The War hurts My soul...

I agree the world needs change, but I think thousands of years of trying the same thing proves violence never really changes anything, at least not for the good.

 

Of course violence isn't the best way to resolve most problems.

But sometimes the innocent will become the victimized or the dead if it weren't for war.

There are things in the world that are worth fighting for. We get dragged back into a cycle of violence every time we try to protect people, but we should never have enough of trying to protect the innnocent from aggressors.

Once theres nothing left worth fighting for, we've lost all hope for change.

 

This is all very easy for you to say... you've never experienced any kind of oppression at any point in your life.

It is well known that Saddam gassed his own people numerous times. Why should we have given him the benefit of the doubt concerning WMD's? As Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said in the days leading up to the Iraq invasion, "We have a moral obligation to intervene where evil is in control. Today, that place is Iraq."


The world isn't all butterflies and ice cream. The sooner you realise this the better.

 

Roughly 2 million Shia and kurds.

Some of this was politcal murder to supress insurgencies, and much more was genocide to eliminate racial groups, such as the kurds, which are the largest ethnic group in the world that doesn't have a state to exist in.

If you ever hear someone pointing out that Iraqi's didn't wan't a change in government, point out the 10 million or so Kurdish people in Iraq who really were hugging troops as soon as tanks rolled in.

The numbers before Saddams brutal reign we're much higher. 15-20 million in Iraq, how much of that was to due with families fleeing to turkey and how many we're murdered by Saddams death squads is debatable, but the change in numers over the years leads to point out that Hussein killed at least a million people before the first Iraq war where we did keep him contained.

The problem with that, of course being oil for food, which was a war crime commited by the UN mostly by the French, Germans, and Russians, but with US participation also.

 

The UK wasn't involved with that?

 

All the perm Security council members +1, US, UK, China, Russia, France, and germany, who isn't a permanent member, but has status almost as close we're benifighting in the oil for food situation.

Oil for food wasn't a bad idea. Sequester Saddam by making him sell oil for food and medical supplies for his people.

But Saddam didn't care for his people, and many deals we're made in which the Iraqis were used as slave labor for the 11 year peroid between the gulf war, and only the Iraqi ruling party and security nation aristocrats we're benifiting.

Many many people starved to death in Iraq during this time.

It was a war crime using slaves which the US and most European nations participated in.

Many of these European nations had state controlled media, and when the US decided to invade Iraq (I'm not saying that was the best option, just better then oil for food) the security council members objected becuase their we're diplomats swimming in oil wealth stolen from the Iraqi people.

I was aginst the Iraq war at the start, but we can't just abandon them now, the new seems to actually be doing a pretty good job, and we should support them untill we agree to on a withdrawl deadline.

I'm all for a deadline, but that needs to be decided by Iraqi governemnts needs, US commanders, not political resolve.

We should be trying to find a way out of Iraq. And we should be glad that we caught Saddam and ended the tyranny of his reign.

 

And what's worse is that many of the early supporters of this deal knew that Saddam wouldn't give shit to his people.

Of course. But all of these proposals to withdraw the troops immediately aren't very thoughtful... whether you support the war or not, we are there, and the country isn't completely stable because of us. We should stay until Iraq has reached the point where Iraqi army and police can fully control any insurgent uprisings.

 

Surge on an into the heartz uv all Arabz who love ALAH.

 

"Once theres nothing left worth fighting for, we've lost all hope for change."
I am fighting man, I am fighting for peace, I am fighting for justice.

You all have misconstrued my comments. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. There are good and bad reason's to do things and I have never beleived that the ends justify the means. Bush's reasons for going to war were strictly personal. All the shit with the kurds and stuff also happened arouind the time of the FIRST Gulf war, as well!

I know that saddam was an aweful guy. What I am saying is that going into baghdad and bombing all those innocent people wasn't at ALL the best way to take him out of power! Overthrowing a government and using our soldiers to then spend several years "rebuilding" it is bullshit. Think about America when we started... Did we have someone showing us how to begin a country? NO! What makes the government so vain to think these people are dumber than the US? What is their plan? Stay there till all the suicide bombers die? They have got themselves into a shitty mess, and now the iraqi soldiers, the US soldiers, and WORST of all, the civilians in iraq are paying for it!

I hate war. I hate that military people have to die. What I hate even worse is that innocent civilians have to die! Bombing bagdad like they did was utter bullshit. I feel the same exact way about hiroshima and nagasoki. If your cause is just, civilians should NEVER have to die! I think of any war we've had, WWII would be the easiest to justify. However, I find no justifacation for how they endedt he war, and I find no justification of how they began the iraq war. I am a pacifist, I think violence should be avoided at ALL costs. But more than that, I think civilians death's should NEVER happen, especially in such great numbers as in all of our wars be it WWI, WWII, korea, vietnam, gulf war, Iraq war, Civil war or whatever,.

 

But 9/11 was pretty fucking cool, no?

Why is it okay when Americans are killed by outside forces, but when we fight back we are immediately condemmed by people like you?


By the way, the only comparison Baghdad and Hiroshima & Nagasaki hold is that the U.S. bombed them. The reason for bombing Baghdad was to flush out/kill insurgents and soldiers loyal to Saddam. The reason for bombing Japan was to show off our power.



I'm really beginning to dislike you. You are nothing but an American-hating hypocrite. Should've stayed in school....


Also, we took up arms against Iraq during the Gulf War because they invaded Kuwait. Sadly it had nothing to do with the Kurds, George H.W. Bush cared only about American interests.... but should we continue to ignore what happened?

 

Wolfowitz was actually the chief architect behind the Iraq doctorine

If you read my post more clearly, I mentioned that most of that happened before the first Gulf War.

I never said it was, but every single bomb we dropped in Baghdad was a smart bomb to severly limit civilian casualties.

I said using force to take him out of power was preferable to Oil For Food or letting Saddam run free.

That's an irrelevant comparison. The colonial leaders were desperate for French assistence. It was 300 years ago, and America isn't the model for every country on earth.

Dumber? who said dumber, they simply didn't have the means to overthrow Hussein? Does not being able to overthrow a strongman make a country democratic?

Out of every revolution that succedds, ten more fail. Many many did in Iraq and the people who attemted were slaughtered.

Stay in there till Iraq has a military power sufficient to defend itself from suicidice bombers, and a government strong enough to hold together as we leave.

Killing Zarqawi was an important step in that equation.

If you hate for civilians to die, how did you feel about civilians starving and dying under slave labor conditions in 1997? There we're many more of them then are dying now even in the horrible secterian violence and terrorism that has taken hold of the country.

Do you really hate war, or do you just hate when it has to be on our nations conscience?

If there are wars over the world and we can help limit civilian casualties is it better or worse that we are involved.

How about Japan in World War 2. Dropping the bombs killled hundreds of thousands of people. But not dropping them would have meant a full scale invasion of the Mainland, where every civilian would have fought for the emporer. Many millions more would have died.

And during that time, the Japanese control of China was killing a million Chinese a month.

Would another month of fighting have made the million lives worth it? what about another 3 years?

I think you're main objection is to have war be on your countries conscience.

But it is, we'll always have Hiroshima on our conscience. Anytime we act, we'll have it on our conscience. But what are the prices of not interfering in the world?

Lets look at my favorite example, the Congo civil wars. They streched out between 1996-2002. These were wars of ethnic slaughter, pillaging for resources, and child soldiers sponsored by foreign militias. By the end in 2002, about 4 million congolese were dead.

If we had intervened there, thousands of congolese would probably have died, but the foreign nations in Africa would not have state sponsered militias, and the horrible violence would have ceased.

Would the thousands of deaths be on our conscience if we had interefered, or are the 4 million Congolese on our conscience because we, the worlds largest military, didn't.

If being a pacifist means standing by watching this, sign me up for war.

 

This turned me on for some reason.

 

How can YOU tell what makes other people sad?!? He's just sad because of humans killing each other.

To me, there is no good reason for waging war.

 

I didn't say he wasn't sad, I said he had no idea what they were going through and had a poor understanding of the situation.

His sympathy is meaningless if he doesn't understand their pain, and so is yours.

 

My words have that effect sometime. You'll probably want to lie down for a while and call me later.

 

It's good to see this conversation taking place. Hopefully it doesn't descend into a pissing contest. It seems many times these types of conversation descend into personal invective and the back and forth name-calling have all the relevance of a third-grade playground fight. Let your ideas make your case.

 

I dont get the connection betweem suddenly going to war with Iraq, and the trade centers being bombed.. 9/11 was bin laden, and on the day of no flight, the only flgihts aloud to leave was that carrying bin ladens family.. without question.. and what about the report "bin laden destined to attack in the United States" that wasnt acted upon well before the trade center attack..

To me it seems more like a cover up to get something else, than to create democracy in Iraq, if you look at the sequence of events, the Iraq war is more Shady than the news you hear on CNN or something or better yet FOX NEWS..

 

The 9/11 commission did a thorough investigation of whether or not the Bin Laden family was swept away without question.

They found they we're thoroughly questioned before they left, and none of Bin Ladens family has any ties to him. Of course they couldn't be let to stay in the country, they would have been the target of some nut.

You're just spouting off misinformation now.

 

I put forth the reasons for the Iraq War in a previous thread. If you wish to take the time to read, here it is:

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173133&page=2&pp=10

 

Where did you hear that?