The War in Iraq

[Kilroy_x]

Re: The War in Iraq

I think it's silly to try to quantify your support for something so complicated at all, you can only qualify it. Or at least, to quantify it would remove some of its significance. If someone says "I support the war 97.83 percent", I'm going to ask what the exception(s) are that constitute the 2.17% of non-support. Why not just skip that?

Incidentally, 100% is a value that can easily be expressed qualitatively. If you want to say "I support the war completely except for the the retarded actions of the demented few", then just say it. Drop the "completely" and be prepared to answer follow up questions, but yeah. Saying you support 100% of anything though will likely carry implicit meaning that's unintended if what you are talking about is complicated to any extent.

[ChAoSxxx]

Re: The War in Iraq

You guys are thinking too hard. We are here for one reason and one reason only. To get rid of all the terrorist organizations and liberate the middle east.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: The War in Iraq

The problem is that if that's our intent, our actions are hardly getting us closer to actualizing it. I'm not sure why the military destruction of the larger portion of Middle Eastern government's is synonymous with liberation, let alone a good thing. Could you explain that for me please?

[jewpinthethird]

Re: The War in Iraq

I'll let Dick Cheney do all my talking for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

Mind you, this was 8 years before Iraqi Invasion. We went to war on false pretenses. We did not go to war to free the Iraq people, we went to war because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national security, was harboring terrorists, and had weapons of mass destruction. None of which where ever proven true. It was only after Saddam lost his power that we started the campaign "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which was to set up democracy in Iraq...which we've tried, and it has failed miserably for the past 5 years.

I mean, it's not like this is the first time the United States has ever invaded a country under false pretenses. The Mexican-American war was initiated because President Polk, a Southerner, wanted to annex Texas, which was then Mexican territory, so that he could install another Slave state tipping congress in favor of slavery. War profiteering is not new either. The escalation of the Vietnam conflict was based on a a nonexistent event. The War in Iraq was based on nonexistent "evidence."

And don't forget, we are still fighting in Afghanistan...you know, the place that actually had terrorists?

Let's not forget the dozens, upon dozens of innocent Iraqis that are dying everyday in Iraq's current civil war...which we started. Saddam was a evil man and a ruthless dictator, but at least he was able to keep some kind of order among the tribes.

I'm sorry to say that I sympathize with the "terrorists" (the new "red scare"), who are actually "nationalists" and tired of the Western occupation and exploitation of their land. The United States' interest in the middle east is not democracy, but profit. Kind of like how we overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala in favor of a militaristic dictator. Why did we do this? Because the United Fruit Company "owned" a majority of the land in Guatemala, exploited the poor indigenousness people of Guatemala, and did not pay taxes on any of it's exports. The democratic government sought to take back the land, which was RIGHTFULLY THEIRS, and give it back to the people, who needed the land to live. The United States declared Guatemala a communist nation and invaded.

If your are too dense to absorb any of this information, I feel sorry for you, but history will recognize this war and this administration as a plague on the United States. I am sure of it.

ps. War on Terror? HAHAHAHA, f*ck the United States and starting it's stupid idealogical wars like the War on Drugs...or the War on Obesity. We'll never win. Your tax dollars at work.

pps. Also, who does the government work for? The United States people. It was our founding fathers' intention to give the power of the government to the people (democracy...huuuuuuur). Yes, I know we aren't a democracy, we are a Republic, but that does not mean the elected officials of our government should be able to do whatever they want. The President is not our elected king. The people of the United States should always question the authority. It's the ultimate check and balance.

[KilikOdagawa]

Re: The War in Iraq

You guys are thinking too hard. We are here for one reason and one reason only. To get rid of all the terrorist organizations and liberate the middle east.

Beautifully said

The problem is that if that's our intent, our actions are hardly getting us closer to actualizing it. I'm not sure why the military destruction of the larger portion of Middle Eastern government's is synonymous with liberation, let alone a good thing. Could you explain that for me please?

The government we have set up there, no matter how terrible it's doing, is having some success. Tell me.. Have you seen the pictures with the Iraqi people holding up signs saying "Thank you America"? Have you? The news will probably never show them.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: The War in Iraq

The government we have set up there, no matter how terrible it's doing, is having some success. Tell me.. Have you seen the pictures with the Iraqi people holding up signs saying "Thank you America"? Have you? The news will probably never show them.

I've heard anecdotal evidence of such things. What are you arguing? I laid out a number of factors, all of which need to be considered in order to determine what action would minimize negative outcome at this point. It's perfectly possible that every one of those individuals you speak of would be kidnapped, raped, and disemboweled if we left but that fewer people would be killed overall or less disutility would be caused on the whole. It's an ugly consideration and an ugly war, but unless you have a way to accept 1 million deaths as equally or more acceptable than 1,000, it has to be made.

Oh, and good job on apparently reading Zinn jewpin.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: The War in Iraq

The government we have set up there, no matter how terrible it's doing, is having some success. Tell me.. Have you seen the pictures with the Iraqi people holding up signs saying "Thank you America"? Have you? The news will probably never show them.

Hey, Kilik, did you watch that video in my post? Did you even look at my post? I'm guessing you didn't.

Also, I haven't read Zinn, most of my argument is based on common sense and a recent discussion in my Southern Border class about the parallels between the United State's involvement in the history of South America and other historical events.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: The War in Iraq

Ah.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: The War in Iraq

Ah.

But I have no doubt Zinn has been a major influence on me, if only indirectly.

[Kamunt]

Re: The War in Iraq

Well, I'm out of valid arguments to support my stance on this issue. It's difficult being the minority opinion, isn't it? Sigh. Nice picture, jewpin, I see what you did there. I did watch the video, and Kilik's comment on the "Thank you, America", etc. pictures and signs are still very real. Of course those are never in the media, because the liberal media hates good news. Even if 70,000~+ Iraqi civilians have been so far (yes, I clicked the IBC link), that's still nothing in comparison to the over 1,000,000 Hussein was responsible for killing during his time ruling the nation with an iron gauntlet. Plus, it's not like those 70,000 deaths were directly the fault of just America; notice how I said "directly", so don't waste your finger strength keying out the fact that "it's our fault the Iraqis are dying at all in the first place". Especially since I did it for you. This may be looking at things through rose-colored glasses, but again, we are trying to help them, at least. There's hope for them becoming stabilized again with a much better government, a lot more than there was back when Hussein was still in power. He was an evil, evil man and he needed to be taken out (of power)--you can't possibly deny that. At risk of my temper, how could you just stand by and watch as a nation's people are mercilessly killed, some by means as gruesome as plastic-grinding machines, by the nation's own leader? That's sick.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: The War in Iraq

Well, I'm out of valid arguments to support my stance on this issue.

...are you sure you had any to begin with?

Even if 70,000~+ Iraqi civilians have been so far (yes, I clicked the IBC link), that's still nothing in comparison to the over 1,000,000 Hussein was responsible for killing during his time ruling the nation with an iron gauntlet.

It's not nothing, in comparison to anything or otherwise. It's 70,000~+.

Plus, it's not like those 70,000 deaths were directly the fault of just America; notice how I said "directly", so don't waste your finger strength keying out the fact that "it's our fault the Iraqis are dying at all in the first place". Especially since I did it for you.

How is that significant? America invades, events unfold, people that wouldn't have died die. If you know your actions will cause harm to innocents you shouldn't take them. Individuals in government knew these actions would cause harm to innocents, as proven by the wonderful video Jewpin linked to. So what's the substance of your distinction?

This may be looking at things through rose-colored glasses, but again, we are trying to help them, at least.

Why is this significant?

There's hope for them becoming stabilized again with a much better government, a lot more than there was back when Hussein was still in power.

This specific contention requires hard support, especially considering the sheer number of individuals who disagree with you.

He was an evil, evil man and he needed to be taken out (of power)--you can't possibly deny that. At risk of my temper, how could you just stand by and watch as a nation's people are mercilessly killed, some by means as gruesome as plastic-grinding machines, by the nation's own leader? That's sick.

How is that any sicker than execution by decapitation? Or the use of suicide bombers in public areas to kill men, women and children?

Saddam wasn't evil. The things known as evil are as human as anything else. Saddam was simply a man who took the wrong path on the road to salvation*.





*in the sense that "salvation" is derived from a phrase meaning "to salt". In this sense we all require salvation to preserve us and keep us from going bad.

[devonin]

Re: The War in Iraq

Of course those are never in the media, because the liberal media hates good news.

I particularly like this line, because there is demonstrably a conservative (read: republican) bias to the media rather than a liberal bias. The republicans -love- to point to "The liberal leftist media" but you can do (and there have been done) objective and exhaustive studies on media portrayal of political parties in the US, and quite objectively, more news says more things about why the conservative republicans are good or the liberal democrats are bad than vice versa. Claiming "Liberal bias" in the media is simply not the case in the United States.

[Grandiagod]

Re: The War in Iraq

the liberal media hates good news.

Every bit of credibility that you had left was destroyed the second I read that.

Whether it is true or not is another debate, but the parroting back of such obvious Conservative propaganda as if it served to prove a point just reeks of idiocy.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: The War in Iraq

Of course those are never in the media, because the liberal media hates good news.

Funny, because the months leading up to the Invasion of Iraq, the media was very pro-war. You weren't complaining then. Or during the Clinton administration when liberal bashing was all the rage. Also, I don't watch the news, it's a garbage. Everyone with half a brain knows that.

[OrganisM]

Re: The War in Iraq

I've yet to see a justification for the war that's not on false pretenses or unsubstantiated ideas.

That's the frustrating thing: you try to get people to defend their point of view, and instead you get "nyah nyah I'm not listening" the moment their pitiful logic collapses.