Pictures from Iraq

[Bacchus]

I did take a look at the whole picture and frankly, it sucks.

[Aileron]

I say that if you CAN'T look at those pictures with a straight face, you need a reality check.

 

People get injured, maimed, and killed all the time. It is at least unavoidable and at most essential part of life.

 

I've seen plenty open wounds in real life - photographs of bandaged wounds will not shock me. Last Sunday I saw a guy with a huge gash on the back of his head, and by the way he was acting he suffered brain damage.

 

I never claimed tha Fallujah event to be barbarous. It is very very stupid - rioting and making us stay longer in order to get us to leave. However, if I were in the position of the rioters, I don't know if I wouldn't do the same thing.

 

As for your sig - you don't understand my position, do you? You think I looked at the benefits with no understanding of the costs. I infact, know very well the suffering caused by this war. I also know the benefits - this is one small step in stabilising the whole Middle Eastern region of the world. Whether my opinion is right or not, it is not going to be rebuffed by the suffering already taken into consideration.

[MonteZuma]

Look at WWII, around 55 million died in that war, and what percentage of those deaths were civilians?  ...

 

How many more civilians would have died under a terrorist's reign in iraq?  it is not good that children and what not are being killed in what i believe to be accidents, but we can't always just look at the photo's of the dead children and civilians and then form your opinions on the conflict. you still have to look at the whole picture.

You can't compare this invasion with WW2. The politics of the two are completely different.

 

You seem to assume that this type of 'war' in Iraq was inevitable. I don't share that !@#$%^&*umption.

 

How many people do you think would have been killed if the invasion of Iraq didn't happen and the World continued to seek out of political solution, or at least a less bloody military solution?

 

Do you really think that what is happening in Iraq now is a best case scenario? I don't.

[★ Dav]

i agree with you completly.

 

I think the US needs to give iraq its own democrocy or hand things over to the UN before more people join the rebelion agains the US occupation. There peole want thier freedom, they were excited when saddam was captured because they though that time had come but the US continues to try to resolve everything as they see fit. I should think many see GW bush as the new saddam.

[MonteZuma]

People get injured, maimed, and killed all the time.  It is at least unavoidable and at most essential part of life....

 

...You think I looked at the benefits with no understanding of the costs.  I infact, know very well the suffering caused by this war.  I also know the benefits - this is one small step in stabilising the whole Middle Eastern region of the world.  Whether my opinion is right or not, it is not going to be rebuffed by the suffering already taken into consideration.

Death and injury is unavoidable. The invasion of Iraq was avoidable. The invasion hasn't stabilised the Middle East or anywhere else.

[★ Dav]

Israil is where middle eastern instability lies. Iraq and iran may not have liked each other but they more not in continuious conflict but israil is.

 

It seems that its ok for america to be the "peae keepers" (i use that term loseley) when its no-one they export a great deal to. It seemed to be about power and money. The US stands to gain a good reputaion and cheap oil by taking iraq (which backfired) buy by enforsing israil to keep to UN resolutions alot stands to be lost from redued arms sales.

[Aileron]

Two reasons why the US shouldn't hand Iraq over to the UN:

1) Iraq views the UN as a US pawn, and will likely protest just as much.

2) It will take longer, because two transfers of power will take longer than one.

 

Seriously, the most efficient outcome will be to leave Iraq by the June 30 deadline. Giving power to the UN may be more politically nice, but only lengthens the process. The US has one of the best historical records of making friends out of enemies, so don't think we can't do this.

 

Monte, it wasn't the best case scenario. The best case scenario would have been to remove Hussein in 1992. Not much we can do about that now.

 

You guys seem to have no comprehesion of the positive outcome of this War. If proper actions are done in the next 30 or so years, this conflict could very well end up saving the lives of millions, possibly billions, not from removing Hussein, (although that mul!@#$%^&*ude alone would be enough) but from the resulting stabilization of the Middle East.

 

The three stars on the current Iraq flag represented a union between Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. These three countries extend great political, social, and economic influence on the whole Middle East, much like the way the US affects North America. If we change the output of these countries, we could really change the whole Middle Eastern political, social, and economic structure.

 

My only dissagreement with the US policy is that we should have chosen Saudi Arabia.

 

 

So, a comparison between this war and WWII isn't valid, but between Vietnam is?

 

The following are differences between Iraq and Vietnam:

Iraq is not currently supported by a foreign military; North Vietnam had Soviet support.

In Iraq, we have taken control of the entire country; In Vietnam we had half.

Iraq was an offensive war; Vietnam was defensive.

Iraq has revolutionary forces; Vietnam had none.

We have been occupying Iraq for months; Vietnam took years.

Iraq was done with a volunteer army; Vietnam required a draft.

 

There are better examples of comparisons - namely Bosnia and Kosovo.

[★ Dav]

justify the reason for war, where ate the WMDs they spoke of?

 

Saddam nay be unplesent but thay really had no legal reason to remove him. No WMDs were found and so the UN resolution in question was obeyed.

 

The empty s-*BAD WORD*-s they found mean nothing, EMPTY is the oppertive word because an empty warhead cant do any damage.

[🜲 Swift]

Dav - think on this though,an enemy is captured, his grasp on the country gone and no matter what you have to think of everything he EXPORTED for other countries. If anything it just proves how important it was to take him out of the power he had than to keep him in it.

[Aileron]

What you are saying Dav is that international law should be a subs!@#$%^&*ute for a military and sound political policy. That is a mindset we have to avoid.

 

Iraq did not have the military might nor the political ideas necessary to survive. Thus, the government was destroyed and will be replaced. International law should not and more importantly cannot be used to prevent such nations from meeting their end.

 

If the only thing preventing a nation from being removed as such is international law, international law should be ignored.

[Bacchus]

aha, Ail...your country is one of the most criminalised country in the world, one of the most violent and one most certainly the most criticized. US seen almost as an nmy by half the world and 3/4 of it is angry at US.

 

and you dare post those kind of comments:

 

Iraq did not have the military might nor the political ideas necessary to survive. Thus, the government was destroyed and will be replaced.

 

by whom moral authority can you say such bs? By your words, if my country doesn't have enough military might to ensure a political stability, you'll demote the my country gov and replace it with something more to your liking???

This is called "Dictatorship"...o yea, true...typical US procedure! you did it in chiapas, you did it in Iraq..it was US who put Saddam in power in the first place.

 

political idea! laugh.

 

 

Come on, you losed. It's over, done. It's a second Vietnam or whatever. Us army just isn't ready to face this kind of context.

[★ Dav]

What you are saying Dav is that international law should be a subs!@#$%^&*ute for a military and sound political policy.  That is a mindset we have to avoid.

 

Iraq did not have the military might nor the political ideas necessary to survive.  Thus, the government was destroyed and will be replaced.  International law should not and more importantly cannot be used to prevent such nations from meeting their end.

 

If the only thing preventing a nation from being removed as such is international law, international law should be ignored.

no what i am saying is the reasons for war were unjust.

 

The reason war began was because iraq was supposedly a threat to the US and the rest of the western world. The other was the breaking of UN resloutions concerning WMDs.

 

It turns out that both "resons" are, and were false so what right did they have to use millitary action against saddam?

 

He may have been a dictator and broke human rights laws but the excuse used to go to war was false and thus under the cir-*BAD WORD*-stances unjust.

[★ Dav]

Two reasons why the US shouldn't hand Iraq over to the UN:

1)  Iraq views the UN as a US pawn, and will likely protest just as much.

i thought iraq was a member of the UN?

 

As a member of the UN thay have the chance to be heard by deciding powers before decitions are made do they not?

[Aileron]

Well, its clear that the US has more power in the UN than Iraq does. Honestly, it reflects the situation in the world; I didn't say the Iraqi view of the UN is right, I merely stated it.

 

Bacchus, you shouldn't be talking about absent moral authority, the only one you yourself use is your own pathetic emotions, and occasionally the opinion of a very biased reporter.

 

BTW, the 'moral' authority I was using was mere survival of the fittest. If something is weak and stupid, it is destroyed. International law is nice, but should not be subs!@#$%^&*uted for strength and brains, which Iraq was trying to do prior to our attack. If the only thing holding a nation together is international law, it is failing in several portions of the "Social Contract" described by Thomas Aquinas.

 

 

Dav, thats a godd one, but I can defend it. Bush made different speeches to the US than he did the UN. As a matter of fact the motives the US went in for differed from those used with the UN. While WMDs were included in the US motive, it also was composed of several other things, spreading democracy and removing a dictatorship are some examples. WMDs are only morally necessary if the UN attacked, which they didn't.

 

 

 

 

You speak of "reasons". However, they are divided into two parts, justification and motives. The former is to a moral end, and the latter to a physical end.

 

Lets look at the motives of this war. Now in a list of possible motives, oil seems to be at the top of everyone's list. However, there is simply not enough of it in Iraq to turn a real profit. Look farther, and one would see the cultural and political significance of the country to its neighbors. The point is that if the political climate of Iraq would change, the political climate of her neighbors would change over the long term.

 

The funny thing is that motive is also a good justification. With the War of Terrorism going on, that is precisely the cultural and political influence we need to exert on Iraq's neighbors.

 

The best part is that this justification was announced everywhere but the UN. Bush claimed in his US speeches that the war was done to spread democracy and teach a lesson to dictators around the world. In other words, for the influence on Iraq's neighbors.

 

The way it was announced, the UN's justification would be WMD's, the US' justification would be for the influence on Iraq's neighbors. Allies each had their own justification. Since the UN didn't attack, the justification of WMDs is unnecessary.

[Bacchus]

Bacchus, you shouldn't be talking about absent moral authority, the only one you yourself use is your own pathetic emotions, and occasionally the opinion of a very biased reporter.

pathetic emotions heh? very biased reporter? rofl, you're a farce Ail. I never even saw a supported opinion coming from you. nada, nothing, rien. So please, find something else.

 

BTW, the 'moral' authority I was using was mere survival of the fittest. If something is weak and stupid, it is destroyed. International law is nice, but should not be subs!@#$%^&*uted for strength and brains, which Iraq was trying to do prior to our attack. If the only thing holding a nation together is international law, it is failing in several portions of the "Social Contract" described by Thomas Aquinas.

 

Thomas Aquinas has rewritten parts of platonician and aristotelician philosophy with the objective of re-founding christian dogmas. It's dating back to what? twelfth, thirteenth century? Haven't you heard about about Rousseau, Locke, Mill, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzche, Heidegger, Foucault...etc. No you haven't.

 

International law is about ethics and ethics are a thing of consensus. Once upon a time, some founders sat together and thought about ideas that would protect people from harm. an ideology of respect, dialogue and consensus. This is your Cons!@#$%^&*ution. International rights are based on the same "effort" at dialogue and consensus. It was thought, written and implemented through a will to have a more peaceful, stable, better world.

By being unilateral and by rejecting the UN consensus, US Gov. just spat on all that, declared it unfit and looked the other side pretending to be "pure, and good". in other words: US defiled the basic principles upon what its justifying its Foreign Affairs policies. In short, US Gov. is the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

If you think that Democracy can be "implemented", you're living in a LIE. It only means you don't even understand the word :"democracy". And if you don't understand the word, you can't understand what consensus is and even less "International Law".

 

 

Petty emotions? off course, people that are obscured and obtuse, polluted by so many misunderstanding and prejudice, usually pisses me off.

[★ Dav]

Well, its clear that the US has more power in the UN than Iraq does.  Honestly, it reflects the situation in the world; I didn't say the Iraqi view of the UN is right, I merely stated it.

 

Bacchus, you shouldn't be talking about absent moral authority, the only one you yourself use is your own pathetic emotions, and occasionally the opinion of a very biased reporter.

 

BTW, the 'moral' authority I was using was mere survival of the fittest.  If something is weak and stupid, it is destroyed.  International law is nice, but should not be subs!@#$%^&*uted for strength and brains, which Iraq was trying to do prior to our attack.  If the only thing holding a nation together is international law, it is failing in several portions of the "Social Contract" described by Thomas Aquinas.

 

 

Dav, thats a godd one, but I can defend it.  Bush made different speeches to the US than he did the UN.  As a matter of fact the motives the US went in for differed from those used with the UN.  While WMDs were included in the US motive, it also was composed of several other things, spreading democracy and removing a dictatorship are some examples.  WMDs are only morally necessary if the UN attacked, which they didn't.

 

 

 

 

You speak of "reasons".  However, they are divided into two parts, justification and motives.  The former is to a moral end, and the latter to a physical end.

 

Lets look at the motives of this war.  Now in a list of possible motives, oil seems to be at the top of everyone's list.  However, there is simply not enough of it in Iraq to turn a real profit.  Look farther, and one would see the cultural and political significance of the country to its neighbors.  The point is that if the political climate of Iraq would change, the political climate of her neighbors would change over the long term.

 

The funny thing is that motive is also a good justification.  With the War of Terrorism going on, that is precisely the cultural and political influence we need to exert on Iraq's neighbors.

 

The best part is that this justification was announced everywhere but the UN.  Bush claimed in his US speeches that the war was done to spread democracy and teach a lesson to dictators around the world.  In other words, for the influence on Iraq's neighbors.

 

The way it was announced, the UN's justification would be WMD's, the US' justification would be for the influence on Iraq's neighbors.  Allies each had their own justification.  Since the UN didn't attack, the justification of WMDs is unnecessary.

ok human rights, dictatorship are good reason to remove him but that didnt justify the war, it was all political anyway, it diverted attention from the loss of bin laden.

 

War on terror? since when was the presidant of a nation classed as a terrorist because they have WMDs. Under that logig the US has nukes ets so bush is a terrorist, blair is a terrorist...

 

If it was weapons and human rights this was all abiut then why pick iraq? iraq isnt the worst nation in the world on those factors.

[MonteZuma]

BTW, the 'moral' authority I was using was mere survival of the fittest.  If something is weak and stupid, it is destroyed.

There is no 'moral' authority in that statement. Morality is about goodness and badness. Not fitness. 'Survival of the fittest' is an amoral concept.

 

International law is nice, but should not be subs!@#$%^&*uted for strength and brains, which Iraq was trying to do prior to our attack.

Bah. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with brains (in so far as strategy is concerned). Solving the imaginary 'crisis' in Iraq without using brute force would have been the smart thing to do.

 

If the only thing holding a nation together is international law, it is failing in several portions of the "Social Contract" described by Thomas Aquinas.

International Law will never be the only thing holding a nation together. But in what way does international law 'fail in several portions if the "social contract"'? Social Contract theory says we give up injustice and practice justice. International Law is one way of codifying a social contract.

 

In any case, social contract theory is just that. A theory. Not a truth.

 

While WMDs were included in the US motive, it also was composed of several other things, spreading democracy and removing a dictatorship are some examples.  WMDs are only morally necessary if the UN attacked, which they didn't.

Whenever Bush made a speech and spoke in the US he was speaking to the world. And whenever he spoke at the UN he was speaking to his own citizens. There was no distinction. The UN doesn't 'attack'. They are totally geared towards defense.

 

As time goes by, I am more and more certain that the UN is doing exactly the right thing in relation to Iraq.

 

Lets look at the motives of this war.  Now in a list of possible motives, oil seems to be at the top of everyone's list.  However, there is simply not enough of it in Iraq to turn a real profit.  Look farther, and one would see the cultural and political significance of the country to its neighbors.  The point is that if the political climate of Iraq would change, the political climate of her neighbors would change over the long term.

...And they all lived happily ever after. Not. Could it be that the motivation for regime change in Iraq was a combination of 'all of the above'. And could it be that the decision to invade Iraq was hot-headed and misconcieved?

 

It strikes me that you are re-writing history. The motivation and justification that was presented to me and to most people in the rest of the world who were asked, through there political leaders, to contribute to this invasion were to get rid of a rogue leader with WMDs who was a threat to world peace - mainly because of his abundant WMDs and his willingness to use them. The problem is he didn't have any and he wasnt a threat. We were either lied to, or we went along with advice from inept intelligence agencies.

 

We can philosophise all we want, but it is as simple as that.

[A Soldier]

Lets look at the motives of this war.  Now in a list of possible motives, oil seems to be at the top of everyone's list.  However, there is simply not enough of it in Iraq to turn a real profit.  Look farther, and one would see the cultural and political significance of the country to its neighbors.  The point is that if the political climate of Iraq would change, the political climate of her neighbors would change over the long term.

That's funny... I thought Iraq was the second largest oil producer in the world, no?

And uh... what do you mean by "cultural changes over the long term"? Regional food restaurants replaced by McDonalds and typical stores crushed by Walmarts?

 

Back on topic, as anyone seen this?

 

Edit: FFS... file won't upload. I can't upload zip files?

Edited May 20, 2004 by A Soldier