What type of belief do you hold on war?

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by JillLars
Strathyboy- Do you think we should have gone into Germany during WWII, they didn't do anything to us, but they were killing tons of Jews. This really isn't much different than that.

This situation is tremendously different from that. I could write an essay on it, but I'll try to keep it brief.
Firstly, the US didn't enter world war II until December of 1941, and only then because of the attacks at Pearl Harbour. The US didn't become involved overseas (in a military way) until 1942, only AFTER Germany declared war on the US.
Secondly, when the US became militarily involved in the European theatre, Germany essentially occupied all of mainland Europe. He had decimated the armies of France, Poland, and everyone else he came against. Hussein owns an army that is fractious and would be annihilated if any 2 of his neighbours elected to do so. Hussein has but a small percentage of the power of Hitler. There is no comparison there.
Third, the US DID NOT get involved in Europe to save the Jews. In fact, they (and the rest of the allied forces) allowed the holocaust to continue, so that Hitler would channel resources to that effort instead of focusing on allied military forces.
So do not compare the two instances. It is reasonable in reference to ocean's argument that "all war is mass murder", but I made no such claims.

Originally posted by JillLars
When the war on terrorism began we decided we were going to do something about threats towards our country. Al-Qaeda attacked us numerous times before we did anything about it. We didn't take them seriously until they took down the WTC buildings. I dare you to go out and read some of Saddam's speeches, in many of them he claims to be strengthening his military to over come the "infidels"- the United States. If our government has evidence that he posesses weapons to do just that, do you honestly think we should just sit around and wait for him to use them. Look what happened when we didn't take Al-Qaeda seriously? I think that it is time for us to stand up and let the world know we are not going to tolerate threats towards us, in any way shape or form. If they don't want to start a conflict then they should avoid constantly talking about overthrowing us. Saddam is a problem that needs to be dealt with, before something like 9/11 happens.

You are of course aware of the huge number of nations that have threatened to annihilate the US, right? If the US had a mind to, they could wipe out most of those nations at the same time within a matter of hours, and Iraq is included among that number. If threatening the US is all it takes to justify war, better strap on your army boots and get ready to take on half the world.
The question is whether the nation issuing the threats is capable of carrying them out. In the case of Iraq and Hussein, my response is a definite "no".

Originally posted by JillLars
This is about prevention, I think that the world should know by now that you don't talk about overthrowing the US unless you are serious.

So you're going to prevent war by pre-emptively striking the Muslims? When terrorism against the US triples in the next few years, don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[Ryder]

Originally posted by strathyboy
Third, the US DID NOT get involved in Europe to save the Jews. In fact, they (and the rest of the allied forces) allowed the holocaust to continue, so that Hitler would channel resources to that effort instead of focusing on allied military forces.

 

????, uh, I doubt it cost the German war machine much to round up primarily unarmed people and trick them into showering, gas them, and burn the bodies.... What does that take, a few guards to run the sick 'plant' and a few dozen more (per area) to round up jews. Now even if it cost alittle more, the holocost had its (albeit disgusting) profits too. Jewish holdings and funds re-alcolated into German hands. Housing seizures, heck, even their gold teeth were smelted down. Hair was used for boot manufacture, Half the camps doubled as forced-labour (like the russian POW centers). It still probably wasn't profitable 'over-all', but I doubt very much that it had any effect (statistically/purely tactically) on the war at all, and I would sincerly hope the allies (especially US/British &company) were incapable of what you described.

 

[Aviyah]

[

Originally posted by
ocean
they aren't planning to attack us, they don't have the equipment needed to attack us , they are really no threat to America.

and you know this how? how do you know what they are up to?are you privi to information we are not?please do tell i for one whould rather go in and deal with him than wait and see if hes going to lobbed a bio or nuclear weapon at us

tell you what you can just wait there in Canada and find out what hes up to hows that sound?and we will go take care of insane hussain dont worry we will still protect Canada as usual


S.O.G

 

[Ryder]

Hear hear Soldier! , Osama hit us pretty hard with some messed up guys and airplane tickets, how much equipment would Iraq need exactly?? (and I'm not saying they don't have any)

 

Edit - Dangit !, (ned larn ti spoll)

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Ryder
Here here Soldier!

It's: 'Hear hear!'

 

[brindlepit]

War, is it just? Never, but the reasons for war can be.

The removal of a person in power is just, IMO. Hitler, Adid and Milosevic created genocide to peoples of their states. Is it better to sit back and wathc this happen or get involved and help the people who may not be able to help themselves.

We as sinners were never able to help ourselves. God gave Adam and Eve the choice to stay in Eden or fell His wrath. They chose opposite. We as humans can't help ourselves so God sacrificed the ultimate prize, so we don't have to do it alone.

Help your neighbor even at a personal sacrifice. Every armed service personnel understands that death may result in their decision. It's told to them before they sign the papers. While I would hate to see our service men and women die, among anyone really, they fully understand their future if war happens.

My 20 yr old nephew - reserves - just received his war call last night. In nine days, he reports to base and 20 days from that, he'll be in Iraq. Don't you think I'm scared and pray for his well being? Whatever does happen though, it's all part of His plan, so I don't fight it, I fight my feelings and worries.

 

[Aviyah]

Originally posted by Ryder
Hear hear Soldier! , Osama hit us pretty hard with some messed up guys and airplane tickets, how much equipment would Iraq need exactly?? (and I'm not saying they don't have any)

lol thank you Ryder my point exactly

you know it truely amazes me how some ppl think insane hussain is this poor victim that everyone is picking on tell that to the kurdish ppl he gassedmothers still holding thier children thier bodies bloated laying in the streets or what about insane husains facnation of watching ppl being executed like it was some sort of NFL Halftime event,

 

[Blindfaith]

brindlepit:

Go over to the Prayer forum and request a prayer for your nephew for his safety.  I did this for alonesoldier, and they'll update your prayer on the running prayer list.  Every bit of prayer helps

 

[brindlepit]

Originally posted by blindfaith
brindlepit:

Go over to the Prayer forum and request a prayer for your nephew for his safety.  I did this for alonesoldier, and they'll update your prayer on the running prayer list.  Every bit of prayer helps

 

Thanks blindfaith, I did.

 

Everything helps - thank you.

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by Ryder
???, uh, I doubt it cost the German war machine much to round up primarily unarmed people and trick them into showering, gas them, and burn the bodies.... What does that take, a few guards to run the sick 'plant' and a few dozen more (per area) to round up jews. Now even if it cost alittle more, the holocost had its (albeit disgusting) profits too. Jewish holdings and funds re-alcolated into German hands. Housing seizures, heck, even their gold teeth were smelted down. Hair was used for boot manufacture, Half the camps doubled as forced-labour (like the russian POW centers). It still probably wasn't profitable 'over-all', but I doubt very much that it had any effect (statistically/purely tactically) on the war at all, and I would sincerly hope the allies (especially US/British &company) were incapable of what you described.

You'd be surprised at the effort needed to round up in excess of 8 million Jews, homosexuals, disabled, and a whole assortment of people who disagreed with the Nazi's and have them all killed. In my response I was speaking primarily of resources in terms of manpower, although the oil needed to keep the trains running, the tanks running, and the guard's cars running would also be a factor. Besides the troops needed to oversee the death camps and the work camps, there were the thousands of troops used in the Einsatzgruppen death squads that followed the Nazi troops into Russia and killed anyone who resisted (and some that didn't resist).

While I think it had less to do with the eventual Nazi loss than the massive Russian army, it did play a factor in keeping hundreds of thousands of men, vehicles, and fuel diverted from the main war effort.

Originally posted by Ryder
Hear hear Soldier! , Osama hit us pretty hard with some messed up guys and airplane tickets, how much equipment would Iraq need exactly?? (and I'm not saying they don't have any)

Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? A small example: if I think another kid on the schoolyard is going to punch me, and I go over and punch him, I've ensured that the kid ends up punching me. Was he going to punch me in the first place? Maybe; but I ensured that it would happen by punching him first.
So now, in order to prevent terrorists from potentially attacking Iraq, Bush is going to play right into their hands and give them even more to be angry about. I guarantee there will be more terrorist attacks after this. Would Hussein have launched terrorist attacks anyways? Maybe; but Bush has ensured that he will launch them in the future.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by strathyboy
The threat they pose is debatable, although you accept it as fact. In order for this to be a viable reason for invasion, you must prove the existence of the threat.

No, if Iraq has no evidence of destroying them we must assume they still have them.
That's bad logic there. No government or military works on the logic that if you should assume your enemy doesn't have something simply because they say so.

No, it wasn't. Washington's maintains that Resolution 668, which prevents Hussein from hurting his own people, justifies the no-fly zone and the patrols. There is no UN security council resolution ordering the patrols or explicitly justifying them. It is recognized by many that the legal basis for them is ambiguous.

Again, there are three resolutions, not one. They are all UNITED NATIONS resolutions, not US resolutions.

Straw man argument. Thus far, nobody has suggested Iraq would be a nice place to live. But it being a horrible regime and a crappy place to live does not in and of itself justify invasion, a precedent America set decades ago.

I asked you a question, that's hardly is a straw man argument.
Nor did I say based on the living conditions should we attack Iraq.
Keeping grasping at those straws.

the US in incidents such as the Bay of Pigs. They were basically told that to disagree with the American government is to no longer be American. Last I heard, freedom of speech was still recognized in the US.

You really amaze me.
You really do.
Yes, I want to take away you freedom of speech, that's exactly what I want.
Where in the **** did I say that? Where did I say you didn't have right to believe and voice your opinions?
Stop trolling.

They did. The names of several Saudi leaders were specifically censored from the infamous Bin Laden tapes by the American government.

Try again. The Saudis did not know prior to 9-11 that those people were going to commit terrorism.

Speaking of "straws", this is another straw man argument. In the statement to which you are responding above, we are discussing terrorism, not which weapons Hussein may or may not have, something which I did not argue.

You brought up smoking guns, that's the smoking guns.
What a poor way for you to backpeddle.

I'm not sure how exactly this strengthens the American case. All it does is cast doubt on current alliances, some of which are with less than pleasant people. If an American cannot trust what their government says regarding an ally, this is not a good thing.

That is in no way related to my post. You claimed we thought he was a good guy, he was never such a thing. However, it's not bright to rally against a foe's enemy.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by ocean
It may "work out" for America, but what about the innocent Iraqi people who will be slaughtered in this horrendous act of murder? Instead of trying to negotiate with Saddam and send humanitarian aid to the people, America is going to drop nuclear warheads on them and kill thousands.

We've been trying to work with Saddam for the LAST 12 years. Meanwhile he continue to oppress murder and torture his own people.

12 million Europeans were systematically murdered by Nazis because Americans like you thought we should give them more time and ignore what happened.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by pace
Bush says he will nuke certain bases of operations and nuclear facilities, not people.

Bush never said he would nuke any bases.

I'll give you a thousand dollars for every nuclear bomb he uses.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by stray bullet
Bush never said he would nuke any bases.

I'll give you a thousand dollars for every nuclear bomb he uses.

Thx

I dunno think he needs to use them either though.

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by stray bullet
No, if Iraq has no evidence of destroying them we must assume they still have them.
That's bad logic there. No government or military works on the logic that if you should assume your enemy doesn't have something simply because they say so.

Straw man argument. I didn't say Iraq had no weapons. I didn't say we should assume Iraq did not have weapons on simple lack of proof. If Iraq does (and they most likely do) have weapons of mass destruction, they are STILL no threat to the United States itself.

Originally posted by stray bullet
Again, there are three resolutions, not one. They are all UNITED NATIONS resolutions, not US resolutions.

Can you provide the specific resolutions that are used?
Humor me and go to any search engine. Type in "legitimacy of no-fly zone in Iraq" (or something like that), and read some of the many articles that come up.

Originally posted by stray bullet
I asked you a question, that's hardly is a straw man argument.
Nor did I say based on the living conditions should we attack Iraq.
Keeping grasping at those straws.

Sigh. In the post to which I was responding, you made the following statement to me: "You make Iraq seem like an ok place and the American government to be some horrible regime."
Since I did nothing of the sort, it is a straw man argument. You are building up a pro-Iraq, anti-American person and then ripping it down, which unfortunately does not prove anything.

Originally posted by stray bullet
You really amaze me.
You really do.

Thanks. Sometimes I amaze even myself.

Originally posted by stray bullet
Yes, I want to take away you freedom of speech, that's exactly what I want.
Where in the **** did I say that? Where did I say you didn't have right to believe and voice your opinions?
Stop trolling.

I was explaining my remark of "same old rhetoric". Please put my statements in context instead of taking them out and then analyzing them. When an American states that "America shouldn't attack Iraq", and someone says, "If you like Iraq so much, why don't you go live there", that is an example of "the same old rhetoric".

Originally posted by stray bullet
Try again. The Saudis did not know prior to 9-11 that those people were going to commit terrorism.

I'm afraid many of them did. Interesting that you are so willing to believe ill of some people, and yet so resistant to believing ill of others. I would think, given your responses previously, that you would be more critical of the regime in Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by stray bullet
That is in no way related to my post. You claimed we thought he was a good guy, he was never such a thing. However, it's not bright to rally against a foe's enemy.

I made no claim that you claimed that Hussein was a good guy or nice in any way. I claimed that the US ignored or supported actions that today it is using as political ammunition against Iraq. I argued that the US government in the past has lied regarding the actions of Iraq, and as such, one could reasonably question what is said by the government today. I do not accuse the current government of the same lies; I merely say that a citizen should look into things for themselves.

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by stray bullet
12 million Europeans were systematically murdered by Nazis because Americans like you thought we should give them more time and ignore what happened.

Once again, the United States did NOT get involved in WWII because of the holocaust. In fact it turned away several boatloads of Jewish refugees from Germany and told them to go back home (as did Canada and Britain). The vast vast majority of Americans simply did not believe or did not know about what was happening in occupied Europe.
The US got involved because of Pearl Harbor and because Germany declared war on the US, not to help the victims of the Holocaust.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by strathyboy
Straw man argument. I didn't say Iraq had no weapons. I didn't say we should assume Iraq did not have weapons on simple lack of proof. If Iraq does (and they most likely do) have weapons of mass destruction, they are STILL no threat to the United States itself.

Where did I say you said Iraq had no weapons?

Now you are just simply lying.
Secondly, they ARE a threat to the US because they can get into the hands of terrorists and be used to attack Americans abroad.

Can you provide the specific resolutions that are used?
Humor me and go to any search engine. Type in "legitimacy of no-fly zone in Iraq" (or something like that), and read some of the many articles that come up.

Of course many liberals don't believe the US has a case, but there are UN resolutions, it's in writting.

Sigh. In the post to which I was responding, you made the following statement to me: "You make Iraq seem like an ok place and the American government to be some horrible regime."
Since I did nothing of the sort, it is a straw man argument. You are building up a pro-Iraq, anti-American person and then ripping it down, which unfortunately does not prove anything.

Again, you are a liar. I never said you were pro-Iraq.

I was explaining my remark of "same old rhetoric". Please put my statements in context instead of taking them out and then analyzing them. When an American states that "America shouldn't attack Iraq", and someone says, "If you like Iraq so much, why don't you go live there", that is an example of "the same old rhetoric".

No, I was, you were purposely directing that statement at me. You are replying to me, not all of Americans last I recall.
Stop backpeddling.

I'm afraid many of them did. Interesting that you are so willing to believe ill of some people, and yet so resistant to believing ill of others. I would think, given your responses previously, that you would be more critical of the regime in Saudi Arabia.

Of course I am. But I go by proof. The Saudis are terrible people, but you trying to claim that we should attack them (if we make the same arguments for attacking Iraq) over 9-11 is absurd. The people were not sent by their government.
Do you have a shred of proof that their government sent the 15?
Do you have a shred of proof that their government knew the 15 people would be commiting acts of terrorism.

I made no claim that you claimed that Hussein was a good guy or nice in any way.

That's why I said WE, we being America.
You really love to twist around words to form arguments, don't you?

I claimed that the US ignored or supported actions that today it is using as political ammunition against Iraq. I argued that the US government in the past has lied regarding the actions of Iraq, and as such, one could reasonably question what is said by the government today. I do not accuse the current government of the same lies; I merely say that a citizen should look into things for themselves.

What you are saying is idiotic. iraq was the enemy of Iran, we hated the Iranians more than Saddam. Obviously we aren't going to egg on our greater enemy.

Once again, the United States did NOT get involved in WWII because of the holocaust. In fact it turned away several boatloads of Jewish refugees from Germany and told them to go back home (as did Canada and Britain). The vast vast majority of Americans simply did not believe or did not know about what was happening in occupied Europe.
The US got involved because of Pearl Harbor and because Germany declared war on the US, not to help the victims of the Holocaust.

You are nothing but a liar and a twister of words.

You make your arguments by arguing something NO ONE EVER SAID.

I never said the US got involved in WWII over the holocaust. Many American's didn't even believe it was happening at the time, it was just propaganda.

I am really sick of you. Consider yourself ignored for the duration of this thread. I simply can't deal with someone that throws around insults and twists around words or argues against something I never said.

Just grow up. Good bye.

 

[bigat]

I know what we should do. Let's just sit around and go on w/ life as if 9-11 never happened.  Then when someone decides they want to attack us again, killing thousands, we can all pull out our American flags and feel proud again.  How about it?  Don't forget the nice little American Flag bumper sticker.  Nice touch.

In addition, what gives any of us the right to "know" what TOP SECRET information our government has?  It boils down to nobody trusting our government to make the proper decision.  I don't care what side of the fence you sit on or if you love GW or not!  It boils down to trust.  Nobody in this country trusts that our government can make a proper decision.  Everybody wants to play "arm chair" President and think they know what is best.  NONE of us know truely what is going on in Iraq.  None of us know what they DO or DON'T have.  All we know is what the media feeds us.  So, here we are having a discussion about "facts" we know nothing about. 

Do I trust our Government?  No.  It doesn't work.  It only works for those who are involved. It only works for the politicians.  They argue over personal issues, and personal opinions.  They don't care about what the Americans have to say! 

Should we attack Iraq?  I dunno.  It's not up to me.  It's up to those who are in charge.  If they truely doing this for oil, which I don't think is the case, then God will judge them for allowing that many people to die for a selfish cause. 

 

So, shut up, sit back and watch the fireworks on CNN. 

 

Laters -

 

 

[pace]

Some good comments Bigat   However, democracy is built upon people to participate in the world, and so I will do, and try to make some sense, no matter how little my oppinion might seem now.

Oh and America has seem to blown a bit crazy after your 11/9 attack, looking at the positive side, maybe it'll bring people closer together in the world. Remember thousands of people die of sickness, poordom etc each dayin the world.

 

[bigat]

God Bless ya Pace!!