How would you answer this question...esp if you are anti-war?

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: Staley8
A poor Iraqi woman says, "My husband was killed b/c he tried to protect me from being raped by Saddam's thugs. My children were taken from me, one was put in prison and the other was forced into the military at age 10. Your US government can come over here and get rid of Saddam's people and help millions of people just like me. Why do you protest your government from doing that? Are your troops (who are willing to fight even without your support) wrong for trying to help hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people? Are you better than me that you deserve to live in a free country but I do not or are you just selfish?"

I don't have proof of this exact story, but don't think that this isn't a real scenario in Iraq. Please think about it before you spout off another response, And read the last quote in my sig borrowed from DevilsAdvocate....Makes you think about your motives huh?

So when are we freeing the public of those countries with poor human rights records listed in http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002?

Freeing the Iraqi public was an added incentive which Bush used as a spin for the war. I'll gladly support a regime change if we were on a quest to rid the world of human rights violators but Iraqi Freedom wasn't it.

But does it really matter if that was the purpose of the war? The point to me as a compassionate human being is that an "added incentive" or side effect of this deal is that the Iraqis will hopefully all live better lives without fear of Saddam. Doesn't that make sense?

The point is that if that was the main objective, I would support it. As a compassionate human, shouldn't that have been the main objective instead of an added incentive?

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Staley8
A poor Iraqi woman says, "My husband was killed b/c he tried to protect me from being raped by Saddam's thugs. My children were taken from me, one was put in prison and the other was forced into the military at age 10. Your US government can come over here and get rid of Saddam's people and help millions of people just like me. Why do you protest your government from doing that? Are your troops (who are willing to fight even without your support) wrong for trying to help hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people? Are you better than me that you deserve to live in a free country but I do not or are you just selfish?"

I think this is a great question. Even though I still oppose the war, this is the one argument that sways me the most.

I have two concerns with this reasoning. First, does the end justify the means? Second, where do we draw the line?

There are thousands of people in dozens of countries who are subjected to this level of brutality every day. There are hundreds of thousands in virtually every country - including the U.S. - who are mistreated in some way every day. Where do we draw the line? Do we attack everyone? What level of mistreatment is acceptable? How can we rationalize attacking tyrants we don't like while looking the other way - even supporting - equally brutal tyrants who have our good graces for the moment? At what point do we have to clean up our own act before we can impose our morality on others?

In my opinion, those decisions are supposed to rest in the United Nations. When we unilaterally attack another country without a clear and immediate danger to us or our allies, we become an outlaw nation, a bad world citizen. We are supposed to stand for something greater.

But it's a great question.

I hear you Bowfinger on a lot of issues (where to draw the line, look at ourselves first), my biggest question on my own statement (hmm.. ) is that it is tough to know where to draw the line. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not for attacking every country that mistreats it's people or we'd be attacking everyone. I still think that even helping one country is better than none. I also agree that the UN should be doing the humanitarian issues, when did the US become the police of the world. However I still have to stick by the fact that if our government officials thought the war was so important and our brave men and women were willing to serve, it is hard to argue against helping such a large number of people in my opinion.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: drewshin
sure, it would be nice if everyone lived in a free country, but it's no reason to go to war and take over a country (wmd's - possibly, attack - yes)

there's over a billion people in china that do not live in a free country, millions of north koreans, cuba, just off our border. we have never invaded these countries, and those people have been oppressed for forty-fifty years. what's so different with iraq? there are those that say that diplomacy wasnt working with iraq, but do you think diplomacy has been working with china/north korea/or cuba?

What about all the defiance that Sadaam has showed to the UN, FOR 12 YEARS.

china/north korea/cuba have violated u.n. human rights violations for as long as i can remember, much longer than 12 years.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Staley8
A poor Iraqi woman says, "My husband was killed b/c he tried to protect me from being raped by Saddam's thugs. My children were taken from me, one was put in prison and the other was forced into the military at age 10. Your US government can come over here and get rid of Saddam's people and help millions of people just like me. Why do you protest your government from doing that? Are your troops (who are willing to fight even without your support) wrong for trying to help hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people? Are you better than me that you deserve to live in a free country but I do not or are you just selfish?"

I don't have proof of this exact story, but don't think that this isn't a real scenario in Iraq. Please think about it before you spout off another response, And read the last quote in my sig borrowed from DevilsAdvocate....Makes you think about your motives huh?

If you do not know if this story is real why are you using it?

That's the best you can come up with Dr.Smooth? No response to the content? No answering of my question? Just deflection techniques and failure to accept very real scenarios as well as failure to think outside of your own little box. Thanks for proving yourself consistent to your standards....glad to see some people haven't changed over the course of the war.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
If you do not know if this story is real why are you using it?

That's the best you can come up with Dr.Smooth? No response to the content? No answering of my question? Just deflection techniques and failure to accept very real scenarios as well as failure to think outside of your own little box. Thanks for proving yourself consistent to your standards....glad to see some people haven't changed over the course of the war.

As one of the war opponents, I have to agree with Staley8 on this. It doesn't really matter whether this specific story is accurate. It's a given that stories like this have been played out hundreds, perhaps thousands of times throughout Iraq. The concepts and questions he raised are valid, and for me, at least, they're worth thinking about.

I don't draw the line at the same point as Staley8, but I'm really happy to see someone post a pro-war message that had more than empty "rah rah" chants and gratuitous digs at opponents. For what it's worth, well done.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger


empty "rah rah" chants and gratuitous digs at opponents. For what it's worth, well done.

Funny to see Staley to exactly that in the post above yours.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Bowfinger


empty "rah rah" chants and gratuitous digs at opponents. For what it's worth, well done.

Funny to see Staley to exactly that in the post above yours.

I cannot understand what you just typed... I must be talking to a 12yr old..

Sound familiar?



Please do not resort to that...

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Bowfinger


empty "rah rah" chants and gratuitous digs at opponents. For what it's worth, well done.

Funny to see Staley to exactly that in the post above yours.

It's not funny to see you do it though. In fact it is a pretty regular occurance around here. I was hoping this topic would have been discussed by the big boys and that the children would have stayed out but I guess not. And by the way, I make good points and respond in an adult manner when it is warranted. Think about what I posted in my first post and reply or leave.

 

[flavio]

more gratuitous digs huh?

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: Staley8


But does it really matter if that was the purpose of the war? The point to me as a compassionate human being is that an "added incentive" or side effect of this deal is that the Iraqis will hopefully all live better lives without fear of Saddam. Doesn't that make sense?

The point is that if that was the main objective, I would support it. As a compassionate human, shouldn't that have been the main objective instead of an added incentive?

I understand what you are saying, that the government's main objective wasn't feeing the people although it should have been, and I agree. Now I guess I have to look at it and say to myself that at least my main objective was taken care of (for now), although I do realize there is much work left to be done.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: flavio
more gratuitous digs huh?

Well not really, I was agreeing with you, not digging on you. It was funny to see me "dig" into someone else b/c I rarely do it. My other point was that is wasn't funny that you did as it is an often occurance. See we are on the same page, there is no "digging" here just aggreement. I'm done with you.

 

[Siddhartha]

bump