The Warmongers Thread

Originally posted by MrPresident

Why do people have a problem with other people talking about an imminent war? I don't understand that. If you don't want to talk about it, fair enough. But surely people have a right to talk about what they want, especially potential warfare.

I think the problem is that this war IS NOT inevitable, it can be stopped. Even off these boards - is anyone else sick of "Countdown: Iraq" and "Showdown: Iraq"?

I personally love: "Slowdown: Iraq" but thats just me. ;) :D
 
I don't have a problem with it, I just think that everthing that can be said has been said.
It's just the same people saying the same things over and over again.
I'm all up for listening to a serious decussion about war, but its got so repetitive that it just sounds like people having an argument for arguments sake and nothing else. Very boring.
 
Originally posted by stormbind
Saddam's people are against him. We should not forget that this is a war with Saddam... not Iraq!
They are? Then why don't they start a revolution? Or when you say Sadaam's people do you just mean the Kurds?
 
I deem that given enough time, most people forget about the cost of war and the price paid for peace.

War comes along to remind them that we are an imperfect and insane species, seeking gratification through war and destruction.

We do this despite our holy morals and reasoning, which are quickly cast aside in favour of the primal excitement of war.

Some people constantly seek war as a justification for their own sociapathic bitterness and cravings for acceptance and power.
Cravings that are not satisfied by mere verbal or moral denegration of their enemies, real or false.

Problem is, they don't like to gaze upon the final result of war.
The human carnage and maimed victims, cilivians and soldier on both sides.

Some people prefer to hide behind a shining veneer of glorious moral superiority and assure themselves that all will be well after the conflict...

I won't.

Another war will erupt, another president will find a new enemy from a former supplicant that now displeases him.

I am sure WW1 was meant to be the last war...But it wasn't was it?

You are foolish to hope for a brave, shiny new world that will emerge from the ruins of Iraq.

All that will be available is corpses and tax hikes. And an empty feeling till next war.

Although it will be a satisfying strike for those who pray for a 'clash of cultures'.
Those who seek a final, glorious, religious victory in this endless rivalry that has went on before this modern era, before even the USA existed.

One that started with men on horseback, armoured in shining steel...
And still continues in an age of space-age weapons capable of killing all life on this planet.

When will it end...?
Not in your lifetimes.
 
"You are foolish to find a brave shiny new world will emerge from the ruins of Iraq.

Only corpses and tax hikes."

A brave, shiny (though of course tinted as by neccessity everything human is) new world will arise for the people of IRaq
 
You are foolish to hope for a brave, shiny new world that will emerge from the ruins of Iraq.
You are foolish to think that inaction means peace. There will never be peace with people like Saddam in this world. War is hell but so are dictatorships. It is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Don't attack people for having the guts to make a choice. Though I understand that it is a human instinct to fear the worst and what is worst than an apocalypse? However the world has survived wars before and will suffer this one.
I just think that everthing that can be said has been said.
How many subjects can that be used to describe? Religion? Politics? Evolution?
 
Originally posted by MrPresident
You are foolish to think that inaction means peace. There will never be peace with people like Saddam in this world. War is hell but so are dictatorships. It is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Don't attack people for having the guts to make a choice. Though I understand that it is a human instinct to fear the worst and what is worst than an apocalypse? However the world has survived wars before and will suffer this one.

You are even more foolish to jump to conclusions, Mr Impulsive!
I think nothing of the sort.

Please read my large post here;

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43862&pagenumber=3

Enjoy your humbie pie, rock star!

:goodjob:
 
I am not a warmonger, and I don't believe most of you are either :D. But I do believe the approach to Baghdad will probably resemble the plan that whoever it was came up with in 1991 to use the 101st or 82nd to leapfrog along the west side of the Euphrates to carve a supply route north that bypasses the bulk of the cities and towns to the southeast.

After that, it's a mystery to me what you do other than infiltrate, besiege, or charge.

R.III
 
What if it goes wrong(hope not), how long will the US public stand to see bodybag comming home.

Assuming no WMD is used(would prob only get suport higher). But in normal fighting. How do you think a prolonged war would affect the US public(and europe, world).

What would the diffrent be if ti was UN backed or not.
 
Originally posted by Jeratain
They are? Then why don't they start a revolution? Or when you say Sadaam's people do you just mean the Kurds?
They did, so he fired bio or chemical weapons on the city where the problem was greatest. They soon stopped :(
 
Originally posted by gael
I'm all up for listening to a serious decussion about war, but its got so repetitive that it just sounds like people having an argument for arguments sake and nothing else. Very boring.
I wouldn't say it's boring... it can be quite entertaining. But it is stupid. But other than that, I agee entirely.

People who take there arguments seriously should be prepared to sit down and work out a solution. There's no value in trying to impose one person's view on another, it just leads to hard feelings and makes any future educated discussion less likely :(
 
Top Bottom