Is War Worth it!?

[huckster]

OK. I'm gonna be the devil's advocate(which may have never been more appropriate usage of that expression).

The US is wrong to go to war with Iraq.

How can we pretend that our war mongering with Iraq is anything more than using our power as a bullypulpit for personal agendas?

The US uses the moral argument for war---but we stood by and watched the afghanis be persecuted by Russia in the 80's, and more recently the Serbs & Croats perform mass genocide of the Bosnians throughout the 90's. The largest number of mass executions since Hitler's regime. Now we are suddenly interested in the moral high ground???

The US uses the 'weapons of mass destruction' argument for attacking Iraq. These weapons may or may not exist in actuality, yet we KNOW of nuclear weapons in China and Korea and we have never done anything about this. Of course, we are ok with weapons of mass destruction in the hands of our allies, because Iran, Afghanistan and other mideast countries were never former allies.

Our war is justified because we can wage it and win.


OR something like this would at least be a good start for a healthy debate regarding our foreign policy.

 

[huckster]

that was rather tongue in cheek. i knew david had more posts and that was who you were referring too.

 

[Electro]

David, you certainly have a unique way of making a point...

but no matter what you say it won't persuade me to take you seriously. I think its hysterical that you are still unable to hear what I'm trying to say for what I mean and not for what you want it to mean.

-Electro

 

[David]

Electro, you certainly have a unique way of making a point...

but no matter what you say it won't persuade me to take you seriously. I think its hysterical that you are still unable to hear what I'm trying to say for what I mean and not for what you want it to mean.

-David

 

[Electro]

There must be an echo in here...

Just like a texan to never leave it alone

lmao

-Electro

 

[David]

Originally posted by Electro:
There must be an echo in here...

Just like a texan to never leave it alone

lmao

-Electro

Jeez, do I need to have a brick in my hand to make a point with you? Why did I make that post? Look at it. Ask yourself why I would do that (not why YOU would do it).

THINK. At least once in this entire thread please actually get someone's point, no matter how minor it is. For the love of god........

[This message has been edited by David (edited 29 January 2003).]

 

[Electro]

ROTFLMAO

It's a fuqn joke dude.

 

[NeoNSX]

Come on guys... enough of this... u both here for NSX's? Then talk NSX's!

Maybe it would be best if Lud posted a conclusion and ended this thread, since both of u want the last say. Every News update about the weapon-inspections seems to trigger more of this nonsense.

Shake hands and talk NSX's (unless u can't agree on that either). This thread is a waste of time.

 

[Ennesssex]

If you read the top of the thread it clearly says off-topic.....Hence the topic of war (not about NSX's)

Just a thought...no offense

 

[Lud]

Originally posted by HOLLYWOOD:
Electro,There are a few members that will argue about any subject on this forum to the extent of running a few off. A while back I recall reading a post about some new oil out and you would of thought that some of the people were chemical engineers knowing more than the people who invented it.Stick to your guns.

Haha.. you're back AGAIN? You just can't stay away, can you AKOUDOSAN / La Bomb / HOLLYWOOD? Yeah, you have lots of credibility...
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/001533.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/000283.html

 

[Electro]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/time.saudis/index.html

What do you guys think about this?

I'm going to remain neutral on this so I dont upset anyone.

I just want to continue a constructive discussion here... =)

The whole point of my post (as muddy as its been heheh) is that we're not doing anything for 'damage control'... meaning we dont care if people hate us... isn't it the american way to want people to be happy and open to new ideas and not hate?

If we were such great people (and believe me for the most part America is great) why doesnt the rest of the world see it this way?

I hope that's clear enough...

-Electro

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 31 January 2003).]

 

[Electro]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2077874/

This is an interesting article as well...

doubt anyone can take it seriously... I can hear it now:

"So what if the french dont like us, we dont like them!"

Let's keep this objective...

its increasingly apparent that its bush and the administration that's causing serious problems for our country as far as international affairs go.

It's undeniable. Anyone can say that they disagree... but they're just either uninformed about what other people think, or just dont care.

These are just my observations.

-Electro

 

[huckster]

We are not in an international popularity contest and never have been. As for people overseas resenting the US that is nothing new. Unless we were liberating them they were complaining. England has been the exception all along, and our ally as well.

do YOU think the Iraqui people enjoy the Saddam leadership? do you think they would welcome a change? do you think they have been persecuted by saddam?

if you know the above to be true, then how can you think we shouldnt act in spite of what the french think???

 

[Sig]

France is a strange beast. I liken the country to an unatractive woman who is quite the snob. Very few people lust over her, she doens't get a lot of respect... but instead of working hard to have the great personality to counterbalance the rough exterior, she instead resents everyone around her that garners more attention.

In general those in the U.S. that point to French dissent tend to be the ones most cynical of America's agenda. If these same people were even 25% as cynical of the French agenda as they are of our own country, they would easily see why the French act and say the things they do.

It's strange to think that those who are so hell-bent on cynicism don't at least apply the same level doubt on other countries. At least be fair. I find it interesting that the French, of all people get the benefit of doubt instead of the same cynical shadow caste on our own government.

At the end of the day, the French only support causes they deem "safe" for their national interests. They are now being left behind. For a clue on how the French have now become an optional accesory, read yesterdays Wall Street Journal. There is a letter of "Unity with America" signed by 8 European Presidents. This same letter was published yesterday in Newspapers across the world.

Oh wait, I forgot we don't have any support and this potetnial conflict is 100% unilateral. The U.S. government probably made the whole thing up and forged the signatures

 

[queenlives]

speaking of the French, here's the latest:
*****
UNCLASSIFIED
Subject: French join war on terror
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:27:21 -0700

Paris - In a stunning reversal of policy, French President Jacques Chirac announced today that the French government will be supporting the War on Terror after all. Five hundred soldiers from the elite 1e L'Abandonnement du Field d'Honneur Battalion (French Surrender Battalion) of the Legion
Etrangere (Foreign Legion) are in the process of shipping out to Iraq where they will assist the elite Iraqi Republican Guards in their inevitable surrender to the overwhelming might of the American Armed Forces.

"Eet ees important to be haughty and insufferable when surrendering," said General Philippe de Poipee, the Commanding Officer of the 1st Surrender Battalion, who has personally surrendered in over 200 battles going back to Dien Bien Phu in 1954. "We French are the world masters at surrendering, n'est ce pas, not like you arrogant Americans who never surrender. Ha, I spit on your filthy American victories."

President Chirac also announced that his government will be sending 3000 advisors from the elite Force du Collaborateur Francaise (French Collaboration Force) to assist the Iraqis in collaborating with the Americans while pretending to be part of a non-existent resistance movement.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

I read yesterday that the book The Frightening Fraud is a bestseller in
France. This books asserts that Islamic terrorists did not drive a plane
into the Pentagon on 9/11 and that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by
terrorists from the United States aided by a high ranking official in the
federal government. Draw your own conclusions.

An excerpt from an editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal, signed
by the leaders of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Hungary,
Poland, and Denmark:

The real bond between the U.S. and Europe is the values we share: democracy,
individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed
the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the United
States of America. Today they are under greater threat than ever.

The attacks of Sept. 11 showed just how far terrorists -- the enemies of our
common values -- are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an
attack on all of us. In standing firm in defense of these principles, the
governments and people of the U.S. and Europe have amply demonstrated the
strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond
is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of
time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and
farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that
devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks,
too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the U.S. we have
managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic
relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's
persistent attempts to threaten world security.

A quote from Albert Einstein to ponder: "All our lauded technological
progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the
pathological criminal."

Have a great day

 

[Electro]

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14425&CFID=4881970&CFTOKEN=37687738

"...And it could be -- very likely will be -- that such naked aggression will incur the wrath of the world, and that if it does not stop, if the Bush/Cheney "100 Years' War" continues its invasions and regime changes and neo-Hiroshimas, one of the results is that bloodshed will be brought to our shores, not just once in Manhattan and Virginia, but repeatedly, until we who bear responsibility for our government either learn the lesson or are rendered, ala Saddam, incapable of further harm."

This is exactly what I've been trying to say this whole time. It seems no matter what the weapons inspectors bring back, positive or negative, the bush administration doesn't feel its enough and still wants to 'act alone' if it has to. Now remember how N. Korea says it will strike Pre-emptively if we strike Iraq... now how fantastic would that be?

-Electro

 

[Electro]

How about we just change the regieme in Iraq AND N. Korea? That would make everyone happy right?

Let's invite world war 3 right to our own doorsteps here on the shores of the United States... there's never been an invasion, or direct and coordinated military attack against US soil (well none that's of any significance) but of course that doesnt mean its not possible. The country of the United States is too large to be able to maintain order from east to west coast in the event of an attack. How about martial law? Anarchy? Get your guns ready folks. It's closer than you might think. complacency only goes so far these days.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/25/1042911596206.html

Oh yeah and we're doing 'everything in our power' to prevent unceccessary civilian casualties... mmhmmm.

-Electro

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 10 February 2003).]

 

[cpmoran]

we should take over Iraq and North Korea. End of story, but now we will bomb them and in a few years they will be back doing some awefull things

 

[Electro]

That would be by far the end of the story

 

[Jimbo]

there's never been an invasion, or direct and coordinated military attack against US soil (well none that's of any significance)

What was Pearl Harbor?

Not to mention 9/11.

Weren't they significant?

-Jim

 

[Electro]

9/11 was not a military attack. It was an act of terrorism, not war. The Al Qeida is not a military. It was an extremeist group (of civilians) that had the balls to do put together the plan of hijacking plans and flying them into civilian targets.

As for pearl harbor, Hawaii is more than 3000 miles away from the main land... that's a really great distance from california. I was just there in december. Its really amazing to me that hawaii is considered a part of the US.

As I'm sure its amazing to others in this world as well... when you read about the motive the japanese had in pearl harbor, that amazement is more than likely in there somewhere.

What I mean is a DIRECT military invasion onto the mainland... how hard would it be for some nation to fly in and setup bases in canada and use that as a jump off point to make an invasion against the US?..... who knows.. its all speculation.

-E

 

[Jimbo]

You know, for all those people who claim military action isn't necessary against Iraq, I'd like to know what your response would be if you're wrong.

I mean by that, what if we did nothing, left Iraq continue their little shell game...and then the day came where 50,000 Israelis or 500,000 New Yorkers were killed from an airborne bio/chem raid where the materiel came from an Iraqi-supplied source?

What then? What would you say or do? Apologize? Words are cheap. What would you be willing to put at risk for such a stance? It's certainly your right not to believe Colin Powell and the administration, but what if you're wrong? Just something to think about.

Furthermore, one of the strange arguments against taking action against Saddam is... that North Korea has nukes and we're not yet doing anything against them...so how is that fair?

Well, that seems to be a real screwy argument. Does anyone think that North Korea will be any easier to deal with, if we keep backing off from our ultimatiums with Iraq? How many "last chances" will Saddam get? (He's already violated 16 or 17 agreements. He's already tried to assassinate our President.) And don't you think this perceived weakness in our (and the UN's) stance will be exploited by the North Koreans?

There's no doubt that the US (under the Clinton administration) really screwed up with dealing with North Korea - and the North Koreans took advantage of the situation. We're going to eventually have to deal with North Korea. However, that's no reason to avoid our responsibilities with Iraq. Unfortunately or fortunately the situation with NK is different - and it will have to be treated differently in due course.

Finally...

I keep wondering where all the war protestors were when we went into Bosnia, Somalia and Yugoslavia? Where was the outcry? Where were the Hollywood entertainers then? Was Slobo any less of a murderer than Saddam? We didn't have a UN mandate then.

-Jim

 

[Jimbo]

Electro,

Surely you jest?

9/11 was indeed a military attack. AQ is a military organization. They train, they have a command structure, they have funding, they have weapons. What's the difference what you call it anyway?

Your Pearl Harbor comment is even more bizarre. Hawaii is part of the United States. Because this fact surprises you, has no bearing on the facts.

And I fail to see your point on how hard it would be for someone to invade the US mainland. So what? What does that have to do with anything?

Your comment...

"...Oh yeah and we're doing 'everything in our power' to prevent unceccessary civilian casualties... mmhmmm..."

Do you honestly believe that the USA is going to purposely try to inflict and maximize civilian Iraqi casualities if we act against Iraq?

That's really a terrible thing to say and if you honestly believe that then I think you should leave this country and renounce your citizenship.

-Jim

[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 10 February 2003).]

 

[Electro]

When a gov't offical says "there will be no safe place in Baghdad" what does that mean for the civilians?? Of course rumsfeld is going to say they're taking all the steps they can to prevent civilian casualties... but when they say there's no safe place in baghdad, where the hell do they think the civilians are going to go??

THINK ABOUT IT.

I agree with you about North Korean nukes.. why is there a double standard? Iraq is *not* communist... and N korea is... and we're going after Iraq? Where's the sense in that?

Remember, I'm not totally anti-war. Something has to be done about Saddam, and the thousand saddams that are lined up to take his place. but what? Nuke the whole country and create a thousand more organizations that hate the US and vow to destroy us?

These are points that I continually bring up that no one has been able to address.

I have a feeling there is no winner in this
day and age.

-E

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 10 February 2003).]