War!

[A_Wanderer]

Yes. War goes hand-in-hand with death and destruction, so anyone who supports that is, without a doubt, stupid.

And "peace" goes hand in hand with leaving a fascist dictator that kills of tens of thousands each year with aspirations of WMD in charge while his next door neighbour goes nuclear; Saddam caused and was causing a lot of death and destruction in his kingdom and there was the threat that he would threaten outside it; but it's a moot point now because the narrative is a simple Bush Lied People Died, Saddam never ever had any WMD or supported terrorism and Saddam was what was best for Iraq thing.

The success of AQ in Iraq is bad, they may well force political defeat against the US but it is a different situation and a different problem than the one that Saddam Hussein represented.

 

[ntalwar]

And "peace" goes hand in hand with leaving a fascist dictator that kills of tens of thousands each year

A lot of that death and desctruction was caused by sanctions - including blocking food and medicine for the masses.

 

[BVS]

And "peace" goes hand in hand with leaving a fascist dictator that kills of tens of thousands each year with aspirations of WMD in charge while his next door neighbour goes nuclear;

Even if you do believe this, that would only be true of current situations whereas Axver's statement was true for all.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, sanctions that prooved to be delivering billions of dollars into Saddams bank accounts. They were used as a weapon against the Iraqi people, failed completely to destabilise the regime and were exploited as a propaganda coup; sancitons had to be ended, but on what terms?

 

[ntalwar]

Sanctions had to be ended on humanitarian grounds.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Remove sanctions and Saddam rearms, it was a shitty situation caused by decades of bad policies and any solutions would cause death - which one causes the least death?

 

[Kieran McConville]

Justin, at this late date I would think that anyone arguing a 'pro-war' as you put it, viewpoint, should be tough enough to take any flak they get.

I mean, they are tough enough, right? They talk about other people's deaths with a stiff upper lip, they must be tough enough.

Pro-war. Well, 'stupid' is one of the kinder things you could say about that view of the world. I'd just call it wilfully evil.

And don't ever compare the war in Iraq to the Second World War because that really IS just stupid.

 

[Kieran McConville]

As for feeling guilt or the lack thereof if Iraq had been allowed to implode on it's own (a-wanderer's point, I believe)... what. the. fuck!?

Very, very, very clearly, this was a war of choice, and very clearly interventions of this sort are extremely selective. Zimbabwe has been imploding in slow motion for years. Do we feel guilt about that? Should we? Personally, I tend to say no, because 'we' have no damn right to 'intervene' in every country where bad things are happening. The hubris is mindblowing.

 

[Justin24]

Re: Re: War!

Yes. War goes hand-in-hand with death and destruction, so anyone who supports that is, without a doubt, stupid.

So the brave men who died on the beaches of France and the families who sacrificed a lot for the fighting men and woman are stupid?? So anyone who joins the military is stupid since joining can lead to war?

 

[Justin24]

A lot of that death and desctruction was caused by sanctions - including blocking food and medicine for the masses.

And Kofi and Sons made a fortune off the scandal.

 

[ntalwar]

Remove sanctions and Saddam rearms, it was a shitty situation caused by decades of bad policies and any solutions would cause death - which one causes the least death?

It was a lot more than an arms embargo. It was meant to crush the economy.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, and judging by the state of the Iraqi economy and infrastructure post-war it sure acheived those ends.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Re: Re: Re: War!

So the brave men who died on the beaches of France and the families who sacrificed a lot for the fighting men and woman are stupid?? So anyone who joins the military is stupid since joining can lead to war?

False statement; joining the military doesn't lead to war.

 

[ntalwar]

UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000. The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture.

 

[Justin24]

Re: Re: Re: Re: War!

False statement; joining the military doesn't lead to war.

Sorry it should be "Could lead"

 

[A_Wanderer]

It's really good to see that some peoples memories extend back before 2002

"We have heard that a half million children have died," Stahl said. "I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

 

[BoMac]

Re: Re: Re: War!

So the brave men who died on the beaches of France and the families who sacrificed a lot for the fighting men and woman are stupid??

Ok I'll bite. As Kieran pointed out you seem to be equating the Second World War with the Iraq war.

You need to stop doing that. There are wars of necessity such as World War II and wars of choice such as the Iraq war. As has been pointed out countless times war should always be used as a last resort, after all possibilities have been exhausted—which was not the case in 2002-03.

Meanwhile, a justifiable war in Afghanistan has stumbled recently with the resurgence of the Taliban. Al

 

[Justin24]

How do we know that Iraq was a choice if the intelligence came from both British and American intelligence?

 

[Axver]

Re: Re: Re: War!

So the brave men who died on the beaches of France and the families who sacrificed a lot for the fighting men and woman are stupid?? So anyone who joins the military is stupid since joining can lead to war?

If those "brave men" chose to start a war of aggression, then they were stupid. If they were sent to fight in a war of aggression by someone else who made the decision to go to war, then they were pawns of the stupid. But if they went to fight in an act of defence against an aggressor, then they were not stupid at all. I would suggest the first two options there are false and the third is true, thus they were not stupid.

(Though personally, I don't know why anyone would want to join the military. But that's an issue for another thread entirely ...)

 

[ntalwar]

And Kofi and Sons made a fortune off the scandal.

And Bush & co. are making a fortune off of my(and others') tax money now through scandals. In addition, they are stealing Iraq's oil wealth.

 

[BVS]

How do we know that Iraq was a choice if the intelligence came from both British and American intelligence?

Read a newspaper or watch TV EVER in the last 5 years?

 

[u2fan628]

This has been a very good thread!WAR is my favorite topic.
The main thing is War will always exist,because man is full of greed.If I told you you could have a million dollars,but ten people would be killed on the other side of the planet ,What would your answer be?Everyone always says no,but in reality alot of people profit from war.

 

[dazzlingamy]

I don't agree in war. I think nothing is ever solved with a war.

I support infiltrating agents from a world wide net of humanatarists to infiltrate an organisation kipnap its crazy leader and subject him to clockwork orange like torture of happy families, bunnies and beautiful country landscapes till he turns into a sweet little pussy - and crisis adverted!

But really, i don't agree in war, and don't think it really makes a difference - iraqi is just as shit - i also think its strange that other places in the world are facing such horrible problems (darfu r, laos etc) and no one is really doing a thing about that?

 

[trevster2k]

I think going to war based on speeches or comments made by a foreign leader or based on loosely gathered evidence which if used in a court of law would be thrown out by a judge to be stupid.

If the Axis of Evil were so bent on destroying America, using Bush's logic, they should have attacked the US for his juvenile remarks. No, wait, they have been desperately trying to gain a deterrence or assurances to prevent an invasion by the U.S.

Using the humanitarian argument is just an excuse for justifying certain actions by certain governments. For the most part, no country acts in the best interests of another nation unless there is a benefit for itself hence our slow reaction to Darfur, Zimbabwe, etc. The reason for the Iraq conflict has nothing to do with the people of Iraq, it just sounds nice to say they are trying to build a better life for Iraqis.

I won't pretend to think that we should intervene in every problem either but don't make the Iraq conflict some kind of noble mission to protect people.

 

[Axver]

The main thing is War will always exist,because man is full of greed.

I find this to be a tremendously defeatist mindset. In any case, I'm not all too concerned about how long war will exist, but how we can avert as many instances of it as possible.

If I told you you could have a million dollars,but ten people would be killed on the other side of the planet ,What would your answer be?Everyone always says no,but in reality alot of people profit from war.

The people who profit from war tend to be the most immoral and reprehensible people, be they soldiers who pillage and steal or CEOs of multinational corporations who are getting so rich off supplying the market created by conflict and strife that they don't really want the fighting to cease.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think going to war based on speeches or comments made by a foreign leader or based on loosely gathered evidence which if used in a court of law would be thrown out by a judge to be stupid.

If the Axis of Evil were so bent on destroying America, using Bush's logic, they should have attacked the US for his juvenile remarks. No, wait, they have been desperately trying to gain a deterrence or assurances to prevent an invasion by the U.S.

Using the humanitarian argument is just an excuse for justifying certain actions by certain governments. For the most part, no country acts in the best interests of another nation unless there is a benefit for itself hence our slow reaction to Darfur, Zimbabwe, etc. The reason for the Iraq conflict has nothing to do with the people of Iraq, it just sounds nice to say they are trying to build a better life for Iraqis.

I won't pretend to think that we should intervene in every problem either but don't make the Iraq conflict some kind of noble mission to protect people.

Nobody acts unless they consider it in their interests, but that does not exclude a convergence of interests.

 

[trevster2k]

Nobody acts unless they consider it in their interests, but that does not exclude a convergence of interests.

Yes, but some don't know the underlying reasons which I know you acknowledge regarding this conflict. For one to argue that this whole investment of hundreds of billions of dollars to save Iraqi lives is misguided. Sure, if life is better for the average Iraqi after this, great, but that is not the goal.

War = $$$$

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, but some don't know the underlying reasons which I know you acknowledge regarding this conflict. For one to argue that this whole investment of hundreds of billions of dollars to save Iraqi lives is misguided. Sure, if life is better for the average Iraqi after this, great, but that is not the goal.

War = $$$$

It's easier to make $$$ by simply removing sanctions and wooing Saddam back, made quite a go of it with Gaddafi.

Likewise in Iraq if they kept the Baathist political structure intact, didn't dismantle the Iraqi army and simply installed a relatively benign dictator to get the oil flowing it would be a lot easier. The fact that Dawa and the Sadrists hold the keys to the country is not consistent with the idea that Iraq has a puppet regime (of the USA, not Iran) there to allow them to steal the oil.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I'll throw in a couple of cents, what the hell...

War is a very subjective thing, unfortunately it's not a black and white issue and it probably never has been.

The closest thing to a good vs. evil war would be WWII if you want to look at it in those terms. I don't believe you will find many people who will say that that war was unjustified although I will say (IMO that is) that several tactics used in that war (by both sides) may not have been that justifiable.

What I have a problem with right now is the so-called "War on Terror". Terror is a concept, it's a psychological state not some sort of physical body. How do you declare war on an abstract? More importantly how do you win a war like this and for that matter how do you even know if you are winning or loosing?

When I look at the War in Iraq, I don’t' see a justifiable war. The US and it's allies will tell you that this war generally was to:
1. Remove Saddam Hussein
2. Neutralize his stockpile of WMDs
3. Fight terror
4. Stabilize the region.

These were noble enough reasons, so far, the outcome has been:
1. Hussein was removed from power and later executed, the question I have is was he that big a threat in the long run?
2. There were no WMDs found
3. As I said before how do you fight terror? Is there less terror in the world because of this war?
5. I think we can all see that the region is nowhere close to being stable, in fact it is less stable than when Hussein was in power.

I don't know, Id like to think I'm not paranoid and that I don't see conspiracies. I would like to think that just because Dick Cheney used to be the CEO of Halliburton and that George Bush has close ties to some of the most powerful Oil companies in the world did not play any kind of factor in this war.

What I find the worst about the current situation is that the US army is committed to this. I'm not going to even try to say that I understand what it is like to be a soldier in that type of situation or even to be a family member of a soldier. But this "Bring home the troops right now" attitude disturbs me.

What I will say is that a mess has been made over there and it needs to be cleaned up. I'm sorry to say this but you have made your bed and now you must lie in it. It is incredibly irresponsible to just back out now and leave these poor people to it. It not only sets a dangerous precedent but it leaves the region in a much worse state than it ever was before the war.

I will go on record as stating I was against the war, I did not agree with it then and I certainly do not agree with it now but it does not change the fact that it has happened and you can't simply just stop now because the death toll is mounting. This is not some sort of game that you can just quit because you are loosing and take your toys home. If the amount of media coverage that we have available now was present during WWII, would the public be so agreeable with that war as well?

Just my opinions mind you, take them as you will.

 

[u2fan628]

I'll throw in a couple of cents, what the hell...

War is a very subjective thing, unfortunately it's not a black and white issue and it probably never has been.

The closest thing to a good vs. evil war would be WWII if you want to look at it in those terms. I don't believe you will find many people who will say that that war was unjustified although I will say (IMO that is) that several tactics used in that war (by both sides) may not have been that justifiable.

What I have a problem with right now is the so-called "War on Terror". Terror is a concept, it's a psychological state not some sort of physical body. How do you declare war on an abstract? More importantly how do you win a war like this and for that matter how do you even know if you are winning or loosing?

When I look at the War in Iraq, I don’t' see a justifiable war. The US and it's allies will tell you that this war generally was to:
1. Remove Saddam Hussein
2. Neutralize his stockpile of WMDs
3. Fight terror
4. Stabilize the region.

These were noble enough reasons, so far, the outcome has been:
1. Hussein was removed from power and later executed, the question I have is was he that big a threat in the long run?
2. There were no WMDs found
3. As I said before how do you fight terror? Is there less terror in the world because of this war?
5. I think we can all see that the region is nowhere close to being stable, in fact it is less stable than when Hussein was in power.

I don't know, Id like to think I'm not paranoid and that I don't see conspiracies. I would like to think that just because Dick Cheney used to be the CEO of Halliburton and that George Bush has close ties to some of the most powerful Oil companies in the world did not play any kind of factor in this war.

What I find the worst about the current situation is that the US army is committed to this. I'm not going to even try to say that I understand what it is like to be a soldier in that type of situation or even to be a family member of a soldier. But this "Bring home the troops right now" attitude disturbs me.

What I will say is that a mess has been made over there and it needs to be cleaned up. I'm sorry to say this but you have made your bed and now you must lie in it. It is incredibly irresponsible to just back out now and leave these poor people to it. It not only sets a dangerous precedent but it leaves the region in a much worse state than it ever was before the war.

I will go on record as stating I was against the war, I did not agree with it then and I certainly do not agree with it now but it does not change the fact that it has happened and you can't simply just stop now because the death toll is mounting. This is not some sort of game that you can just quit because you are loosing and take your toys home. If the amount of media coverage that we have available now was present during WWII, would the public be so agreeable with that war as well?

Just my opinions mind you, take them as you will.

It would depend on wich media outlet was covering the War.