WHy Does the Anti-War Movement feel it is so right?

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Dari

Come on, I think we both know that the President of the United States knew exactly what he was doing. By stopping shipment of raw materials to a country that's fighting a war across the vastness of Asia, we knew how the Japanese would've have responded. Aside from that, thanks for correcting me on my poor choice of words.

yes, we stopped shipping scrap steel to japan after they were doing horrible things in indochina. attacking hawaii didn't do anything to improve japan's access to raw materials. even if they'd have taken hawaii there no iron ore there. why would the japanese respond to loss of a significant portion of their steel supply a year earlier by attacking a colonial holding of the US with no resources on it? that argument makes no sense. if someone had said they were responding to the flying tigers then yeah, thats very well plausible.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Dari

Sounds like pro-war logic to me...

Dr Smooth, His points were valid, a huge majority of people don't like war. Protestors just hop on the bandwagon and failed to protest earlier evil doings. How many times are you going to use the same arguments against the "pro-war" people, in fact how many times do you plan on using that exact link as an argument?

It's not like the pro-war people have come up with any new arguments lately. Everyone's just yelling the same arguments at each other over and over again. It's senseless to complain about the repetitiveness of his argument when you look at the original post.

If you look at the original post here's what it comes down to:

People don't like war, but sometimes it's necessary. It's necessary for a nation to protect itself. We have to stop September 11 from happening again. All wars aren't bad. Hitler is an example of a war that was necessary.

If people keep presenting the same argument as if it's new, why bother to present a new argument in response?

yowolabi, I was just irked that when someone posted a thought out post, DrSmooth comes in with a link to some ridiculous cartoon and that's it (a cartoon he took from another pro-war bashing thread to make it worse) But I do understand your point of everyone just tossing the same arguments back and forth b/c most people are not going to change no matter what evidence or response you put in front of them.

I apologize. I will delete my post.

Edit: I am trying to delete it but I keep getting an error message....

Wow, I'm impressesed in fact I'm shocked, you don't see many people here admit if they made a mistake. If you are serious, I have a newfound respect for you for what's it's worth. (although I may still disagree with some of you opinions 😉 )

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Dari

Come on, I think we both know that the President of the United States knew exactly what he was doing. By stopping shipment of raw materials to a country that's fighting a war across the vastness of Asia, we knew how the Japanese would've have responded. Aside from that, thanks for correcting me on my poor choice of words.

yes, we stopped shipping scrap steel to japan after they were doing horrible things in indochina. attacking hawaii didn't do anything to improve japan's access to raw materials. even if they'd have taken hawaii there no iron ore there. why would the japanese respond to loss of a significant portion of their steel supply a year earlier by attacking a colonial holding of the US with no resources on it? that argument makes no sense. if someone had said they were responding to the flying tigers then yeah, thats very well plausible.

because hawaii was home to the US Pacific Fleet? Where else would they attack?

 

[SuperTool]

President likes to send other people's children to their death, we can't standby and let September 11 repeat itselsf. We can't remain hostages to existential threats. We can't cower and live in fear of outlaw regimes.

LOL. OK.
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
I wasn't a hostage to Saddam Hussein, and I sure as hell wasn't living in fear of him. If you were, maybe you need some medication.
I don't like Saddam, and I have no problem with all the dictators like him dying. I just don't want my taxpayer dollars to pay for it at $100+ Billion a pop, at the time when our economy is in trouble, unliess the dictator has or is about to attack us.
I feel bad for Iraqis under Saddam and sanctions, but they have only themselves to blame for being cowards and not overthrowing the man. They get the government that they deserve.
The notion that Saddam Hussein would be able to attack us is just childish. Iraq is a weak failed state, and as we can see didn't even use WMD's when it was attacked, even though it would be justified. There are plenty of better countries for terrorists to base their operations that aren't under US and UN scrutiny and sanctions.
The only WMD's being used are Weapons of Mass Distraction from the economic failure of this administration. This war is nothing more than a $100B campaign ad at taxpayer expense, and at the cost of US soldiers' lives.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Staley8

yowolabi, I was just irked that when someone posted a thought out post, DrSmooth comes in with a link to some ridiculous cartoon and that's it (a cartoon he took from another pro-war bashing thread to make it worse) But I do understand your point of everyone just tossing the same arguments back and forth b/c most people are not going to change no matter what evidence or response you put in front of them.

I hear what you are saying, and I agree that a reposted cartoon is useless to the discussion. I'm glad that Dr. Smooth was convinced by you to at least try to remove it.

Dari: why present new arguments when the same problems have been on the table for 12 years? It's like you're trying hard to find a reason not to make saddam held accountable for his actions. It's like you're saying that this war would be legitimate if it had 17 UN resolutions under its belt, as opposed to the previous 16 UN resolutions.

I don't think you're talking about me specifically, but I'll bite. The question regarding the resolution specifically authorizing war is , who has the authority to declare war? If we say we're part of a world community(as embodied in the UN) and believe that cease-fire conditions should be enforced if Saddam won't willingly follow them, then we have to also abide by the rules of the UN. There's no sort of community where it's acceptable for one member to say "I don't believe we're enforcing our laws correctly, therefore I'm going to go enforce them myself." Vigilantism is always seen as destructive to the community and stopped, even if it's goals are just. The reason: If individual citizens are allowed to enforce the laws, then everyone acts in their own self interest, and the laws become meaningless. People must be punished by the will of the community, not an individual.

 

[Alistar7]

Quote from Super Tool:

"The notion that Saddam Hussein would be able to attack us is just childish. Iraq is a weak failed state, and as we can see didn't even use WMD's when it was attacked, even though it would be justified. There are plenty of better countries for terrorists to base their operations that aren't under US and UN scrutiny and sanctions. "

There is never a justification for the use of chem/bio agents.

Countries impoverished and oppressed are ideal places for terrorists to hide.

Are you going to deny the terrorist camps founds in Iraq? What about the one up north run by known associates of al-queda where traces of WMD were found along with documentation with recipes and ways to disperse them? What about the one just southest of downtown Baghdad that had the shell of a passenger airliner?

You are right Saddam barely has the ability to use these except on close neighboors, and his own people of course. But the undeniable proof terrorsists operated in his country justify our action. I for one don't doubt he would supply these to ANY TERROR GROUP that would be willing to use them agains the mainland US, either way it is a risk we decided we would not take, deal with it already, it's almost over.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Staley8

yowolabi, I was just irked that when someone posted a thought out post, DrSmooth comes in with a link to some ridiculous cartoon and that's it (a cartoon he took from another pro-war bashing thread to make it worse) But I do understand your point of everyone just tossing the same arguments back and forth b/c most people are not going to change no matter what evidence or response you put in front of them.

I hear what you are saying, and I agree that a reposted cartoon is useless to the discussion. I'm glad that Dr. Smooth was convinced by you to at least try to remove it.

Dari: why present new arguments when the same problems have been on the table for 12 years? It's like you're trying hard to find a reason not to make saddam held accountable for his actions. It's like you're saying that this war would be legitimate if it had 17 UN resolutions under its belt, as opposed to the previous 16 UN resolutions.

I don't think you're talking about me specifically, but I'll bite. The question regarding the resolution specifically authorizing war is , who has the authority to declare war? If we say we're part of a world community(as embodied in the UN) and believe that cease-fire conditions should be enforced if Saddam won't willingly follow them, then we have to also abide by the rules of the UN. There's no sort of community where it's acceptable for one member to say "I don't believe we're enforcing our laws correctly, therefore I'm going to go enforce them myself." Vigilantism is always seen as destructive to the community and stopped, even if it's goals are just. The reason: If individual citizens are allowed to enforce the laws, then everyone acts in their own self interest, and the laws become meaningless. People must be punished by the will of the community, not an individual.

America will always reserve the right to self protection, as any nation has the same right.

 

[her209]

What are you talking about? This is in the Bible. Therefore, it is right.

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

LOL. OK.
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
I wasn't a hostage to Saddam Hussein, and I sure as hell wasn't living in fear of him. If you were, maybe you need some medication.
I don't like Saddam, and I have no problem with all the dictators like him dying. I just don't want my taxpayer dollars to pay for it at $100+ Billion a pop, at the time when our economy is in trouble, unliess the dictator has or is about to attack us.
I feel bad for Iraqis under Saddam and sanctions, but they have only themselves to blame for being cowards and not overthrowing the man. They get the government that they deserve.
The notion that Saddam Hussein would be able to attack us is just childish. Iraq is a weak failed state, and as we can see didn't even use WMD's when it was attacked, even though it would be justified. There are plenty of better countries for terrorists to base their operations that aren't under US and UN scrutiny and sanctions.
The only WMD's being used are Weapons of Mass Distraction from the economic failure of this administration. This war is nothing more than a $100B campaign ad at taxpayer expense, and at the cost of US soldiers' lives.

Well thought out and written post. Thank you. I see there is still hope for America as long as there are peoplelike you who can see things rationally.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Countries impoverished and oppressed are ideal places for terrorists to hide.

Are you going to deny the terrorist camps founds in Iraq? What about the one up north run by known associates of al-queda where traces of WMD were found along with documentation with recipes and ways to disperse them? What about the one just southest of downtown Baghdad that had the shell of a passenger airliner?

You are right Saddam barely has the ability to use these except on close neighboors, and his own people of course. But the undeniable proof terrorsists operated in his country justify our action. I for one don't doubt he would supply these to ANY TERROR GROUP that would be willing to use them agains the mainland US, either way it is a risk we decided we would not take, deal with it already, it's almost over.

Yes, all criminals and drug dealers live in the ghetto. Same thing.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Dari

Sounds like pro-war logic to me...

Dr Smooth, His points were valid, a huge majority of people don't like war. Protestors just hop on the bandwagon and failed to protest earlier evil doings. How many times are you going to use the same arguments against the "pro-war" people, in fact how many times do you plan on using that exact link as an argument?

It's not like the pro-war people have come up with any new arguments lately. Everyone's just yelling the same arguments at each other over and over again. It's senseless to complain about the repetitiveness of his argument when you look at the original post.

If you look at the original post here's what it comes down to:

People don't like war, but sometimes it's necessary. It's necessary for a nation to protect itself. We have to stop September 11 from happening again. All wars aren't bad. Hitler is an example of a war that was necessary.

If people keep presenting the same argument as if it's new, why bother to present a new argument in response?

yowolabi, I was just irked that when someone posted a thought out post, DrSmooth comes in with a link to some ridiculous cartoon and that's it (a cartoon he took from another pro-war bashing thread to make it worse) But I do understand your point of everyone just tossing the same arguments back and forth b/c most people are not going to change no matter what evidence or response you put in front of them.

I apologize. I will delete my post.

Edit: I am trying to delete it but I keep getting an error message....

Wow, I'm impressesed in fact I'm shocked, you don't see many people here admit if they made a mistake. If you are serious, I have a newfound respect for you for what's it's worth. (although I may still disagree with some of you opinions 😉 )

I do not want to beat this into the ground. Someone pointed out that I was not being respectful of the tread's author. After thinking about it I realized I wasn't. So I apologized and deleted my original post.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Quote from Super Tool:

"The notion that Saddam Hussein would be able to attack us is just childish. Iraq is a weak failed state, and as we can see didn't even use WMD's when it was attacked, even though it would be justified. There are plenty of better countries for terrorists to base their operations that aren't under US and UN scrutiny and sanctions. "

There is never a justification for the use of chem/bio agents.

Countries impoverished and oppressed are ideal places for terrorists to hide.

Are you going to deny the terrorist camps founds in Iraq? What about the one up north run by known associates of al-queda where traces of WMD were found along with documentation with recipes and ways to disperse them? What about the one just southest of downtown Baghdad that had the shell of a passenger airliner?

You are right Saddam barely has the ability to use these except on close neighboors, and his own people of course. But the undeniable proof terrorsists operated in his country justify our action. I for one don't doubt he would supply these to ANY TERROR GROUP that would be willing to use them agains the mainland US, either way it is a risk we decided we would not take, deal with it already, it's almost over.

The only thing that is almost over is Saddam's rule. Our involvement in Iraq is just beginning.
If Saddam had WMD and wanted to give to terrorists, he could have done so long ago. The bottom line is he didn't, because he was affraid of geting whacked by the US. Deterrence was working. Iraq was an isolated country. Now they will rejoin the international community. So before, all Iraqis were suspect, now they will be our so called friends. So it will be way easier for terrorists to operate out of Iraq now than it ever was. How do I know this? Because look at how many terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, our so called friends, and how many came from Iraq, our so called enemy. Wahabbi Clerics will be in Iraq very shortly building mosques and preaching their radical verses, just like they were in Chechnya after USSR collapsed. And we won't do anything about it because it's a "freedom of religion" issue. We wouldn't want to be the opressors. Saddam kept his people opressed, but he also kept terrorists opressed. We are fighting Wahabbi terrorism here, not secular dictatorhips. Until we get that through our thick little heads, the WOT will go nowhere. Our so called friends whom we helped "liberate" Afganistan from the Soviets sent us a "Thank You" card on 9/11. We need to learn here in America that no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[Fencer128]

Come on, I think we both know that the President of the United States knew exactly what he was doing. By stopping shipment of raw materials to a country that's fighting a war across the vastness of Asia, we knew how the Japanese would've have responded. Aside from that, thanks for correcting me on my poor choice of words.

I don't really see that as you do. Maybe I'm missing some of the facts?

I see it as - there's a good possibility that Japan could conquer a large part of Asia, and Germany/Italy Europe, N. Africa and further. Lets add in their supremacist idealogy and maybe there's a chance that when they're finished with all of that they might take a look in the direction of Russia and the US... One minute - what's that army doing heading east from Germany....

Surely it's the case that the President knew there was a good chance war could come to US shores, and he wanted to do as much as he could to undemine the efforts of those who might bring it - short of declaring war - before they got to you?

Everyone knows that Hitler wanted to sidestep Britain and avoid war in the beginning, content instead to gather mainland Europe plus a bit of Asia and Africa. The UK was pretty sure that this would not be the case further down the line (added to the moral points of it all) and so rightly put paid to that idea.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Siwy]

In fact, if it wasn't for Roosevelt, who manufactured an event to get us into the Second World War, the weasels in France would be governed by Germans and the Jews would've been completely annihilated in Europe without a peep from the rest of humanity

Comparing Iraq with WW2 by pro-war people is as extreme as comparing Bush to Hitler by anti-war people. Was Iraq in the process of taking over other countries? Was Iraq exterminating millions of people based on their religion?

While I'm sure that no President likes to send other people's children to their death, we can't standby and let September 11 repeat itselsf.

September 11 has nothing to do with Iraq. I think you watch too much Fox or CNN. 🙂

We can't remain hostages to existential threats. We can't cower and live in fear of outlaw regimes

Really? Were you actually afraid that Saddam will drop a bomb on your house?

That is why I feel we are so right, because most of the pro-war arguments presented are total b.s.

 

[IGBT]

For the marxist morons it feels good to feel bad about any offensive posture..even if it means their own death. Liberal marxist really are a dizzy bunch.