Isn't war evil?

[datan]

Non-violent solutions were attempted (for over 10 years) - but Hussein refused to cooperate. Bush made the right decision given the information he had as well as the iraqi government's unwillingness to cooperate. If Hussein would have given the UN inspectors free reign to inspect wherever and whenever they wanted - then war could have been avoided.

why do Bush supporters always bring in this lie, that the UN inspectors were not given free reign to inspect wherever and whenever they wanted? I can only think of two reasons: they are desperate for a reason to persuade others from thinking that maybe Bush didn't do everything he could to avoid war, or maybe they have been brainwashed by Bush/the RNC/conservative talk shows or are deliberately keeping themselves ignorant.

Another common lie I hear is how Saddam broke UN resolutions by shooting at US planes over the no-fly zones. Just goes to show that war supporters really are clunching at straws.

Also - there has been a direct link between Hussein's government and AlQueda - and in the grand scheme of things this war could very well have affected the future of mankind in a positive manner.

you mind explaining this link, and why Secretary Powell said last month that he hadn't seen any evidence of such 'connections'?

 

[datan]

I disagree - tell that to the national guard MP unit that is over
there - mostly made up of NY fire fighters and police officers - who lost friends and family in the 911 terrorist attack.

so what does that have to do with the war in Iraq?

Misty you can be proud of the job that your husband is doing (or did) over there. Don't loose sight of the fact that he is defending your country - statements like the one quoted above (which is not based on fact) do nothing but hurt morale.

defending your country from what???
didn't they say that during the Vietnam war?

Many who are there believe in what they are doing - many who died believed in what they were doing. Please think of them and their families before you make a statement like that in the future.

yes, the truth hurts doesn't it?
dying for a lie? which family would want to admit that?

 

[datan]

Actually, it wasn't "pre-emptive". Perhaps you missed it, but Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire that he, himself, signed. Second, the war was only after thirteen years of failed "non-violent solutions".

I agree. It wasn't pre-emptive. Pre-emptive means you were about to be attacked, and you attacked first.
This was naked aggression with no basis under international law.

Let me make something very clear for you: under international law, war is allowed only in self-defense (a pre-emptive strike), which we both agree wasn't the case; and when it is authorised by a UN resolution. I don't suppose you could cite the exact UN resolution that gave authority for this war? Note that even disobeying UN resolution doesn't automatically give you the right for war.

Third, it should be noted that Coalition forces went to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties. While a certain number of innocents will always die in war - and that is a terrible thing - to say that President Bush sought "death first", as though we just went into Iraq shooting first and asking questions later is just ignorant on your part.

the US troops in Iraq have a disconcerting tendency to shoot indiscriminately and ask questions later when they take fire or are hit by bombs. Have you read any articles on how US troops react when they are attacked?

 

[AndOne]

why do Bush supporters always bring in this lie, that the UN inspectors were not given free reign to inspect wherever and whenever they wanted? I can only think of two reasons: they are desperate for a reason to persuade others from thinking that maybe Bush didn't do everything he could to avoid war, or maybe they have been brainwashed by Bush/the RNC/conservative talk shows or are deliberately keeping themselves ignorant.

Beacause it is not a lie. The UN inspectors themselves confirmed this on a daily basis. They were not allowed to inspect specific areas that they wanted to. Also - if you disagree with me - that is certainly your right but resorting to calling me ignorant is both rude and nonproductive.

you mind explaining this link, and why Secretary Powell said last month that he hadn't seen any evidence of such 'connections'?

A New York Times Article confirmed just two weeks ago that a connection was made.

 

[12volt_man]

I agree. It wasn't pre-emptive. Pre-emptive means you were about to be attacked, and you attacked first.
This was naked aggression with no basis under international law.

So then, the cease fire he signed and Res 1441 meant nothing?

Let me make something very clear for you...

Gee, thanks. Like I need you to make anything clear for me when you're so confused on the facts in the first place. Educate yourself and then get back to us.

under international law, war is allowed only in self-defense (a pre-emptive strike), which we both agree wasn't the case; and when it is authorised by a UN resolution. I don't suppose you could cite the exact UN resolution that gave authority for this war? Note that even disobeying UN resolution doesn't automatically give you the right for war.

Cite the law and show where in the Constitution it says we are bound by such "international laws"?

the US troops in Iraq have a disconcerting tendency to shoot indiscriminately and ask questions later when they take fire or are hit by bombs.

Yeah, yeah, we know: they're all baby killers.

We're still waiting for you to back up your numbers.

Have you read any articles on how US troops react when they are attacked?

Yes. Many, in fact.

I would add also that the point of this thread is whether or not war is evil and neither you nor your side has demonstrated that it is.

 

[AndOne]

yes, the truth hurts doesn't it?
dying for a lie? which family would want to admit that?

I can certainly understand that you want to voice your opinion against the current conflict in Iraq - however this may not be the best place for you to do so. This particular forum is designated for military members and their families. Why not make your political statements in the political forum?

 

[Key Of David]

War isn't evil....eating Sushi is.

 

[datan]

Beacause it is not a lie. The UN inspectors themselves confirmed this on a daily basis. They were not allowed to inspect specific areas that they wanted to. Also - if you disagree with me - that is certainly your right but resorting to calling me ignorant is both rude and nonproductive.

sure...back this statement up.

A New York Times Article confirmed just two weeks ago that a connection was made.

back this statement up too.
what did the article say?
it wouldn't happen to be an editorial piece by a known conservative would it?

 

[datan]

I can certainly understand that you want to voice your opinion against the current conflict in Iraq - however this may not be the best place for you to do so. This particular forum is designated for military members and their families. Why not make your political statements in the political forum?

so are you claiming that people who are not affiliated with the military cannot post in it?

 

[datan]

So then, the cease fire he signed and Res 1441 meant nothing?

they didn't specify what kind of enforcement they would allow. They specifically said that the UN Security Council would decide how to proceed if any breech were to occur.

Gee, thanks. Like I need you to make anything clear for me when you're so confused on the facts in the first place.

and what facts would I be confused about?

Cite the law and show where in the Constitution it says we are bound by such "international laws"?

oh.
so now you're arguing that it wasn't in accordance with international law but so what?

Yeah, yeah, we know: they're all baby killers.

some aren't, I'm sure.
One of my friend served in a combat zone and he never told me he killed any babies. Come to think of it, I never asked him though.

We're still waiting for you to back up your numbers.
Yes. Many, in fact.

then you should know that they usually just shoot indiscriminately, sometimes wounding civilians.

but if you still disagree with me, every time I see such an article, I'll post it here so that we can discuss it.

 

[12volt_man]

so now you're arguing that it wasn't in accordance with international law but so what?

Please show where I've said anything of the sort.

some aren't, I'm sure.

So then, you admit that you believe that at least some of our soldiers are "baby killers"?

then you should know that they usually just shoot indiscriminately, sometimes wounding civilians.

That does not back up your numbers.

but if you still disagree with me, every time I see such an article, I'll post it here so that we can discuss it.

So then, you made the claim without any sources? What, you're just guessing?

C'mon, you made the claim, now back it up or admit that you're just shooting your mouth off about something you know nothing about.

 

[datan]

Please show where I've said anything of the sort.

you asked me to show you where in the United States Constitution it says anything about following international law. Why don't you tell me what you were implying about that statement.

So then, you admit that you believe that at least some of our soldiers are "baby killers"?

Yes. I believe that US soldiers have killed innocent children in Iraq.

That does not back up your numbers.

what numbers?

So then, you made the claim without any sources? What, you're just guessing?

C'mon, you made the claim, now back it up or admit that you're just shooting your mouth off about something you know nothing about.

okay I'll call your bluff. Look out for the new thread.

 

[12volt_man]

you asked me to show you where in the United States Constitution it says anything about following international law. Why don't you tell me what you were implying about that statement.

I was implying that you should tell me what these laws are and where in the Constitution it says that we are bound by them.

Yes. I believe that US soldiers have killed innocent children in Iraq.

okay I'll call your bluff. Look out for the new thread.

I've seen it and have already given my opinion there.

 

[datan]

I was implying that you should tell me what these laws are and where in the Constitution it says that we are bound by them.

it's hard to argue with someone who refuses to take a stand.

are you arguing on the basis that the war was justified under international law; or that the war wasn't justified under international law but the US is not bound by international law; or maybe some other scenario?

Take a stand.

I've seen it and have already shared my opinion there.

how can that be when our discussion is still ongoing? you're not one who shuts down others prematurely are you?

 

[12volt_man]

it's hard to argue with someone who refuses to take a stand.

are you arguing on the basis that the war was justified under international law; or that the war wasn't justified under international law but the US is not bound by international law; or maybe some other scenario?

Take a stand.

I have taken a stand, thank you.

I'm arguing that the war is justified for a variety of reasons, several of which I've outlined for you.

I am also arguing that while we may work in concert with other nations, the Constitution is our sole authority.

you're not one who shuts down others prematurely are you?

Not at all. Each of your points in that thread has been shot down.

Sorry, but that thread is the rhetorical equivilent of the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.

 

[KristiXP]

*Mod hat on*

I've seen a little flaming going on in this thread. Remember this little saying? "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." That applies to this thread now.

Play NICE!

*KristiXP keeps mod hat on.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

so when God tells you to love your enemies and do good to those who despitefully use you?
that would technically be after you killed and stole what was theirs but was actually yours, technically.
It is very convienent to have a technical God.

Sorry I havn't posted, i've gone on vacation...

Anwways...


This is going to sound controdictory, even to myself, but yet it makes sense to me: Just because I kill somoene does not mean I do not love them.

By serving in war, I am following my countries authorities, as long as they tell me to go to war.
If my enemy is shooting at me, there is nothing wrong with shooting back. Do I want to out of malice and anger? No. I am simply defending myself and my county and my battle buddy.
Not to mention: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Despite the irony and extreme of the issue... I know people will be shooting at me and if they are shooting at me, I WILL shoot back.

 

[SiteCR2]

wow who would have thought this would lead to this long line of verbal barbs.

posted much earlier in this thread. but off prepping others to go over and continue the fight....

yes I'm old to hump a ruck. but that's the good part, watching those youngsters try to keep up. They're catching me. but i'm not done yet.

still agree War is not good, but is necessary (not always, many times countries use it for other means than protection). seeing dead people and what a 2000lb bomb does to a human makes one really think deep.
getting shot at makes one return fire even faster.

 

[daidhaid]

Sorry I havn't posted, i've gone on vacation...

Anwways...


This is going to sound controdictory, even to myself, but yet it makes sense to me: Just because I kill somoene does not mean I do not love them.

By serving in war, I am following my countries authorities, as long as they tell me to go to war.
If my enemy is shooting at me, there is nothing wrong with shooting back. Do I want to out of malice and anger? No. I am simply defending myself and my county and my battle buddy.
Not to mention: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Despite the irony and extreme of the issue... I know people will be shooting at me and if they are shooting at me, I WILL shoot back.

Ok nothing I say is an indictment of individual soldiers in combat.
I've actually been there myself and have no axe to grind against soldiers.
I don't exactly buy your statement "Just because I kill someone does not mean I do not love them."
Or rephrased; as a Christian I can kill unsaved persons thereby sending them to judgement and eternity in hell, as an act of love towards them.
You have every right and a sworn duty to kill enemies.
You basicaly perform that duty for your buddies, to protect each other.

If you hate your enemy or not probably changes with whatever has been happening.
Myself I felt pretty much zero emotion towards the Vietnamese.
I didn't hate them but I sure didn't love them either.
I'm betting you might feel the same way.

I don't think the question "is war evil" is posed at the individual.
Maybe it's the bigger picture.

In that light...
I don't think that a Christian should use their religion to justify killing.
We don't like it when the Muslims do it we shouldn't do it either.

If you kill an enemy, no problem it was his bad luck to take you on.
By all means shoot anyone shooting at you.
Shoot targets of opportunity.
Set mechanicals, recon by fire, whatever it takes to survive.
But war is still evil.

Jesus probably wouldn't be doing those things.
That doesn't mean soldiers are evil.
Some are most aren't.
Combat Soldiers have to kill to survive.
There's no other good option, the choices are plain.
You're the quick or the dead.

But it might mean a Christian would consider what is evil before enlisting or preaching war.
Especialy since there is some question about the politics leading us into war.
I know Bush said Sadam was evil. I say war is evil.
Two evils don't make a right.

I'm no longer a Christian and I was a soldier.
For the most part it was all a mistake.
But I did see and learn a few things along the way.
"it's like deja vu all over again".

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

i agree with you about 99%

The part i disagree with is this:

"I know Bush said Sadam was evil. I say war is evil."
War is evil depending upon the intention of the leader. I beleive bush was trying to liberate iraq and help free us from terrorism. I find those both to be legit reasons for war.