Alternatives to war?

[Kentonio]

Yes but do you think CNN would be lining up to give air time to the families that said the war was a senseless waste of life and that nothing in Iraq was worth losing a son/daughter for?

And would those families WANT to be on TV? They'd have people throwing bricks through their windows for committing the anti-american crime of "not supporting the troops".

Not being American I dont know what CNN would do, but British TV certainly has given airtime to a woman who's son was killed and was against the war, the number who took the other stance however far outweighed this.

You're right... but his point was that it was NOT worth it to him and that if he had it to do over he would not have went. Thats all I'm saying.

True but he's already been through it once. Just because he wouldnt go through it a second time doesnt mean that much. Although I do wonder if he would feel differently if the war was on his own soil.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by RedWolf
I'm considering it NOW because the regime has mostly been thrown out of power and yet they still didn't use them. It would have been a little premature for me to have been thinking about this last week now wouldn't it?

Perhaps it would have made sense thinking about it, like, two years ago when people first started talking about it?

Originally posted by RedWolf
Yes it IS a nice little scenario. I like how you critisize me for critically thinking about a situation and having an opinion.

There is a difference between critical thinking and raving lunacy

Originally posted by RedWolf
A closed "logical circuit" as you say. Isn't this exactly the same kind of closed logical circuit that YOU have designed in order to support YOUR beliefs?

I don't have beliefs.

Originally posted by RedWolf
If they DON'T find weapons of mass destruction then YOU will believe to your dieing day that he really did have some but they were hidden beneath the sand.

Actually, I don't care if they find them or not, or even if they had them. It was never about WMD to me.

I'm breaking with government line and am a brainwashed American. Don't let it confound you.

Originally posted by RedWolf
You're no likely to change your mind about the war then I am to changing mine so stop attacking me and acting like a flaming hypocrite.

I've already changed my mind once, why not again?

I didn't come firmly into the pro-war team until the opening volleys of the war.

And if I don't like the direction the peace is going, I'll flip right back without hesitation.

I'm not an idealogue... I don't look for things which agree with me just so I can feel comfortable in my views. I would rather be correct than justified.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Kentonio
Am I the only one to think that when a country is at war it is perfectly acceptable (in fact desirable) for its media to be biased towards its own country? How the hell do you think it makes soldiers and their families feel when they turn on the TV to find their actions being criticized and their legitimacy questioned?

It's NOT just you and thats the problem - most Americans feel the same way as you. People just want the media to tell them what they want to hear - to get caught up in the rhetoric and propoganda and tow the line.

Unfortunately war time is EXACTLY the time when we need the media to show both sides of the issue.

I don't really CARE how it makes the families feel when they turn on the TV and see their actions being critisized if it's valid criticism. Even if it's NOT valid - thats what a TRUE democracy is all about. You don't just discuss and show all sides to the fluffy issues such as "who has less singling talent - Britney or Christina?" It's the tough hard issues that NEED to be discussed. If you can't deal with that then maybe you shouldn't volunteer to fight in your military.

The problem of course is that the nationalism and patriotism runs SO deep in America that no media outlet could possibly criticize the war for fear of being boycotted and attacked by americans as "traitorous".

Even among left wing politicians - as soon as the war started they stopped discussing the validity of the war because they were expected to "support the troops" and that means not criticising the war regardless of how right or wrong you feel it is. Any politician that did otherwise would quickly find himself labelled an enemy sympathizer.

Just when debate is MOST needed it gets silenced by zealous right wing opinions.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

Originally posted by RedWolf


...

You're actually encouraging and glorifying the bombing of a civilian population. Quite frankly your opinions aren't even worth reading let alone listening too.

If america was Intentionally Bombing Civilians there would have been No civilians to cheer the americans tearing down saddams statue. Much less any standing structure.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

Originally posted by RedWolf
Another thing I've considered:

Even if Saddam Hussien HAD chemical weapons (although I notice they haven't found any yet - just a few false alarms) was he really any kind of threat to the United States?

This is a man that didn't use them in an attempt to save his dieing regime so what makes you believe he wuld have used them against the U.S. randomly for no reason at all? (there's that "regime" word. Is it just me or does CNN deserve some kind of award for using the word "regime" for the most times ever in a 20 day period?)

So either he wouldn't have used them OR he doesn't actually have them...

Kinda shoots the American's claim of WMD all to hell.

He gassed the kurds and the iranians...If saddam used them, then Every country that opposed the war would immediatly turn face and support the war & his regime would be truly over. Without Hopes of returning, which we all know he has.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Greadius
Perhaps it would have made sense thinking about it, like, two years ago when people first started talking about it?

There is a difference between critical thinking and raving lunacy

I don't have beliefs.

Actually, I don't care if they find them or not, or even if they had them. It was never about WMD to me.

I'm breaking with government line and am a brainwashed American. Don't let it confound you.

I've already changed my mind once, why not again?

I didn't come firmly into the pro-war team until the opening volleys of the war.

And if I don't like the direction the peace is going, I'll flip right back without hesitation.

I'm not an idealogue... I don't look for things which agree with me just so I can feel comfortable in my views. I would rather be correct than justified.

Ok now you're trying to make me look stupid regarding the chemical weapons thing. (You're going to sya that i'm doing I find job myself so just save it)

Anyway you're missing my point - I have NEVER believed Saddam was a threat to the US mostly because I have never seen any proof. The part I have recently thought about was "if he hasn't used them to save a regime then maybe he would never have used them". This line of thinking could only have started ONCE the regime had collapsed because he could have used them at any time which would make the thinking invalid.

And i'm not saying i never flip flop on this issue - in fact you'd be surpised to know that I was once a raving Hawk when it came to things like foreign policy and military conflict. Over time i realized that maybe I was believing too much propoganda. Believing the lies that all governments feed their citizens before, during and after a war to rally public support. That if you really read the history things didn't really happen the way that makes everything seem "right" and "good". Also that the hawks on BOTH sides are part of the problem and that rarely are there cookie cutter good guys and bad guys where issues exist in a black and white world.

Call me a raving lunatic if you want - however most of the world consider the americans to be raving lunatics... so hey you're entitled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine. You however tend to attack and belittle anybody that doesn't agree with you - I've seen it time and time again but all the better to you - rejoice in your intellectual superiority.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by HighlandWarrior


If america was Intentionally Bombing Civilians there would have been No civilians to cheer the americans tearing down saddams statue. Much less any standing structure.

I think you missed my point - I KNOW that the US military doesn't purposely go out and bomb civilians (maybe only Arab journalists) and that wasn't my point.

There are people here that recognize war as hell and disgusting but they consider it "worth it". That the ends justify the means. I don't agree with them but I at least understand their point of view.

Sun Tzu on the other hand seems to think that war is some kind of game - that bombing the snot out of Baghdad is the greatest idea ever and he probably doesn't even CONSIDER that fact thosands of people are being killed. He's been taught by our society and culture that military stuff is "neat" and "cool" (Even i think this - tanks and combat aircraft ARE pretty cool). The problem is that people like him make the jump from that to believing war is always justified in all circumstances and that it's a sport - because it's "cool".

 

[HighlandWarrior]

Sun Tzu actually said those things? or did you decipher that from his tag line "bomb baghdad"? I bet there were 1/100th less people killed by our bombs than saddam. Life is the price of war.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by HighlandWarrior
Sun Tzu actually said those things? or did you decipher that from his tag line "bomb baghdad"? I bet there were 1/100th less people killed by our bombs than saddam. Life is the price of war.

He isn't the kind of person to hide his opinions. We've both been on this forum a long time.

 

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by HighlandWarrior
I bet there were 1/100th less people killed by our bombs than saddam. Life is the price of war.

Depends on which deaths you consider. He killed over 1,000,000 Iranians, but that was all in war. If you count those deaths as well, then yeah, Saddam killed more than died in this war. However it's hard to say if you don't count the deaths he cause through the Iran/Iraq war.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Jeratain
Depends on which deaths you consider. He killed over 1,000,000 Iranians, but that was all in war. If you count those deaths as well, then yeah, Saddam killed more than died in this war. However it's hard to say if you don't count the deaths he cause through the Iran/Iraq war.

I don't know - I'm betting Saddam has killed far more people. Consider the crushed rebellions or the gassing of the Kurds....

He's a bastard.

 

[Anti-EUA]

I always read the war threads, and I think it's useless now. The job is almost done. We have to see now if the coalition troops will find any evidence of WMD, and if they will really give Iraq the freedom to choose without any american interfering in it's economics and politics.

 

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by RedWolf
I don't know - I'm betting Saddam has killed far more people. Consider the crushed rebellions or the gassing of the Kurds....

Very true. Unfortunately there aren't any official numbers available for us to compare, so we can only assume as much.

He's a bastard.

Agreed.

 

[ozscott75]

Thumb Wrestling.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by ozscott75
Thumb Wrestling.

In a match between Churchill and Hitler, who do you think would've won?

 

[ozscott75]

Churchill had small, pudgy hands. But Hitler was a (failed) art school fairy. So, in a close match, I'd have to give it to Winnie.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

stalin would have crushed them both

 

[ozscott75]

Most definitely, but the question was Winnie vs Adie.

 

[rguymon]

(I'm wondering, in the international society today, is war really necessary? Maybe it sounds a bit too idealistic, but please stay with me.)

There will always be war. WW1 was called the war to end all wars. HAHAHA . They all felt they evolved to the point where it would never happen again.

 

[Charlie Martel]

Good god, there's a ton of idiots on this board