Alternatives to war?

I can't believe this thread was started the day AFTER Baghdad was liberated.

Are you people BLIND? Most of the world was against the war, but why? If they spout of garbage about how the Iraqis don't want it, or how the Iraqis will hate us, or how the Iraq civilians are all going to die... turn on the TV, go on the internet, or read a newspaper.

In the end, the world was WRONG. The Iraqi people welcomed us at liberators and danced in the streets as they hugged and kissed their liberators.

Give out sad stories about one guy who said this is not worth freedom does not undermine the point that a city of 5 million was quite obviously rejoicing at being liberated, and blaming this rejoicing on CNN bias is ludicrous as the same pictures were being aired by Al Jazeera and the other Arab station. I have read a story that a person shot in crossfire between British and Feyadeen forces was pulled out of the fighting by the British and told them "I understand this is the price of freedom, keep fighting for me" or something to that effect. Obviously different people have different reactions to the same situations. But again, look at the vast majority of the people in Baghdad and Basra. Do these people look like they are cursing the Americans and the British who came into their cities, destroyed the Baath party and gave them their freedom?

Beyond that, just to answer the original argument in a way that everyone should be able to follow, if you are attacked such as how the US was attacked on 9/11, or how Kuwait was attacked, or how S Korea was attacked, onwards and onwards back into history, then you must be ready to go to war, or you must surrender (the French Solution). War is always necessary if you are under attack and do not wish to surrender.
 
At this point I think the pro-War people just have to sit back, look at the happy and free Iraqis, and understand that some people will just never understand.
 
I also wonder how many injured American soldiers will still believe that this war was "worth it". If anything in Iraq was worth losing an arm or a leg or being horribly burned. One thing we never see on CNN is the "injured". We here stats like "1 U.S Marine killed in action and 4 severely wounded" and we think "well only one person was killed so that isn't that bad". What the public overlooks is that war injuries are often horrible painfull injuries - limbs blown off, bone shattered, flesh torn apart by shrapnel or bullets. It's possible the dead are the lucky ones.

Or how many girlfriends, wives, parents, and children of dead American troops will believe that it was all "worth it".

I remember in my right leaning days reading "Black Hawn Down" and being shocked and dumbstruck by the opinions of some of the Rangers. Afew of them were disgusted by the incident and their politicians. They were bitter and angry that their lives were thrown into that war zoine and that the lives of their friends were thrown away for nothing. I was so incredibly surprised that elite, professional soldiers would be saying such "unpatriotic" and angry things. What I didn't realize then was that THEY knew - those men saw the face of hell and later had the courage to break faith with patriotism and speak the truth. It's noteworthy though that in the hollywood production of this book those men's opinions were completely ignored - they aren't good for flag waving propoganda filled war movies after all.

I also remember years ago seeing a small group of old Canadian WWII veterans at my high school talking about their war time experiences. These men weren't cowards by any means - their chests were lined with glittering medals. When asked "if you would do it again" their opinons were about evenly split. Some of them were extremely proud of what they did and said they felt it was "the right thing to do" and would do it again. Others said that they would NEVER go through that hell ever again for any reason - and that they'd rather go to jail then to war.
 
Originally posted by RedWolf

Or how many girlfriends, wives, parents, and children of dead American troops will believe that it was all "worth it".

Sad, but true. I was in the car for a long time today, and I was thinking about this. People say "only 120-something Americans died" (or whatever the number is). Well, multiply that number by about 20 for close friends and family and you have alot of people affected by this war. And take those injured people who mentioned who may be crippled forever, multiply that by 20, and you have EVEN MORE people affected.

And, with thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians dead, that makes a huge number of people affected.

I was getting carried away too. 19,000+ Americans died in the Battle of the Bulge in WWII - that's so many Americans greiving for lost friends, brothers, fathers, and sons.

War is worse and worse the more you think about it.
 
The war protesters do nothing more than legitimize Saddam's rule. So called peace lovers in my book are no better than people that love their dictator.
 
Originally posted by Tony Soprano
The war protesters do nothing more than legitimize Saddam's rule. So called peace lovers in my book are no better than people that love their dictator.

(...I find your "Centrist" title ironic. :p)

Anyway, I don't beleive this. I think the people who REALLY legitimize some dictatorships and monarchies are the politicians who ignore or tolerate governments such as the Saudis. Or politicians who support Saddam's rule 25 years ago and then spend a year trying to get rid of him now. Hypocrisy... :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
Originally posted by cgannon64


(...I find your "Centrist" title ironic. :p)

Anyway, I don't beleive this. I think the people who REALLY legitimize some dictatorships and monarchies are the politicians who ignore or tolerate governments such as the Saudis. Or politicians who support Saddam's rule 25 years ago and then spend a year trying to get rid of him now. Hypocrisy... :rolleyes:

There is nothing wrong and everything right with rectifying past mistakes. It will only be hypocriticical if they end it here.
 
Believe me, CGannon, I tend to find myself on the left side of the fence, too. For instance I work for an insurance company that deals with Medicaid which my ex-roommate calls tolerated socialism. I feel I am helping people. On the flip side, I think Congress was stupid for not going ahead with drilling for oil in Alaska.

On Topic:

I recently walked past a war protest in Denver and found these people to be idiotic. They seemed like people begging for attention as if to hold their hand out and say "believe us."

As a matter fact, there was only 100 or so people there and Denver is a pretty liberal city.
 
Originally posted by EzInKy


There is nothing wrong and everything right with rectifying past mistakes. It will only be hypocriticical if they end it here.

You say "rectifying past mistakes" I say "milking dictators for all they're worth and then discarding them".

Its a matter of opinion. ;) :p
 
Originally posted by Tony Soprano
Believe me, CGannon, I tend to find myself on the left side of the fence, too. For instance I work for an insurance company that deals with Medicaid which my ex-roommate calls tolerated socialism. I feel I am helping people. On the flip side, I think Congress was stupid for not going ahead with drilling for oil in Alaska.

Sorry, I didn't take your region into account. ;) :p Where I live, if you were in my school, you'd be a centrist. But if you were an adult, you'd be radical right.

Liberal and Conservative have a wholly different meaning in different places and ages I guess...
 
I've heard that the budget for the "war" and rebuilding/colonization of Iraq is something like 75 Billion Dollars.

We could have taken 75 Billion Dollars and used it to feed, clothe and give medical treatment to the poverty stricken around the world. Places where food and clean water is almost non-existent.
maybe even help build infrastructure that would improve the quality of life. We could save more people than Saddam has EVER killed. Not only this but just maybe it would cause the down trodden to think more highly of us.

This of course doesn't have many benefits to us so it will never happen. It doesn't bring any oil under our control. It doesn't boost public opinion by rallying people around a war to "support the troops" while blindly obeying the government, and it doesn't provide millions and millions of dollars to the defense industry. It Also doesn't put a president in the history books as a great war time leader.

REALLY helping people just doesn't pay off at all so instead we bomb them.
 
No offense, CGannon. Sometimes both the right and left don't make sense at the same time.
 
Originally posted by RedWolf
I've heard that the budget for the "war" and rebuilding/colonization of Iraq is something like 75 Billion Dollars.

And don't forget all the pork thrown in. Everybody got in local stuff at the end - fixing up a dam in Massachusetts, etc etc. That annoys me. :o


We could have taken 75 Billion Dollars and used it to feed, clothe and give medical treatment to the poverty stricken around the world. Places where food and clean water is almost non-existent.
maybe even help build infrastructure that would improve the quality of life. We could save more people than Saddam has EVER killed. Not only this but just maybe it would cause the down trodden to think more highly of us.

This of course doesn't have many benefits to us so it will never happen. It doesn't bring any oil under our control. It doesn't boost public opinion by rallying people around a war to "support the troops" while blindly obeying the government, and it doesn't provide millions and millions of dollars to the defense industry. It Also doesn't put a president in the history books as a great war time leader.

REALLY helping people just doesn't pay off at all so instead we bomb them.

Wait a minute...so are you saying that we should, instead of warring with small dicatatorships, we should focus on our poverty at home and abroad? Like...we should give this money to people? And give them food and stuff?

GET HIM!!! HE'S A COMMIE!!! ;) :p

(You know, I haven't seen you on this forum very often, but I find myself agreeing with you alot...:hmm: :lol: )
 
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

The claim was not made by sensible people that he would physically fire missiles full of chemical weapons at mainland USA but that he could send these weapons by proxy to the western countries via terrorist organizations, organizations I might add that he certainly has supported.

Sad, but true. I was in the car for a long time today, and I was thinking about this. People say "only 120-something Americans died" (or whatever the number is). Well, multiply that number by about 20 for close friends and family and you have alot of people affected by this war. And take those injured people who mentioned who may be crippled forever, multiply that by 20, and you have EVEN MORE people affected.

And, with thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians dead, that makes a huge number of people affected.

I was getting carried away too. 19,000+ Americans died in the Battle of the Bulge in WWII - that's so many Americans greiving for lost friends, brothers, fathers, and sons.

War is worse and worse the more you think about it.

very true, yet did you also sit and think about the tortured and murdered people living under repressed regimes throughout the world? Sometimes peace seems worse and worse the more you think about it too..

Or how many girlfriends, wives, parents, and children of dead American troops will believe that it was all "worth it".

Many of the families have gone to TV to express their pride in their lost loved ones and their belief that they died doing something worthwhile.

I also remember years ago seeing a small group of old Canadian WWII veterans at my high school talking about their war time experiences. These men weren't cowards by any means - their chests were lined with glittering medals. When asked "if you would do it again" their opinons were about evenly split. Some of them were extremely proud of what they did and said they felt it was "the right thing to do" and would do it again. Others said that they would NEVER go through that hell ever again for any reason - and that they'd rather go to jail then to war.

Thats a very different thing to saying they thought the war was wrong.
 
Originally posted by RedWolf
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?
You're just considering this now?

Originally posted by RedWolf
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?
What makes you think he didn't try?

Maybe they were all too well buried under the sand and he didn't have time to dig 'em up after the inspectors left?
Maybe he gave the order and it wasn't followed?
Maybe he recognized that the only way for his regime to survive was for people like you to convince enough people like me that you're right, and the U.S. would lose public support, but chemical weapons would never stop the military?
Maybe he didn't have anything left in weapons ready format?

Or maybe he was completely innocent...?

You already know your answer :)


Originally posted by RedWolf
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.
Nice little scenario you've set up there. 1st you decide America is wrong, then you create a closed logical circuit where you're proven right, and now you can endlessly pat yourself on the back about how smart you are :yeah:

Why are you even pretending to take interest? Anything the U.S. finds you'll contest its legitimacy till your dying day.
 
Originally posted by Plastic
Give out sad stories about one guy who said this is not worth freedom does not undermine the point that a city of 5 million was quite obviously rejoicing at being liberated, and blaming this rejoicing on CNN bias is ludicrous as the same pictures were being aired by Al Jazeera and the other Arab station.

I'm not saying that all the rejoicing is simply CNN bias. However let me ask you this: Do you recognize the CNN bias when you see it?

If your answer is NO then you should take a course in media litercy. I get the opinion that the masses DON'T see the bias and that scares me because it is there and it is obvious.

The difference between Canadian news and CNN is like night and day.

CNN shows a steady stream of:

-pro war opinions
-retired generals spouting pro-war rhetoric and glorifying combat
-white house and pentagon press breifings
-cool flashy computer graphics and stats of american military technology
-human interest stories from the front
-reiteration of how nasty and horrible Saddam is
-words like regime and "terror tactics"
- a complete lack of ANY history regarding how the american government supported and propped up Saddam Hussein and even IGNORED the fact that he used chemical weapons on his own people
-body counts
-pro-war Iraqi American opinions
-pro-war Iraqi opinions
-Anchors that are so obviously right wing and pro-war

In comparison CBC Newsworld (Canadian) is a vastly different channel. You'll see intelligent discusion about the war for BOTH sides. You'll see Iraqi Canadians that both support and oppose the war and give their reasons for their stance. They will show the true horrors of the war including idead and maimed babies and children but ALSO cover the stories of the terrible things Saddam Hussien did during his brutal rule. They will deal with discussion about the future of the middle east and what the Americans really plan to do once they control the country - but again you'll see opinions from both the left and right. They also bring on an retired general or two but limit HIS discussion to mostly facts... When they talk to soldiers you'll see more "real stories" and less fluff and fist pumping.

Did I catch an anti-war bias of some of the CBC anchors - yes I did but at least I recognized it for what it was at the end of the day.

Anybody that thinks CNN's bias doesn't exist is quite frankly a fool.
 
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?
 
Originally posted by Kentonio


Many of the families have gone to TV to express their pride in their lost loved ones and their belief that they died doing something worthwhile.


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".

Originally posted by Kentonio

Thats a very different thing to saying they thought the war was wrong.

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.
 
Originally posted by Greadius
You're just considering this now?

What makes you think he didn't try?


You already know your answer :)


Nice little scenario you've set up there. 1st you decide America is wrong, then you create a closed logical circuit where you're proven right, and now you can endlessly pat yourself on the back about how smart you are :yeah:

Why are you even pretending to take interest? Anything the U.S. finds you'll contest its legitimacy till your dying day.

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?

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

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.

You're no more likely to change your mind about the war then I am to changing mine so stop attacking me and acting like such a flaming hypocrite.
 
Back
Top Bottom