ThunderJam Posted December 17, 2005 Report Posted December 17, 2005 This is all directed mainly to Americans. Are any of your guys one of those anti-war people? Just curious, and wanted to voice my opionion and see what you guys think. I personally can't stand the people that frickin protest that we have our troops in Iraq or Afganistan. What happened to the days when Soldiers were respected as the defenders of our freedom? (BTW, props to Swift on being brave enuf to be there fighting) What would those people do if they lived in a country that didn't try maintain an army in order to protect their own peace? If our soldiers didn't go into the middle-east, the US would be facing more and more terrorist attacks. I'm not trying to seem like war is the answer to everything, but where is the respect for the men and women who are willing to risk their lives for us?
Mars Commander Posted December 17, 2005 Report Posted December 17, 2005 I'm not trying to seem like war is the answer to everything, but where is the respect for the men and women who are willing to risk their lives for us? I'm personally against the war, but I have nothing but the utmost respect for the people in uniform. While there are people who do hate soliders I believe that's the exception rather than the rule.
LearJett+ Posted December 17, 2005 Report Posted December 17, 2005 It seems that anti-War people ignore many of the positive effects of the war and merely use it to attack the Bush administration. PS, Aileron:!@#$%^&*ing warn Spyed or something. He's getting ridiculous in the politics forum.
SeVeR Posted December 17, 2005 Report Posted December 17, 2005 (edited) If our soldiers didn't go into the middle-east, the US would be facing more and more terrorist attacks. I almost laughed when i read that. I'm not anti-war in general but i'm anti-iraq-war. Would america have liked it if a more civilised country had stormed in during the 50's to eliminate racism? Let people solve their own problems. Believe me, you do more to !@#$%^&* up the world by imposing your opinions of right and wrong on others than you do by doing nothing at all. Lets be clear, i have a huge amount of respect for the soldiers putting their lives on the line in Iraq. I don't think there are many anti-war people who would call the soldiers murderers and gun-ho-yanks. I think alot of pro-war people say this in a futile attempt to demean the opinions of all the anti-war people at once. You might have heard one anti-war person say this but i haven't and the respect for the troops far outweighs the respect for the politicians. Edited January 9, 2006 by SeVeR
LearJett+ Posted December 18, 2005 Report Posted December 18, 2005 I'm not anti-war in general but i'm anti-iraq-war. Would america have liked it if a more civilised country had stormed in during the 50's to eliminate racism? Let people solve their own problems. Believe me, you do more to !@#$%^&* up the world by imposing your opinions of right and wrong on others than you do by doing nothing at all. We weren't g!@#$%^&*ing African Americans...
ThunderJam Posted December 18, 2005 Author Report Posted December 18, 2005 Exactly what Lear said. And in the case of racism, it was not particularly the government that was being racist (I mean, im sure there were racists workin for the government, but the government wasnt supporting it). What do you think Lincoln did? What about when the president used an executive order to enforce the desegregation of some of the high schools? And then you said we ruin things by imposing our views on others... After getting rid of Saddam, we did'nt tell them to do. A county that was once oppressed by a cruel dictator is right now holding their own free elections. Our presence their now is mainly to enforce peace while they establish their government.
MonteZuma Posted December 19, 2005 Report Posted December 19, 2005 I personally can't stand the people that frickin protest that we have our troops in Iraq or Afganistan.Why? If people think that their government is acting against their interests, people should have the right to protest. That is one of the most important things that democracy gives us. What happened to the days when Soldiers were respected as the defenders of our freedom?That kind of ended in the 70s with Vietnam. But fwiw, I agree with Mars. Most people that are anti-war are not anti-soldier. (BTW, props to Swift on being brave enuf to be there fighting)Sure. But I doubt that everyone that goes to Iraq is brave. Some service personnel in Iraq will never 'fight'. And some people that go to Iraq are there for selfish reasons that have nothing to do with protecting liberty. I reckon that most people in Iraq are ordinary people like me and you. Some of them are asked to do extraordinary things and make extraordinary sacrifices. That should be acknowledged and rewarded. Servicemen and women in Iraq should be supported. But the decision to send them there does not need to be supported. If our soldiers didn't go into the middle-east, the US would be facing more and more terrorist attacks.I doubt it. but where is the respect for the men and women who are willing to risk their lives for us?It is all around you. Anti-war does not mean anti-soldier.
»i88gerbils Posted December 19, 2005 Report Posted December 19, 2005 (edited) I dislike how both the American Republicans and Democrats (also the Greens & Libertarians) want to pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan. The former !@#$%^&*ed up & are still !@#$%^&*ing up Iraq while the latter have no clue wtf to do. We wouldn't be in the same mess if we had a clear plan of action instead of the bumble!@#$%^&* that is Iraq. But hey, politics rules the nation & no one thought of Iraq. They just thought of the "election". Bunch of reASSS. Edited December 19, 2005 by i88gerbils
MonteZuma Posted December 19, 2005 Report Posted December 19, 2005 I reckon most people support the effort in Afghanistan.
SeVeR Posted December 19, 2005 Report Posted December 19, 2005 We weren't g!@#$%^&*ing African Americans... Ok fine, take the Indians as an example then.
»Ducky Posted December 19, 2005 Report Posted December 19, 2005 Anti-war, respect the soldiers.You go kill people and do whatever you want for whatever reason, just don't ask that I go do so. Alot of the people that are in the service are there for the money and the security. Simply put.
GENERAL_SLAYER Posted December 19, 2005 Report Posted December 19, 2005 iam already aganst the next war. War gets you no where... just like in a fight... in the end no one wins. If you really think about it.
»i88gerbils Posted December 19, 2005 Report Posted December 19, 2005 (edited) It's what happens "after" the war that counts. Edited December 19, 2005 by i88gerbils
ThunderJam Posted December 19, 2005 Author Report Posted December 19, 2005 I dislike how both the American Republicans and Democrats (also the Greens & Libertarians) want to pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan. The former !@#$%^&*ed up & are still !@#$%^&*ing up Iraq while the latter have no clue wtf to do.Not everyone wants to pull out. Most people acknowledge that our plan of action should have been more precise but that does not make everythign a failure. You can hardly say that letting a nation that was formerly tyrannically ruled with fear have free elections is failure. Could it have been accomplished more cleanly? Probably We weren't g!@#$%^&*ing African Americans... Ok fine, take the Indians as an example then.The Indians were not our citizens. Anyway, yea i think i was kinda unclear over anti-war and anti-soldiers, kinda hard to find a good balance.
Mars Commander Posted December 20, 2005 Report Posted December 20, 2005 Citizens or no, what difference does it make? If all we did was deny them voting rights or police protection, then fine, but what we did was so much more. Saying "they weren't our citizens" doesn't get you off the hook, an atrocity is an atrocity.
ThunderJam Posted December 20, 2005 Author Report Posted December 20, 2005 Umm, there is a huge difference here. He is comparing Saddam Hussein g!@#$%^&*ing his own citizens, to America's past war with the native indians. One is a war between two seperate groups of people over land (French and Indian War, ring a bell?), whereas the other is a mindless slaughtering of one's own people, whom Saddam was supposed to be leading and protecting. Im not saying we had the right to take the Indian's land, most Americans now wish we had been more peacful, but it is not at all like Saddam Hussein g!@#$%^&*ing his own citizens.
Mars Commander Posted December 20, 2005 Report Posted December 20, 2005 I'll grant you that g!@#$%^&*ing one's own citizens is worse than g!@#$%^&*ing someone else's---however, I'm not sure how huge of a difference it is. Anyway, it's beside the point---Sever's point was how we would've taken it had some imaginary superior military force had swooped in and said "that's wrong!"
MonteZuma Posted December 20, 2005 Report Posted December 20, 2005 Umm, there is a huge difference here. He is comparing Saddam Hussein g!@#$%^&*ing his own citizens, to America's past war with the native indians. One is a war between two seperate groups of people over land (French and Indian War, ring a bell?), whereas the other is a mindless slaughtering of one's own people, whom Saddam was supposed to be leading and protecting.Saddam's slaughter of Iraqis was no more or less mindless than the slaughter of native peoples in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australasia by their colonisers. Saddam killed people for a reason - self interest - so did the colonisers. The fact that Indians were considered to be in a different 'group' to the early white settlers is irrelevant. Using your logic, Saddam could justify killing Kurds and Shi'ites(sp?) because they belong to a different group and he wanted their land..
SeVeR Posted December 20, 2005 Report Posted December 20, 2005 Thankyou Mars and Monte, I think most of the people Saddam g!@#$%^&*ed were different ethnic groups who he never considered to be his own people.
ThunderJam Posted December 20, 2005 Author Report Posted December 20, 2005 Saddam's slaughter of Iraqis was no more or less mindless than the slaughter of native peoples in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australasia by their colonisers. Saddam killed people for a reason - self interest - so did the colonisers. The fact that Indians were considered to be in a different 'group' to the early white settlers is irrelevant. Using your logic, Saddam could justify killing Kurds and Shi'ites(sp?) because they belong to a different group and he wanted their land.. So war between two countries is the same as the leader of a country killing his own people just for his benefit? I don't think so. Saddam killing his own people is like if President Bush decided to kill everyone in the state of Michigan, because they weren't going to vote for him. And i believe it was a village or shi'ites or kurds that he g!@#$%^&*ed? Not sure, but i thought it was one of the two...
»i88gerbils Posted December 20, 2005 Report Posted December 20, 2005 He ordered the oppression of both.
Mars Commander Posted December 20, 2005 Report Posted December 20, 2005 Saddam's slaughter of Iraqis was no more or less mindless than the slaughter of native peoples in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australasia by their colonisers. Saddam killed people for a reason - self interest - so did the colonisers. The fact that Indians were considered to be in a different 'group' to the early white settlers is irrelevant. Using your logic, Saddam could justify killing Kurds and Shi'ites(sp?) because they belong to a different group and he wanted their land.. So war between two countries is the same as the leader of a country killing his own people just for his benefit? I don't think so. Saddam killing his own people is like if President Bush decided to kill everyone in the state of Michigan, because they weren't going to vote for him. And i believe it was a village or shi'ites or kurds that he g!@#$%^&*ed? Not sure, but i thought it was one of the two... This is really beside the point. Again, how would we have liked it had a superior military force swooped in and put a stop to our oppression of the Indians?
LearJett+ Posted December 20, 2005 Report Posted December 20, 2005 I wish someone would have put a stop to inhumane treatment of the Indians. Why don't you build us a time machine, Mars, and we can do it together!
Aileron Posted December 21, 2005 Report Posted December 21, 2005 Well, two wrongs don't make a right...native americans bein oppressed historically was wrong, but it in no way means we should have ignored Hussein as long as we did. The thing that bothers people about this war is that the motives do not match the justification. Clearly Hussein's actions justify the forcible removal of the Baathist regime...but if that was the motive the operation would have occurred well before 2002. The motivation for the war is vague and general though. Clearly, democratic countries produce terrorists at a drastically lower rate than dictatorships. Dictatorships will do whatever they feel they can get away with, and every threat made that isn't backed up by action results in dictators thinking the west's threats are empty. The pattern of giving Saddam ultimatums and then not backing them up because we could avoid war by backing down has led other dictatorships in the area to think that they could do whatever they want to their people and not have to worry about reprisal from us. Their oppression creates terrorists. When it became clear on September 11th that terrorism will not always contain itself in the country that breeds it, it became clear that terrorism must be dealt with. Not only that, the root cause of terrorism, dictatorial oppression, has to be dealt with. We will get nowhere by simply asking dictators to give up power and move towards democracy, for it is human nature to desire power above almost all else. We need to threaten them to move towards democracy, and to do so we needed to demonstrate that we are willing and capable of backing up our threats. That is what the motive was. Hussein was threatened up and down by both the UN and the US, but not much previous action was taken. He needed to be removed to show dictators that we mean business. The we needed to demonstrate our power was the motive. That Hussein oppressed his people was the justification. Thus, war was started.
Recommended Posts