[nbcrusader]

Now I know why you always reply to my posts...