Mr. Bush should be proud

Originally posted by toast

War is a primitive, pre-Cold War means to win primitive domination. I understand African nations can still use war, but I don't understand post-industrial countries can still consider it as an option.
Click to expand...

Be careful! Your statement looks like a very subtle form of racism.
 
...posted the following stuff in the other war related thread but I think that it can relate here as well without changing a thing... Excuse me for double posting :eek:

...is TOTALLY wrong!

You know what? All these mad governments in out troubled earth should let THEIR presidents and staff kick each other inside a box ring or something... They all are crazy and NOT good or evil!

If THEY had the REAL guts THEY should be the ones that had a REAL fight inside a ring or something...

War at ANY level: Weapons-based or psychological-based is ALL wrong...

If governments of this planet think that they MUST have wars again and again THEM and THEM alone should kick each other and not put soldiers, families, et al fight THEIR wars... They all DO wrong by sending innocent people to fight THEIR wars because simply THEY lack the guts... I guess we are all suckers for voting them (or not) in the first place: You know what? If people really don't like the wars of those foolish governments when they will give the order of attacking other countries ALL SOLDIERS should NOT obey: What? They gonna kill them all? Their own soldiers? But then again I forget: Those soldiers in the first place they lack the guts: They prefer to kill other people just for money or egoism (we are the good ones and you are the bad ones --then again Iraq has its own Holy War to declare against the US et al pigs).

A rant of mine or not, I simply say that governments know that they do the wrong thing by executing wars and they simply doing so because they lack the REAL weapons: Clear and pure minds and souls... Them all are rotten inside them methinks! :mad:

Although I don't like George Michael I think his video clip which shows Bush, Blair et al, it sums governments of this troubled planet SO damn accurate that it is SO damn scary :eek:

The one who wins a war is the one that he doesn't have to live a war in the first place cause when you live a war (you, yourself and not someone else) you know how REALLY wrong is firsthand... VERY small scale example of war: You fight with your bare hands someone who is VERY strong, maybe stronger than you... In the end even if you beat him giving him black eyes, blood all over his face and stuff, still you have your fists and body feel too much pain AND you have to clean your clothes and soul from this mess! And who knows even if you beat your opponent you may still go to the hospital for a week or more :eek:

As for the ones who seem to believe that when we done talking we should start acting this is plain wrong: When you THINK that you done talking, talk some more... Or you know what? Maybe DON'T talk at all! Sometimes, silence gives better results than talking...

You know what? I must follow my own above advice :rolleyes:
 
"Originally posted by dafuser
It's lucky for you the USA doesn't see things as cut and dried as you do, otherwise you and the rest of Europe would be now be speaking German. Or do you think Hitler would of allowed you to stay neutral while he conquered the rest of the world because war is evil?"

While now we all HAVE to learn to speak at least english, german and french (plus our own language: Greek) if we want JUST to stay competitive in the job market... This supposed to be better? Or do you think that we are free people now? Hmmm... :rolleyes:

As for Hitler: He attacked other european countries... Correct me if I'm wrong: When exactly Sadam attacked US, Europe et al and the US MUST strike back? Or is it a matter of pre-strike? Then again european countries and US didn't pre-strike Hitler back then, did they?

"Europe seems to have forgotten the lessons history teaches us about giving in to dictators like Saddam. What happened when Europe tried to appease Hitler?"

People seem to forget or like to forget history lessons and not just Europe... Am I wrong also thinking that US put Sadam where he is right now? Oh, I forgot: Back then, it was ok to support him...
 
hmmm..
Lots of soap boxes here....

I lost a couple close friends on 9-11. I wonder if some of your opinions would change if you had too.
If you think Saddam isn't aiding terrorists that is being naive.
I think the U.S. is being very proactive in the War Against Terror but if you rather we nuke Iraq after another terrorist attack then I hope its your friends dying not mine.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Instead, a more patient, peaceful solution to the Saddam problem was sought over more than 10 years.
Click to expand...

Well, that is debatable... what happened from another point of view was that Iraq was heavily sanctioned and abandoned to its own... at that time, although internal opposition was ready and willing, there was no talk of regime change. Now after 10 years iraq is still a poor and devastated country, facing war yet again.
 
Posted by jeb1138
You truly believe that this man, George Bush, is perverted enough to potentially kill thousands of innocent people, including many of his own, because he wants gasoline to be cheaper? I am sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree. Such is murder and is easy for the simplest mind to comprehend. This is a grown man who does comprehend the responsiblity laid upon his shoulders. I do not believe he is so calloused or evil as this.
Click to expand...

I do not think Bush is evil, yet I think that the results of the war he is proposing are going to be 'evil' ;)

The former war on Iraq made 200.000 victims among the Iraqis, mostly civilians. Millions of people will flee and be made homeless. A pre-emptive strike against Iraq is against international agreements and can constitute a dangerous precedent. By threatening to go on a solo tour the US are the first and foremost country to make the UN irrelevant. An attack on Iraq in this sense would lessen the importance and influence of international oragnizations and give more power to military strong countries to do what they please. The attack could moreover trigger a spiral of vialence in the Middle-East. As the US had enough of Iraq, Isreal can decide to have had enough of the Palestines and Turkey of the Kurds. Iran could feel threatened by he presence of US military forces. By attacking one nation, a whole culture will be alienated from the west. Terrorism will grow on these seeds of hatred. Oil prices will soar (even more than now) triggering a worldwide crisis in an already unfavorable situation. If the Oil-fields will be set to fire an environmental disaster will follow. Ash from Kuweit was found even in the Himalaya. An attack would not democatize Iraq. Democracy cannot be enforced. It is a long and painful road a population has to walk by itself, aided but not guided.

For all these reasons I think this war is bad. For similar reasons I think war overall is bad.

[Joking:] Since there must be at least as much evil in the cause as in the effect, I think those that propose war, intending to bring about the above effects, are evil themselves. ;) :D [/Joking]
 
Originally posted by Cat
Posted by jeb1138

The former war on Iraq made 200.000 victims among the Iraqis, mostly civilians. Millions of people will flee and be made homeless.
Click to expand...

I guess that's a creative definition of the term victim. I don't mean to dismiss the whole argument, but if it's to be premised on the suffering of the victims, then it should be able to identify them correctly.

The terms under which the Coalition for the Gulf War was cobbled together included that Sadam would not be deposed. That was a condition for several of the Arab states to agree to the war. Therefore the issue of regime change was never allowed to be a military objective. Perhaps there would be less victims if it had.

Yes, after Desert Storm, Iraq was left to fend for itself and the sanctions regime did little to weaken the grip that the tyrant has on his people, but are those 200,000 victims of the war or victims of the peace - or perhaps victims of the recalcitrance of their own corrupt and repressive government?

The excess of victims is a direct result of the "let's let the inspectors take care of this."
 
From BBC online:

The daily briefings given by the allies used video footage and satellite pictures to show that military targets were being devastated and that every effort was being to avoid civilian casualties.

Terms like "collateral damage" and "surgical strike" were staples of the briefings which gave the bombing campaign the air of a computer game. In reality, the devastation on the ground was very messy.

Baghdad devastated

In the capital, military and communications installations were targeted, as well as the parliament, airport, defence ministry, and various palaces.

All over the country the major cities and military targets were hit, as were Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

Outside the Amirya shelter
The scene outside the Amirya bomb shelter in Baghdad
On 13 February what became known as the Amirya bombing shook the US-led alliance and brought home the human cost of Desert Storm.

A US stealth bomber dropped two laser-guided bombs on what the allies had pinpointed as an important command and control bunker.

The bombers had intended to drop the 900kg bombs into the ventilation shafts of the shelter. One missed and exploded nearby, blocking the only escape route.

The second plunged into the bunker and exploded in the middle of the largest room on the upper floor.

The effect was terrible: 314 people are believed to have died, 130 of them children.

Allied forces were unaware that hundreds of women and children had been routinely using the shelter since the start of Desert Storm.

The scenes of badly burnt bodies being pulled out of the devastated shelter and distraught relatives waiting outside shocked the world.
Click to expand...

We'll see this again. Again there will be victims of war in aditoin to "victims of peace" (or lack of interest). The inspectors were meant to let Iraq disarm, not to help civilians build up their lives again, so it is not their fault either.
 
"Lack of interest" is an excellent way of putting it. :)

Yes, once the fighting starts, there will be press conferences galore to naysay the devastation and there will be story after story about the victims to pluck on the heartstrings and help the entertainment media that calls itself news can sell more soap! War is to be avoided if at all possible.

But 314 doesn't equal 200,000 and that's the statistic I question.
 
314 doesn't equal 200,000. 314 is the civilian deaths due to an error in allied intelligence reports. 200,000 is the number of total casualties, military and civilian, mostly the latter, based not only on operation Desert Storm, but also all the other attacks, the effects of the complete distruction of water and electricity supply etc. in the next ten years.

Now to some sources, I invito you to really read some of these:

This study concludes that the child mortality rate today is at least
double and that at least 170,000 children will die in the coming year
from the delayed effects of the Gulf Crisis.

The most recent available estimate of Iraq's pre-Gulf Crisis child
mortality rate is 52 per thousand. United Nations Children's Fund and
World Health Organization, *1990 National Survey on Vaccination, Diarrhea
and Child Maternal Diseases in Iraq*, (1990). Doubling that figure
produces a post-Gulf War mortality rate of 104 per thousand.

Applying this derived mortality rate to the 3.3 million Iraqis under
five, this study estimated that 55,000 additional deaths of children
under five have already occurred. Applying this mortality rate for the
coming year, this study projects at least 170,000 additional child
deaths because of the delayed effects of the Gulf Crisis.

The conservative nature of this figure of 170,000 additional child deaths
can be understood by focusing on gastroenteritis. Before the Gulf
Crisis in 1990, about 50,000 children a year in Iraq died from
gastroenteritis. Current hospital data show a twofold to tenfold
increase in the number of children admitted with this disease. These
data also show more than a doubling of the rate of child death in
hospitals from all causes, including gastroenteritis.

In other words, at least twice as many children are admitted to
hospitals with gastroenteritis, and of those admitted, at least twice as
many die as before. Therefore, since there were 50,000 child deaths
each year from gastroenteritis before the Gulf War, four times as many,
or an additional 150,000 child deaths from this disease can be expected
in the coming year, unless conditions change.

To repeat, this figure of 150,000 additional deaths is for
gastroenteritis alone. This figure does not include deaths from
malnutrition, respiratory disease, or other common child illnesses.
Hence, the estimate of additional child deaths is probably low.
Click to expand...

From http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/91a/0122.html
Overview of the Harvard Study Team Report "Public Health in Iraq"

See also the Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/

And this report: http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1991/s91/s91lopez.html

Have a nice day and sleep well. These are some of the things I wouldn't want to happen anymore in my name. :(
 
It blows my mind that nobody recalls the Korean war, or the fact that China is North of North Korea and their biggest supporter. Until we stop buying that cheap TV for your girlfriend, China and North Korea has the US by the nuts. Additionally, North Korea is communist, Let us recall the us v. them mentality that that culture brew. They are supported by the largest standing army/country in the world.

In ethonographic research you learn to understand cultural tendencies. Iraq is one that is tribal. Like it or not, they understand nothing but force. Korea, is one that says one thing and writes down another. Very typical of Asian countries, though they have communist philosphy thrown in to mix it up. Until the cultural influences are brought to light it is obsurd to lay the same policy for everything.

Some people are bitter that they are "behind" another society, others that they have "different" views. One person can cause the world to die in a firey death. Don't let it be our preseident or our country leading the way.

Forcewise, you always take out the little guy (Iraq) before pursuing other objectives (North Korea). It is stupid to think that a two front war is a good thing. Or any front war for that matter.
 
Originally posted by toast
Dafuser, what you wrote above makes no sense when applied to history after 1945, date of first nuclear deterrent use.

If you need more precise explanations, check what Samy Cohen means in his book "The Atomic Bomb, Strategy of Terror".

War is a primitive, pre-Cold War means to win primitive domination. I understand African nations can still use war, but I don't understand post-industrial countries can still consider it as an option.

Hence, your post is obsolete since 1946 :D. No offense, don't worry !
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. The way you talk Toast you would rather them use a WMD (biological or nuclear) on another country before anyone takes an action to stop it. That is the same as saying we know you have pnemonia, but we won't give you antibiotics untill you're almost dead OR are dead. That's not wisdom, it's ignorance.

Again, this is the same carelessness that led to WWI, and WWII. We must use what we learned from history to avoid another major conflict.
 
Originally posted by hulkaros
As for Hitler: He attacked other european countries... Correct me if I'm wrong: When exactly Sadam attacked US, Europe et al and the US MUST strike back? Or is it a matter of pre-strike? Then again european countries and US didn't pre-strike Hitler back then, did they?
Click to expand...

No, they did the exact same thing you want us to do with Iraq. Baby it, place restrictions, do inspections, etc.

In the end the same thing will happen if we don't do something about him, we'll wind up in a major conflict again...the really scarry thing is this:

It isn't the 30's or 40's...instead of worrying about those horrible things called airplanes and measly little bombs, we have to worry about WMD and nuclear attacks on the battlefield and at HOME. How about the release of biological agents on civilian populations. Have you ever seen what some of these biological agents do to a human? IT ISN'T PRETTY.


Why lay around waiting for Saddam to attack? That would be the most ignorant thing we could do.
 
Originally posted by Cat
Posted by jeb1138

I do not think Bush is evil, yet I think that the results of the war he is proposing are going to be 'evil'
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I think, then, that we are very closely in agreement. I don't think we can say that "the results of the war" are going to be evil, simply because I believe some results, if a war were to occur, would be very good. Regime-change in Iraq could be extraordinarily wonderful. Or extraordinarily destabilizing. The question in my mind is: Whence the greater evil, and what are the evils that may occur? That question I know I cannot answer because I know I don't have enough facts. I also am sure that none of these leaders can know for sure which will be the better course, since they cannot foretell what tragedies may occur if war is not waged nor what tragedies might be avoided if war is not needed. They (France, Germany, Britain, the U.S. etc.) can only use their best judgment with the information available to them. I pray they do.
 
The question in my mind is: Whence the greater evil, and what are the evils that may occur?
Click to expand...

I think we indeed do largely agree. :) My point is that through inspection and diplomatic action we have a teeny weeny chanche of avoiding the consequences of war altogether. until there is an ever so slight chance of a peaceful solution, I think it is worth of giving it a try and will ultimately lead to the least evil.
 
I read earlier someone said we have been messing with the Middle East for decades now. Guess what! They (the Middle East) have been battling longer than most countries were around/ organized!

The US is not the only "aggressers" in the world. 10 years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait. There are so many battles in Africa it would make your head spin. Does anyone know how many people are killed in China each year? North Korea? Iraq? And these are their own people! Come on! We might look like aggressers because we don't sit on our butts and enjoy cheese and wine all day, but we are hardly the ones that started the whole thing.

My main challenge with these protest is that if the US and Britain drops the whole thing and in a couple months BOOM! Kuwait or the US gets hit again.What then? The US is going to be labeled as wimps, gutless to stand up to terrorists, and paper lions.

Our country was not founded by a bunch of ninnies. But nowadays, it's hard to find people who actually have solid beliefs in a world of "no absolutes". There is evil and there is good. Killing people is evil. However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil. We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11. We want to protect ourselves and others.

The only thing I know is that if a small army of terrorists came into the MidWest, they would have no chance whatsoever.

For me, diplomacy. But, sometimes, kids have to be taken to the woodshed when words don't work.
 
There is evil and there is good.

Sure there is! Well simply have to nominate one persone judge of the world and let them point out what is good and what is evil! Everybody of course will agree, since good and evil are so easy to see and identify! And all those shades of grey is just postmodernistic nonesense. :rolleyes:

Killing people is evil.

Best reason ever to start a war.

However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil.

There is no such thing as involuntary evil. For every bullet and every bomb, fingers press the trigger: there is a conscious and voluntary choice to kill and destroy.

We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11.

Terrorism isn't a random natural desaster, but a directed attack. The people who attacked the US wnated to attack the US. They were not simply mad and irrational, maybe manipulatd and misguided, but they had reasons for attacking the US. As atheist still I'd like to echo some wise words: Who is without sin (or guilt depending on translation) throw the first stone. Is the US really so innocent?

We want to protect ourselves and others.

Do you think to have the right to interfere with others for their own good? You assume quite a responsibility then... Why did the allied forces then did not at all supoprt the rebellion ensuing the Gulf War? Because of not so noble agreements with the neighboring countries? Where were our ideals then?

I am disappointed... :(
 
Originally posted by Cat
Killing people is evil.

Best reason ever to start a war.
Click to expand...

I don't get this one.

Another, countries (us too) could take a lesson fro Santa Ana, general of the Mexican army that defeated the Alamo. His armies were order that they not to kill anyone but men with arms against them. But, we nowadays, don't care about history. We just care when the next Tom Cruise movies is coming out.

However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil.

There is no such thing as involuntary evil. For every bullet and every bomb, fingers press the trigger: there is a conscious and voluntary choice to kill and destroy.
Click to expand...

So, if someone who comes up to you and broadsides you with a 2x4, you will do absolutely nothing... I doubt anyone has that restraint.

We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11.

Terrorism isn't a random natural desaster, but a directed attack. The people who attacked the US wnated to attack the US. They were not simply mad and irrational, maybe manipulatd and misguided, but they had reasons for attacking the US. As atheist still I'd like to echo some wise words: Who is without sin (or guilt depending on translation) throw the first stone. Is the US really so innocent?
Click to expand...

No, but you are using that Biblical passage out of context. The woman who was to be stoned, by law under Old Testament law, commited adultery. This was a personal sin that did not affect anyone but the adulterers. The mob then dispersed. Jesus said the the woman, "Go and sin no more." (John 8)

And yes they are wise words.

We want to protect ourselves and others.

Do you think to have the right to interfere with others for their own good? You assume quite a responsibility then... Why did the allied forces then did not at all supoprt the rebellion ensuing the Gulf War? Because of not so noble agreements with the neighboring countries? Where were our ideals then?
Click to expand...

We can use that agument with 9-11. The firemen didn't have the right to go into the buildings to interfere with the people for their own good.

You would sit and watch some one get the crap beaten out of them. I seriously hope not.

Also, are we not to help each other globally? Since globalization is so huge, why suddenly is everyone so happy in their own countries, thinking they will not get hit next.

I am disappointed... :(
Click to expand...

What happens if we do stop? I guess we will just live in a world hoping some misguided and misinformed people doesn't bomb us.

I am not for this because not all our allies are supporting it, but I really don't want to see more killing by these loons.

BTW, these misguided people are trained from childhood in schools. These are 2nd and 3rd generation misguided people.

I am disappointed that people will let lunatics run around unchecked.
 
Originally posted by Cat
There is evil and there is good.

Sure there is! Well simply have to nominate one persone judge of the world and let them point out what is good and what is evil! Everybody of course will agree, since good and evil are so easy to see and identify! And all those shades of grey is just postmodernistic nonesense. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I couldn't have said the 'postmodernistic nonsense' bit better myself! Well put! ;)

I believe that what you call greyscale is actually dithering. Life may be complex, but I don't believe it's ambiguous. I recognize that that's one place where people who believe in absolute standards, absolute good, and absolute evil part with those who don't.

I believe that absolute standards exist unalterably, that God comprehends and acts in complete harmony with them, and that I can discover them by employing my intellect and seeking help, revelation, and confirmation of past revelation from God. I do believe it is impossible for me to comprehend all truth as a mere mortal, but that does not preclude its existence, and it does mean that I should try to learn and live by as much truth as I can so that I may align myself with what is good and shun the evil. Because? Because it is right.

We cannot always agree on what is right and what is wrong. Very true. None of us can know everything. Nor can any of us know of ourselves what another person's motives or purposes are. These facts are some of the most compelling reasons that exist for us to stand and fight in the best way possible for that which we do believe to be true and good. We do know some things and we do know our own motivations better than we know any other's, and we should stand up for those things which we know to be true.

Regarding the existence of good and evil and the fight for what we believe is good, I respectfully defer for a moment to Mahatma Gandhi, who most likely would have employed an entirely different approach than any of the leaders on the political forefront right now, don't you think? With regard to Satyagraha (nonviolent resistence for the purpose of political reform) he once said:
Originally posted by Mr. Mohandas K Gandhi
The doctrine of Satyagraha works on the principle that you make the so called enemy see and realize the injustice he is engaged in. It can work only when you believe in God and the goodness of the people to see that they are wrong. As a satyagrahi, I do believe that non-violence is a potent weapon against all evils.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top