NationStates Jolt Archive

It always puzzles me when I ask people why they support a certain war, be it the one in Iraq, Afghanistan or the one on terror. They tell war is a horrible thing... Some understand the true reprecussions of it: dead bodies, poverty, widows, orphans, mutilations, executions, injustices, the sheer tearing away of normality, the starvation, the hatred, the anger, and the sorrow. Some understand that our soldiers stop being the boys from home and become mindless killing machines- they forget what enough death does to anyone. Some understand how long a land must suffer until it stabilizes again... as long as the region itself is peaceful (which is not always the case.) And these very people ACCEPT those costs, claiming it to serve a purpose, as though they can actually see and appreciate this purpose. They are willing to accept all the thing that war brings on their selves, hanging it allegorically around the neck. They bear the burden as though they're the ones doing the killing... It's just not right.

I wish for everyone pro-ANY war to speak to a veteran of another one. How many want to fight again? How many want there to EVER be a fight again?

I myself would never be able to stand by any war unless I myself was willing to pick up a gun and walk door to door shooting those my superiors or I deemed dangerous- be they men, women or children.

Things in the world however cannot be white and black. We cannot shut our eyes to tyrrany, but we cannot replace it with something worse either.
It grieves me more than anything else to see people supporting war as they do. With bright faces, full of pride and joy they herald in the most horrible things that can go on in the world.

I don't ever want anyone to live through war... I know I've rambled, but I just feel so strongly about this and cannot see anyone so inhuman as to usher in death and destruction.

Do those that support the war not realize there is blood on their hands?

You know what? You gave an eloquent arguement for the US military to further robotic research. Why not we have robots do the fighting in the future? It'd save all of us time, money, and personel. I mean, I assume you are a veteran. You idealize the reason why troops are more of a nuissaince than a help to a military.

I am not a veteran, but I know a number... and they have no good memories, and the past for them is a subject best left untouched.

If I expressed myself incorrectly, I meant to say that soldiers suffer too, but nonetheless civilians suffer a great deal more.

Absolute peace, no wars, mankind's mark on the world is eliminated, nature takes control again, and people live in small communities connected by a network of roads. Technology is gone, everyone shares and helps one another. There is no economy, no profit, you just do your part and live your life in harmony. Each community maintains a certain number of people, and a life may only begin after another life ends. This is my ideal world.

It always puzzles me when I ask people why they support a certain war, be it the one in Iraq, Afghanistan or the one on terror. They tell war is a horrible thing... Some understand the true reprecussions of it: dead bodies, poverty, widows, orphans, mutilations, executions, injustices, the sheer tearing away of normality, the starvation, the hatred, the anger, and the sorrow. Some understand that our soldiers stop being the boys from home and become mindless killing machines- they forget what enough death does to anyone. Some understand how long a land must suffer until it stabilizes again... as long as the region itself is peaceful (which is not always the case.) And these very people ACCEPT those costs, claiming it to serve a purpose, as though they can actually see and appreciate this purpose. They are willing to accept all the thing that war brings on their selves, hanging it allegorically around the neck. They bear the burden as though they're the ones doing the killing... It's just not right.

I wish for everyone pro-ANY war to speak to a veteran of another one. How many want to fight again? How many want there to EVER be a fight again?

I myself would never be able to stand by any war unless I myself was willing to pick up a gun and walk door to door shooting those my superiors or I deemed dangerous- be they men, women or children.

Things in the world however cannot be white and black. We cannot shut our eyes to tyrrany, but we cannot replace it with something worse either.
It grieves me more than anything else to see people supporting war as they do. With bright faces, full of pride and joy they herald in the most horrible things that can go on in the world.

I don't ever want anyone to live through war... I know I've rambled, but I just feel so strongly about this and cannot see anyone so inhuman as to usher in death and destruction.

Do those that support the war not realize there is blood on their hands?



In reply to your last sentence: Do you realize those who don't support the war have the blood of any terror-victims on their hands?

Originally posted by Zanato:
Absolute peace, no wars, mankind's mark on the world is eliminated, nature takes control again, and people live in small communities connected by a network of roads. Technology is gone, everyone shares and helps one another. There is no economy, no profit, you just do your part and live your life in harmony. Each community maintains a certain number of people, and a life may only begin after another life ends. This is my ideal world.

The most beautiful anarchy.

Better a good war than a bad peace.

(Though I think Churchill might have said the converse).

Better a good war than a bad peace.

(Though I think Churchill might have said the converse).

If you're fighting for freedom against oppression, I'd have to agree.

Hell, I'd never wish war, but I realize that sometimes it has to happen.

"It is good that war is so terrible lest we should grow too fond of it."

Terrible but necessary...the tragicomic existence of humanity.

But as has been said, better to have a good war than a bad peace.

Absolute peace, no wars, mankind's mark on the world is eliminated, nature takes control again, and people live in small communities connected by a network of roads. Technology is gone, everyone shares and helps one another. There is no economy, no profit, you just do your part and live your life in harmony. Each community maintains a certain number of people, and a life may only begin after another life ends. This is my ideal world.



People fought looong before technology came into being >.>

What I wish people would realize is that struggle is part of our nature. As long as there is life on this planet, there will be conflict. Conflict is also necessary. Who would oppose those with aggressive, demanding personalities if not for conflict? You can only appease one for so long until you run out of items to bribe with. What then? War is part of any society, be they civilized or barbaric, people should learn to accept it.

In reply to your last sentence: Do you realize those who don't support the war have the blood of any terror-victims on their hands?

I do not realize that because it is not true. Those people cannot be held accountable for the actions of others. They do not seek a pardon for the religious and revolutionary extremists who took the lives of others.

What you do in that statement is equate war with justice.

It always puzzles me when I ask people why they support a certain war, be it the one in Iraq, Afghanistan or the one on terror. They tell war is a horrible thing... Some understand the true reprecussions of it: dead bodies, poverty, widows, orphans, mutilations, executions, injustices, the sheer tearing away of normality, the starvation, the hatred, the anger, and the sorrow. Some understand that our soldiers stop being the boys from home and become mindless killing machines- they forget what enough death does to anyone. Some understand how long a land must suffer until it stabilizes again... as long as the region itself is peaceful (which is not always the case.) And these very people ACCEPT those costs, claiming it to serve a purpose, as though they can actually see and appreciate this purpose. They are willing to accept all the thing that war brings on their selves, hanging it allegorically around the neck. They bear the burden as though they're the ones doing the killing... It's just not right.

I wish for everyone pro-ANY war to speak to a veteran of another one. How many want to fight again? How many want there to EVER be a fight again?

I myself would never be able to stand by any war unless I myself was willing to pick up a gun and walk door to door shooting those my superiors or I deemed dangerous- be they men, women or children.

Things in the world however cannot be white and black. We cannot shut our eyes to tyrrany, but we cannot replace it with something worse either.
It grieves me more than anything else to see people supporting war as they do. With bright faces, full of pride and joy they herald in the most horrible things that can go on in the world.

I don't ever want anyone to live through war... I know I've rambled, but I just feel so strongly about this and cannot see anyone so inhuman as to usher in death and destruction.

Do those that support the war not realize there is blood on their hands?
Just a few comments on this:

1. The military does not make men into "mindless killing machines." That's utter nonsense and anyone even remotedly acquainted with military training and objectives realizes it.

2. It's not a matter of supporting the war with "bright faces, rull of pride and joy." It's a matter of supporting war with a heavy heart and a sober mind in the knowledge that it is indeed a terrible thing.

3. It is a matter of opinion that "we are replacing [ tyranny ] with something worse." I, for one, do not agree at all.

4. American officers do not order their soldiers to shoot "women and children," and if they did, the soldiers are in violation of the Military Code of Conduct if they obey those orders.

5. I am a veteran of war, as you can see from my signature block. I do not oppose the Iraq war because I feel it was a necessary war. Some wars are necessary, regardless of what you may want to believe.

I am not a veteran, but I know a number... and they have no good memories, and the past for them is a subject best left untouched.

If I expressed myself incorrectly, I meant to say that soldiers suffer too, but nonetheless civilians suffer a great deal more.
I would wager you know far fewer veterans than I do, and I assure you that many of us have some good memories, that we are not afraid of our own past, and that we fully support our brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you're fighting for freedom against oppression, I'd have to agree.
How about that! That's exactly what we're doing in Iraq. Isnt't that amazing! :)

People fought looong before technology came into being >.>

What I wish people would realize is that struggle is part of our nature. As long as there is life on this planet, there will be conflict. Conflict is also necessary. Who would oppose those with aggressive, demanding personalities if not for conflict? You can only appease one for so long until you run out of items to bribe with. What then? War is part of any society, be they civilized or barbaric, people should learn to accept it.

Do you seriously believe we should accept war as part of our nature and not strive to drive it from us? Infidelity is also part of our nature, but nonetheless you stand against such a thing, do you not?

I do not realize that because it is not true. Those people cannot be held accountable for the actions of others. They do not seek a pardon for the religious and revolutionary extremists who took the lives of others.

What you do in that statement is equate war with justice.
Sometimes, war IS justice!

Absolute peace, no wars, mankind's mark on the world is eliminated, nature takes control again, and people live in small communities connected by a network of roads. Technology is gone, everyone shares and helps one another. There is no economy, no profit, you just do your part and live your life in harmony. Each community maintains a certain number of people, and a life may only begin after another life ends. This is my ideal world.
And what then is the purpose of living if there is no exploration, no adventure, no deeds of daring? I would kill myself if I had to live in a world like that! :headbang:

I would wager you know far fewer veterans than I do, and I assure you that many of us have some good memories, that we are not afraid of our own past, and that we fully support our brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you are that sure you are probably right. I speak only from my own experience. Do not think that I do not want our soldiers to live and succeed, but I would rather that they have never been placed in danger to begin with. Surely you can agree with me there?

In reply to your last sentence: Do you realize those who don't support the war have the blood of any terror-victims on their hands?
Exactly. But this they will deny to their dying breath.

Do you seriously believe we should accept war as part of our nature and not strive to drive it from us? Infidelity is also part of our nature, but nonetheless you stand against such a thing, do you not?



We can try to stifle it as much as possible, but it's always going to be here. Those who strive for world peace are naive.

In reply to your last sentence: Do you realize those who don't support the war have the blood of any terror-victims on their hands?

"Thou shalt not kill."


...aside from which, you presuppose that the current ill-defined (to put it mildly) 'war on terror' is the most efficient way to minimise the casualties of international terrorism. Personally lean strongely towards the 'speak softly' rather than the 'carry a big stick' side of the equation.

The current crop of insurgents/terrorists/freedom-fighters spearheaded by the nebulous Al-Qaeda and its adherents are the result not of peace, but of war. They did not spring out of a vaccuum: instead they are the product of governments in the Western/Developed world playing fast and lose with ethics and thinking that they can set up warlords as befits their needs and never worry about them again. The west is simply reaping the seeds it has sown over the past decades, and it seems like it has largely missed the whole point of the object lesson which is being presented to it.


It says something for the chronic stupidity inherent in humanity when viewed as a mass that it is able to work out more efficient and more expensive and more technologically advanced means of killing people, but fails at the basic fundamental question of operating such that there is no need or desire to kill people. So much for a couple of hundred thousand years of technological advance: in the end it seems that the best the leaders of most of the western world can offer is the application of high velocity objects to the fragile human body as their prefered way of solving problems.


EDIT: left the word 'thousand' out in the phrase ' hundred thousand years of progress'. Ooops.

We can try to stifle it as much as possible, but it's always going to be here. Those who strive for world peace are naive.

How do we improve without ideals? How do we progress without goals?

I do not realize that because it is not true. Those people cannot be held accountable for the actions of others. They do not seek a pardon for the religious and revolutionary extremists who took the lives of others.

What you do in that statement is equate war with justice.


No, you can't squirm your way out of it just like that. Those who allow others to die through inaction are as guilty as the murderers themselves. It's called being a good Samaritan.

In this case, war is justice.

People fought looong before technology came into being >.>

What I wish people would realize is that struggle is part of our nature. As long as there is life on this planet, there will be conflict. Conflict is also necessary. Who would oppose those with aggressive, demanding personalities if not for conflict? You can only appease one for so long until you run out of items to bribe with. What then? War is part of any society, be they civilized or barbaric, people should learn to accept it.

Well, the connected communities would cooperate and respond as a unified force if threatened either internally or externally. Technology would be nice, but you would really need a developed and progressive organization to maintain technology and advance upon it. This would require teachers, employees, etc. You would also need to produce and distribute the technology, which needs workers. The people must know how to use the technology, so they'll need schooling. You can see what I'm getting at, I hope. Sometimes simplicity is the best.

As for war, it is brought upon by need, greed, and a conflict of ideas. Ideally, there would be no need - everyone would contribute and all needs would be satisfied. The greedy would be banished from the network of communities once they are discovered, and conflicts of ideas would be settled by elders.

How do we improve without ideals? How do we progress without goals?



We can certainly try, but to believe those standards are actually attainable is folly. Mankind is not perfect, therefore a perfect society is beyond our capability.

It's called being a good Samaritan.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Good Samaritan offered medical aid to one of the fallen, he didn't cluster bomb someone else's country, no?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the Good Samaritan offered medical aid to one of the fallen, he didn't cluster bomb someone else's country, no?



I'm sure if the bandits returned for the person, he would have done his best to fend them off. Sometimes, military action is the only feasible solution. Diplomacy doesn't work with someone who views you as the Great Satan, after all.

And what then is the purpose of living if there is no exploration, no adventure, no deeds of daring? I would kill myself if I had to live in a world like that! :headbang:

You can explore, go on adventures, and do deeds of daring. All that would be required of you is to do your part within the community. Find out what you're good at, and contribute. Besides that, your life is your own. If you don't want to contribute at all, simply leave the community and strike out on your own, be that permanently or temporarily.

Diplomacy doesn't work with someone who views you as the Great Satan, after all.

That's why Jesus used his secret Kung-fu moves on the Romans then?

To sit down with the devil, as the saying holds, all you need are long spoons. First you show that you are not, in fact, the Great Satan, and then you see if it is possible to go foward from there.

"Thou shalt not kill."


...aside from which, you presuppose that the current ill-defined (to put it mildly) 'war on terror' is the most efficient way to minimise the casualties of international terrorism. Personally lean strongely towards the 'speak softly' rather than the 'carry a big stick' side of the equation.

The current crop of insurgents/terrorists/free-fighters spearheaded by the nebulous Al-Qaeda and its adherents are the result not of peace, but of war. They did not spring out of a vaccuum: instead they are the product of governments in the Western/Developed world playing fast and lose with ethics and thinking that they can set up warlords as befits their needs and never worry about them again. The west is simply reaping the seeds it has sown over the past decades, and it seems like it has largely missed the whole point of the object lesson which is being presented to it.


It says something for the chronic stupidity inherent in humanity when viewed as a mass that it is able to work out more efficient and more expensive and more technologically advanced means of killing people, but fails at the basic fundamental question of operating such that there is no need or desire to kill people. So much for a couple of hundred years of technological advance: in the end it seems that the best the leaders of most of the western world can offer is the application of high velocity objects to the fragile human body as their prefered way of solving problems.

I wholeheartedly agree.

That's why Jesus used his secret Kung-fu moves on the Romans then?

To sit down with the devil, as the saying holds, all you need are long spoons. First you show that you are not, in fact, the Great Satan, and then you see if it is possible to go foward from there.



Have you seen Bin Laden's ultimatum? Besides military withdrawal from the Middle East, he wants the US to convert to Islam...

I wholeheartedly agree.

Hopefully not with my idiosyncratic spelling of the word 'vacuum'.

No, you can't squirm your way out of it just like that. Those who allow others to die through inaction are as guilty as the murderers themselves. It's called being a good Samaritan.

In this case, war is justice.

THEN WHY AREN'T WE IN ALL THE AFRICAN COUNTRIES WHERE PEOPLE ARE BEING EXTERMINATED? WHY AREN'T WE IN INDIA WHERE WIVES ARE STILL RITUALLY BURNED FOR DOWRY? WHY AREN'T WE IN NORTH KOREA? OR SAUDI ARABIA? OR EVERYWHERE THERE IS INJUSTICE!!! WE ARE ALL MURDERERS THEN. ARE WE NOT!?!? WHERE ARE YOUR SAMARITAN INSTINCTS LEADING US!?!? TO ANOTHER WORLD WAR!!! TO A GLOBAL DOMINION!!! OPEN YOU EYES AND SEE WHAT YOU SPEAK!!!

Have you seen Bin Laden's ultimatum? Besides military withdrawal from the Middle East, he wants the US to convert to Islam...

That's bargaining for you: you always ask for more than they could possibly accept. The pair of you make compromises, and some kidn of deal is struck which the pair of you are both able to accept, but which falls short of the initial demands of both parties.


Does this mean I support Bin Laden? Certainly not.

THEN WHY AREN'T WE IN ALL THE AFRICAN COUNTRIES WHERE PEOPLE ARE BEING EXTERMINATED? WHY AREN'T WE IN INDIA WHERE WIVES ARE STILL RITUALLY BURNED FOR DOWRY? WHY AREN'T WE IN NORTH KOREA? OR SAUDI ARABIA? OR EVERYWHERE THERE IS INJUSTICE!!! WE ARE ALL MURDERERS THEN. ARE WE NOT!?!? WHERE ARE YOUR SAMARITAN INSTINCTS LEADING US!?!? TO ANOTHER WORLD WAR!!! TO A GLOBAL DOMINION!!! OPEN YOU EYES AND SEE WHAT YOU SPEAK!!!

The sad reason? It's not convenient.

THEN WHY AREN'T WE IN ALL THE AFRICAN COUNTRIES WHERE PEOPLE ARE BEING EXTERMINATED? WHY AREN'T WE IN INDIA WHERE WIVES ARE STILL RITUALLY BURNED FOR DOWRY? WHY AREN'T WE IN NORTH KOREA? OR SAUDI ARABIA? OR EVERYWHERE THERE IS INJUSTICE!!! WE ARE ALL MURDERERS THEN. ARE WE NOT!?!? WHERE ARE YOUR SAMARITAN INSTINCTS LEADING US!?!? TO ANOTHER WORLD WAR!!! TO A GLOBAL DOMINION!!! OPEN YOU EYES AND SEE WHAT YOU SPEAK!!!



Sorry, I have a policy of not reading posts in all-caps.

I cannot find a good article to post about the situation in Sudan... but if you think that Iraq is the hotbed of the world, you are dead wrong. Look at Nepal too while you're at it.

That's bargaining for you: you always ask for more than they could possibly accept. The pair of you make compromises, and some kidn of deal is struck which the pair of you are both able to accept, but which falls short of the initial demands of both parties.


Does this mean I support Bin Laden? Certainly not.



Yes, I'm sure he would dress in his best suit and show up for negotiations to try and reach some sort of compromise. He's an Islamic militant, his belief is that he must fight on until the world embraces Islam. You can't end this scenario diplomatically.

Sorry, I have a policy of not reading posts in all-caps.



Then why aren't we in all the African countries where people are being exterminated (Sudan)? Why aren't we in India where wives are still ritually burned for dowry and female infanticide is still an occurence? Why aren't we in starving North Korea? In oppressive (although improving) Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we everywhere there is injustice? We are all murderers. What YOU strive for is a world war and a global dominion.

I hope that lets you read it and actually respond. Sorry for the caps. :(

You can't end this scenario diplomatically.

Y'know, all my life I grew up hearing that about the Northern Ireland situation... has it been resolved through diplomacy? No, not yet, I'll give you that, but the road of sitting down and talking (through intermediates if necessary) has proved to be the most effective methodology in about a thousand years of trying one crazy scheme after another.

The sad reason? It's not convenient.

Quite unlike our latest series of wars, however. How is it that the nations which apparently support terrorism the most and are the most unjust, that we invade, also happen to be among the weakest nations in the Middle East. Lucky us, ey?

Then why aren't we in all the African countries where people are being exterminated (Sudan)? Why aren't we in India where wives are still ritually burned for dowry and female infanticide is still an occurence? Why aren't we in starving North Korea? In oppressive (although improving) Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we everywhere there is injustice? We are all murderers. What YOU strive for is a world war and a global dominion.

I hope that lets you read it and actually respond. Sorry for the caps. :(



1. We should be

2. We can't though, the military is spread VERY thinly as it is.

3. We are not murderers for liberating as many people as we can, this actually gives us the moral highground.

4. No, America isn't in a very good state for a World War, and we technically already have global dominion as the only superpower ;)

Y'know, all my life I grew up hearing that about the Northern Ireland situation... has it been resolved through diplomacy? No, not yet, I'll give you that, but the road of sitting down and talking (through intermediates if necessary) has proved to be the most effective methodology in about a thousand years of trying one crazy scheme after another.



Northern Ireland is an anomaly. The number of cases where it didn't occur far exceed it. Take Israel/Palestine for instance. They negotiated all the time, yet the booms never ceased.

It always puzzles me when I ask people why they support a certain war, be it the one in Iraq, Afghanistan or the one on terror. They tell war is a horrible thing... Some understand the true reprecussions of it: dead bodies, poverty, widows, orphans, mutilations, executions, injustices, the sheer tearing away of normality, the starvation, the hatred, the anger, and the sorrow. Some understand that our soldiers stop being the boys from home and become mindless killing machines- they forget what enough death does to anyone. Some understand how long a land must suffer until it stabilizes again... as long as the region itself is peaceful (which is not always the case.) And these very people ACCEPT those costs, claiming it to serve a purpose, as though they can actually see and appreciate this purpose. They are willing to accept all the thing that war brings on their selves, hanging it allegorically around the neck. They bear the burden as though they're the ones doing the killing... It's just not right.

I wish for everyone pro-ANY war to speak to a veteran of another one. How many want to fight again? How many want there to EVER be a fight again?

I myself would never be able to stand by any war unless I myself was willing to pick up a gun and walk door to door shooting those my superiors or I deemed dangerous- be they men, women or children.

Things in the world however cannot be white and black. We cannot shut our eyes to tyrrany, but we cannot replace it with something worse either.
It grieves me more than anything else to see people supporting war as they do. With bright faces, full of pride and joy they herald in the most horrible things that can go on in the world.

I don't ever want anyone to live through war... I know I've rambled, but I just feel so strongly about this and cannot see anyone so inhuman as to usher in death and destruction.

Do those that support the war not realize there is blood on their hands?

I am a vet of this war. I have some very good friends that are combat arms, and worked with members of the 5th special forces. I have never met a mindless killing machine, nor am one myself.

HOW DARE YOU ACUSE ME AND MY BROTHERS IN ARM OF WANTING TO KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN!

You know nothing about the military, warfare, or what it takes to be a soldier.
What you don't seem to realize is that the inhuman monsters are those that we are fighting. They don't care who they kill and have made it very plain that they will kill anyone who doesn't agree with thier particular world view. Esotericain they would kill you and your family very brutally, and wouldn't hesitate to show what they did to you to the world.

1. We should be

2. We can't though, the military is spread VERY thinly as it is.

3. We are not murderers for liberating as many people as we can, this actually gives us the moral highground.

4. No, America isn't in a very good state for a World War, and we technically already have global dominion as the only superpower ;)

So Iraq is more of a priority in our quest against injustice than Sudan? Than India? Than Columbia?

I am not a veteran, but I know a number... and they have no good memories, and the past for them is a subject best left untouched.

If I expressed myself incorrectly, I meant to say that soldiers suffer too, but nonetheless civilians suffer a great deal more.

And yet when you ask Veterns if it was worth it they would say yes and if you ask them if they would do it all over again to protect their country they would say yes.

All veterns have felt proud to serve their country.

[QUOTE=Grampus]"Thou shalt not kill."




It says something for the chronic stupidity inherent in humanity when viewed as a mass that it is able to work out more efficient and more expensive and more technologically advanced means of killing people, but fails at the basic fundamental question of operating such that there is no need or desire to kill people. So much for a couple of hundred thousand years of technological advance: in the end it seems that the best the leaders of most of the western world can offer is the application of high velocity objects to the fragile human body as their prefered way of solving problems.[QUOTE]

My theory on this is that only by uniting the human race under a single leadership will there ever be an end to war.

Democracy works by the majority of people agreeing on something and everyone else making do.If everyone's individual agenda was played out,you would have chaos,if there is no agreement there is no progress and no order.

This is what is happening on the larger scale of autonomous nation states.Each follows it's own agenda,and so humanity,when viewed as a mass,does not move forward.

If humanity had a single government,it's goals would not be territorial,predjudiced or dangerous.It's only agenda would be the well being and progress of the human race.

I am a vet of this war. I have some very good friends that are combat arms, and worked with members of the 5th special forces. I have never met a mindless killing machine, nor am one myself.

HOW DARE YOU ACUSE ME AND MY BROTHERS IN ARM OF WANTING TO KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN!

You know nothing about the military, warfare, or what it takes to be a soldier.
What you don't seem to realize is that the inhuman monsters are those that we are fighting. They don't care who they kill and have made it very plain that they will kill anyone who doesn't agree with thier particular world view. Esotericain they would kill you and your family very brutally, and wouldn't hesitate to show what they did to you to the world.

I'm sorry to cause you this anger. As lackluster as my apology might seem, I did not mean it like that. I'm sure you served proudly and greatly, but do I really need to link to a site describing the civilian deaths in Iraq. I know they're inevitable, but they're there. And it's not all terrorists and Iraqis killing each other. I never said you WANTED to kill women and children either. Don't put words in my mouth. But they ARE dying, aren't they!?!

As for our views of extremists, no doubt there are some as you describe. But then again, we too have our share of those that believe all Arabs should be rounded up and imprisoned, or worse. Propaganda plays a huge part in war on both sides, with demonizing probably being greater in the Middle East against us. But let's not forget there are those that do not want America's destruction but merely a ceasing of intervention in Middle Eastern politics and economies.

So Iraq is more of a priority in our quest against injustice than Sudan? Than India? Than Columbia?



India is an ally, and they are actually a pretty decent nation on the whole, sometimes these abominable acts occur, but not too frequently.


Sudan needs to be dealt with, but they don't pose as great a threat to us as Iraq would have, had Saddam been allowed to pursue acquiring WMD's.


Technically, we have a war on drugs in Colombia :D

And yet when you ask Veterns if it was worth it they would say yes and if you ask them if they would do it all over again to protect their country they would say yes.

All veterns have felt proud to serve their country.

A number from Vietnam beg to differ. Last I remember, the last time the U.S. needed protection was during the war of 1812.

Originally posted by Novaya Zemlaya:]

My theory on this is that only by uniting the human race under a single leadership will there ever be an end to war.

Democracy works by the majority of people agreeing on something and everyone else making do.If everyone's individual agenda was played out,you would have chaos,if there is no agreement there is no progress and no order.

This is what is happening on the larger scale of autonomous nation states.Each follows it's own agenda,and so humanity,when viewed as a mass,does not move forward.

If humanity had a single government,it's goals would not be territorial,predjudiced or dangerous.It's only agenda would be the well being and progress of the human race.

An admirable dream, but we as races, ethnicities, and religions have too many divisions and biases to live peacably together. Maybe in a few thousand years when we've mixed the gene pool around a bit more.

Sudan needs to be dealt with, but they don't pose as great a threat to us as Iraq would have, had Saddam been allowed to pursue acquiring WMD's.


So it's not about injustice after all, its about the threat that could've been. Way to go. I wonder why he was a threat only to us and other nations and the U.N. did not perceive so? Surely those nuclear weapons wouldn't ALL be aimed at the U.S. after they were acquired?

A number from Vietnam beg to differ. Last I remember, the last time the U.S. needed protection was during the war of 1812.



Civil War (depending on what part of the country you live in), WWI (The Zimmerman letter and the Luisitania), WWII (Japan, and Germany had they taken over Europe), and all of the Cold War....and now, of course :D

In reply to your last sentence: Do you realize those who don't support the war have the blood of any terror-victims on their hands?
In what way do they have the blood of terror-victims on their hands? Clearly any terror-victims that dies are doing so at best in spite of the war, and at worst because of the war...how that equates to being the responsibility of those who dont support, I cant even imagine. :confused:

really guys i know a vet from the first gulf war and he says we all should carpet bomb and kill every last towel-headed sand worm in the world :mp5:

A number from Vietnam beg to differ. Last I remember, the last time the U.S. needed protection was during the war of 1812.

World War II. Dumbass. :rolleyes:

So it's not about injustice after all, its about the threat that could've been. Way to go.



No, it's about both in the case of Iraq.

In what way do they have the blood of terror-victims on their hands? Clearly any terror-victims that dies are doing so at best in spite of the war, and at worst because of the war...how that equates to being the responsibility of those who dont support, I cant even imagine. :confused:



Inaction amounts to guilt.

Sudan needs to be dealt with, but they don't pose as great a threat to us as Iraq would have, had Saddam been allowed to pursue acquiring WMD's.



wow yeah all those tons of nukes they found in iraq.......... oh wait thats right they never found any!!!! :p

World War II. Dumbass. :rolleyes:
how did the US need protection then we were the most industrialized and powerful nation at the time :confused:

there is no avoiding war unless all differences are accpeted and the entire world is ruled under one rule. sadly no nation because of nationalistic and spiritual feelings will never agree too such a thing and will continue to crave there laws be absolute in the land. such as in iraq where one group of its people where mocked and killed by saddam to make him look strong and to assure his beliefs dominate. war will never be unknown to us less a miracle shall stop it all. people will continue to make deadier weapons and it shall fall upon the the soilders to use these weapons to protect all they know and cheerish. however i dont support the war in iraq currently although i do support the first gulf war where we should have finished off saddam in the first place. where there is light on earth there is darkness behind it and where people find out what they have in common they will find out what their differences are and it will tear them apart. :(

Inaction amounts to guilt.
Nope caring amounts to guilt :p

how did the US need protection then we were the most industrialized and powerful nation at the time :confused:

Ever hear of Pearl Harbor? Or how about the Aluetians Islands?

Inaction amounts to guilt.
How does not acting in a way that wouldnt and in fact hasnt saved the people you claim the non-actors are responsible for the death of amount to guilt? How can not doing something that wouldnt save person X amount to being guilty for the death of person X?

What you are suggesting just does not make sense...

World War II. Dumbass. :rolleyes:

Thanks for being a team player. How did we need protection though? Oh yeah, from the almighty Japanese who we proceeded to demolish right away without much failure along the way. See: Damage in Japan during World War II. We annihialated (carpet-bombed) every major city in Japan. We dropped nukes on them. Our whole involvement in the war was offensive. How did we need protection? Think before you speak and stop being childish.

how did the US need protection then we were the most industrialized and powerful nation at the time :confused:



No...Germany was much mightier than we were, if not for Hitler's ill-advised decision to invade the Soviets, we probably would have lost.

....however i dont support the war in iraq currently although i do support the first gulf war where we should have finished off saddam in the first place....... :(
Thats is absolutly true

No...Germany was much mightier than we were, if not for Hitler's ill-advised decision to invade the Soviets, we probably would have lost.

<-< >->
Substantiation?

I would really like to see where you get this information from. Research race!!!

Thanks for being a team player. How did we need protection though? Oh yeah, from the almighty Japanese who we proceeded to demolish right away without much failure along the way. See: Damage in Japan during World War II. We annihialated (carpet-bombed) every major city in Japan. We dropped nukes on them. Our whole involvement in the war was offensive. How did we need protection? Think before you speak and stop being childish.




Your lack of historical knowledge is apparent.


Review the first half of the war in the Pacific. Things looked very grim for us, having lost most of our ships at Pearl Harbor. We were on the defensive, Japan was quickly taking our territory, most notably in the Philippines. In fact, they could have defeated us without much effort if we didn't get extremely lucky at Midway.

Ever hear of Pearl Harbor? Or how about the Aluetians Islands?
that never qulified us for needing protecting. Pearl harbor caught them off gaurd and the Aluetians haha that was a pathetic and ultimatly pointless attempt to occupy US soil and to prove that we dindt need protection ever hear of Hiroshima and Nagasaki :D

In fact, they could have defeated us without much effort if we didn't get extremely lucky at Midway.
extremly lucky my ass the japanese divide there carrier fleet and moved to attack half assed againt a prepared american fleet (prepared because we intercepted and decoded japanese messages and new there everymove no luck there just brilliant planning and masterfull combat
Japan lost 4 large carriers
America Lost 1 Large carrier :p

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]
having lost most of our ships at Pearl Harbor. =QUOTE]

NOOOO wrong again we lost most of the battleships at pearl harbor might i remind you that the carriers fleet was away that day

Your lack of historical knowledge is apparent.


Review the first half of the war in the Pacific. Things looked very grim for us, having lost most of our ships at Pearl Harbor. We were on the defensive, Japan was quickly taking our territory, most notably in the Philippines. In fact, they could have defeated us without much effort if we didn't get extremely lucky at Midway.

Let us remember that it was a surprise attack and U.S. forces were not ready. You are right in that 1942 the war turned at Midway, but most of Japan's victories until that point were against GB, China, and Burma. Midway, also, was a turning point, not the reason for U.S. victory. Only 4 Japanese aircraft carriers were lost. When the U.S. finally rallied it's forces and took the offensive by launching assaults at key Japanese installationsr and unleashed it's forces it was no challenge. We always had a stronger economy and a greater ability to mass produce weapons of war, as well as a numerical superiority. Japan caught us off guard, and when we regained it, they lost.

Let us remember that it was a surprise attack and U.S. forces were not ready. You are right in that 1942 the war turned at Midway, but most of Japan's victories until that point were against GB, China, and Burma. Midway, also, was a turning point, not the reason for U.S. victory. Only 4 Japanese aircraft carriers were lost. When the U.S. finally rallied it's forces and took the offensive by launching assaults at key Japanese installationsr and unleashed it's forces it was no challenge. We always had a stronger economy and a greater ability to mass produce weapons of war, as well as a numerical superiority. Japan caught us off guard, and when we regained it, they lost.

hes right statistics show that for every 1 Japanese soldier there were 2 pounds of supplies produced.but for every american marine there was 56 tons of supplies produced

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]
having lost most of our ships at Pearl Harbor. =QUOTE]

NOOOO wrong again we lost most of the battleships at pearl harbor might i remind you that the carriers fleet was away that day



Actually, I wasn't wrong at all. You just misread my ambiguous statement :)

I should have been more specific: "having lost most of our ships that were docked at Pearl Harbor."

Actually, I wasn't wrong at all. You just misread my ambiguous statement :)

I should have been more specific: "having lost most of our ships that were docked at Pearl Harbor."

You win! You are the champion! :p

I'm sorry to cause you this anger. As lackluster as my apology might seem, I did not mean it like that. I'm sure you served proudly and greatly, but do I really need to link to a site describing the civilian deaths in Iraq. I know they're inevitable, but they're there. And it's not all terrorists and Iraqis killing each other. I never said you WANTED to kill women and children either. Don't put words in my mouth. But they ARE dying, aren't they!?!

As for our views of extremists, no doubt there are some as you describe. But then again, we too have our share of those that believe all Arabs should be rounded up and imprisoned, or worse. Propaganda plays a huge part in war on both sides, with demonizing probably being greater in the Middle East against us. But let's not forget there are those that do not want America's destruction but merely a ceasing of intervention in Middle Eastern politics and economies.

I'll accept your apology if your you will accept mine. One of my friends has had his head screwed with so much since he's been home by people, mainly by his now ex fiance. He was nearly convinced that he should feel all guilty about following orders and defending himself. He was constantly told by his fiance, her friends and others at his college, that if he didn't feel full of guilt that there was something severly wrong with him. Hear that often enough from people that you think that you can trust, and you start to believe it. He nearly committed suicide. Some of our friends went down to see him when we found out that he was having problems, and got him to see that he was fine, just like the rest of us, and that he didn't do anything wrong.

Your intitial post reminded me way to much of the bullshit that was fed to him and others have tried to feed to me.

Yes, there are civilian deaths in Iraq. Its unavoidable, and sad, but coalition soldiers do as much as they can to eliminate civilian casualties. It happens in this country as well, when innocents get caught in the crossfire between criminal groups, or criminals and police.

And yes, there are a groups who claim to just want westerners out of the middle east, but do you think that if we give in to those groups, who use just as barbaric of methods as the most extreme groups, that they would stop with having all the westerners out of the middle east?

I'll accept your apology if your you will accept mine. One of my friends has had his head screwed with so much since he's been home by people, mainly by his now ex fiance. He was nearly convinced that he should feel all guilty about following orders and defending himself. He was constantly told by his fiance, her friends and others at his college, that if he didn't feel full of guilt that there was something severly wrong with him. Hear that often enough from people that you think that you can trust, and you start to believe it. He nearly committed suicide. Some of our friends went down to see him when we found out that he was having problems, and got him to see that he was fine, just like the rest of us, and that he didn't do anything wrong.

Your intitial post reminded me way to much of the bullshit that was fed to him and others have tried to feed to me.

Yes, there are civilian deaths in Iraq. Its unavoidable, and sad, but coalition soldiers do as much as they can to eliminate civilian casualties. It happens in this country as well, when innocents get caught in the crossfire between criminal groups, or criminals and police.

And yes, there are a groups who claim to just want westerners out of the middle east, but do you think that if we give in to those groups, who use just as barbaric of methods as the most extreme groups, that they would stop with having all the westerners out of the middle east?

I would hope they would, but I really don't know... To tell the truth, all I really know is that I want peace... and I'll be damned if everyone can't agree that peace is not something we all could use a bit more of.

I'm sorry about what happened to your friend, and it wasn't right what they did to him. He did what he had to do. In any case, a soldier should never ever be blamed.

I'm also against this war because it only further ingrains hatred and racism. More and more we're beginning to see the Middle East as a land of unwashed barbarians who cannot find any good government or way of life without direct military liberation, courtesy of us. The Iraqi war was given so many different justifications and pretenses so many times that it sickens me. They can't even pick a lie to stick to.

People fought looong before technology came into being >.>

What I wish people would realize is that struggle is part of our nature. As long as there is life on this planet, there will be conflict. Conflict is also necessary. Who would oppose those with aggressive, demanding personalities if not for conflict? You can only appease one for so long until you run out of items to bribe with. What then? War is part of any society, be they civilized or barbaric, people should learn to accept it.

This is why I think those who support the war should enlist or actually go to Iraq to get some sense of the reality of it all. The reason there is a war in the first place is because of people like you, who've usually never seen an ounce of tragedy in their lives and have no idea of what war is, much less whether this particular war is morally justifiable or not. There are people every day, Iraqis and Americans, whose lives are being irrepairably ruined. That means 50 years from now, in 2056, those same people will still be f-cked in the head, while the burbites responsible for it all will be living comfortable lives in retirement. Can you even imagine a lifetime of misery? It's a fate worse than death.

Just as an example, I was talking with a war vet some time ago from the first Gulf War. He explained to me how his army unit would launch rockets from tens of miles away at Iraqi positions. That part wasn't the problem. It was when his unit got the order to advance and he drove by all the charred bodies with the smell of burnt flesh in the air, seeing what he had done, that the real horror sunk in. btw he still has PTSD and wakes up screaming in the middle of the night thinking he's back in Iraq.

You really need to understand that war is no longer something to sing songs about in the pub. People don't tell war stories any more about how they slew Sir Isaac of Canterbury in mighty battle. Modern warfare is hell on earth.

Begin a warrior (for lack of better word) and all I fight wars for a living. It doesn't matter to me if a war is "just" or cruel. It's what I do and it's not going to change.

This is why I think those who support the war should enlist or actually go to Iraq to get some sense of the reality of it all. The reason there is a war in the first place is because of people like you, who've usually never seen an ounce of tragedy in their lives and have no idea of what war is, much less whether this particular war is morally justifiable or not. There are people every day, Iraqis and Americans, whose lives are being irrepairably ruined. That means 50 years from now, in 2056, those same people will still be f-cked in the head, while the burbites responsible for it all will be living comfortable lives in retirement. Can you even imagine a lifetime of misery? It's a fate worse than death.

Just as an example, I was talking with a war vet some time ago from the first Gulf War. He explained to me how his army unit would launch rockets from tens of miles away at Iraqi positions. That part wasn't the problem. It was when his unit got the order to advance and he drove by all the charred bodies with the smell of burnt flesh in the air, seeing what he had done, that the real horror sunk in. btw he still has PTSD and wakes up screaming in the middle of the night thinking he's back in Iraq.

You really need to understand that war is no longer something to sing songs about in the pub. People don't tell war stories any more about how they slew Sir Isaac of Canterbury in mighty battle. Modern warfare is hell on earth.

You phrased it infinitely better than I. Exactly what I want people to hear.

It always puzzles me when I ask people why they support a certain war, be it the one in Iraq, Afghanistan or the one on terror. They tell war is a horrible thing... Some understand the true reprecussions of it: dead bodies, poverty, widows, orphans, mutilations, executions, injustices, the sheer tearing away of normality, the starvation, the hatred, the anger, and the sorrow. Some understand that our soldiers stop being the boys from home and become mindless killing machines- they forget what enough death does to anyone. Some understand how long a land must suffer until it stabilizes again... as long as the region itself is peaceful (which is not always the case.) And these very people ACCEPT those costs, claiming it to serve a purpose, as though they can actually see and appreciate this purpose. They are willing to accept all the thing that war brings on their selves, hanging it allegorically around the neck. They bear the burden as though they're the ones doing the killing... It's just not right.

I wish for everyone pro-ANY war to speak to a veteran of another one. How many want to fight again? How many want there to EVER be a fight again?

I myself would never be able to stand by any war unless I myself was willing to pick up a gun and walk door to door shooting those my superiors or I deemed dangerous- be they men, women or children.

Things in the world however cannot be white and black. We cannot shut our eyes to tyrrany, but we cannot replace it with something worse either.
It grieves me more than anything else to see people supporting war as they do. With bright faces, full of pride and joy they herald in the most horrible things that can go on in the world.

I don't ever want anyone to live through war... I know I've rambled, but I just feel so strongly about this and cannot see anyone so inhuman as to usher in death and destruction.

Do those that support the war not realize there is blood on their hands?

No one wishes war. I am in general anti war. But when all other avenues of diplomacy and everything else have been ventilated and world security it at threat unfortunately war is the only option. Had every option been explored with Iraq and all had proven to fail then there would have been more support for the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has been carried out disgracefully but in other cases is it ok to let death and destruction remain and threaten everybody?

It always puzzles me when I ask people why they support a certain war, Do those that support the war not realize there is blood on their hands?

The only war I would say that does not fit into this category is the Second World War.

The cuase to fight was the closest to actually being noble.

Some real assholes were trying to take over everything.

Sometimes, you may have to defend what is yours, from people who wish to take them.
I would never wish for war, and I am usually against it, in all forms.
But sometimes...its an inevitibility.

It would be nice if everyone on the planet could all get along, and not have need for weapons and bombs and such....but the truth is that people are assholes, and assholes who lead nations...start wars.
Its what they do.

So...sometimes...when someone is going to shoot someone you care about..or take something that you need to live...or maybe even harm a loved one....you do what you must.

Yes..their blood will be on your hands.
But sometimes, spilling blood is necessary.

An admirable dream, but we as races, ethnicities, and religions have too many divisions and biases to live peacably together. Maybe in a few thousand years when we've mixed the gene pool around a bit more.
I don't think unity would require fusion.Many nations today,the best example being the United States,are not synonomous with a single faith or race,or even a single culture.A single nation governing all humanity would be - like the EU moto says - united in diversity.
In a world like this,people would stop thinking of foreigners as alien,and start thinking of them as brothers and sisters (which is what they really are after all).
As you say,it'l probably be a long way off,if it ever happens at all.But it could happen tomorrow if the leaders of the world really wanted it to.

I would never wish war it doesnt really solve anything

"War is a horrible thing, but there is good in why we fight wars."

My thoughts as a civilian.

It doesn't matter if we want war or not were still going to have it because its human nature to think were better then others even my home nation America is pretty much bossing all the other nations around and in the end were probably going to get crushed when a bunch of nations team up and decide they don't want us American dogs in command...
Of course we'll make sure to take them with us ;)