War!

[FREEDOM!]

K.

Some of u already know i want the USA to go to war.

And i was just listening to Montel and i realized that i want to go to war, i want to go to Iraq and fight!

the only thing is i cannot join the military till i am 17, dang it!

but who wants to go to war, and who doesn't want to go to war?

[Asha'man]

I'd consider joining the military, but I have a medical condition that prevents it.

Aren't you the guy who's changed his name like three times? :confused:

Ash

[Ciryaher]

Firstly, I changed the options to be a bit broader and corrected some spelling errors...

Second, I think anyone who wants to go to war for no reason except to kill the so-called enemy is an idiot, and is the greatest threat to humanity that this world can put forth.

Third, I would only go to war if the enemy was either a direct threat to the lives of innocent people and had caused harm or death in their own country; is selling weapons of mass destruction to terrorist factions and/or unstable nations; a country in which a group(s) was being targeted and persecuted by the majority/ruling class; or a country that has attacked us or another with a military force.

[Celebthôl]

well i voted for the second 1 down, coz well i h8 me country

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
K.

Some of u already know i want the USA to go to war.
And i was just listening to Montel and i realized that i want to go to war, i want to go to Iraq and fight!
the only thing is i cannot join the military till i am 17, dang it!
but who wants to go to war, and who doesn't want to go to war?

I you could see only a small percentage of what I have seen, and had to do an even smaller percentage of what I have done in the service of "Crown and Country"; you might not be so cavalier about sending young men to their deaths.

I realize that many members are young, but I've been in the mud-hole with a rifle. I find it just a tad hypocritical to call for war when you know you are not to be called to fight.

No one can win a war, only survive it.

RD

[Arvedui]

I agree totally RD.
It is way to easy to cry War!, if you haven't been there or done that.
I probably haven't seen as much as RD, but I have seen and experienced enough to know one thing: People die in a war, and that does not only happen to the enemy.

But, I would be willing to take arms against anyone who attacked my country, or any of my allied countries (That's you RD).

[Wolfshead]

I would go to war for a good reason. I don't pretend to want to get people killed, but if it were required of me, I would fight. This would be something like WWIII, for example, or a major war with powers in the East. Not just a fairly pointless attack on Iraq or Afghanistan.

I whole-heartily agree with what RD said, anyone who wants to go to war for the sake of it ought to try the training for a few months. Then they may change their minds.

[Anamatar IV]

The most war I'm going to get is the Medal of Honour video games.:rolleyes:

But if I were older and if America was going to war to help out Isreal (that surface to air attack was just wrong) or to attack Iraq (I read an article today that he once sprayed civilians with mustard gas [HN2]) then I might consider it. I'm against cap guns for god's sake:rolleyes:

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Arvedui
I agree totally RD.
But, I would be willing to take arms against anyone who attacked my country, or any of my allied countries (That's you RD).

Well said Arvedui.

I do believe that there are instances when warfare is unavoidable. If the need arose, I would take up arms again. As I feel most veterans would. But FREEDOM!'s comments seem to be idolizing the warrior mystique.

I simply want people to understand that true warfare is not glamorous. War is a dirty, heart-breaking, reality in which young men pay the price for old men's arrogance. It is not something to be admired or aspired to. It is something to be avoided until no other option is available. Something George Bush and his megalomaniacal cohorts seem to have forgotten.

RD

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

FREEDOM, when you watch movies like 'We were Soldiers', 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Black Hawk Down' are you seriously thinking these are like portraying real life video games? Or maybe you haven't seen them since you aren't 17 yet. Why don't you just rent them and get it out of your system. Or better yet, watch for the documentaries of them on the Hist chnl.

(Cir - you're winning me over! RD - will you marry me? I love your mind.)

[Rangerdave]

Thank God that somebody does.

I was worried that I was coming across as an old grouch. I do tend to become a bit self-rightous at times, but for vet's like, I guess we've earned that right.

To borrow a quote from J. Michael Straczynski:They taught me that for you actions to be pure they must proceed from direction, determination, patience, and strength. They taught me how to live, how to breathe, how to fight, and how to die. And they taught me terror. How to use it and how to face it."

While these lessons have served me in good stead, I hope: no, I pray that you younger members of the forum will never have to learn them for yourselves.

RD

PS Mindy: I doubt that you would want to marry me, I snore:rolleyes:

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

snaps fingers ...rats.
:cool:

[Ciryaher]

What I don't get is why people are so eager to go to war with Iraq (Americans, at least). This is not the case of an entire nation that is aggressing against other peoples/nations. This is an instance of a single totalitarian regime that is using a small number of powers to keep a nation under its thumb. A full-scale attack is not only foolish, it is unneccessary. What needs to happen to Hussein is basically what happened to Milosevic and others of his sort. He should be apprehended and taken before an international tribunal for crimes against humanity.

Afghanistan, on the small scale which it is being run, is not unacceptable to me. The Taliban needed removing, and if that nation ever wants to be a player in world events, they needed to have a change in leadership.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

That is too logical and civilized for Bush to comprehend. Instead he uses his sly thinkspeak to persuade the people of the USA to miss the chance to be included in the historical creation of the International Criminal Court, or to ratify it. We would have had more power, input, and integrity to have been involved from the beginning, than we will have later, when the rest of the world has everything in place and we then try to jump on after the train is out of the station. Will we be one of the last "outlaw" nations?

Whatever happened to the idea of brains over brawn?

Now that my ranting is over, I want to say I've been listening to BBC news all night long (thank goodness for some media balance). They brought up these subjects tonight:
-The reactionary vengence of Poles towards Germans who lived in Poland after WWII. The fact that they have gotten over it since then and they get along pretty well now.
-The inhumane things Joseph Mengela was doing to people in the death camps.
-The cruel, inhumane way American whites treated blacks first as sharecroppers (no different than slavery but in name only.)
-And then later when the black Carter children had to bear the burden of being some of the first blacks to intergrate southern schools. Their treatment was as vile as any of these other crimes against humanity we've discussed. (This was the most sad - especially since it is within my lifetime.)
-A father of a dead Columbine teenager and his trying to make sense of senseless killing and to find a positive healing direction of what to do with his life to try to bring things around right.

My question now is, is there some mob force in the world that just cannot leave peacefulness alone and after too long of a lull, the violent or cruel nature of man bubbles up to the top with a few restless or inhumane individuals, and then sometimes boils over into war? A momentum that cannot be stopped? Is it really inevitable?

[DGoeij]

I always wonder why the cry for war always comes from people who never lived a day without decent plumbing. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I've never had to suffer the stress of being in the same area as people willing to put high velocity pieces of metal through my body, and I'm not willing to either. I'm very glad that the one here at the forum who actually did, is quite capable of explaining that it's not a nice thing. Thank you for being a sane man, RD. I hope it's infectious.

[Legolam]

I'm not sure if this is asking if I would go to war, or if I think my country should go to war. I know I couldn't be violent against anyone personally, so I would rather be killed as an individual before I killed someone else. But if my country was directly attacked, that would be a justified reason for our army to defend us.

Thank you RD, for your wise words, "No-one can win a war, only survive it". I'll remember that

[Húrin Thalion]

I would like to thank RangerDave and many others for what you have said in this, I could not agree more. I am myself a pacifist and would not go to war unless it was to prevent the death of many people. I see it as this: If I had to choose between letting 990000 people die, not including me or letting 990001 people die, me included I woould choose the second option. I have never been to war and I can with a very high certainty say that I never will, maybe peacekeeping, but I have studied war intensively and come up with only one answer. Why? I see war as the greatest of the plagues that has struck humanity. This view was shared by people 3000 years ago in Greece (Homeros), he had realized what many today do not understand. That war is something that should not be but is, it takes away friends, relatives and in these days also innocent human beings. For my own sake and for the sake of humanity I would never go to war.

Húrin

[Ciryaher]

I have to raise a speculative (and perhaps silly) question. What if, at some point in the future, mankind is under threat from something truly evil (and by evil I mean aspiring to global totalitarianism, ruthlessness, etc.)? It doesn't have to be purely human, either. It could be some creation of man (clone, engineered species, etc...and these are feasible) or men themselves.

Are you telling me that for no cause, even to save mankind from absolute tyranny and suffering, would you go to war?

[DGoeij]

I'd say I'd fight for a just cause, but one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So try and explain a 'just cause'. I'm not even sure if I would fight for my country. I mean, what if my country said, 'go and crush the Belgiums'? (Our friendly neighbours, good beer, cheerful language, well, the Flemmish part) or would I have been had by state-propaganda?
War, as in armed combat and a lot of dead people as a result, is always an option. Personally I would never exclude the option, but I'm not so eager to choose for it as some people seem to. Shouting WAR! when you're playing a computer game (Hey, I like Medal of Honour too) is pretty cool. But in real life, real people suffer, so I feel like I should be somewhat careful, and judge for myself, time and time again.

[Húrin Thalion]

Ciryaher if it would be to save mankind from, say (I do not believe that any human is so totally evil) the orcs I would definetly go to war against them but I would not like it.

[Ciryaher]

No, Hitler was not totally evil...neither was Stalin. Those little tidbits about massacring millions of people can be overlooked because they treated their pets nicely...:rolleyes:

And as for "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"...just because a group murders innocent people by blowing themselves up or going into an abortion clinic and gunning everyone, that doesn't mean that they are terrorists? Because some deranged group out there says that they are "fighting for freedom?" There is a difference between Haitian slaves fighting against their Spanish overseers and extremist groups going out to kill anyone that is different. If you can't see the difference, then you are deluding yourself with pacifist jabber.

I have an improvement on the abovementioned quote:

"One man's peace is another man's neglect."

[Proudfoots]

Ah war, what is it good for?

Again, praise to Ranger dave, and a question, which conflict did you ... see?

The Geo-political machinations of any 'power' worry me. When i was younger and naive-er I thought that, as i had been taught that Great Britain was a hero nation that stood virtually alone against the evil hordes of Nazi Germany. The more I learn, the more i cry.

Great Britain is not a hero country, there is really no such concept as 'country'

I would not be willing to die for Canada, Ireland (my two homes) or any other hunk of rock on this planet (unless from orcs, but that would be different).

America is today's bugbear, though they have been pllaying these same games since WW!!. I am not anti-american, i am certainly Anti-American leadership though.

We need to remember that the leaders of countries are no different than members of this forum. they are human, weak and driven by selfish desires. My evilest desire is to steal the last of the ice cream from my roomate, which i just did. Other people have other taughts.

No one (sane) is truly crazy. Hitler (who was sane during the 1930s anyway) did exactly what he thought was good. Stalin, same deal, he did what he thought was good for Russia, sure, it involved killing about 20 million Ukrainians, but, he industrialized the country and made it a super power, what are 20 million lives.

The leaders today, GW, Tony and the rest are no different, they are no smarter than you and me, just different with difffernt goals. They can play on the emotions of FREEDOM! and others who are willing to die because some guy on CNN with a bad tie says that such and such is an evil place.

Mybe i have studied too much history and philosophy, but humankind is weak, and selfish. There are great people, but they generally do not run countries, and if they do, they still have to satisfy BIG BUSINESS which is completely out of control, because there is no one that really controls it, MONEY is the only controlling factor.

Life was easier with kings, if your king hated their king, then you hated them...Things are getting too confusing now. To answer this question i have had to write a PHD disertation.

My answer is - I will only go to war if I am in charge (or at least up there) because i don't trust anyone else.

'foots

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Proudfoots
Ah war, what is it good for?

Again, praise to Ranger dave, and a question, which conflict did you ... see?

Let's see...
The official list is

Operation Urgent Fury. Grenada. 2nd/75th Infantry (RANGER) 1983.
Operation Just Cause. Panama. 2nd/75th Infantry (RANGER) 1989
Operation Desert Storm. Kuwait/Iraq. 5th Special Forces Group. 1991
Operation Restore Hope. 5th Special Forces Group. Somalia. 1993/94

This list does not include the undisclosed operations in various and sundry stink-holes throughout Central America and Advisory details in other undersirable locations.

After "Restore Hope" I was mainly an Instructor at the JFK School for Boys (also known as the Special Warfare Center) in Ft Bragg North Carolina.

Thats all the oficial details I can give you.

RD

PS: I left the Army in late 1996 to persue a real life

[Proudfoots]

oooo, i bet you have a bunch of really cool stories just waiting to be squeezed out if you got drunk enough...

Wow, well, i am certainly impressed, i can take a guess at some of the covert ops that you were involved in during that time.

If you come from the US military then there is hope for us all (if there are more dave's running around in camo with m 16's).

RD does make a good point that the US has been in a lot of countries recently...check out my thread on American military involvement.

Rangerdave - i think you could ad some great insight.

Atleast now i know the 'ranger' stands for.

respectfully 'foots

[Rangerdave]

Thanks for the positive responses.
And yes, I do have some pretty good "Soldier Stories" and some of them are even true.

One assignment that I didn't put one the list because it wasn't a real combat tour was my time with the MultiNational Force & Observers detatchment in the Sinai. That was a solid blast.

Their insignia is shown below, I might make this my new avatar. If I ever get tired of the penguin that is.

RD

[Arvedui]

No, no, no. Keep the Penguin, keep the Penguin.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

......or in the case of hyperactive innocents:

"One man's peace is another man's boredom." (?)

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
And as for "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"...just because a group murders innocent people by blowing themselves up or going into an abortion clinic and gunning everyone, that doesn't mean that they are terrorists? Because some deranged group out there says that they are "fighting for freedom?"

Well, the US 8th airforce and the Britsh Bomber Command was "fighting for freedom", including that of my own country, but I wonder what the german civillians at the recieving end thought of that.
Since 1991, Tsjechen "freedom fighters" are fighting the Russian army for the independence of their country. Of course, especially, since September 11th, the Russian Prime Minister calls them terrorists. The fact that the Russain army has been raping, torturing, looting and executing civillians for the last ten years, is merely pacifist babble. We've all seen what they're like at the Moscow theatre! :rolleyes:
I find it suprising how people seem to think there's a clear cut difference between what's right and wrong, freedom fighter and terrorist.

[FREEDOM!]

Our war is not of flesh and bone.

[7doubles]

i would go to war over a canybar. but i am a crimbinal so what do you exspect! "violence
is natures way of letting you know your still alive"

[Khamul]

There should be an option for those who are too lazy to go to war. As Anamatar said, the closest I will get to war is a computer game. Wouldn't it be so much easier if computer games decided the fate of the world?:D The only problem would be all the n00bs screwing the games up, and costing millions of dollars. Hackers as well...

Honestly I believe that to assume that another country will use 'brains' in their methods of war-fare is impossible. It's not like the brains methods of the previous administrations worked in Middle East peace.

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
Our war is not of flesh and bone.

All wars are of flesh and bone.
Someone always pays the price for aggression. Sometimes the very ones we are trying to protect.

Think about that one for a while.
RD

[MacAddict]

Could you please add the option "If I get a big gun or a sniper rifle":) . Then I would choose. I f i could decide what I wanted to be in the military it would be a sniper!

~MacAddict

[Arvedui]

I wonder if you know what on earth you are talking about? Or have you just seen to many movies?

Holywood is not a part of the real world, my friend.

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by Rangerdave
All wars are of flesh and bone.
Someone always pays the price for aggression. Sometimes the very ones we are trying to protect.

Think about that one for a while.
RD

That is a qoute of part of a verse in the bible, our war is of spirit not of flesh and bone. chew on that for a while.

[Ciryaher]

This so-called war has nothing to do with the Bible. If you try to stick a religious tone on it, then you're no better than one of the Mujihadeen that says the Koran wants them to kill *you*.

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
That is a qoute of part of a verse in the bible, our war is of spirit not of flesh and bone. chew on that for a while.

I'm well aware of the source of that particular quote, and I applaud your faith. But metaphysical was have never been; and can never be, a valid means of solving conflicts. Jehovah/God/Allah are all the God of Abraham, and violence is an abomination before God in each respective theology. Yet more men* have died in the service of God than any other leader.

Faith is a wonderful thing, but it won't stop a bullet.

Also, on a different note. I am curious as to why you phrased the question "Yes, I would die for my country." The express purpose of combat is not to die for a cause, but to ensure the other side dies for theirs. I would much rather live {and fight} for my country than die for it. Remember, it is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion than a dead lion. But it is so much better still to be a live lion, and generally easier.
Robert A. Heinlein

All that I am really saying is that war may be exactly the right thing to do. There is such a thing as a just war. The defense of kith and kin is paramount. But even if the cause is morally right and the path is clear. Once the bullets start to fly, philosophy and idealism take a back seat to survival. And remember that every infantryman that stares down the sights of a rifle is some mother's son. Before you beat the drum and call for arms, make damned sure that every other avenue of resolution has been tried.

RD

[Arvedui]

Amen, brother!

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
That is a qoute of part of a verse in the bible, our war is of spirit not of flesh and bone. chew on that for a while.

What's the idea behind the whole quote from the bible? You're calling on every christian to join a crusade or something? May I point out that part of Usama Bin Laden's "reasoning" contains warnings against the "crusaders from the west". Are you going to prove him right?

And, if humans indeed posses such things as a spirit, mine is still surrounded by this body made of flesh and bone and other various soggy materials, which happens to be very vulnerable to the consequences of war. And since all humans are very much alike, other people are as vulnerable as me. But somehow you think your religious texts allows you to at least hurt others, or worse?

[Húrin Thalion]

And also I would like to oppose to quotes from the Bible. I know that many of you may see those quotes as ultimate truth but I don't, I will avoid having a discussions were any religious writing is quoted. I do not think that we should mix up religion with politics, they are entirely distinct and forever separated. Of course I will still discuss theology in threads for that but I don't see that quotes from the Bible adds anything to a political discussion. I am not anti-christian or anything like that but I simply will not discuss any argumet coming from the Bible unless in a thread about that.

Húrin Thalion

[MacAddict]

Originally posted by Arvedui
have you just seen to many movies?
Holywood is not a part of the real world, my friend.

I know but I still want to be a sniper:D .

~MacAddict

[Ciryaher]

It must be easy for you to kill someone from a distance. I would imagine it to be much easier to kill someone who wasn't expecting it than to fight them with a blade.

Anyways, the whole idea of some Crusade is stupid. If every church-going Christian I know went off to war and would kill me if I didn't, I'd either join the other side or just let them make me a martyr. Defend your religion, but never attack another's.

[FREEDOM!]

What i mean is that as a Christian my ( and other Christians) main goal should not be to go to war and kill, but to preach the word of the bible and to teach others.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

But this was your thread, FREEDOM, and now you are changing the subject. Please re-read you first post, for that is from where this discussion progressed. :p

[Eledhwen]

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places

Originally posted by Ciryaher
This so-called war has nothing to do with the Bible. If you try to stick a religious tone on it, then you're no better than one of the Mujihadeen that says the Koran wants them to kill *you*.

This isn't "sticking a religious tone on it", Ciryaher, it's trying to understand what's behind it all. The verse quoted is encouraging Christians to pray - a different kind of warfare, and one that pacifists can engage in.

I haven't been involved in war, but my father was a full time cold-war soldier dealing with the dismantling of the British Empire. My brother was also at Desert Storm. He had to go round visiting wives left back in British Army homes in Germany to tell them their husbands had been killed by 'friendly' fire. That's what war's really like.

I think the first phrase of the Bible quote is well illustrated by the troops of the Somme - a WWI battle. On Christmas Day, the German and British troops got out of their trenches and played Soccer against each other. The next day they got back to the business of slaughter. It makes me cry to even think about it. They had no quarrel with each other, but their leaders back in their cosy, smoke-filled gentlemens clubs did (it was a sort of "I've started, so I'll finish" kind of a war), so ordinary cannon-fodder like you and me had to go out and kill the other side's cannon-fodder.

I believe there is a greater evil than mankind behind all war, and behind the regimes (like Saddam's) that make us all sabre-rattle. It plays us off, one against another, teaching us to hate and be suspicious.

Yes, there are evil regimes; there always will be. The UK is currently being visited by the President of Syria - every bit as despotic a regime as Iraq, but useful. It leaves a bad taste...

[FREEDOM!]

Thnx Eledwhen, yes i know this was my thread, so I just wanted to see how many of u would go to war, and how many are tottally against it, then i was going to introduce that verse then see what your reactions were.

[Ciryaher]

By FREEDOM!
And i was just listening to Montel and i realized that i want to go to war, i want to go to Iraq and fight!

By Eledhwen
This isn't "sticking a religious tone on it", Ciryaher, it's trying to understand what's behind it all. The verse quoted is encouraging Christians to pray - a different kind of warfare, and one that pacifists can engage in.

In the context in which FREEDOM! used it, I beg to differ that the quote was used to "encourage Christians to pray." It was used to say that "as Christians, we should use violent force [war] to defeat 'evil' regimes."

[FREEDOM!]

NO it is not!!!!!

It was to encourage Christians to Pray. but some people(i won't mention any names) *caugh* Ciryaher *caugh* are too blind and have their heads too far stuck up their butts to understand anything!

[Aerin]

FREEDOM!, I honestly cannot see why you won't listen to what Rangerdave has to say; he's been there.

As for bringing Biblical quotes into this discussion, what are you thinking? That just because some people are of the Christian faith that they will automatically think you're in the right because you have the brain cells and resources to copy down some words from a book? I know I don't.

As an American, under the First Amendment, you have the right to say what you believe, and nobody can stop you. However, that goes for everyone else, as well...

I don't pretend to understand all the issues that are at work in this trouble in the Middle East; I just feel that I cannot stand by and watch religion being used as almost a kind of battering-ram to brow-beat people into accepting a war.

I don't know if you've studied history very much (happens to be my favourite subject), but if you read journals and letters from the Civil War era, for example, you will find that war isn't the pretty picture Hollywood makes it out to be. And in the Civil War, the weapons were nothing compared to the massively destructive powers that exist today.
War isn't like a video game, where after you're tired of playing, you can just stop and put it away until you feel like playing again. Real people die, and they don't come back for Round 2.

And as Rangerdave said:
And remember that every infantryman that stares down the sights of a rifle is some mother's son
It is altogether too easy to, in your mind, turn the enemy into something less than human; it's been done althroughout history. It's much harder to think of the people on the other side as humans as well, only with different attitudes or faces.

Now, I cannot speak from experience - I have never been to war; the most I have done is read accounts of people who have. As much as we can all go on at length about how we feel about this particular issue, I believe the opinions of people who have actually been to war hold more weight than those who have not.

As for myself, I am in absolutely no hurry for war; in fact, I would much rather a peaceful solution was attained, however impossible that may be. I am not a military type; I really enjoy my comfortable chair and snug house. However, I will be eternally grateful to those who have fought and died in wars so that I may sit here, as a free American.

If there was an immediate and dire threat to my country, localized in one place, then I would consider fighting; but I would most likely opt to work in the medical field, rather than be the one shooting the gun.

And as has been said in this thread, "Fighting for your country doesn't mean dying for it; it means making the other b*stard die for his." Or something like that. ;)

DGoiej - "mine is still surrounded by this body made of flesh and bone and other various soggy materials" rotfl!

EDIT: I just saw FREEDOM!'s post about "encouraging Christians to pray"... Do you honestly think that what you've said in this thread so far is going to sway my opinion one way or another? I am sorry; I do not believe that the prayers that you may get from people reading this thread are going to affect, one way or the other, the outcome of the conflict.

[FREEDOM!]

I am listening to what RD is saying and i understand, and i want to find a peaceful solution i think that would be better, but unfortunately i don't think there are any cause even if we keep cheking for weapons then they're just gonna keep hiding their weapons.

unfortunately i don't think we can do anything but protect ourselves, which in this case is either wait till they attack us or attack while we still have and advantage.

I don't understand all the things that are going on in the middle east either, but i do know that if u read the Old Testament and The New Testament in the Bible it will explain that theere will always be conflict in the middle east.

I will explain more later......

[FREEDOM!]

Prayer can change the world!

[Aerin]

Your tone seems to assume that I haven't read the Bible...

As much as I would like to blame only the Middle East, America itself hasn't exactly been blameless in creating the trouble that now exists.

Hopefully without stepping on anyone's toes, I would like to say that religious texts, be they the Christian Bible or the Islamic Koran, are not going to solve any conflicts, and probably won't do much other than to fuel young zealots on to a Crusade-like war.

[FREEDOM!]

I'm not saying it's going to solve anything, but what i am saying is while we need to lead others to Christ, we must defend ourselves from those that try and kill us, say somene breaks into your hose and has a knife and is going to kill your family, and u have a gun are u going to wait till he kill's your family or are u going to go ahead and shoot him b4 he attacks and kills your family??

[Aerin]

Defending my family in a situation like that is a completely different issue than what is being discussed.

This thread is about war; not defending one's self or one's family against an individual attacker.

[Wolfshead]

Are you implying there, FREEDOM! that we should go and convert everyone to Christianity?
but what i am saying is while we need to lead others to Christ
So other peoples religions, be it Muslim, Hindu or Pagan, aren't as good as Christianity? Is Christianity the one true religion? Can someone not be a complete person without religion?

And yes, I'm digressing off the main topic...

[FREEDOM!]

Ahh but see its not different, defending ones country (family) from it's attackers (attacker) is self defense. either way u look at it.

[FREEDOM!]

No u can't, and Yes i am saying Christianity is the One Religon. That is another topic to be discussed under another thread.

[Ciryaher]

Exactly. This isn't about prayer or religion, this is about war, so don't bring religious quotes that have nothing to do with this situation into it.


A peaceful solution could easily be obtained. A UN force should arrest Saddam Hussein (or snatch him, if he's not willing) to face trial before the world as a whole for his crimes against humanity. That way, it's not a "US vs. Arab World" and we won't be assassinating or removing anyone by force. It will be legal and the world should come together to remove this dangerous tyrant before he can harm any more innocents.

[Húrin Thalion]

Ahh but see its not different, defending ones country (family) from it's attackers (attacker) is self defense. either way u look at it

Isn't that what most Arab countries have done the last centuries?
There is no difference to most in the middle east between the American army and the British or Russians. There are only a few educated people threatening the U.S. not the Iraqi people. As a friend of mine once said: "If someone kills my wife when I am not at home, I don't go over to the house where the suspect and his family lives and blow it up." It is just to arrest and put in front of the international war crimes court the "brain" of the dangerous groups. Oh I forgot, the U.S. doesn't want to participate in a court where Americans can be convicted, sorry.

Húrin Thalion

[Ciryaher]

If you're going to accuse someone of not wanting to participate in justice, then say "US Government" because I, an American, am fully supportive of any person accused of a war/humanity crime being brought to trial, American, Iraqi, Canadian, Chinese; anyone.

[Anamatar IV]

As much as I would like to blame only the Middle East,

going on in the middle east either

Just a quick little thing here-I tend not to think of Iraq as Middle east (meaning I call it Asia :rolleyes: ) and also if you are regarding to Israel when you say 'Middle east'-there is as much right stuff going on in Israel as in U.S...

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
Exactly. This isn't about prayer or religion, this is about war, so don't bring religious quotes that have nothing to do with this situation into it.


A peaceful solution could easily be obtained. A UN force should arrest Saddam Hussein (or snatch him, if he's not willing) to face trial before the world as a whole for his crimes against humanity. That way, it's not a "US vs. Arab World" and we won't be assassinating or removing anyone by force. It will be legal and the world should come together to remove this dangerous tyrant before he can harm any more innocents.

Thats not a bad idea! Actually that's the best idea i've heard so far!!

[Eledhwen]

Ciryaher: Exactly. This isn't about prayer or religion, this is about war, so don't bring religious quotes that have nothing to do with this situation into it.

The quote (Ephesians 6:12) had everything to do with War. It offered reasons for why warfare even exists. The Bible is a source of informtion and argument, just like any other historical document (eg: the first amendment). If you start banning one source of quotes just because you don't agree with it, where do you stop?

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
If you're going to accuse someone of not wanting to participate in justice, then say "US Government" because I, an American, am fully supportive of any person accused of a war/humanity crime being brought to trial, American, Iraqi, Canadian, Chinese; anyone.

I'm glad to hear that. Since this International Court is staged in The Hague (not our capital, but our parlaiment is located there), the US government deemed it necessary to pass a law that allows US-troops to invade my little country in order to release any American being held by this Court.
I don't want to go to war, but stopping an invasion force is something I think I would want to do. But it would be painful to imagine the attackers being US-marines.

But I'm wandering off topic.

[Eledhwen]

DGoeij: But I'm wandering off topic.Not really; any nation that thinks it is immune from ever having the sort of government that would make such deployments (as you point out, it would be quite legal under US Law) is kidding themselves. Hitler was democratically voted into power in Germany, because he inspired the people with his words. He was also helped by the Allies dreadful treatment of Germany after WWI and their subsequent turning a blind eye to his military build up. We never learn, do we.

[Aerin]

Eledhwen, as for bringing religion into this discussion, I side with Ciryaher. This is a thread to discuss war, as an entire and separate entity, from religion; if you wish to discuss religion as well, begin a new thread. The quotes weren't banned; they're merely out of place.

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Eledhwen
...Hitler was democratically voted into power in Germany, because he inspired the people with his words...

Well, not quite.

Hitler was a political appointee. He was appointed to a cabinet position (chancellor) so that Hindenburg and Franz von Papen cound keep him under control. The theory was that if they gave him a dead-end job, the Nazi party would never become a majority.
Not the Best move Hindenburg ever made.

So you see kids, Hitler was only an appointee, much like his American counterpart John Ashcroft.

RD

[FREEDOM!]

If your going to ban using the bible then we can't use the amendment or anything else.

[Húrin Thalion]

Let ,e express it like this, you may quote the bible as much as you want but I will never answer to such an argument in a non-theological thread. It is not that I don't agree with the Bible that makes me wanting to avoid quotes from it, the thing is that it is after all a religious writing and all religion is based upon belief, not necessarily the truth. I do not think we should mix up beliefs with facts in these discussions. Also I'm a Platonist but I don't quote the state for example here as an argument for that book was written for so many years ago that you cannot even be sure that the words meant what they would mean today. Our view of the world changes. FREEDOM! this si your beliefs but you will have to accept that you must see that most don't mix up what I believe in here and our debates. Speaking of that, why are there only christians who quote from their holy sripture here?

Húrin Thalion

[Ciryaher]

You weren't giving evidence except to justify action against others. You were trying to make this war on terror seem "divinely inspired", which it isn't.

If I were to quote some book that said "This war is not justified because the Great Cheese-Steak forbids it", that wouldn't be valid, either.

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
You weren't giving evidence except to justify action against others. You were trying to make this war on terror seem "divinely inspired", which it isn't.

If I were to quote some book that said "This war is not justified because the Great Cheese-Steak forbids it", that wouldn't be valid, either.

No, i'm not!:mad:

I do think your plan to capture Sadaam and Try him in front of the world is a great idea!

[Aerin]

That may not have been what you meant to say, but that's what you came across as saying.

And to be perfectly frank, I often think "The Great Cheese-Steak" arguments make more sense than religiously fueled and fired quotes. :rolleyes:

The Bible and the Amendments are two totally, completely, and distinctly separate documents. The Bible is the religious basis for Christianity, while the Amendments are what this country has been founded on. It's bad news to "ban" the Amendments.... that's when really bad things happen..........

[Rangerdave]

The more I think about the idea of arresting Hussein, the more I dislike the idea. The US is sitting between the fabled rock and a hard place. If Hussein is killed, he becomes a martyr. If he is ousted by intenational forces, he is a hero in exile. Holding him will not end terrorist attacks, they will escalate until the UN/World Court agrees to release him. Either way, the outcome is grim.

As I see it, there are only three vaible options for dealing with Hussein.

1 War. Armed invasion of Iraq will bring about results, if the leaders of the alliance are ready to completely capture Iraq; in short, remove him and all political powers in Iraq and place the country under a UN Mandate, making it in effect a Colonial holding. But remember what this will cost in lives on both sides.

2 Blockade. A complete and total blockade of all material into and out of Iraq. Iraq does not have the agricultural ability to sustain its own population. If the combined military of NATO and UN forces sieze all material (including food) from enetering Iraq until the Iraqi citizenry ousts Hussein themselves, the west would literally starve him out. This is the most dredful and disreputable course of action. But it would work.

3. Attempt to solve the equation diplomatically. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The only problem is, will the fly cooperate?


None of these options reflect my personal wishes for the situation, I am only presenting the most likely sucessful tactics.

Whether it comes to a war, blockade, or diplomatic resolution; the major price will be paid not by the politicos, but rather by the populous.

RD

[Arvedui]

Do you really think a blockade would work? I am not too sure of that. Iraq has a lot of borderline, and it would require a lot of resources to control all of it. And also, through the food-for oil programme, Saddam has shown that he distributes what food and medicines Iraq gets, after his own fashion. I am afraid that a blockade would bring about an even more restrictive distribution of whatever remains, so that the 'true' followers of Saddam wil get what they need, and the rest of the population will have to 'give their sacrifices in the fight against the Great Satan'. I am sure Saddam would see to it that the military forces had enough food...

To arrest Saddam could actually work. But to make that work, he would have to be arrested and tried by forces from an islamic country. Iran, Kuwait, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia would be out of the question. Probably also Pakistan and Jordan. That would leave Syria, Lebanon, Libya and other smaller countries. Would they do it? Perhaps, if the price was right. At least those three mentioned could have a lot to gain from such an effort.

[Rangerdave]

By blockade, I don't mean the wimpy headed attempt we made during the Hormuz incident with Iran.

I'm talking full on Naval and Air Force blockade. That means shooting down anything that goes into or comes out of Iraq regardless of cargo or nation of Origin. yes Iraq does have quite a bit of border, but we already cover the majority of it in the so-called no fly zones.

As for arresting him, it's not him thats the problem. regardless of where he is tried. Extremests don't exactly hold the scantity of law in high regards. They would simply proclaim it either a kangaroo court, or a breach of national sovereignity. (much like the US is doing now to the world court).

As for the Fundimentalist cels operating in the world today (regardless of religion), the only ways to deal with them is either by totalitarian containment, extermination or we will just have to learn to deal with them case by case the way the majority of Europe has done. I think the boys from SAS, GSG9 or GIGN could teach us a thing or two on how to deal with terrorists and anarchists.

Man I hope it never comes to that
RD

[Arvedui]

As for arresting him, it's not him thats the problem. regardless of where he is tried. Extremests don't exactly hold the scantity of law in high regards. They would simply proclaim it either a kangaroo court, or a breach of national sovereignity. (much like the US is doing now to the world court).

But if he were trialed before an islamic court, they would have problems with that. That is why I ruled out a number of countries that could be accused of being puppets to the US.

And I believe the idea of a blockade could work, but that would require a lot of resources, as I stated. And also, it would need to be a joined effort, where all bordering countries would have to participate. The means to be able to force such a blockade exists, it is really just a question of being willing to go that far. Can you imagine any western politician wanting to take the chance of being accused of causing the deaths of numerous 'innocent civilians; women and children' that will probably be the result of such an action? I think the list of those politicians would be very short.

[Eledhwen]

Originally posted by Aerin
Eledhwen, as for bringing religion into this discussion, I side with Ciryaher. This is a thread to discuss war, as an entire and separate entity, from religion; if you wish to discuss religion as well, begin a new thread. The quotes weren't banned; they're merely out of place. The Bible (which is the only source of scripture I know well) has a lot to say about war. The Northern Ireland conflict is a Catholic versus Protestant struggle (both supposedly Christian). The Middle East conflict is largely Islam versus Judaism, and there are countless struggles around the world where minority groups are being ethnically (religiously?) cleansed off the face of the planet because of their religion (these are often Christians).

We Christians see the dynamics of war differently from the rest of you. Our world-view is coloured by the teachings of the Bible which is a major reference point for our lives. If an avid Marxist posted here, no doubt he/she would quote Karl Marx. A Moslem would quote the Koran. A Tolkien addict might quote the Silmarillion - or should that be banned too?

You wouldn't ask a Marxist to confine his/her quotes to a Marxist thread. Why are you trying to sideline us Christians because of our world view?

[DGoeij]

I'm afraid that an Islamic Court of justice to judge on Saddams crimes against the islamic world or the Iraqi people is too much to hope for. Each and every one of the current leaders in this region should stand to trail for their actions against their own populations. I don't think they would support the idea of bringing one of their own kind to public humiliation. It worked out great for Mr. Milosevic, but the did not have the nationwide support Saddam is having. In Serbia, immediatly after the NATO-attacks seized, internal opposition began to grow rapidly again. During the attacks, they had to lie low, to prevent from being called collaborators.

Like someone else stated, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. And this goes for every possible measure against mr. Hussein at the moment. The iraqi's will not throw him out, not as long as they fear and hate the rest of the world more than they hate and fear him.

[Arvedui]

But I'm personally not so sure that they fear and hate the west more than they fear and hate Saddam. I think the internal anti-Saddam forces will be able to overthrow him, if his military forces are destroyed first.

[Húrin Thalion]

We Christians see the dynamics of war differently from the rest of you. Our world-view is coloured by the teachings of the Bible which is a major reference point for our lives. If an avid Marxist posted here, no doubt he/she would quote Karl Marx. A Moslem would quote the Koran. A Tolkien addict might quote the Silmarillion - or should that be banned too?

But you do not see Eledhwen that there is a distinct difference between ideology and religion. Religion is something based upon belief solely as christianity is. It is true to you but not to all, for me the Bible it is just another explanation of the world order and a religious writing comparable to that of Hesiodos. An ideology like marxism is based upon facts and arguments. Of course you have been coloured by the Bible but that should be seen from your arguments and not be your arguments. You are right in your opinion but I don't think that there is a God that created this world. The Bible is not a text about the subject and should therefore not be quoted.

Húrin Thalion

[Eriol]

I hesitated before posting in this thread. I live in a country with little to nil risk of terrorist attacks, and almost no military prowess. Suffice to say that I chose the last option of the poll, but this is my mind speaking, I don't know how I would act if my loved ones were under attack. I hope I would not kill, but...

Anyway, I wish to comment mainly on the applicability of the bible. The bible is not merely a religious document. There are at least two other kinds of insight that can be derived from the bible: historical and ethical. Both are useful in a discussion about the merits of war. I can see why someone would object to a comment about the nature of God in this thread, but I don't see why comments on the military government of Judaea (not that I have seen any) or on the ethical rules of human behavior (as 'thou shall not kill/murder') should be banned in the discussion. Especially as those rules are considered by many to be ecumenical, common to all major religions.

The point is, not everything from the bible is 'purely' Judeo-Christian and therefore 'ideological' in the Marxist sense. There are some facts and arguments there too.

[Húrin Thalion]

The thing is Eriol that the Bible is a book so old (as is Plato and the koran) that we cannot be sure enough on the facts to use it in a real argument. It is also so much feeling involved it his hard for anyone to criticize (sp?) what it says,

Húrin Thalion

[Eriol]

I understand, and agree. That's why there must be no outright ban, but instead each quote must be analyzed for what insight it brings into the discussion. Of course it is a sensitive issue to say that a Bible quote is wrong, but I think it can be agreed whether it is relevant or not without entering into the realm of absolute truth. Banning bible quotes would be more insensitive towards the feelings of those deeply involved with it than reasoned scrutiny of each quote. As any other book, the bible is a starting point for our train of thought, not the final station. It's status as 'food for the soul' can be set aside in this context (for non-believers).

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Arvedui
But I'm personally not so sure that they fear and hate the west more than they fear and hate Saddam. I think the internal anti-Saddam forces will be able to overthrow him, if his military forces are destroyed first.

Internal anti-Saddam forces aren't that big either. In 1991, the Kurds in the north of Iraq had the chance, but world waited too long and did too little to support them. Saddam was allowed to crush them after he had first crushed a less pwerfull uproar in the south. This all happened shortly after the coalition forces had liberated Kuwait and destroyed a large part of the Iraqi army. Too bad at least one division of the fanatic 'Imperial Guards' had escaped with most of its equipment, and now had their hands free to regain control. Even the relatively well-organized, but lighty armed Kurds were no match for them.
You can imagine how the Kurds are not very eager to start another rebellion just like that, even if the west would attack. And in the rest of Iraq, the support for Saddam remains somehow very strong. Partly explained by the total control over the media, another part for the fact that a lot of Iraqi soldiers (who have family, like a lot of soldiers in this world, practically all of them) were killed by the western armies in the Gulf War.
I know of the recent conference by these so-called Iraqi oppositon leaders, but I read about and see a lot of Iraqi civillians, living here and in other European countries, on TV who do not trust, let alone support these men. It makes me seriously doubt wether there is a real strong opposition, capable of setting things right, if Saddam was ever overthrown.

And about Hitler I wish to say you are partly right RD. Hitler was appointed by these men as chancellor, but because his party was one of the biggest in the German parlaiment after the recent elections. Hindenburg et al thought they should get him (and thereby his party) on their side, by giving him a seat of power. And after dear adolf had been given some power, he used that to take full control over the country. One step at a time and supported by a lot of violent men in brown shirts.

[FREEDOM!]

For the blockade to work u would need alot of troops and alot of planes and ships, I am going to be in the United States Air Force so i would eventually be apart of the blockade, but shooting down a plane going into or out of Iraq could prove a fatal move, if a british plane were to fly in and were accidentally shot down then that might bring bad relations between America and Britain.

If we were to blockade Iraq then we would have to have Tanks and ground troops in Iraq, and we would have to watch our backs to make sure that Saddam doesn't try to ally with neighboring Islamic countrys.

[FREEDOM!]

I think i know what the Iraq's are going to do!

I just heard this news report and they said we have about 50,000 troops in Iraq and More on their way! the Irag's are going to wait till most of our troops are in Iraq then they are going to get a country they are allied with (i think either russia or N. Korea) to attack us while we are defensless!

[Anamatar IV]

We could never put so many troops in Iraq that we would be defensless. Russia has been helping the US in this war. And a country that did both ally itself with Iraq and openly attack us would be getting their fair helping of carpet bombings.

Its the blunt truth;)

[Ciryaher]

*grins* How exactly is an army (namely the US Army) defenseless? Don't have time for them to turn off the safties on their M-16 rifles, or pop an armour-piercing round into the chamber of an M1 Abrams? There are such things as inept and inadequate armies, but not defenseless armies...and the US military certainly isn't either.

If the quote had been of some historical significance to Iraq (in this particular thread, I don't see how any quote from any document, other than laws and facts about the UN and Iraq, etc) I would accept it. However, it doesn't, and so keep the religious rhetoric to a minimum.

[FREEDOM!]

I think i was worrying about nothing, whew.

[FREEDOM!]

I just heard last night that or the night b4 that American and English fighter jets had taken out a mobile radar in Iraq, in the No fly zone, i think we might be going to war, and i also heard that Bush told 2 Battle Fleets in the Mediterranian to prep for war!

[TheFool]

From what I've heard they always shoot at each other in the no-fly zones - it's usually about radar/missiles, because the Iraqis want their airspace back... so no WAR! just yet, then :rolleyes:

[FREEDOM!]

What about the Battle Group in the Medditerranion?? i still think we might be going to war!

[Rogue666666]

I for one would gladly go to war. But I think there should be a reason for it. Unfortunately since I don't live in the States I don't get much news as to WHY the president wants to go to war. CNN, the only news channel I get makes it sound like Bush wants to go to war for whatever reason he can find. But the next time I believe that CNN is telling the truth is the day hell freezes over.


So why would we want to go to war without a cuase? And what are the reasons again that Bush wishes to go back to war?

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
And what are the reasons again that Bush wishes to go back to war?

Well, as long as you are yelling very hard about bad things over there, nobody has the chance to domplain about bad things anywhere else. Like directly under their noses. Or maybe in another country, a supposed nuclear power, not so long ago mentioned as part of the 'axis of evil'. (no, not Iraq, I meant North-Korea).:rolleyes:

[Eledhwen]

It seems they've already given it a name - 'Operation Desert Spring'. Sound familiar? Also, the word 'Spring' may be an indication as to the timing.

[FREEDOM!]

If it is, then they just gave away the element of surprise, if we ever had it.

[Eledhwen]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
If it is, then they just gave away the element of surprise, if we ever had it. This reminds me of the cover joke on the UK satirical magazine "Private Eye" when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. A big navy brass asks the Defence Minister "What's the plan, sir?" to which the DM replies: "We launch a surprise attack in six weeks time."

[reem]

i didn't read all the entries but here's what i think of the origional question.
war sucks.
it sucks for those who are fighting in it, and for those who are living through it.
i don't know much about fighting, but i sure know about going through it! luckily at the time the country i was living in was attacked i was too young and non-challant to care about what was going on and so i don't have alot of memories about the war, but when my parents tell me about it my blood freezes. (and we really saw almost nothing of the real suffering!!)
and who is the enemy really?? surely not the people!!
and someone said something about how they would join the war if it was to help israelies against the palistinians, well, i can tell you one thing, whoever said that really doesn't know who the jerks are!
i don't know what kind of news coverage you get over on your side of the globe, but it sure isn't what i get!! because if it was, then you wouldn't be so eager to support the israelis!
anway, this is a very emotional subject for me and i won't go into that.
today's conclusion?? war sucks.
full stop.
reem

[Wolfshead]

Reem, if you don't mind me asking, which war was it you lived through, and where? I'm just curious, that's all.

[reem]

actually, it was during the gulf war when iraq attacked kuwait. i was only about 4 1/2 years old and i don't remember much and my family managed to get out before the ugly part started, but we lost everything and we had to litterally start all over again. it wasn't easy, i can tell you that. and it was a good thing i'm really absent minded by nature so i'm not traumatised my it or anything.
but my parents and elder sister weren't so lucky. we're really lucky we're up on our feet again now and have everything we need and want. but my parents can't afford to go on yearly trip to ireland and france anymore:(
but who cares, i never got a chance to get used to that life. i lost it before i knew i had it.
and yet, (just a foot note) my best friend happens to be iraqi. no hard feelings:)
reem

[FREEDOM!]

I'm sorry, about all that. But it's not the people we would be going to war with, it is the government.

[Arvedui]

Another proof that a lot of things should be tried out before going to war, isn't it?
I really feel sorry for people who have to experience such things.
I hope the best for you and your family in the future, reem.

[Rogue666666]

Reem, I won't even go into the new coverage you get on YOUR side of the planet. I know where you live, and let me say this, I woudn't believe ANYTHING one of your news groups told me before I checked it out for myself. You shoudn't either.

[Valdarmyr]

It's a sad thing, but I believe war of some sort is inevitable in the world the way it is right now. That doesn't mean it's inevitable forever. It's as if the Ring of Power actually exists, with various people in power putting it on in the name of greed. As some psychology books point out, the Warrior archetype is hardwired into our psyches, so this part of the personality will always be present, perhaps until mankind is transformed somehow, returned to a "better state." And I think it's up to each person to let that process happen, to let love and "good will" triumph over greed. Yes, governments may continue to be greedy, but the world has to start to change somewhere, and I believe that change is already happening, because I know people who are changing for the better--you probably do to.

I have nothing against fighting a good fight, but so many wars are fought in the name of greed.

[Wolfshead]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
I'm sorry, about all that. But it's not the people we would be going to war with, it is the government. But an unfortunate fact of war is that it's the people that are hit harder than anyone else. You may dislodge a government, but the regular people suffer most.

[FREEDOM!]

Yes, that is a very unfortunate thing. I actually wish it were not as you have said it to be.

[Rogue666666]

Valdarmyrm, you said that governments go to war because of greed more and more. BUT WHO IS IT THAT SETS UP THE GOVERNMENTS? The people. If a people support their goverment, then going to war with that goverment is the same as going to war with the people. More and more, especially in socialist nations like Holland, I see the goverment taking control of the people. IN America it is mostly still that the people control the goverment , NOT the other way around. Besides, If every American thought that the goverment was going to war because of greed, do you think we would support it? NO.

Too many believe Amercas actions are based on greed. They are wrong. The goverment of America acts for the most part on the will of its people. If you accuse the United States goverment of bieng greedy, you ACCUSE the american people of bieng greedy.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
More and more, especially in socialist nations like Holland, I see the goverment taking control of the people.

Say what? You probably missed the 2002 elections were every party ignoring strong public opinions was severely reduced, in favour of some opposition parties and a even brand new one. I don't mind people being unclear about my country, but don't spread opinions like they're facts.

[Ol'gaffer]

FREEDOM, after looking at some of your posts I've come to this conclusion. You are truly a real nationalist, and I don't mean it in a bad way, but really. Being over anxious about war and wanting to go and kill people, war is never good. War is a terrible thing that no one should ever have to expirience, if you truly with all your heart want to go to war then I pity you for you don't know what your saying. What do you think are your chances of surviving? If truly the war will start then many people will die, it doesn't mater how many people US sends to iraq many will be sent back in a coffin. But this is only how I feel, Ofcourse I would go to war to protect my country from invaders, but america isn't being invaded right now, sure the WTC thing was a horrible incident and I felt bad for it, but after a year and a half I'm not anymore groaping about it, my friend lost many relatives in the incident, people who I knew. But I'm not war mongering about it.

But this is all up to you to decide, I just wanted to let you know that think it over, don't say that war is great and that you would really want to go, even US cannot ressurrect you.

[faila]

I notice many saying that a war agains Iraq would be long and dangerous. I think not. A few air strikes and then a few ground strikes and the war would be over with few casualties. Would i personally fight in the war? No I do not believe that my duty lies in the area of service. Do i think that Iraq should be engaged in war? Yes for i believ t can save lives.

I might be wrong about the legth, but i say this for sure, to throw down a long regime of evil and hatred is an honorable fight and one wort risking a life for, it is possible that 5000 ameicans/britians/allies die in battle, yet this could save 20,000 innocents from dying in the future, where they be americans or iraqies.

[reem]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Reem, I won't even go into the new coverage you get on YOUR side of the planet. I know where you live, and let me say this, I woudn't believe ANYTHING one of your news groups told me before I checked it out for myself. You shoudn't either.

hear hear!! well we finally agree on something, that's good! so i don't see the need to go any further on this subject.:)
reem

[faila]

about the two people argueing over news.... nither news oranization is giving you completetruth, their giving you the side of the story that they want you to hear.

SO I use multipl news services both liberal and conservative. (Liberal-CNN,ABC,NBC Conservaive-Worldnetdaily.com Fox)

[reem]

thanks for the sympathy all:) (at least the ones who gave it on the top).
and it's true that it's not the people we're really fighting, but the governments and what they stand for. but it's also true that the people get all the pressure. they're the ones getting killed in the end. war is a very diverse topic. i can be against it at one moment then totally for it the next! it just depends on the country and how i see things and what i think. but in the end war is necessary, wether we like it or not. and as long as there are people roaming the earth there will be conflict.
so let us just accept the unevitable and not trouble ourselves too much with it, because that's how life goes.
reem

[FREEDOM!]

What does it mean to be Nationalist?? And i have decided that i don't "wish" for war. (i don't think that is the right word but it will work.)

I am for war, when it is nesicary, but i long for peace. But i know that peace will never come till Jesus returns.

And to clarify what i said earlier about dying for my country i meant, that i would die to preserve my countrys freedom.

And the news is almost always screwed no matter who tells it. Take the bombings in Ireland for example: The news makes those bombings out to be HUGE thins but they are not, they usually do not claim as many lives as said too have.

Well i have school to do, so i will run.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
And the news is almost always screwed no matter who tells it. Take the bombings in Ireland for example: The news makes those bombings out to be HUGE thins but they are not, they usually do not claim as many lives as said too have.

Yeah, stupid media people. What's so huge about a bomb going off?:confused:

[Rogue666666]

LOL. WEll, Freedom, you remind me of, umm, myself, years ago.


So, DGoeij, you don't get it. YOu see, maybe the ones that ignored strong popular opinion got left out, but from what I see, the Dutch strong popular opinion is that the goverment should have more control. That's what most dutch people seem to believe. And of course they don't whant a dictatorship, but they wans massive health care plans, and they don't seem to mind that half of their income goes to the goverment. Jeez, the goverment in Holland has enough money to paint all their bike paths red. You know how many OTHER goverments could build bike paths across the thier country and then paint them?

But hey, I didn't miss it when Pim was shot, or the fact that his party still recieved several political positions DESPITE severe oposition.

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by DGoeij
Yeah, stupid media people. What's so huge about a bomb going off?:confused:

Well see, i have a friend who lives in Ireland, and we were talking and he said that the media makes the bombings out to be more than they are. thats what i meant. i didn't mean that a bomb going off wasn't huge.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by FREEDOM!
Well see, i have a friend who lives in Ireland, and we were talking and he said that the media makes the bombings out to be more than they are. thats what i meant. i didn't mean that a bomb going off wasn't huge.

I clearly misunderstood the remark, so that's ok. Sorry about that. I can understand your annoyance about wrong information being spread about events. Especially if one, like your friend, tends to know the real story.

Rogue666666
So, DGoeij, you don't get it. YOu see, maybe the ones that ignored strong popular opinion got left out, but from what I see, the Dutch strong popular opinion is that the goverment should have more control. That's what most dutch people seem to believe. And of course they don't whant a dictatorship, but they wans massive health care plans, and they don't seem to mind that half of their income goes to the goverment. Jeez, the goverment in Holland has enough money to paint all their bike paths red. You know how many OTHER goverments could build bike paths across the thier country and then paint them?

But hey, I didn't miss it when Pim was shot, or the fact that his party still recieved several political positions DESPITE severe oposition.

Strong public opinion that the government should do a lot of things, and at the same time stay out of peoples lives was raging for sometime, but has cooled down a bit. New elections are coming up, and the issues brought forward by the late Fortuyn have become part of political debate.
Now, if you have so much trouble with the Dutch taxing system or government policies in general, I suggest you do not come and live here. We've had this system for quite some time now, and still most people tend to agree with it.
I do not see why you're so worked up about it. I live in one of the richest nations in the world. Things could be better perhaps, but could certainly be a lot worse. I'm worrying about the results of exams, young people of my age elsewhere are worrying if their food supplies will last until the end of the month or if their house will be the next to be destroyed. I certainly know who's the lucky one.

[Rogue666666]

I could care less about your form of goverment. I don't live their anymore. BUT, what I do care about is that fact that people, (and I used Dutch people as an example) whant their goverment to have more control over them , then they do over their goverment. If a dutch citizen wanted to pay less taxes, tell me what the chances are of him actually changing the tax rate?

You see, many accuse the U.S goverment of bieng greedy. I then pointed out the fact that Americans are in control of their goverment, so if you believe the U.S goverment is greedy, then you accuse the majority of the American population of bieng greedy.

Finally, how anyone would accuse Americans of bieng greedy, when (and again I use the Dutch as an example) the dutch goverment uses its money to paint its bike paths, isntead of doing something like sending millions of euro's to Sudan to help starving children. AND I am totally not saying that the dutch goverment should do something like this, I'm saying that don't point fingers at MY goverment, when EVERY goverment has been greedy or done wrong. :)

Those who have not sinned, may cast the first stone...

[Arvedui]

We are getting a little out of focus right now, but I could not let that last one stay un-answered.
You see, many accuse the U.S goverment of bieng greedy. I then pointed out the fact that Americans are in control of their goverment, so if you believe the U.S goverment is greedy, then you accuse the majority of the American population of bieng greedy.
What exactly do you mean by greedy in this context? If you by greedy mean that the U.S. Government is trying to secure as much resources as possible from any corner of the world, to the pretended best of its citizens, then they are greedy. And are the majority of the US population (not exactly the American, if you note the difference) greedy? IMO, yes they are. One simple question: Would any US citizen accept the tax rates in European country? I think not.
High tax rates do not only have a down-side, unless if you keep your eye fixed at your bank account. From high taxes we experience free school's, all the way up till university level. We have free hospitals, and also my government does send quite a lot of money to third-world countries. And a lot of other actions that benefit those who are less capable than me to make a living.

So you see, there are different ways of talking about greed.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Finally, how anyone would accuse Americans of bieng greedy, when (and again I use the Dutch as an example) the dutch goverment uses its money to paint its bike paths, isntead of doing something like sending millions of euro's to Sudan to help starving children. AND I am totally not saying that the dutch goverment should do something like this, I'm saying that don't point fingers at MY goverment, when EVERY goverment has been greedy or done wrong. :)


I completely miss the idea of greedy when referring to the dutch government, especially with the examples given by you. When you start using examples, at least make sure you know what you are talking about. The Scandinavian countries are sending more money and other support to various Third World nations, compared ot the Netherlands, but that's about it. I find it very funny to see a US citizen complain about the support of a European nation for Third World countries.
Secondly, I'm guessing you are referring to the red sides of some roads were it's impossible to find any other solution to protect bikers. It may sound rather crazy for someone living in a country were you have to travel a lot of miles before you get anywhere, but in my country, bikes are used very very frequently. So, in order to protect a large part of the civilization (especially children, which use bikes a lot) some parts of the road inside city limits were painted or marked. This causes a severe drop in causalties in traffic, because it makes drivers aware of the presence of bikers on the side of the road. Dutch voters tend to prefer the government to spend money on these things. We do not feel the need for any 'Star Wars' project, like every US citizen seems to wish. At least, they must wish for it, because their government is controlled by them.

[Rogue666666]

LOL. This is getting ridiculuos.

I could just see the Dutch goverment building a nuclear defense program. :rolleyes:

You see, the people of Holland don't want their taxes going to the military and other such things. Why? Becuase no one has threatened them for fifty years. Their worst danger is their lack of room.

If any nation did decide to attack Holland, for whatever insane reason, they would be quickly crushed to pieces ( Holland that is ). The Dutch people's desire not to spend money on their military is another form of greed. They aren't going to spend money on defending themselves, becuase they know that the surrounding nations will do it all for them.

In the end, EVERY countries main motivation is to improve itself, above all else. We could classify all countries under greedy, if we explained it that way.

Let me point out another example of the Dutch people bieng greedy. Immigration. Most of the Dutch youth that I talked to actually HATED immigrants from places such as Morrocco. They think that their land is already squished full of people, ( which it is ) and so not only do they not want more immigrants, but they already loath the ones who have made it in.

I'm simply trying to point out that ALL nations have their own goals in mind, and their is nothing wrong with it.

High tax rates could also be described as greedy, AND lazy. The people whant the goverment to have most of their money and make the improvements for them, so that they don't have to grow up and be responsible. Americans don't whant the government to have more control over them, and our form of government forces people to be responsible for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I love the dutch people, but I don't always agree with their politics. What I'm trying to point out is, everyone likes to stick their finger in the U.S.'s face and scream at us for all that we do wrong, but rarely are we thanked for the help that we give.( As we spend hundreds of millions every year in aid)


Those of you who have not sinned, cast the first stone...

[DGoeij]

This is indeed getting ridiculous.
You seem to have spoken to some young inhabitants of my country and claim to know how our entire nation thinks about things.
Talk about casting the first stone, your biased and utterly wrong statements about my homecountry do nothing in bettering my judgement about yourself, but I don't feel like I should judge the US or its citizens in general by your statements.

[Rogue666666]

Blathering on about my biased and injust statements doesn't argue your point. Maybe you should try arguing the statements instead of complaining about them.

I didn't just talk to a "couple of youth". A MAJOR political party who had its leader assasinated also believed in the complete stop of immigration to your country and the removal of illegal immigrants already their. They one several seats in your goverment. So don't get on me about a mistake you've made. Judging a nations political outlook by the views of one or two people on this forum.

Besides, you miss the mark completely if you believe that the purpose of my statements was to attack your country. Though it seems that MANY manage to get away with attacking MY country and no one gives them a second glance. :D

You don't even say WHY my statements are wrong. You just complain.


And finally, if you think that your personal opinion of me is going to effect my political views, or ANY of my views for that matter, then you are wrong.
:)

[DGoeij]

Don't lie to me, in my previous posts I have stated arguments against your allegations time and time again, you just responded by making new ones.

I explained why your statement about 'wasting' tax-payers money on painting bike-roads was wrong.

I explained you were wrong about our reason's for guns being illegal here.

You were wrong in claiming the dutch people have less control over their government than those in the US. As an example I explained what happened during the elections in may 2002.

I also explained to you, I don't see your point in making these allegations and then complaining the same things are happening to you.
Yet, you seem to miss all that, or don't bother to respond to any of it. So I saw no reason in responding to the latest statements made by you.

And you're wrong again in your conclusions about the sudden growth of Fortuyn's party. Immigrant policy was part of their agenda, but certainly not the major part. Their focus was aimed at the lack of interest of government- (and other party-) officials in public opinion about a broad range of issues, like public heath, security, and including problems concerning immigration. The fact that much of the international press focused on their anti-immigration point of view, is too bad. There was a lot more going on. Why in the latest elections they lost 2/3rd of their seats is unclear, but other parties haven't been rallying for an immigration stop.

Your frustrations about anti-US posts on this forum are valid, there have been lots, but if you can only respond by acting in kind, I do not feel the need for much sympathy towards you. I don't expect you to bother, I'm just letting you know.

[Rogue666666]

You still miss MY point. My attacks on your country were to only prove one thing. That the UNITED STATES IS NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY TO MAKE MISTAKES. That seems to be a common belief around here. America is a huge bad guy trying to take over the world, and all the peace loving nations, i.e. Holland, are perfect and never do anything wrong.

People are ALWAYS questioning the motives of OUR leaders of OUR people of OUR laws. No one mentions things like the fact that France assisted Iraq in building it nuclear facilities. And now they don't have the guts to go destroy them.

The ONLY reason I chose Holland as a basis for proving my point was that it is the only European nation I've lived in for any extended amount of time.

You of course deny all of my allegations against your country, and I would do the same if you made such comments against mine.

There is absolutely no offense intended towards you or holland, but every time I see a post clamoring about the wrong doing of the US I feel like taking their accusing finger and shoving back in their face.

Maybe now you have a taste of how I feel when people start screaming half lies about the way my country does things. Maybe you can learn from this lesson why America defends her actions. Maybe now you will be more carefull before you scream accusations which YOU have no proof for, becuase now you may have a small glimpse of the way it feels to have your country accused of something.

There, that ends my line of reasoning about my earlier statements regarding The Netherlands. :D

[DGoeij]

You clearly haven't read my previous posts well enough to see I already pointed out I've never accused your country with anything and saw no reason for you to do so. I also pointed out that it is a lousy way of trying to gain sympathy with actions like this. That's the last paragraph of the post you just responded to.

Acting like this, you behave no different than some terrorists, who claim they or their people are suffering, so other people should suffer in kind. That's short-sighted and even dangerous reasoning, whomever may be doing it.

You said you try to point out the US isn't a big bad guy. I've never claimed this is the case. Again I point out, that, speaking for myself, I question and criticize the actions of every government in this world, including that of my own. You may criticize the actions of my government, that of the US or whomever did something that concerns you, but at least make sure you know what you are talking about.

[Rogue666666]

Of course, My last post was not specifically in response to you, but more in response to anyone and everyone who has ever just assualted my country without even trying to give facts proving their point.


Know what I'm talking about? Can you say that anyone here REALLY knows what their talking about?

Every time someone says that America whants Iraq's oil, they don't know what their talking about.

:D

[FREEDOM!]

Well, Gentlemen, looks like war starts Wednesday.

[faila]

Finally the war apon us. Bush proves gthe Un pointless andgets rid of his enemies in the same speach. THe time to liberate iraq is apon us!

[Samweis]

Sorry, Bush proved the law of the stronger and breaking the international law, only.

[Bombadillo]

hurray hurray lets celebrate!!!
great for you guys who wnated the us to go to war
I'm personally not quite happy with this news... to say the least

I personally would sit in a corner shivering if i was asked to go to war...

(oh and rogue: even if Holland wouldn't cut down on military we would be ants in comparison the all other states in the world, yes we tend to think were so big....)

[Samweis]

Don´t get me wrong I´m pro a war, but with a clear UN-resolution only.

[faila]

Originally posted by Samweis
Sorry, Bush proved the law of the stronger and breaking the international law, only. Exactly. He broke international law and the UN cant don anything. THat proves them pointless.

Personally I think their should be no international law, but thats besides the point.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by faila
Personally I think their should be no international law, but thats besides the point.

A world without international law would be hell, because people would have no rights in foreign countries. The prisoners of wars would be tortured and killed. There would be no embassies, no co-operation in legal actions and there would be many, many wars around the world.

The USA wouldn´t be strong enough to hold the position as lonely super power.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Samweis
Don´t get me wrong I´m pro a war, but with a clear UN-resolution only.
You know I don't understand how so many people adhere to this idea yet see America as the problem party in the U.N. If you agree that there is a good case for U.N. action shouldn't your anger and distaste be directed towards those countries threatening veto? I don't like it without U.N. backing either; that's why the transparently self-serving actions of the French and Russians p!ss me off no end.

As for a binding U.N. resolution, what meaning was the term "serious consequences" from the unanimously accepted 1441 intended to convey?

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Parrot
You know I don't understand how so many people adhere to this idea yet see America as the problem party in the U.N.´

I think this comes, because Bush changed the US Iraq-policy last summer - so it was his job to consult or convince the others not to inform them about the taken decision.

If you agree that there is a good case for U.N. action shouldn't your anger and distaste be directed towards those countries threatening veto?

The US-adminstration made it very easy for the other countries with a veto, because the "prove" was really dilettantish (f.e. Blair´s speech with the quotes of a students homework about Iraq) and the "reason why" changed every week, when the US-adminstration recognized it didn´t work.

On the other hand the others (Germany included of course) should have been more forthcoming.

I don't like it without U.N. backing either; that's why the transparently self-serving actions of the French and Russians p!ss me off no end.

Do you really think, that Bush is more unselfish than France and Russia - next year he wants to be reelected. He declared last year a "war on terror", which is not to win clearly, because it is not a conventional war. So he requires a victory in a war between nations.

As for a binding U.N. resolution, what meaning was the term "serious consequences" from the unanimously accepted 1441 intended to convey?

Serious consequences means not cleary war - and war has to be the last mean of policy.

[ms Greenleaf]

Okay I do not think that Bush is very intelligent and this is why.

Say you had a rabid (insane) dog Huissain who you(Bush) thought had sharp teeth and claws (WWOMD) would you corner and threaten it...(give him 48 hours to leave.) because you knew that would make it so he had to react.?? how does the reasoning work/./?/??


BTW if there was no international law then no one would have anyone to look up to and there would be a hole hell of a lot more wars.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Okay I do not think that Bush is very intelligent and this is why.

Say you had a rabid (insane) dog Huissain who you(Bush) thought had sharp teeth and claws (WWOMD) would you corner and threaten it...(give him 48 hours to leave.) because you knew that would make it so he had to react.?? how does the reasoning work/./?/??


BTW if there was no international law then no one would have anyone to look up to and there would be a hole hell of a lot more wars.
Well, for some reason my neighbors have decided to give the rabid dog the benefit of the doubt and are treating my like I'm the one foaming at the mouth. And for some reason they think this is really about the time he crapped in my yard 12 years ago rather than me trying to protect my children from his rabid bite. So to try and dispel these misconceptions I have to give this dog every chance to take an out before I resort to shooting him, lest my neighbors think poorly of me (even though they will be damn glad to see the end of this dog).

I would add that this action equates more to opening a gate and allowing the dog to leave of his own accord than it does to cornering it. He was already cornered.

[ms Greenleaf]

Well it seems that you want the dog dead even though it means that u will kill all your neighbors other animals and children... is it worth it especially since the rabid dog has not hurt anyone since?

[faila]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Well it seems that you want the dog dead even though it means that u will kill all your neighbors other animals and children... is it worth it especially since the rabid dog has not hurt anyone since? I don't really understand most of your post, but ill try to refute waht you said any way.

Saddam is person who has killed thousands of people. It matters little when he killed them, and he will most likely continue to kill. The man need to be romoved from power so he cant have the ability to kill people. It actually might make people die less because of this war.

I typed that in as simple terms as I could.

[ms Greenleaf]

Yah but there has to be a better way to do this...IF only women ruled the world... (you all know the rest)

Well it turns out that us arguing has done nothing the UN has done nothing the riots have done nothing and this was all going to happen anyways...who would have guessed:rolleyes:

[Parrot]

Originally posted by ms Greenleaf
Well it seems that you want the dog dead even though it means that u will kill all your neighbors other animals and children... is it worth it especially since the rabid dog has not hurt anyone since?
Uhhh........ I tried to give the dog and his whelps an out, they didn't take it. :confused: He hasn't hurt anyone because he knows I have been watching him and it's a dirt-nap if he does. Stop watching and it's back to business as usual.

[tookish-girl]

Originally posted by faila
Saddam is person who has killed thousands of people. It matters little when he killed them, and he will most likely continue to kill. The man need to be romoved from power so he cant have the ability to kill people. It actually might make people die less because of this war.

I typed that in as simple terms as I could.

True, but how many more people are going to be killed in this war than Saddam ever killed? Yes, I think it would be better for Iraq if he wasn't in charge. But bombing Iraq isn't an ideal way of helping the Iraqi people now is it?
How many have died today I wonder?

[Parrot]

Originally posted by tookish-girl
True, but how many more people are going to be killed in this war than Saddam ever killed?
We counting Iranians? Kurds? Kuwaitis? Or just Iraqis? and does that include victims of sanctions he brought upon his country and has forced to continue through his noncompliance?

You WILL lose this argument - please don't make me post a link.

[ms Greenleaf]

Okya Parrot you obviously belevie in this war which is a first but you seem a logical person...WHY does there have to be a war...maybe because Bush is not willing to take back his men because that would mean he lost how many billions

or do you truly beleive this is for the IRaqi people...because he could have helped them out LONG ago.

[Anamatar IV]

Actually, with all these precision guided missiles and bombs, very few civilians will die. Tookish_Girl you ask how many got killed in the bombing last night:

ZERO. 48 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and a bunch of bunker buster bombs and yet no casualty. In the air raids of today: there has been no report of a bomb going awry. Infact, the only report I've heard of an Iraqi dying is in the fire fights between the Marines and the Iraqi army today when 4 Iraqi soldiers were killed and 5 wounded.

Also, T_G Saddam Hussein WOULD HAVE killed a whole lot more people if his technology was better. In the Gulf war he launched SCUDs at Israel. Almost all of them were Duds. Some landed in the ocean. This Gulf War he has launched missiles at Kuwait: 3 were intercepted and one landed in the middle of a dessert.:rolleyes:

[ms Greenleaf]

Really thats strange Anamatar... I seem to remember hearing that one of the bombs hit an apartment building...:rolleyes:

BTW this is for your next post..is CNN not an AMerican(therefore bias) sports staion???:confused:

[Anamatar IV]

Really? This is news to me! I am intrigued by it. Can you give me details? Like quote a reported or copy something from cnn.com or someplace? I'd like to know about this!

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
Actually, with all these precision guided missiles and bombs, very few civilians will die. Tookish_Girl you ask how many got killed in the bombing last night:

ZERO. 48 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and a bunch of bunker buster bombs and yet no casualty. In the air raids of today: there has been no report of a bomb going awry. Infact, the only report I've heard of an Iraqi dying is in the fire fights between the Marines and the Iraqi army today when 4 Iraqi soldiers were killed and 5 wounded.

Also, T_G Saddam Hussein WOULD HAVE killed a whole lot more people if his technology was better. In the Gulf war he launched SCUDs at Israel. Almost all of them were Duds. Some landed in the ocean. This Gulf War he has launched missiles at Kuwait: 3 were intercepted and one landed in the middle of a dessert.:rolleyes:

One of the missles they fired at us hit the river.

[Arvedui]

I believe we will have a good time after the war, when we are reading these posts again. Please remember my fellow Forum members, that it is impossible for any of us laymen (and women ;) ) to find what are the true results of any bomb-attack, artillery-barrage, SCUD-attack etc. Let me remind you a little bit on the initial reports on the effectivity of Patriot-missiles in the Gulf War of 1991. After what the media told us then, those missiles shot down almost every SCUD that was fired at Israel. The truth that have been known later was that none of the Patriots hit any SCUD. Fortunately, the SCUD-missile is one of the most IN-accurate weapons ever produced.

My point is that we will have to wait for a while until the results are known to the public. And it will take years before the Armed Forces will tell the whole truth. It is the way they have to work.

I hope that as few civilians as possible will be hurt or killed. I hope the so-called 'coalition' will achieve their goal, and decapitate the present Iraqi government. I hope that in the end, one of the oldest cultures in the world will be that of a happy and free people. And I hope that the process leading up to the opening of the war will learn the various leaders in the world something on how to prevent war in the future.

Amen.

[Thorin]

I must say that my opinions have changed somewhat over the course of the last week.

As far as I'm concerned, though it is our right to do so, all this protesting is mute, redundant and self serving. Protest to stop a potential war, fine. But once the war is started, deal with it and refocus your attention. I think that it is time we support what is happening rather than protest. Now that the war has started, our thoughts should be with the soldiers fighting overseas and hoping that the US does what they sought out to do: remove the Hussein regime and try and repare relations with the Arabic world by helping them rebuild a better government. And also for the safe return of the brave fighting men and women.

I don't however, judge those who are stepping back from this. France, Mexico, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Russia and countless other countries. I hope that the US does not get righteous and ignorant towards these countries when all dies down. I would hate to have my US visiting days marred by animosity from its people towards me. But when I see the Dixie Chicks (the most promising and awarded country group these days) losing the charts and being boycotted over one comment, I don't see much hope for US/Canadian relations even if Canada decides to involve themselves.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Thorin
I don't however, judge those who are stepping back from this. France, Mexico, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Russia and countless other countries. I hope that the US does not get righteous and ignorant towards these countries when all dies down. I would hate to have my US visiting days marred by animosity from its people towards me. But when I see the Dixie Chicks (the most promising and awarded country group these days) losing the charts and being boycotted over one comment, I don't see much hope for US/Canadian relations even if Canada decides to involve themselves.

Yes, we should care about the relationships between us. In Germany we say "much china has been pounded".

[tookish-girl]

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
Actually, with all these precision guided missiles and bombs, very few civilians will die. Tookish_Girl you ask how many got killed in the bombing last night:

ZERO. 48 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and a bunch of bunker buster bombs and yet no casualty. In the air raids of today: there has been no report of a bomb going awry. Infact, the only report I've heard of an Iraqi dying is in the fire fights between the Marines and the Iraqi army today when 4 Iraqi soldiers were killed and 5 wounded.

Also, T_G Saddam Hussein WOULD HAVE killed a whole lot more people if his technology was better. In the Gulf war he launched SCUDs at Israel. Almost all of them were Duds. Some landed in the ocean. This Gulf War he has launched missiles at Kuwait: 3 were intercepted and one landed in the middle of a dessert.:rolleyes:

ZERO???? Really, in all those bombs dropped on Baghdad, not one civilian was killed? That's amazing. I had no idea America had invented bombs that actually didn't kill anyone.
Also, "Saddam would have killed more if his technology was better?" I thought it was the amount of Saddam's technology, the famous "weapons of mass destruction" that the war is being fought to recover and destroy in the first place. If those missiles are so useless then all the troops can pack up and go home now then.

[Anamatar IV]

You misunderstand my time frame when I said zero. I was not talking about today's last night. I was talking about when Bush gave the go with the "Targets of Opportunity" One area was targetted. No civilians were there.

And the war is about much more than the weapons of mass destrustion. Why would it be called Operation Iraqi Freedom if that was all it was about? As Bush and Rumsfeld have said many times this war is about liberating Iraq from Saddam.

You say his missiles are not useless. Then why is it that not a single bomb blew up in Israel during the Gulf War? Why is it that none are blowing up in this war coming from Iraq?

In today's "Shock and Awe" strikes I saw civilians in the STREETS of Baghdad watching the bombs and the fires. They feel pretty secure, don't they.

[tookish-girl]

I've heard nothing about Iraqi's in the streets watching the bombs. On the BBC, they're saying that the people of Baghdad are sleeping throughout the day, so they are awake at night during the strikes, that they are hiding in their cellars, that the streets are deserted as if there's a curfew (which there isn't!)Windows are smashed because of the blasts that are occurring and it seems that buildings have been shaking so people who live on the top floors of blocks of flats have moved to the ground floor.
Sounds like they feel secure to you?

(Source: The BBC)

[Anamatar IV]

I'm not gonna argue with you since I have never watched BBC and I have heard reports of Baghdad being eerily quiet, but still what I said is true. When Rumsfeld made his