From article
So, when was it EVER their oil?? it was Husseins Oil. and no, we are not there to take it. we are there so that we can BUY it from them and they are more likely to get a piece of the action WITHOUT hussein.
From article
So, when was it EVER their oil?? it was Husseins Oil. and no, we are not there to take it. we are there so that we can BUY it from them and they are more likely to get a piece of the action WITHOUT hussein.
I saw this on another forum. It sums up many of the ways I feel about what is going on.
________
'War is neccessary'
Well, the war has started, so at this point debating whether the US should or should not have attacked Iraq is like meditating on the loss of your virginity.
Not that I have any problem with opposition to war. My problem is the shallow nature of the thinking that usually accompanies these protests.
We're comfortable here in the West. To us, war is nothing but a theory?like lottery winnings, it's something that happens to other people. We've been taught about the world in the most basic broad strokes - "peace is good, war is bad". This is a great thing to teach our children, but it would be nice if we could all grow up and recognize 'war' as a concept is distinct from war in reality.
As a concept, nobody likes war. We'd all like a world without it, but what we really need is a world without the need for war - without the provocations and injustices that make conflict unavoidable. A world that is simply without war is not necessarily an idyllic paradise. Nobody was making war on Iraq before Wednesday, does that mean life was a dream for the Iraqi people?
Make no mistake, the Iraqi people were not living happily. Saddam has been starving them and tyrannizing them for two decades, but more so over the last 10 years when sanctions gave him greater levers of control over his people. And who thought those sanctions were a good idea? Oh yeah, the UN.
And speaking of the UN - if they have lost relevance, as some claim, it's their own fault. It is a UN resolution that Iraq has been flouting?how can the UN maintain credibility when they don't even enforce their own edicts? Saddam had enough time to prove he was complying with disarmament orders - if he doesn't have prohibited weapons programs, then why didn't he prove it to the UN's satisfaction? And if he does have prohibited weapons, then why should we turn a blind eye?
There are those who believe that Saddam has been brutalizing his people, but that we don't have the right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation. Okay then, tell me what right do we have to stop a man beating his wife? What right do we have to remove children from abusive homes? After all, it's going on within their family, within their house. Why? Because it's wrong, and if someone has the power to stop it, they should. Saying the ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people is not our problem is a cop-out, so get the saddle off your high horse.
Whether you believe this war is about oil, securing western interests in the near east, neutering a military threat or any other such thing, the end-product will be ridding the Iraqi people of a nasty oppressor.
Will innocent Iraqis die in this campaign? Undoubtedly. Would innocent Iraqis have died if Saddam was left alone? Yes. Was there a way to end their suffering without violence? No. None at all. And that's the problem with "War is Bad, Peace is Good". In theory it's an absolute, in practice it isn't.
I think the underlying anger fueling the protestors comes from their confusing how the world should be with how the world is. When the suffering of others is out-of-sight, out-of-mind, all's quiet on the western front. But war makes the truth of the world unavoidable and, like someone rudely awakened from a pleasant dream, it makes us angry. But don't shoot the messenger.
I'm not glad that this war is going on. In fact, it makes me mad. But I'm not mad at the Americans for taking action, I'm mad at the world we live in for making it necessary.
______________
The fact that people are calling this an immoral war is ludicrous to me. All war is immoral, all war is bad, nasty, horrible and something to be avoided if you can. In a perfect world it would never be necessary to remove tyrannical dictators by force or enforce resolutions that were made twelve years ago.
We aren't there yet.
________
'War is neccessary'
Well, the war has started, so at this point debating whether the US should or should not have attacked Iraq is like meditating on the loss of your virginity.
Not that I have any problem with opposition to war. My problem is the shallow nature of the thinking that usually accompanies these protests.
We're comfortable here in the West. To us, war is nothing but a theory?like lottery winnings, it's something that happens to other people. We've been taught about the world in the most basic broad strokes - "peace is good, war is bad". This is a great thing to teach our children, but it would be nice if we could all grow up and recognize 'war' as a concept is distinct from war in reality.
As a concept, nobody likes war. We'd all like a world without it, but what we really need is a world without the need for war - without the provocations and injustices that make conflict unavoidable. A world that is simply without war is not necessarily an idyllic paradise. Nobody was making war on Iraq before Wednesday, does that mean life was a dream for the Iraqi people?
Make no mistake, the Iraqi people were not living happily. Saddam has been starving them and tyrannizing them for two decades, but more so over the last 10 years when sanctions gave him greater levers of control over his people. And who thought those sanctions were a good idea? Oh yeah, the UN.
And speaking of the UN - if they have lost relevance, as some claim, it's their own fault. It is a UN resolution that Iraq has been flouting?how can the UN maintain credibility when they don't even enforce their own edicts? Saddam had enough time to prove he was complying with disarmament orders - if he doesn't have prohibited weapons programs, then why didn't he prove it to the UN's satisfaction? And if he does have prohibited weapons, then why should we turn a blind eye?
There are those who believe that Saddam has been brutalizing his people, but that we don't have the right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation. Okay then, tell me what right do we have to stop a man beating his wife? What right do we have to remove children from abusive homes? After all, it's going on within their family, within their house. Why? Because it's wrong, and if someone has the power to stop it, they should. Saying the ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people is not our problem is a cop-out, so get the saddle off your high horse.
Whether you believe this war is about oil, securing western interests in the near east, neutering a military threat or any other such thing, the end-product will be ridding the Iraqi people of a nasty oppressor.
Will innocent Iraqis die in this campaign? Undoubtedly. Would innocent Iraqis have died if Saddam was left alone? Yes. Was there a way to end their suffering without violence? No. None at all. And that's the problem with "War is Bad, Peace is Good". In theory it's an absolute, in practice it isn't.
I think the underlying anger fueling the protestors comes from their confusing how the world should be with how the world is. When the suffering of others is out-of-sight, out-of-mind, all's quiet on the western front. But war makes the truth of the world unavoidable and, like someone rudely awakened from a pleasant dream, it makes us angry. But don't shoot the messenger.
I'm not glad that this war is going on. In fact, it makes me mad. But I'm not mad at the Americans for taking action, I'm mad at the world we live in for making it necessary.
______________
The fact that people are calling this an immoral war is ludicrous to me. All war is immoral, all war is bad, nasty, horrible and something to be avoided if you can. In a perfect world it would never be necessary to remove tyrannical dictators by force or enforce resolutions that were made twelve years ago.
We aren't there yet.
According to Gen. Franks, Pres. Bush gave him an explicit list . . . my assumption is it was prioritized . . . security of civilians and provision of water/electricity where not in the top three. Furthermore, the actions of the US/UK, France, and Russia have essentially paralyzed the UN.
You've clearly been tainted by the radical left . . . our President believes this war to be just . . . not based on the teachings of St. Augustine, mind you.
You did some selective quoting there BBD.
In a perfect world there would be no reason to go to war. We aren't there yet.
I can hate war and still at this time see the necessity of it.
What I don't understand are the people calling this an immoral war. By definition that implies that there are "moral" wars. I only see it as necessary, not moral or immoral.
Necessary in theory maybe, we'll never know if it would have been better to contain stronger or go to war (by what future actions take place during and after this war).
Admittedly, my quoting was selective but your argument is very different from Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Novak. The day Bush says ALL wars are evil and immoral but sometimes necessary . . . I will give him props for being a statesman.
I actually believe in Just War Doctrine and under said doctrine I believe war can be a necessary evil which will produce a substantively greater good for all at its resolution. Operation Iraqi Freedom is a great moniker but its credibility as a just cause and means pretty much ends with the title.
So you are one of those that would rather have the Iraqi people stay under Saddam's rule.
Interesting.
Ya, cause we all know that anyone who is against the war is objectively pro-Saddam. Get a clue.
Sig . . .
DeLay called [Clinton's refusal to negotiate directly with Milosevic] "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons."
Where did you find that gem?
DeLay called [Clinton's refusal to negotiate directly with Milosevic] "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons."
Where did you find that gem?
Its from this article here. The conclusion is spot on:
"Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time."
Edit: forgot to add - By some people's standards, DeLay and Lott at the time were objectively pro-Slobo.
jahawkin
I keep asking you for that clue but you won't give it to me.
How would leaving Saddam in power in Iraq provide peace and justice for the Iraqi people?
If not by force, then how will Saddam be removed from power?
I keep asking you for that clue but you won't give it to me.
How would leaving Saddam in power in Iraq provide peace and justice for the Iraqi people?
If not by force, then how will Saddam be removed from power?
You weren't saying the same thing back in the 80s when Saddam was our buddy now were you?? He was good back then, evil now. I see.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,774
- 6,337
- 126
They can rejoice and I'll be happy for them, but it still doesn't justify this war. No Justification seems to stick for this war, the reasons change week-to-week and they still are murky. Do a Search of my posts if you really want to know why I'm opposed and why Iraqi's dancing in the streets is not the issue.
In other words, you still don't have a clue to give me.
Actually, back in the 80's(Nov. 79) the ship I was on was put on alert when the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran took over our embassy and kept them hostage for 444 days. That's what I was doing in the 80's, what were you doing?
So you're saying he was good back then, much better than the evil Iranians. We don't care how much of a bastard he is as long as he's our bastard, right?
jahawkin
Actually I didn't say that. You were the one that brought up the past which we have covered in a previous thread. I would rather deal with the situation as it is now.
Got a clue yet?
Actually I didn't say that. You were the one that brought up the past which we have covered in a previous thread. I would rather deal with the situation as it is now.
Got a clue yet?
God damn. Stop saying this war is about Iraqi liberation. IT IS NOT. It is about disarmament and regime change, nothing more. Anything more is just to gain public favor. We didn't ask the UN to go in and investigate the living conditions of Iraqi people correct?
Here's a quote from Bush: ""We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interest."
This war has nothing at all to do with the Iraqi people; as nice as that is, that is not our foreign policy. I have no idea who named this war but they named it strictly for international relations as the reason for this war has nothing to do with the ultimate freedom of the Iraqi people.
Being anti-this-war is not being Pro-Saddam; things are not clear cut like that. This is not black and white. If you think the majority of the world (look at the millions of people protesting all over the globe, not just here) is Pro-Saddam then you're extremely close minded. Things aren't as black and white as you'd like them to be. Denouncing the protestors/anti-war group as Pro-Saddam is the same logic as one of the highest-ranking Nazis (Hitler's Deputy Chief and Luftwaffe Commander) who was captured and put on trial for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country"
Being anti-war is not being Pro-Saddam. I'm sick and tired of this close-mindedness.
If you didn't care about the plight of the Iraqi people back then why don't you care about them now?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter