For those who support the war on terror

[Kant]

and is that so wrong? isn't retribution an integral part of justice? i suppose we could have just turned the other cheek and waited for them to slap that one too, but we would soon have run out of cheeks and shown weakness in the process. it would be nice if everyone could just live and let live, but in case you haven't noticed that's not how things are.

by that logic then we're screwed no matter what we do. we do nothing and we encourage them to attack us. we do something, usually declare war, we kill many innocence and obliterate their livelihood, thereby giving them damn good reason to attack us.

once again i ask, "would you prefer we went to war with twenty different countries all at the same time". this is no altruistic war, there were american interests to be preserved so it might be considered justifiable to intercede.

what american interst? oil? you can't say WMDs, because that was just a factless hunch.

the world has changed since the days of military conquest. the globe is much too small and the weapons are much too powerful to allow any country to expand through warfare. the great empires are a thing of the past and those leaders that do not understand this are bound to find themselves facing the wrong end of the assembled might of the world's most powerful nations.

the only countries looking to expand are small ones. ones that don't have smart bombs or huge military forces. quite frankly we don't understand what's going on in other countries and their reasons for fighting. so who are we to force them to stop? Sure if they're our allies we should back them up but if not then it's their affair not ours.

no, i'm merely saying that that is what was done.

we should call the gov't out on this shit or it will repeat itself.

are you confusing a ruthless nature with an intelligent one? i don't claim to understand why anyone would do such things, i don't even claim that i know for a certain fact that such things were done. ego and the desire for power have caused worse miscalculations.

he was definitely ruthless, but you can't secure that kind of power on ruthlessness alone. take for example the sectarian violence we see today in iraq. that kind of hatred doesn't pop up overnight. he spent years ensuring that these people were pissed at each other so they would never band together against him. which allowed him to be a ruthless as he wanted. that takes time planning and precision. something an only and intelligent dictator could pull off.

i think you might be splitting hairs here, but that's ok. is intent justification for action? i would think that depends on the nature of those involved. given iraq's recent history, which shows a willingness to use any means to gain power, you might be able to make a case for the use of force to thwart saddam's ambitions. though i hesitate to use the term mad man, would you really want this guy to have that sort of weaponry at his disposal? there are far too many sources for this sort of material these days.

i was saying that intentions do not merit crimes. we don't know if was building or planning on building wmd's. we had a hunch and we were wrong. we think iran is planning on building nukes but we should not invade them. we thought iraq had wmds and we shouldn't have invade them. until they start build WMD's and we can without a doubt prove it, there is no justification for an invasion.

 

[Fake Plastic Trees]

such weapons are a plague on mankind, but i think that equating saddam's iraq with a bush white house is a bit of hubris that is beneath you. at least here there are some sort of checks on their use. to give that kind of power to any man without any oversight whatsoever is a recipe for disaster of biblical proportions. all nations with such a capacity have had at least minimal oversight on their use.

and the checks are slowly fading away

 

[closet.cult]

forget the bogus reasons given for the iraq invasion in the first place, they were just excuses for doing what seemed to be needed to be done. the facts seem to indicate that iraq did indeed aid in the training of terrorists and that they did have aspirations to attain nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. add into the mix the fact that saddam refused to abide by un guidelines and his recent history of aggression and i would say that any rational person might be tempted to think that his regime was a danger to the middle east and the rest of the world.

if the government has to give you bogus reasons for you to get behind an attack of a country, how can you accept anything they say regarding how large a threat that country is? everything you said about Sadam is a lie and wrong...because you're just repeating what this admininstration told you. sheep.

wouldn't you consider arming our enemies in a time of war to be a threat? even if you discount the saber rattling and inflammatory rhetoric coming from teheran, the aiding of foreign fighters inside of iraq seems to put them firmly in the enemy camp. i do agree that an invasion of iran would be a foolish move (just as the iraq war was an idiotic decision), but should they openly cross the border or attack any of our allies in the area then military action should not be left completely off the table.

again, try not to believe everything these (proven) liars are telling you. but more importantly, WE armed the majority of those who are our ENEMIES, now. we are even selling our enemies arms RIGHT NOW. haven't heard of that rediculous deal based on 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. even more important: we SHOULD NOT attack a country who has not attacked us. PERIOD. you want to attack iran by proxy: because they armed someone else?! ignorant, warmongering.

please don't get me wrong. a peaceful planet is the aim of any intelligent person (even those who make their living by war),

this is your problem. you don't understand how these men think. these men have no interest in peace because far too much wealth and power is generated thru war. once you get that you will stop debating these ignorant ideas about why preemptive war is nessasary.

these and all recent wars of this nation's history have been benefited ONLY big buisness and old money...those men who run this country from behind the curtain.

 

[undertheice]

by that logic then we're screwed no matter what we do. we do nothing and we encourage them to attack us. we do something, usually declare war, we kill many innocents and obliterate their livelihood, thereby giving them damn good reason to attack us.

congratulations and welcome to the real world. it ain't always pretty is it? your next step is to realize that wrath cannot always be turned aside with a kind word.

what american interest?

the only countries looking to expand are small ones. ones that don't have smart bombs or huge military forces. quite frankly we don't understand what's going on in other countries and their reasons for fighting. so who are we to force them to stop? Sure if they're our allies we should back them up but if not then it's their affair not ours.

while we were out gettin' high somebody came up with the grand idea of a global economy. you can bemoan our fate at the hands of the evil oil companies all you want, but it's not just big oil that's invested in the middle east. every american business seems to be sticking its fingers into the global pie and guess what, the rest of the world has its fingers in ours as well.

if you still think it's none of our business, consider the third world country that begs and pleads for american businesses to invest in their country and help build the infrastructure needed to sustain trade. sure enough, next week there is a coup or inter tribal warfare or just a bit of casual genocide and the new government decides to nationalize all those lovely investments. who do you think comes out on the short end of the stick then? certainly not big business, who was so over insured that this seems like a pay day. not the insurers, who will only pass that cost on to the next poor schmuck. bingo, we pay for our government's inability to maintain stability in the global business arena.

i suppose we could go the isolationist route, but in a capitalist economy that is a sure road to stagnation and death. like it or not, the world has become a very small place where even the most remote regions are struggling to become industrialized. for the us to sit on its hands while some struggling nation spirals downward into primitive brutality is nearly impossible.

he was definitely ruthless, but you can't secure that kind of power on ruthlessness alone. take for example the sectarian violence we see today in iraq. that kind of hatred doesn't pop up overnight. he spent years ensuring that these people were pissed at each other so they would never band together....

that sectarian violence existed long before saddam was even a gleam in his daddy's eye. the fact that he didn't use his iron fisted rule to attempt to obliterate it is more a testament to his merciless nature than any intelligence.

 

[Kant]

reason is everything. whether you believe what we've done in iraq is good or bad AND whether you believed the reasons for going in were valid or bogus, they meant the death of 100's of thousends of people (our troops/enemy troops/innocent civilians). If reasons have that kind of price tag in lives attached, they better damn well be good and valid reasons. If shitty or lies are given that result in massive cost in life then those responsible should be held accountable. Any unintentional good that happened can't be attributed to the decision to go in, simply because it wasn't expect. which means that it could just as easily not happened and we would never be the wiser. Bush and his administration fucked up and should be held accountable.

 

[Kant]

congratulations and welcome to the real world. it ain't always pretty is it? your next step is to realize that wrath cannot always be turned aside with a kind word.

yes but violence and hatred only begets more violence and hatred. tit for tat doesn't work and we have to be the ones to end it.

while we were out gettin' high somebody came up with the grand idea of a global economy. you can bemoan our fate at the hands of the evil oil companies all you want, but it's not just big oil that's invested in the middle east. every american business seems to be sticking its fingers into the global pie and guess what, the rest of the world has its fingers in ours as well.

name 1 other industry that is interested in the outcome of iraq other than oil and military.

if you still think it's none of our business, consider the third world country that begs and pleads for american businesses to invest in their country and help build the infrastructure needed to sustain trade. sure enough, next week there is a coup or inter tribal warfare or just a bit of casual genocide and the new government decides to nationalize all those lovely investments. who do you think comes out on the short end of the stick then? certainly not big business, who was so over insured that this seems like a pay day. not the insurers, who will only pass that cost on to the next poor schmuck. bingo, we pay for our government's inability to maintain stability in the global business arena.

so some country has a civil war....why are we paying? does that make it ok to kill everyone we don't like and set up a puppet regime so we can keep our hands in the cookie jar? If they're having a revolution, those people decide what's best for them.

i suppose we could go the isolationist route, but in a capitalist economy that is a sure road to stagnation and death. like it or not, the world has become a very small place where even the most remote regions are struggling to become industrialized. for the us to sit on its hands while some struggling nation spirals downward into primitive brutality is nearly impossible.

how many of the European countries are have troops in every nook and cranny of the world? and how many of them are stagnating and dying? few and even fewer.

that sectarian violence existed long before saddam was even a gleam in his daddy's eye. the fact that he didn't use his iron fisted rule to attempt to obliterate it is more a testament to his merciless nature than any intelligence.

so by doing nothing made him more ruthless? that doesn't make sense. true there was violence between the two religions prior to saddam but nothing even comparable to what we see to day. Again a purely ruthless lead would have just gone in and killed indiscriminately, saddam fanned these rivalries because it helped him maintain control. an act of intelligence and ruthlessness.

 

[undertheice]

if the government has to give you bogus reasons for you to get behind an attack of a country, how can you accept anything they say regarding how large a threat that country is? everything you said about Sadam is a lie and wrong....ad infinitum....as nauseum...

i would respond to your little tirade; but, frankly, such mind numbing rhetoric bores me to tears. i'm sure you firmly believe that saddam was a great guy who loved his children and was merely a misunderstood genius and humanitarian.

congratulations, your indoctrination is complete.

i will, however, tell you that my opinions are not all that uninformed. i spend hours each week pouring over sites that range from the christian right and the american nazi party to moveon.org and various glbt sources. so i certainly don't need someone like you bleating at me about what a sheep i am. i was born a liberal and was a confirmed communist before leaving grade school, but even i can see that the nouveau-left has abandoned any rational path.

 

[iblazethatkush]

please don't get me wrong. a peaceful planet is the aim of any intelligent person (even those who make their living by war), [\quote]

this is your problem. you don't understand how these men think. these men have no interest in peace because far too much wealth and power is generated thru war. once you get that you will stop debating these ignorant ideas about why preemptive war is nessasary.

these and all recent wars of this nation's history have been benefited ONLY big buisness and old money...those men who run this country from behind the curtain.

Very well said closet cult. People need to realize we were going to invade Iraq if 9/11 happened or not. That was just the excuse they needed to invade. If 9/11 didn't happen, they would of just found another excuse. Watch this video https://www.rollitup.org/politics/34307-remember-60-minutes-interview.html

 

[iblazethatkush]

i heartily agree that the iraq invasion was an asinine blunder, but once into the fray the us is obligated to see it through to some sort of conclusion. we must pay for our mistakes even if it means sacrificing our own. to do otherwise would be even more immoral than our original stupidity. it may seem callous, but that is one of the costs of being a world power.

Well, at least, you agree it was a mistake. Technically, this is an illegal war. Bush never got permission from congress to invade Iraq. Why continue an illegitamate, illegal war?

 

[iblazethatkush]

i can't quite comprehend the unabashed hatred that so many citizens of one of the greatest counties on earth have for their government. i can understand suspicion and defiance, but the unrivaled self-hatred it takes to hold such low opinion of those that you yourself put into power is quite beyond me.

It is called patriotism, my friend. When you don't agree with the policies of the government you let it be known. Please don't get it twisted. I love my country, just not it's current dictator...I mean, President. People who have blind faith in the government are fools, plain and simple.

 

[closet.cult]

i would respond to your little tirade; but, frankly, such mind numbing rhetoric bores me to tears. i'm sure you firmly believe that saddam was a great guy who loved his children and was merely a misunderstood genius and humanitarian.

congratulations, your indoctrination is complete.

i will, however, tell you that my opinions are not all that uninformed. i spend hours each week pouring over sites that range from the christian right and the american nazi party to moveon.org and various glbt sources. so i certainly don't need someone like you bleating at me about what a sheep i am. i was born a liberal and was a confirmed communist before leaving grade school, but even i can see that the nouveau-left has abandoned any rational path.

ice, any and everyone in the world knows what an asshole sadam was. just like everyone knows this president of iran is an asshole. but the case being made for war against both of them is inflated, and thats being kind.

in reality: the government lies about the threat they pose to order to build a case for war. why? because there is a lot of money to be made during war! Plus, there's 5 trillion dollars in oil under their ground!

check out John Perkins - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. He's interview on YouTube. he tells a story that fits perfectly into this scheme of the bankers and buisnessmen engineering takeovers on a national scale. Economically, but if that doesn't work, they'll use the U.S. Army.

if you do the research you claim you do, i can't understand why you still choose to beat the war drum like a bushie. this was not a war for the protection of the american people-and that is the ONLY reason war should ever take place.

this was a political takeover with the financial raping of the american people to boot. i, and other peace lovers in this world, find this action despicable. there is no justification for this war. there is no honor in it either.

 

[MagusALL]

i was in the marines and in Afghanistan and im not a nazi. however this war is bullshit and all about money and making our presidents friends and family rich for centuries to come. America is lining the pockets of its leaders with the blood of its defenders. its fucking unbelievable

 

[MagusALL]

the fact is marines and men and women in the armed forces joined to serve their country and communities and now they are just employees of the bush machine. id kill him myself if it were allowed. btw, dont give in to the police on anything. they are increasingly militarizing themselves and joining with the military under the guise of domestic security. if you want a good read try the constitution and the bill of rights.

 

[bongspit]

Eisenhower called Bush a Hitler and his followers Nazis? Gosh, I thought Eisenhower died before Bush was born. ~lol~

Vi

eisenhower died 3-28-1969 george w bush was 23 yrs old......

 

[bongspit]

forget the bogus reasons given for the iraq invasion in the first place, they were just excuses for doing what seemed to be needed to be done. the facts seem to indicate that iraq did indeed aid in the training of terrorists and that they did have aspirations to attain nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. add into the mix the fact that saddam refused to abide by un guidelines and his recent history of aggression and i would say that any rational person might be tempted to think that his regime was a danger to the middle east and the rest of the world.

wouldn't you consider arming our enemies in a time of war to be a threat? even if you discount the saber rattling and inflammatory rhetoric coming from teheran, the aiding of foreign fighters inside of iraq seems to put them firmly in the enemy camp. i do agree that an invasion of iran would be a foolish move (just as the iraq war was an idiotic decision), but should they openly cross the border or attack any of our allies in the area then military action should not be left completely off the table.

please don't get me wrong. a peaceful planet is the aim of any intelligent person (even those who make their living by war), but to hide your head in the sand is no way to achieve peace. i heartily agree that the iraq invasion was an asinine blunder, but once into the fray the us is obligated to see it through to some sort of conclusion. we must pay for our mistakes even if it means sacrificing our own. to do otherwise would be even more immoral than our original stupidity. it may seem callous, but that is one of the costs of being a world power.

How can we believe this administration when they say Iran is aiding the enemy, they have proven they will say anything to get their way....

 

[iblazethatkush]

i was in the marines and in Afghanistan and im not a nazi. however this war is bullshit and all about money and making our presidents friends and family rich for centuries to come. America is lining the pockets of its leaders with the blood of its defenders. its fucking unbelievable

No I don't really think Bush nor you are nazis. I was just being dramatic. Much respect to the troops. It takes some serious balls to do what you guys do. I couldn't do it. But, yeah your right, the leaders of the country are willing to sacrifice the lifes of its defenders for wealth and power. It's fucking insane, man.

 

[ViRedd]

eisenhower died 3-28-1969 george w bush was 23 yrs old......

Good job. I figured someone would do the research. ~lol~ But the point is, Eisenhower didn't know GW, so he couldn't have called him "Hitler" or a "Nazi."

Vi

 

[medicineman]

Good job. I figured someone would do the research. ~lol~ But the point is, Eisenhower didn't know GW, so he couldn't have called him "Hitler" or a "Nazi."

Vi

I believe the point was: Eisenhower refered a person like bush being president.

 

[iblazethatkush]

Good job. I figured someone would do the research. ~lol~ But the point is, Eisenhower didn't know GW, so he couldn't have called him "Hitler" or a "Nazi."

Vi

Come on, Vi, your gong to focus in on the part where I was exaggerating to try and discredit me? The point is, Eisenhower was talking about anyone in favor of prevantive war. Last I checked this is a prevantive war we are in.

 

[ViRedd]

You're right, of course. I was trying to be funny. Sorry if the humor escaped you guys. ~lol~

Vi