NationStates Jolt Archive

Give your reasons and don't be afraid to write a novel. Bush bashing is allowed (if you republicans can't take it then move to Cuba were it's against the law to speak out against the government.)

Because it wasn't conducted in accordance with the idea that you have to convince a populace that they are defeated in order to obtain a true surrender.

If you're unwilling to do that, you should avoid war. But, since we can't seem to do that, we should have done what the Mongols did in 1258.

If we had done that, there would be NO insurgency. And we could get the remaining populace to do ANYTHING we asked.

No one would have been able to say that it was a failure.

There isn't a single historian who can say the Mongols failed to subjugate the country in 1258. Not one.

That was the mistake that was made - prosecuting a war when you're not willing to do the hard thing.

It sucks because:

A)It wasn't in self-defense (the only justification for war)
B)It's mauling our economy
C)It was fought without a declaration of war
D)It's made Iraq worse off than it was even under that bastard Hussein

It sucks because:

A)It wasn't in self-defense (the only justification for war)
B)It's mauling our economy
C)It was fought without a declaration of war
D)It's made Iraq worse off than it was even under that bastard Hussein

And your point now is? What exactly would you do now?

IIRC, Kerry said himself that he would have no choice but to "stay the course" or face an even bigger disaster.

Would you talk nice to the hornets, now that we've beaten on their nest and really gotten them stirred up?

It sucks because the UN said no

And your point now is? What exactly would you do now?

IIRC, Kerry said himself that he would have no choice but to "stay the course" or face an even bigger disaster.

Would you talk nice to the hornets, now that we've beaten on their nest and really gotten them stirred up?

While I can't speak for Roach-Busters, I do agree with them. The question wasn't "what should we do differently?" It was "why do you think the war in Iraq sucks?" We went to the wrong country (if our reasoning would have been self-defense), we went against the UN, we never officially declared, the economy suffered, and it's just not being handled well. Do I think I could do a better job? No. Would I have made different choices in the beginning? Yes. But you are right, now that we are in the middle of it, there's nothing we can do but push through and get it over with. It's like being downtown, turning on the wrong street, then not being able to just pull a u-turn because it's a one-way street....you have to wait until you get to the next intersection then see what you can do to make the journey easier and eventually get back on track.

Iraq war sucks because every war sucks, specialy if their aren't any good reason for that war...

Becuase some people seem to think that 30 years of a nation's problems would be solved in less than 2 years.

It also sucks because some people think that the UN is actually effectual. If the UN is actually good for something, please have it stop the genocide in Darfur.

"Well, the President on The West Wing solves the world's problems in one episode"

<har har har>

"Well, the President on The West Wing solves the world's problems in one episode"

<har har har>
What are you laughing at? The president on the west wing IS the president, stewpit.

Becuase some people seem to think that 30 years of a nation's problems would be solved in less than 2 years.

It also sucks because some people think that the UN is actually effectual. If the UN is actually good for something, please have it stop the genocide in Darfur.

Uh the UN doesn't have an army. It can only do what its security council members, like the United States, want it to do.

Uh the UN doesn't have an army. It can only do what its security council members, like the United States, want it to do.

The UN does indeed have access to armed forces, without benefit of Security Council.

While it cannot invade, it can certainly place peacekeepers, which it has done.

There were Belgian peacekeepers in Rwanda, with a mandate to be there and to keep the peace. Kofi Annan made a personal deal with the leader of the Hutus to allow the genocide, and to prevent the Belgian commander from taking any action to stop the genocide.

By the time the Security Council was notified that the genocide was an issue, several million people were already dead.

Your statement about the UN is false.

Uh the UN doesn't have an army. It can only do what its security council members, like the United States, want it to do.

My point exactly: the UN rarely wants to do anything.
For example, the only reason there was a UN force in Korea was because the Soviets stormed out (the last time that ever has happened, BTW).

We went in there completely wrong. If we really wanted to help them get rid of Hussein we should have gotten the UN's permission, fixed up out Intelligence and sent a reasonably small force to HELP the Iraqis overthrow Saddam. As it was, however, we didn't actually go in to overthrow Saddam, we went in for oil.
Also, for those of you out there who say that they had ties to Al-Quaida, not only did they not have ties to Al-Quaida then but because of our horrible bungling of the War they now have an intensly high level of recruits. So we haven't helpwed make the Middle East more peaceful, we've merely increased anti-American sentiments. OK... I'm done. But just remember what happened when England tried to colonize the Middle East, that's exactly the mistake we're making.

Some people think that USA is losing his hegemonious position in the world, like the Roman Empire did, and this war is one of the indicators of this.

What do you expect from a country where fire weapons are legal?. War.


Merry Christmas,
Albert

Why you suck : http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381495 .

The UN does indeed have access to armed forces, without benefit of Security Council.

While it cannot invade, it can certainly place peacekeepers, which it has done.

There were Belgian peacekeepers in Rwanda, with a mandate to be there and to keep the peace. Kofi Annan made a personal deal with the leader of the Hutus to allow the genocide, and to prevent the Belgian commander from taking any action to stop the genocide.

By the time the Security Council was notified that the genocide was an issue, several million people were already dead.

Your statement about the UN is false.

OK my statement may sort of be technically false, but it is true that the UN has no standing army, and can only send troops if other countries provide them. I took a class on the UN years ago, and from what I understand peacekeeping missions traditionally have been authorized under chapter 7 of the charter which requires security council approval, but I guess there are exceptions. Anyway I don't see how people can really blame the UN, it is not like anybody seems to offering to send troops except the African Union, but I don't think they are under the UN.

OK my statement may sort of be technically false, but it is true that the UN has no standing army, and can only send troops if other countries provide them. I took a class on the UN years ago, and from what I understand peacekeeping missions traditionally have been authorized under chapter 7 of the charter which requires security council approval, but I guess there are exceptions. Anyway I don't see how people can really blame the UN, it is not like anybody seems to offering to send troops except the African Union, but I don't think they are under the UN.

In the case of Rwanda, the UN peacekeepers were already in place with a mandate to keep the peace. So none of that applies - it was a UN f**kup.

In the case of Somalia, when the US *first* went there and straightened it out (at UN request), they turned it over to UN peacekeepers, who promptly let Aidid starve 300,000 people to death - without lifting a finger to stop it when they already had a mandate to do so.

The UN is not engaged in exceptions. This is so regular that people I've met in areas where the UN "intervened" refer to the blue helmets with dread and suspicion. It usually means that your enemies are going to be escorted into the area by UN troops, and the massacre will begin.

Kinda like Darfur now...

I seem to notice that the US is at the forefront of nations at the UN asking to do something about Darfur, but since the world doesn't want the US to go off and do something unilateral, we're waiting for the UN to do something.

Still waiting... I guess this genocide has also been pre-arranged.

We are trying to wean Africa off UN and US assistance, since the US can no longer dedicate the resources to such seemingly futile efforts and the UN just tends to screw things up. Thus we are trying to get the AU some actual teeth.Unfortunatly that doesn't seem to be working either.

If the War sucks so much. Then why do we have US Marines signing up to go to Iraq when they don't have too? He who control the middle east control the world if you think about it.

Marines 911

Anyhow I have to go, but a few last comments about the UN. The UN has peacekeepers in like 30 countries but has less peacekeepers world widethen the NY police department has police officers. This illusion of the UN in most american minds of some super power with aircraftcarriers and divisions of troops at its finger tips is flat wrong. The UN is not an independent entity which can launch invasions or despatch peacekeepers on its own but merely a composite of its members nations. I don't have time to investigate the allegations against the UN in places but what tends to go wrong is a) they don't get enough troops or b) some troops get killed and the nation(s) supplying them pull out.

The UN can't be expected to solve Sudan, becasue there is no will do it in the US or elsewhere except for I guess Africa which ussually means Nigeria.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2004/tt041212.gif :(

Some people think that USA is losing his hegemonious position in the world, like the Roman Empire did, and this war is one of the indicators of this.

What do you expect from a country where fire weapons are legal?. War.

Merry Christmas,
Albert

After a mere 15 years since the fall of Communism? Hardly. Right now is just an eddy in the currents of time. America is no stronger or weaker compared to other nations today than in 1989, with the exception of a (currently) weak dollar. Militarily, culturally, scientificially economically, ideologically, etc, the US is still in the front of the class.

Nota Bene:
If US hegemony lasts only as long as British hegemony (Pax Britannica: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica), we're good until at least 2056.

But suppose it lasts as long as the Pax Romana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_romana)! then we're good until 2198!

Fire weapons? You mean flamethrowers?

Anyhow I have to go, but a few last comments about the UN. The UN has peacekeepers in like 30 countries but has less peacekeepers world widethen the NY police department has police officers. This illusion of the UN in most american minds of some super power with aircraftcarriers and divisions of troops at its finger tips is flat wrong. The UN is not an independent entity which can launch invasions or despatch peacekeepers on its own but merely a composite of its members nations. I don't have time to investigate the allegations against the UN in places but what tends to go wrong is a) they don't get enough troops or b) some troops get killed and the nation(s) supplying them pull out.

The UN can't be expected to solve Sudan, becasue there is no will do it in the US or elsewhere except for I guess Africa which ussually means Nigeria.

...right. Which is why I say that since the UN doesn't actually *solve* any problems and refuse to back their own resolutions (cf, against Iraq), that people should NOT look to them to be a final arbiter.

Fire weapons? You mean flamethrowers?

I think he means thermobaric weapons. You know, the ones invented and deployed by the other paragon of foreign policy, Russia.

They used them extensively in Afghanistan, and we got some advice directly from them on how to make them and use them.

The common Russian version is the RPO-A rocket, and the US Marines use the SMAW with a thermobaric warhead.

When you think about it, it's more like toasting a person's bits after the explosive charge separates their meat from their bones. Overkill, but it certainly makes the floor less slippery afterwards.

I think a smarter president (which maybe just anybody else) could have handled this war better. Not to mention, he should have had the balls to tell the nation the real reason he wanted this war. All this crying about the UN is ludicrous. This talk about “they aren’t tough so we have to be”. Is that the argument? We should be glad the UN has no backbone or our good old cowboy president would be headed to the world court to answer for a war that has killed over 100,000 CIVILIAN Iraqis in a span of less than 2 years.

I think a smarter president (which maybe just anybody else) could have handled this war better. Not to mention, he should have had the balls to tell the nation the real reason he wanted this war. All this crying about the UN is ludicrous. This talk about “they aren’t tough so we have to be”. Is that the argument? We should be glad the UN has no backbone or our good old cowboy president would be headed to the world court to answer for a war that has killed over 100,000 CIVILIAN Iraqis in a span of less than 2 years.


Ahem. If you wanted to take any US President to a World Court, you would have to militarily defeat the US.

Not feasible.

Ahem. If you wanted to take any US President to a World Court, you would have to militarily defeat the US.

Not feasible.

I think the world court only tries nations not indivuals. They did try the US back in the 80 for mining nicaragua's harbors and found the US guilty but the US just didn't care.

Ahem. If you wanted to take any US President to a World Court, you would have to militarily defeat the US.

Not feasible.

Ahem..I guess you missed this point

We should be glad the UN has no backbone or our good old cowboy president would be headed to the world court to answer for a war that has killed over 100,000 CIVILIAN Iraqis in a span of less than 2 years

But this gives me a chance to say that this is a reason why I like America and will stay here. No matter what F***ed up thing we do there is no country or orginization strong enough to oppose us. Long live this SUPER DUPER POWER!!!!

MUST REFRAIN FROM URGE TO TEAR OUT HAIR. :headbang: The authors of that study need to be taken out back and shot. Firstly, it was a survey, generally inaccurrate, secondly it was not properly randomized, thirdly it made effectively no difference between insurgent casualties and actual civilian ones. Finally what the study actually "found" was that there was a 95% chance that the number of casualties was somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000. It was also published by the Lancet which ain't exactly the most credible source anymore because of their previous MMR scandal.

"Well, the President on The West Wing solves the world's problems in one episode"

<har har har>


Thats one of my favorite shows! I bet if Martin Sheen ran for pres, he'd win! He seems totally capable and just on tv right? :D

Oh and the war, (any war)sucks because people are dying. LOTS AND LOTS of people are losing their daddys, mommies, grandpa's, grandma's, daughter's and sons. sadness.

I think he means thermobaric weapons. You know, the ones invented and deployed by the other paragon of foreign policy, Russia.

They used them extensively in Afghanistan, and we got some advice directly from them on how to make them and use them.

The common Russian version is the RPO-A rocket, and the US Marines use the SMAW with a thermobaric warhead.

When you think about it, it's more like toasting a person's bits after the explosive charge separates their meat from their bones. Overkill, but it certainly makes the floor less slippery afterwards.

Aha. Shoot, I've got no problem using those. The other side uses 747s. :(

-M

"I've got my orange crush..."

Thats one of my favorite shows! I bet if Martin Sheen ran for pres, he'd win! He seems totally capable and just on tv right? :D

Oh and the war, (any war)sucks because people are dying. LOTS AND LOTS of people are losing their daddys, mommies, grandpa's, grandma's, daughter's and sons. sadness.

Martin Sheen is a complete ass.

I think a smarter president (which maybe just anybody else) could have handled this war better. Not to mention, he should have had the balls to tell the nation the real reason he wanted this war. All this crying about the UN is ludicrous. This talk about “they aren’t tough so we have to be”. Is that the argument? We should be glad the UN has no backbone or our good old cowboy president would be headed to the world court to answer for a war that has killed over 100,000 CIVILIAN Iraqis in a span of less than 2 years.

Well, I could agree with you on several points.
1. Agree. Handle the war better. Yes, indeed. For starters, we know that because France, Germany, and Russia all were getting paid by Saddam in the form of defense contracts and oil royalties, they weren't going to help invade. So, instead of asking them nicely, pull their pants down on television about all the money they're taking under the table, and tell them you're going to invade anyway.
You can't fight a war without utterly convincing the population (not just the army or leader) that they are beaten, and that it is useless to resist. Therefore, I would have destroyed most major cities, and laid waste to whole regions of the country. If you're not willing to do that, don't fight the war. As a result, I don't think there would be an insurgency. I might have even used two or three nuclear weapons.
People get killed in wars. If you don't want to kill people, don't fight a war. Reporting that "someone was killed" and put in the line, "in a war" makes you sound funny.

Personally, I didn't see any people from the Lancet out counting bodies, and I did shoot people who "unarmed" themselves by throwing their rifles away and trying to run. But that was after they shot at me (this includes women and children). So when they found their dead, unarmed bodies, I'm sure they were counted as non-combatants by people who never asked me what happened.

MUST REFRAIN FROM URGE TO TEAR OUT HAIR. :headbang: The authors of that study need to be taken out back and shot. Firstly, it was a survey, generally inaccurrate, secondly it was not properly randomized, thirdly it made effectively no difference between insurgent casualties and actual civilian ones. Finally what the study actually "found" was that there was a 95% chance that the number of casualties was somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000. It was also published by the Lancet which ain't exactly the most credible source anymore because of their previous MMR scandal.

Sounds to me like you already tore your hair off and took your brain with it. While the number may not be right, the fact is civilian lives have been lost. To take the smallest number you post, 8000, is still a travesty. The fact that you argue over numbers is really irrelevant. In time it will reach 100,000 and it will be in less time than it took the old regime. Not to mention over 1000 actual combat deaths US soldiers have sustained. Since this report was not done to your standards I guess that's reason enough to take someone out back and shoot them. How mentally unstable do you have to be to wish someone shot over a survey? I think people who cry "it was less than 100,000 cause the US don't keep tabs of how many civilians are killed cause we don't care, duh" should be shot (while not verbatim that statement was made by US General Tommy Franks in Iraq).

Sounds to me like you already tore your hair off and took your brain with it. While the number may not be right, the fact is civilian lives have been lost. To take the smallest number you post, 8000, is still a travesty. The fact that you argue over numbers is really irrelevant. In time it will reach 100,000 and it will be in less time than it took the old regime. Not to mention over 1000 actual combat deaths US soldiers have sustained. Since this report was not done to your standards I guess that's reason enough to take someone out back and shoot them. How mentally unstable do you have to be to wish someone shot over a survey? I think people who cry "it was less than 100,000 cause the US don't keep tabs of how many civilians are killed cause we don't care, duh" should be shot (while not verbatim that statement was made by US General Tommy Franks in Iraq).


Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to ask that no war kill any civilians, intentionally or accidentally. And the moment that an insurgent throws his weapon away and starts running, he's a non-combatant (until the next morning when he picks up another rifle). While he's a non-combatant, he can't be shot at, because that would be a Bad Thing.

Excuse me, but I'm about to go back on topic...

These are the reasons why I think the Iraq War sucked:
- It has ruined the civil infrastructure
- become the perfect breeding grounds for anarchy
- too many innocent people have been needlessly slaughtered
- the prisoner abuse scandals
- There is no more democracy now than there was under Hussein

the fact is civilian lives have been lost.

In time it will reach 100,000 and it will be in less time than it took the old regime.

Not to mention over 1000 actual combat deaths US soldiers have sustained.

Since this report was not done to your standards I guess that's reason enough to take someone out back and shoot them. How mentally unstable do you have to be to wish someone shot over a survey?
Yes they have, but considering the magnitude of what's going on it's an extremely small number.

? After the initial campaign it is almost certain the the insurgents are killing more of actual civilians than we are, so much for your high horse. They hide among civilian population and options are limited.

I'll let MGNY answer this since I ain't a soldier.

That bit wasn't that serious, although from a scientific standpoint that survey was as valuable as the idea that AIDS was made by the CIA to kill off people on the African continent.

Excuse me, but I'm about to go back on topic...

These are the reasons why I think the Iraq War sucked:
- It has ruined the civil infrastructure
- become the perfect breeding grounds for anarchy
- too many innocent people have been needlessly slaughtered
- the prisoner abuse scandals
- There is no more democracy now than there was under Hussein

It could be argued by people on the ground here that the Oil for Food scandal ruined the civil infrastructure. But yes, we did blow some stuff up. So OK. We can't count the restoration of water and power to areas that hadn't had any in 10 years. So OK, we'll just say we're bad and ruin everything we touch.

Downtown DC is a breeding ground for anarchy. A good place to wear body armor if you ask me. Percentage wise for casualties, more dangerous than Baghdad.

Innocent people get killed in wars. You can't have a war without them, so either accept war and dead civilians, or don't have war. If you don't want to fight at all, ever, anywhere, because of that objection, please call South Waziristan and ask for Bin Laden so you can surrender now and avoid civilian casualties.

Prisoners get abused. Everywhere. In different ways. It's what happens to prisoners. Our prisoners were abused by them in the first Gulf War, and I didn't hear any complaints from anyone. Innocent civilian prisoners of the insurgents are abused, and no one is tried or investigated for it. At least we investigate and try and punish the abusers. They do not.

Take the democracy question up with the Kurds and the Shiites. We don't have any trouble at all with Kurds, who seem ecstatic that we're here. The Shiites, now that that stupid kid who thought he was an imam is gone, seem to have quieted down completely. It's the Sunnis, particularly those who had been loyal to Saddam, and who can twist their faith closer to Wahhabism, who are insurgents. So they're going to get screwed. We could have more democracy, if the insurgents decided to participate instead of blowing things up.

At least we're trying to fix the mess. I don't see anyone else doing anything constructive - saying it sucks doesn't really help. How about a positive, constructive statement on how to make things work?

Well, I could agree with you on several points.
1. Agree. Handle the war better. Yes, indeed. For starters, we know that because France, Germany, and Russia all were getting paid by Saddam in the form of defense contracts and oil royalties, they weren't going to help invade. So, instead of asking them nicely, pull their pants down on television about all the money they're taking under the table, and tell them you're going to invade anyway.
You can't fight a war without utterly convincing the population (not just the army or leader) that they are beaten, and that it is useless to resist. Therefore, I would have destroyed most major cities, and laid waste to whole regions of the country. If you're not willing to do that, don't fight the war. As a result, I don't think there would be an insurgency. I might have even used two or three nuclear weapons.
People get killed in wars. If you don't want to kill people, don't fight a war. Reporting that "someone was killed" and put in the line, "in a war" makes you sound funny.

Personally, I didn't see any people from the Lancet out counting bodies, and I did shoot people who "unarmed" themselves by throwing their rifles away and trying to run. But that was after they shot at me (this includes women and children). So when they found their dead, unarmed bodies, I'm sure they were counted as non-combatants by people who never asked me what happened.

Why would anyone want to even approach you? You sound like one tough killing machine. The kind we should lock up as soon as you get back just in case. Wouldn't want any sudden unarmed civilians to rub you wrong around here.

Anyway, back to sanity, these are the crazies we live with. This guy who thinks that killing someone is the only answer, I mean, I only have his word that he was "shot at" by women and (get this) children. I guess we shouldn't have invaded a country we had no reason to invade. I'm sure if Iraqis were in your back yard your family would be reaching for a shotgun. Ever see Red Dawn. On one hand your Boss says stuff like "We care about the Iraqi people" and "We are bringing peace and democracy", then we have soldiers like you who are just killing off civilian women and children. So answer me this, if you are fighting Iraqi people, including women and children, who is it that want this democracy in the first place and why are they not fighting beside you. Now if you ask me, I think you just like killing people and get off on it to the point of just like motioning it flippantly on this forum.

So answer me this, if you are fighting Iraqi people, including women and children, who is it that want this democracy in the first place and why are they not fighting beside you. Now if you ask me, I think you just like killing people and get off on it to the point of just like motioning it flippantly on this forum.

I suppose that if you were being shot at by a 10 year old, you would just stand there?

Lesson for the day:
Humans require a rationalization in order to kill. It can be a weak rationalization, but they always need one.
Insurgency, rebellion, Islam, bank robbing, patriotism - you name it - can be the rationalization.
And, why would someone need a rationalization? Because deep down, most people ENJOY it and want an excuse.
Am I a monster because I admit that I enjoy killing people (albeit under legal conditions, so that I have a rationalization?)

When I'm home in Virginia, I have a carry permit. Haven't shot anyone yet, but my wife's ex-husband who stalks us knows about me, and stays well away now. Why? Because he knows that he could fall into a legally justified killing situation, and he knows I would kill without hesitation under those circumstances - and I would legally walk.

A person's political beliefs, unless their the Mahatma himself, rarely spare them from this all too human impulse. Most people spend their lives lying about how they don't like it. But I've seen too many people on both sides who really, really enjoy it. You can't for a moment tell me that the people who slit throats on Al Jazeera are just doing it because they have to, and don't have a choice? I think they do it because they get off on it.

? After the initial campaign it is almost certain the the insurgents are killing more of actual civilians than we are, so much for your high horse. They hide among civilian population and options are limited.

Ya, cause I grow tired of the constant video footage of insurgents using civilians as human shields. Oh wait I have't seen one shot of this happening. It must be that liberal media at it again. DAMN THEM. And I don't see insurgents claiming to care for american soldiers or civilians like Bush claims to care about the iraqi people. There was really no high horse statement to debunk in the first place but if it makes you happy? Whatever?

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to ask that no war kill any civilians, intentionally or accidentally.
should be
Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to ask that war not kill any civilians, intentionally or accidentally.

Sorry had to re-word that so it would make some kind of sense. Anywho, I think the point was that any other answer, other than war, would have killed fewer civilians, or at least stained less American souls. Cause if you believe in God like Bush does, I doubt he will forgive you the 6th commandment cause you were fighting a "just war on terrorism". But good luck anyway.

I suppose that if you were being shot at by a 10 year old, you would just stand there?

actually he was 15 years old and I just had to wait till he ran out of bullets. we then interrogated him for information and held him as a POW. But I guess the army doesn’t do that these days. Just do us a favor and leave some civilians alive so SOMEONE can enjoy this Democracy we have to give them.

Lesson for the day:
Humans require a rationalization in order to kill. It can be a weak rationalization, but they always need one.
Insurgency, rebellion, Islam, bank robbing, patriotism - you name it - can be the rationalization.

If you have morals then there really is no reason to kill because you hold life in high regard (or at least most of us do)

And, why would someone need a rationalization? Because deep down, most people ENJOY it and want an excuse.
Am I a monster because I admit that I enjoy killing people (albeit under legal conditions, so that I have a rationalization?)

Ummmm....yes, yes this would make you a monster. So my statement of locking you up as soon as you get home would stand.

When I'm home in Virginia, I have a carry permit. Haven't shot anyone yet, but my wife's ex-husband who stalks us knows about me, and stays well away now. Why? Because he knows that he could fall into a legally justified killing situation, and he knows I would kill without hesitation under those circumstances - and I would legally walk.

A person's political beliefs, unless their the Mahatma himself, rarely spare them from this all too human impulse. Most people spend their lives lying about how they don't like it. But I've seen too many people on both sides who really, really enjoy it. You can't for a moment tell me that the people who slit throats on Al Jazeera are just doing it because they have to, and don't have a choice? I think they do it because they get off on it.

I don't know who you grew up with, but here in civilized society, we think killing is wrong. I don't doubt throats were slit becuase they got off on it, but that is why these people are branded as evil by your Boss. Now to justify YOUR urge to kill you may think everyone lies and is hiding this urge but to say even children have this urge (because you have to make that kind of reasoning so you can live with yourself) is just kind of out there, like waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there. What American dream are you fighting for if you think this way?

Martin Sheen is a complete ass.

hey! :eek:

If you have morals then there really is no reason to kill because you hold life in high regard (or at least most of us do)


That does not follow.


Ummmm....yes, yes this would make you a monster. So my statement of locking you up as soon as you get home would stand.


Hmm. No law against what I've been doing.


I don't know who you grew up with, but here in civilized society, we think killing is wrong. I don't doubt throats were slit becuase they got off on it, but that is why these people are branded as evil by your Boss. Now to justify YOUR urge to kill you may think everyone lies and is hiding this urge but to say even children have this urge (because you have to make that kind of reasoning so you can live with yourself) is just kind of out there, like waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there. What American dream are you fighting for if you think this way?

Lots of people are like me. Who said I was fighting for the American dream? I just said that I'm killing because I enjoy it, and have found a perfectly legal justification to do so. You're the one saying that we're bad and they are not. We're both BAD. But at least we're expressing our personal idiom, which is what counts in this world before you die. I found a long time ago that doing whatever I like, as long as I can find the legal justification to do so, makes me much happier.

I could care less who the boss is, as long as it's not Clinton, who had it in for gays so bad that he threw more out than any were thrown out before. That's why I came back as a contractor.

Hmm. No law against what I've been doing.
Maybe no human law but who knows. Maybe they'll come after you like they came after the nazis years after the war. Who knows?

That does not follow.
Of course you don't follow this. It started with "If you have morals"

That's why I came back as a contractor.
So now that makes sense. You're just a hired gun. Who do you work for? CusterBattles?

Why does it matter who I work for?

I'm not in it for the money.

And if you're so convinced that the whole thing is wrong, why don't you come over and do something about it. At least the insurgents have the courage of their convictions.

Why does it matter who I work for?

I'm not in it for the money.

And if you're so convinced that the whole thing is wrong, why don't you come over and do something about it. At least the insurgents have the courage of their convictions.

Been there, done that. I was in the military and I fought my wars. So now it's my time to enjoy this freedom I fought so hard for and state my opionin like so many others. And why are you so defensive about who you work for? Insurgents have to fight for their convictions, you give them no choice from the sounds of it killer. When you come over to my home to break in claiming to bring democracy I'll show you a few worse feelings than death. Maybe pistol whip you with your own gun. That would be fun. :)
I was trained a little better than the women and kids you're fighting now. :D

I was trained a little better than the women and kids you're fighting now. :D

The majority have been men so far, and some of them were from the ex-Iraqi army. Didn't seem to do them any good.

You're the one saying that we're bad and they are not. We're both BAD.
And I never claim to say they are not bad but they fight for home and country in what they see is a forced take over of their way of life. You fight for, I don't know, the right to kill them?

And I never claim to say they are not bad but they fight for home and country in what they see is a forced take over of thier way of life. You fight for, I don't know, the right to kill them?

The majority of men I've killed weren't even Iraqi. Syrians, mostly. So they weren't fighting for their country. According to the locals, the women and children they brought with them for jihad.

The majority of men I've killed weren't even Iraqi. Syrians, mostly. So they weren't fighting for their country. According to the locals, the women and children they brought with them for jihad.
They fight for country. They figure if they stop you now then their country won't be next.

They fight for country. They figure if they stop you now then their country won't be next.

Of course, by fightiong us now, they vastly increase the probability that their country WILL be next.

But then, they ARE nutballs...

They fight for country. They figure if they stop you now then their country won't be next.

Then I guess that's why 19 other Arabs flew jets into our buildings before we ever invaded them. Stop the US now, and maybe they won't do anything.

I'm trying to figure out how long you would have survived as a soldier on the street here. Probably not very long, as you seem to be unwilling to kill anyone.

The reason the war sucks is because we're killing innocent people, civilians, left and right in the hopes that maybe, maybe we'll hit a terrorist. The initial were pretty much just that; bomb every building in sight and odds are good that you'll hit at least a few people loyal to Saddam. The government doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the people we've killed who weren't terrorists, however.

Personally, I think Bush has an unhealthy obsession with the whole "war on terrorism." This is all he ever addresses anymore. Any one of us could be raped on our way to school or work, trapped in a burning building with firefighters nowhere in sight, or caught in the crossfire between rival gangs, with no police officer to come to our aid, and no programs to keep gangs off the streets. Why? Because all government funds are going to pay for this god damn war in a country we never should have invaded in the first place.

Bush is just doing this to spread his anti-evil Christian sect to all corners of the Earth. This is his personal battle. We've just been pulled along for the ride.

I suspect his claims of being a soldier are somewhat similar to my claims of being a Borg from Star Trek.

Then I guess that's why 19 other Arabs flew jets into our buildings before we ever invaded them. Stop the US now, and maybe they won't do anything.

I'm trying to figure out how long you would have survived as a soldier on the street here. Probably not very long, as you seem to be unwilling to kill anyone.

But, seeing as the willingness to kill is what's causing all of these "conflicts," then is it really such a bad thing not to desire to kill?

The reason the war sucks is because we're killing innocent people, civilians, left and right in the hopes that maybe, maybe we'll hit a terrorist. The initial were pretty much just that; bomb every building in sight and odds are good that you'll hit at least a few people loyal to Saddam.

Dag, you sure weren't paying attention.


The government doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the people we've killed who weren't terrorists, however.

Similar to the way you antiwar folks don't give a rat's ass about the people Saddam killed, or the terrorists killed/kill.

Any one of us could be raped on our way to school or work, trapped in a burning building with firefighters nowhere in sight, or caught in the crossfire between rival gangs, with no police officer to come to our aid, and no programs to keep gangs off the streets. So, do you live in DC or LA?

Why? Because all government funds are going to pay for this god damn war in a country we never should have invaded in the first place. Hey congratulations, that's the most deranged thing I've heard today! "All funds" my ass.

Bush is just doing this to spread his anti-evil Christian sect to all corners of the Earth. This is his personal battle. We've just been pulled along for the ride.

Um, are you sure you're saying what you want to say here? The meaning of "anti-Evil" is generally "GOOD."

Speak Englitch?

Any one of us could be raped on our way to school or work, trapped in a burning building with firefighters nowhere in sight, or caught in the crossfire between rival gangs, with no police officer to come to our aid, and no programs to keep gangs off the streets.

You are under the curious, and legally invalid misconception that the police and fire department are under some obligation to serve you and protect you. While many of them may personally wish to do so, they are under NO obligation whatsoever to ever, under any conditions, provide any service to you at all. Supreme Court decision in the late 1970s, Wilson vs. District of Columbia (a incident where three girls were repeatedly raped - then called the police - police didn't come - girls were raped again - called the police - police didn't come - girls were raped again - girls walked to police station 100 yards away and filed complaint).

The Supreme Court ruled in the police favor, against the girls, and said that it applied to ALL public services (police, fire, etc).

You are also under the misconception that funding programs for gangs (such as getting them low-paying minimum wage jobs) will somehow keep them away from the much more lucrative career of selling crack and meth.

And to think, if we had just said we wanted to over-throw a dictator because he was abusing his power we might have gotten help. But did we do that? Noooo, the president had to be a dumbass and say they had nuclear weapons. I think all revenge seekers should be automaticly disqualified for the presidency along with all major CEO's of large companies. It would save everyone a lot of headachs that way along with the nations economy.

Then I guess that's why 19 other Arabs flew jets into our buildings before we ever invaded them. Stop the US now, and maybe they won't do anything.
I was waiting to see when you would make this connection. So here it is, there have ALWAYS been terrorists. And they have ALWAYS attacked. So why was this administration unable to stop this occurrence. How can you feel safe under an administration that let terrorism happen on American soil on their watch? Who puts a failing employee back on the same job they failed at. Apparently we do, duhh!! We're safe cause Bush is in office? What??!!??
In that case Clinton was a great president cause he managed to keep foreign terror off American soil. Dang, Regan kept the whole USSR war machine at bay. Jr Bush had just one indiscretion.

I'm trying to figure out how long you would have survived as a soldier on the street here. Probably not very long, as you seem to be unwilling to kill anyone.
You can believe what you want. I can care less. Hell, no one said I believed you were in Iraq either so I guess we're straight. All the info you've spouted so far can be found on the web. You yourself have stated the awful skill of some of these combatants and you still think them a threat. So that to me states that your first option is kill while I tried to make it my last. Could it have killed me? Yes Did it? No. But you do what your soul will let you live with. That's what I did.

I suspect his claims of being a soldier are somewhat similar to my claims of being a Borg from Star Trek.
Har...Har....good one trekie nerd!

I guess that's why Clinton wouldn't take Bin Laden even though Sudan offered him up three separate times? Why the World Trade Center was first bombed during the Clinton Administration by Al Qaeda?
Why the Cole was bombed during the Clinton Administration by Al Qaeda?

Why the American Embassy in Kenya was bombed during the Clinton Administration by Al Qaeda?

And why Sudan kept asking, why don't you take him?

And why Clinton fired cruise missiles at Sudan for no reason?

The final plans for 911 were drawn up five years before Clinton left office. Why didn't he find out about it and stop it?

We went in there completely wrong. If we really wanted to help them get rid of Hussein we should have gotten the UN's permission, fixed up out Intelligence and sent a reasonably small force to HELP the Iraqis overthrow Saddam. As it was, however, we didn't actually go in to overthrow Saddam, we went in for oil.
Also, for those of you out there who say that they had ties to Al-Quaida, not only did they not have ties to Al-Quaida then but because of our horrible bungling of the War they now have an intensly high level of recruits. So we haven't helpwed make the Middle East more peaceful, we've merely increased anti-American sentiments. OK... I'm done. But just remember what happened when England tried to colonize the Middle East, that's exactly the mistake we're making.

The UN were as bad with saddam as the league of nations was with hitler. The american led coalition went in to police Iraq because the UN couldnt do its job properly. All we hear about are the bad things in Iraq, there are as many good things too, but we never hear about than. Because we live in a no news but bad news society.

Dag, you sure weren't paying attention.

Ooooh, I'm sorry. I guess those of us in high school government classes can't know a damn thing about what's going on, despite watching the news in class, having discussions, and being quizzed on current events. Yeah, right. Try reading the newspaper for once instead of Playboy.

Similar to the way you antiwar folks don't give a rat's ass about the people Saddam killed, or the terrorists killed/kill.

I'm not against war. I'm against the slaughter of innocent people caught in the middle, be they on our side or the enemy's. I'm sure this will come as a huge shock to you, Mr. Red-Blooded American Ass, but there ARE people in Iraq who have nothing to do whatsoever with Saddam, Al Quaida, or terrorism, and yet still they watch their homes destroyed and their familes starved. Do they deserve to die? No more than those "executed" under Saddam's regime, no more than anyone in the World Trade Center, nor anyone else. You're basically saying here that the deaths our soldiers commit are justified by all the people who died before. They aren't. That's like trying to extinguish a brush fire by hitting it with the blow torch.

So, do you live in DC or LA?

Not that it matters, but close to DC. However, problems like this are all over the country. Maybe it's nice and pleasant where you live, but crime rates are rising, and you know what? Very little is being done about it. But then again, you seem to view murder and theft as part of a balanced American life, so I doubt you'd understand the need for a little safety.

Hey congratulations, that's the most deranged thing I've heard today! "All funds" my ass.

Slight hyperbole, but considering the fact that we can't even afford this war to begin with, it does not shock me to see budgets cut and services decline. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass for a moment (you two seem very intimate), maybe you'd see the result of two-hundred billion dollars worth of bull and its impact on our lives.

Um, are you sure you're saying what you want to say here? The meaning of "anti-Evil" is generally "GOOD."

I probably should have put quotes around the "anti-evil" part. My point is that Bush is bringing way too much of his own personal feelings into this, and he's using religion to get support from Americans. He's now calling countries that hold a degree of animosity toward this country as the "Axis of Evil". Can you not understand the word "propaganda"? It has been implied in many of his speeches (implied, not actually put bluntly) that the problem is not terrorists, it is Muslims. I remember the speech a few months after 9/11 in which he referred to the hijackers as the sons of Allah. Again, more propaganda, more him spreading his regime.

Speak Englitch?

How nice. Ending with a derogatory slur directed at a white middle-class female. Are you this rude to blacks, hispanics, and Europeans as well?

For one Clinton sucked from a military and intelligence view. Considering he was the source of many problems from Africa to Yugoslavia. But thats not the topic, the topic is why the war in Iraq Sucks....And the number one reason is because Congress declared war so we can't say it was just the President messed up, the entire congress messed up, if the war was indeed in the wrong.

I guess that's why Clinton wouldn't take Bin Laden even though Sudan offered him up three separate times? Why the World Trade Center was first bombed during the Clinton Administration by Al Qaeda?
Why the Cole was bombed during the Clinton Administration by Al Qaeda?

Why the American Embassy in Kenya was bombed during the Clinton Administration by Al Qaeda?

And why Sudan kept asking, why don't you take him?

And why Clinton fired cruise missiles at Sudan for no reason?

The final plans for 911 were drawn up five years before Clinton left office. Why didn't he find out about it and stop it?

How could Clinton take Bin Laden at the time? He was a war hero of the people who fought the Russians with weapons and training the Regan administration supplied him. The CIA invested US$2.1 billion over a 10-year period to create an anti-Soviet resistance with Bin Laden. By 1988, Osama bin Laden had split from the MAK and established a new militant group, later dubbed al-Qaeda by the U.S. government, which included many of the more militant MAK members he had met in Afghanistan. If only Daddy Bush had done something, but he to was blinded by Iraq.
The world trade center was bombed but the plan fell through. And Clinton was not privy to information like Bush Jr was made privy at least 5 months into his presidency and a year before the actual attack. Not to mention the first attack in 1993 you mention which should have put that structure on high alert to begin with. Now claims to Ramzi Ahmed Yousef being tied to Al-Qaeda have not been proven but his citizenship to Kuwait has so I wonder why Bush protected it back during his administration. Why did the Sr Bush administration enact laws that let him get away when he came to the country under a false Iraqi passport in 1992. Why was nothing done to Ramzi Yousef back in 1991 when the plan began?
So if the Sudan was willing to give up Bin Laden then how come Bush Jr did nothing to continue these negotiations? Funny how the Republicans seem to be the only ones making this claim to begin with. Not one document to back this up but many that state that Sudanese government figure Hassan al Turabi benefited a lot by not extraditing Bin Laden.
But all this has nothing to do with Iraq so what was your point? The Cole was not in America and American Embassy in Kenya was IN KENYA (though I do agree, these qualify as US soil, my bad).
But to use your round about logic. If Bush Sr had done nothing to help Bin Laden back in the 1984-1988 then the USSR would have claimed Afghanistan and it would all have fallen apart a few years later when the USSR fell. Thus Bin Laden would be dead or in Russian jail, right? If Bush Jr had just listened to the counter terror reports or he himself opened negotiations with the Sudan, if there were any to open to begin with. Apparently the country didn't even want to give Bush Jr a try. What a Uniter.

And Clinton was not privy to information like Bush Jr was made privy at least 5 months into his presidency and a year before the actual attack.

Yes he was. He knew Bin Laden was behind all the attacks prior to 9-11, and Sudan said, three times, "here, we'll give him to you".

IIRC, it was Madeline Not-Very-Bright who said that it might cause a "diplomatic incident".

I am an American, and in this essay, I say "we" when referring to the United States. Don't be offended if you aren't - it's just how this is being written. And I say "we" as opposed to "the Bush administration" because I think that all Americans need to share the responsibility for what our country is done and quit passing the blame on to people who dissagree with us. We are all partially responsible for this.

The war in Iraq is bad because...

1. Saddam Hussien was not a serious threat to the United States. Period. He was a horrible man who killed his own people, but this does not merit the unilateral invasion of Iraq.

2. Our intellegence was poor. No - our intellegence was horrible. We have forged documents, and largely ignored many of the papers that did not support our case.

3. The war did not have the approval of congress - the representitives of the American people. This is a democracy (well, a republican democracy) - rule of the people. And the people (well, their representitives) did not rule this war into being.

4. The international community did not approve this war. Not just the UN - quite frankly, the UN rarely gets much done (I'm an internationalist - I just think that the UN is an ineffective institution). We were not supported by a significant number of allied nations. The original coalition of the willing consisted of 30 nations - four of which provided troops (Australia, Denmark, Poland, and the United Kingdom). That is not enough allies for an operation of this magnititude. Not only that, but across the world, demonstrations took place protesting the Iraq war. The people of this world - not only this nation - did not ask for this war.

5. We went into Iraq like a blind man into a pit of vipers. There is no arguing how hamfisted, how crudely we went into this operation. This does not need to be explained - it should be self explanitory and obvious.

6. The war in Iraq has had a devestating effect on the economy. The government is spending billions of dollars to fight a minor threat overseas when we have major economic, social, and political problems at home. Our first priority has to be making sure our country is working properly. Only then can we start looking at others.

Of course, there are more reasons. But these 6 are the ones I believe best support my case.

All that said - we need to stay in Iraqi. We have an obligation to the citizens of Iraqi to make their lives better, to give them a brighter future. We cannot walk into the bullring, stab the bull once, and then run away. We have to finish what we have now, so unfortunately, started.

In the end (and on a semi-related note), many people support insurgents because they believe that they are redressing their grievences. Once it is shown that they are not doing so, people will stop following the insurgents. Of course, not all people follow terrorism for the benefits they think it will bring them. Some feel it is their religious duty. Some think everyone should live under their law. These are the terrorists we need to fight. And we can weaken them by taking away their support from those who do not truely understand their sinister agenda. This applies not only to Osama bin Laden or Ramsi Yoseuf or Saddam Hussien, but also to the likes of John Ashcroft or Ariel Sharon. Religious extremism, fanaticism, and fundementalism is dangerous, no matter what you believe. Because religion is what this war was started on. It is a holy war - started by Al Queda, started by the Moral Majority, started by Ariel Sharon and Yassir Arafat. It was started by god. And if things keep going the way they've been going, god will be the end of the world.

The UN were as bad with saddam as the league of nations was with hitler. The american led coalition went in to police Iraq because the UN couldnt do its job properly. All we hear about are the bad things in Iraq, there are as many good things too, but we never hear about than. Because we live in a no news but bad news society.
Unfortunately Canadian and other Foreign world news broadcasts don't fall under the same American "in your face" news guidelines but still show the same if not more grim news from Iraq. You may say it’s just cause they are anti-American but really, have we given them a reason not to be. I think American news people just have a hard time finding silver linings in war situations. I think that makes more sense.

For one Clinton sucked from a military and intelligence view. Considering he was the source of many problems from Africa to Yugoslavia. But thats not the topic, the topic is why the war in Iraq Sucks....And the number one reason is because Congress declared war so we can't say it was just the President messed up, the entire congress messed up, if the war was indeed in the wrong.
Just in case you missed it, here is the speech
"Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited."
Now this gave the impression that he would use military force only if Iraq did not comply. As a last resort. But for Bush Iraq did not comly fast enough which was his plan all along. He didn't care that after sending Collin to the UN to plead his lie filled case that the UN still turned him down. His goal was to attack Iraq.
And just to insert this little tid bit. If the Iraq war were to end right now, even with an election, the outcome is still worse than Africa and Yugoslavia. Not to mention Bush still has Iran and North Korea to contend with. Oh, and where's Bin Laden??? At this point he's hit super villain status to our Joe average president.

Yes he was. He knew Bin Laden was behind all the attacks prior to 9-11, and Sudan said, three times, "here, we'll give him to you".

IIRC, it was Madeline Not-Very-Bright who said that it might cause a "diplomatic incident".

I meant the first World trade center attack. And again, if this is the case why did Bush Jr do nothing for 9 months? He was privy to all this information PLUS the second world trade center attack. Hello.

George Clinton was, in fact, privy to that information. The Clinton administration was, however, at a disadvantage. It is extremely hard to adapt to the environment of unseen enemies after such an obvious and centeralized threat is the main concern. This isn't an excuse - it's just an explanation. The Clinton administration did not do it's job properly. This is because they didn't know exactly what the job was or how it was to be done.

I'm not trying to defend Clinton. I'm trying to explain the conditions of the time and why the administration didn't do it's job.

We don't have to contend with Iran, but North Korea is still a problem. Bush is smarter than to go into Iraq, Iran, and North Korea...When Iraq is too much for the civilians to handle right now. Fact is congress declared war, we went to war, first time since World War II that has happened, so though it may have been stupid of our senators and Representatives to pass such a thing, we are stuck with it.

Congress has to approve a war, one way or another, so stop putting all the blame on the President. He holds no real power, just the power to make us look stupid on TV.

We should be glad the UN has no backbone or our good old cowboy president would be headed to the world court to answer for a war that has killed over 100,000 CIVILIAN Iraqis in a span of less than 2 years.

Yeah, why not.

They allowed Hussein to kill FAR MORE of his own in the past in the same time period, but then that was about 10 fold for his whole reign.

Sorry? Wasn't it on CNN, so you didn't know?

Yeah, why not.

They allowed Hussein to kill FAR MORE of his own in the past in the same time period, but then that was about 10 fold for his whole reign.

Sorry? Wasn't it on CNN, so you didn't know?
Ya, what news do you watch? So your count is Saddam killing 1,000,000 of his own people. Please say this is what you are saying so we can all discount anything you say from here on out. Where does this number come from? even the high end numbers are no where near that

"U.S. rights investigators said on Saturday they suspected Iraq had up to 260 mass graves containing the bodies of at least 300,000 people murdered by the former regime of Saddam Hussein."

And those numbers cannot be verified by any other agency but they need the numbers to be at least that so they can justify the next quote

"And therein lies the best utilitarian argument for invasion that could have been made."

But I'll let you have your say and give us a link. It should be on the CNN website. Come on, put up or shut up. But when you're all done justifying your count you can tell me what sense it makes for us to take even ONE Iraqi life. So it makes sense that we add to Saddam's death toll. And where is the justice for that? Should Bush be put on trial once his war casualty rate hits 1,000,000 too? How about Bush Sr. Check the next quote.

"According to the 21 March 1998 Times Union (Albany), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that 1,000,000 Iraqis, incl. 560,000 children, died as a result of malnutrition and disease caused by the international embargo imposed following the invasion of Kuwait. The article mentions the use of these numbers by an official of the United Church of Christ."

Just in case you wonder where I stand, it certainly isn't by Saddam's side. But iI certainly cannot stand by the president when his acts seem just as immoral

Congress has to approve a war, one way or another, so stop putting all the blame on the President. He holds no real power
I won't stop and in fact I'll add this cause you obviously missed it the first time. Congress was deceived. It's like me taking $100 dollars from you and saying I will only use it as a last resort but then I turn around and use it the first chance I get. Wouldn't that piss you off? It would me. Now add to the fact the pressure that was placed on you if you were part of the few that did vote against military force. You now are labeled non patriotic, un-American. How could you vote against it? Iraq has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. oh wait, no they didn't. The president has no power? I do think you jest sir.

Curious, didn't the news casters say that there was no warning to 911? Because I know thats bullshit. I was evacuated from the Statue of Liberty exactly a week before 911.

I think the war is good because we went in, kicked ass, and got our hands dirty. Screw the U.N., screw other countries. My opinion is turn the place into a glass parking lot and dance on the fallen Iraqi's shallow, feces-ridden graves in absolute happiness.

But that's just me.