Vile Requiem Posted March 19, 2004 Report Posted March 19, 2004 Let's not forget 8000-10000 civilian deaths. Iraq Body Count
Dav Posted March 19, 2004 Report Posted March 19, 2004 human life is the biggest price of all in conflict. The price is always greater when the people feel the war is unjust
Aileron Posted March 19, 2004 Report Posted March 19, 2004 Human life is mortal. Not one of those people were destined to live in this universe forever. If you think the conflict was a waste of life, how should it have been spent? The results of the conflict by all certainty saved lives in the long run. Hussein killed enough civilians to maintain his power that removing him justifies the spilling of blood. However, this was not enough of a justification. If we were to remove every such leader from power, we would have to invade three quarters of the third world. Thus, Bush needed something else. He used the WMDs, because of their high probability of existence. It turns out now that they didn't exist. However, justification had already been achieved by saving the lives that would have been lost under Hussein. Besides, you speak as if Operation Iraqi Freedom started a conflict. Infact, this action ended a two decade long revolution that had started before Hussein even invaded Kuwait, which had been fought by everyone from Iran to the Kurds to the UN. In classical morality, all just wars need an ultimate goal of peace. Thus, there is no way that the conflict prior to Iraqi Freedom was justified, because it was going on without end. The loss of several thousand people is great, but it is less than the steady rate of loss of a never-ending revolution.
Tascar Posted March 19, 2004 Report Posted March 19, 2004 Of course...but then again, has there ever been a war in which all of America supported its troops? Besides, if all you ever do is assign blame to someone for something you have no control over anyway, what good are you? If you don't like Bush, vote for Kerry in the next election - that's all you got. If you'll take a look through our modern war history, you might come to the realization that US Force isn't about WMD's - it's about liberation. Surely Vietnam, Panama, Kuwait, Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia, and now Iraq will convince you of that. Stop whining, and just get with the program. Don't like it? Too f'n bad. Oh...yes, I served in the Corps, my brother is in the Corps in Iraq - and oh my, I still support our cause.
Vile Requiem Posted March 20, 2004 Report Posted March 20, 2004 Why do some people lack the mental function NOT to assign blame? It's friggin subconsious... First off, let's tick off these liberation wars. Panama was to keep control of the Canal. Canal = $$$Bosnia was mostly an air operation, with no military deaths (Clark was a great commander)Somalia turned out to be an ambush of Hollywood proportions (Black Hawk Down).Have not studied the Sudan war.Kuwait was about saving a US puppet state that had plenty of oil. If Saddam had gotten it he would have had the cash to do serious damage. Bush I was right to go in there and kick some -*BAD WORD*-. However, even in such a modern war the troops weren't safe, as many of them are developing Gulf War syndrome. The legality of us getting into Vietnam in the first place (Gulf of Tonkin) is still being disputed. We did it to stop the spread of communism, not to "liberate" anyone. And we failed at that too, or did you miss the evacuation of the US emb!@#$%^&*y in Saigon (now Ho Chi Mihn City) Hint...Ho Chi was the BAD GUY. He WON. However, didn't stop us from WMDing the -*BAD WORD*- out of them with Agent Orange and -*BAD WORD*-ing up american vets with neurological problems. Not to mention serious lying and covering up of what was actually happening at home. The war that an entire generation of cadets studied as an example of what NOT to do. We have hit another quagmire of Vietnam proportions. We went in to stop WMD because Saddam was about to use them on us, and to avenge 9/11. When someone pointed out that the hijackers were saudi, that bit got dropped. Likewise with the severe lack of WMD found. Thusly, Bush spun the argument to the only point that you really can't dispute: Saddam was a bad man. But how did he get to be so bad? Ok, he g!@#$%^&*ed his own people. He g!@#$%^&*ed Iranians. Horrible war crime circa the day Mus-*BAD WORD*- Gas was first used in WWI. However, gas doesn't magically appear. WE GAVE IT TO HIM. Let's not forget: Saddam was originally our best friend. Iran had the evil fundamentalist regime that was threatening it's neighbors. So we gave Saddam a -*BAD WORD*-load of armored stuff and biological weapons AND THE PROGRAMS. Yes, those exact programs which Bush Jr said Saddam had. After the war, he had fun g!@#$%^&*ing his own people. We knew he was who he was when we did it. Rumsfield knew it. -*BAD WORD*-, Rumsfield told Saddam the US wouldn't interfere if Iraq invaded Kuwait. Big Lie then, big lie now. The US does a lot of sneaky -*BAD WORD*-. Most of it's caught up to them in one way or another. We've started god knows how many coups where the new guy turned out to be worse the the old one (Noriega, Pinochet, Taylor, etc). This war is for US interests, and US interests alone. Oh and btw, one of our zone's sysops is in Iraq. Seeing as I don't want him or any one of those brave people to wind up dead, I'd say I support the troops...Not to mention my dad served in the army also. It saddens me when people use terror for their own personal agenda. When you hear the radio and fox news ASSS floating the idea of suspending the election if another 9/11 were to occur, remember this and remember this well: Lincoln was reelected DURING THE CIVIL WAR. If that's not a hazardous situation to go to the polls in then what is?
Dr Brain Posted March 20, 2004 Report Posted March 20, 2004 Lol vile, you got so much info wrong, it's not worth responding to.
Sgt. Bountage Posted March 20, 2004 Report Posted March 20, 2004 lol, thats funny... dunno why, but it amuses me.
MonteZuma Posted March 21, 2004 Report Posted March 21, 2004 If you'll take a look through our modern war history, you might come to the realization that US Force isn't about WMD's - it's about liberation. Surely Vietnam, Panama, Kuwait, Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia, and now Iraq will convince you of that.Was Nicaragua about liberation? VietNam was not about liberation. Jesus. God help you if the US decides to 'liberate' you. The Iraqi invasion was not a matter of liberation. It was a pre-emptive strike to reduce the 'threat' from a rogue leader with WMDs. It was also a misguided attempt to reduce the threat of terrorism. Bush's small oversight was that those two threats simply didn't exist in Iraq at the time. Well. We got the terrorists in Iraq now. GG Bush. pwned.
Dav Posted March 22, 2004 Report Posted March 22, 2004 the thing is that they are saying they knew there were umlikly to be WMDs and they wouldnt have been a threat to us if there were. It makes things look for like a war for oil then anything else.
Aileron Posted March 22, 2004 Report Posted March 22, 2004 First off, you are confusing motive with justification, which in humanity's long history of warfare has NEVER matched up. If we went for oil and used Hussein's tyranny as a justification, we would be no better or no worse than any other nation in history. If a war is justified, it is justified. It doesn't matter if our motive was freedom, oil, or to build a big parking lot. Whether or not a war is justified depends on the justification, not the motive. That said, I don't think the motive was oil. We have too many other places to get it. If we were looking purely for oil, it would have been more profitable to negotiate with Russia. I think Iraq goes back to the War on Terror. I do agree that Iraq had no terrorists in it and no connections to terroristic organization, save possibly "enemy of an enemy". However, attacking it does affect its neighbors, and the neighbors have ties to terrorists. If we invade Iraq, then everyone around them has reason to fear. If they fear us, then they will be less liable to harbor terrorists. Not only that, but we also have a very good and selfish reason to want a democracy in Iraq. If Iraq becomes a democracy, and then becomes rich, everyone around them will want to be in a democracy too. If they want to become democratic, they will want to form friendly enough ties to the US to promote trade. The easiest way to get those ties is to kill a few terrorists for us. The logical question after this is if we were going into Iraq just for the affect on neighboring countries, why Iraq? Couldn't one do this to any country in the region to gain the same effect? I say, probably. An invasion of any one of the countries in the region would produce the desired outcome. Iraq was most likely chosen because it was the weakest political target. In my opinion, it would have been better to invade Saudi Arabia. They are the ones producing terrorists. They also are and incredibly weak monarchy, weak enough that a political case could be made against them. They would probably have been easier to reconstruct. On top of that, if Bin Laden was intelligent enough, he is not in Pakistan and is hiding in Saudi Arabia as we speak. (I have many reasons for thinking this that I will not say here for reasons of length.) Still, I support going into Iraq. Its a two party system, and my only other choice would be to support some suicidal Democratic policy.
Recommended Posts