I personally think this is an unjust war so I voted no. I am not going to pretend to be super smart and present all sorts of research backing up my feelings, or get into this big heated argument just to defend my POV. I realize that I am not in touch with the events happening in the middle east and don't know everything about what is happening and why things are happening the way they are.

I just feel that the war was rushed into without considering other possible ways to prevent terrorism, I think there were other ways to stop it from happening besides invading Iraq and I never saw any serious consideration for other options. I just think that war is supposed to be the last resort, something to be avoided until everybody agrees that it is necessary. I dont feel like this war was a last resort, it seemed to be a little hasty, maybe people who live in New York disagree, which I can understand. I think maybe we should have let congress be the people who declared the war for a change, you know, the way the constitution describes the process of declaring a war.

I also find wars to be pretty discusting, maybe I have read too many books that just go on and on about how horiffic it is. Some of those chilling lines like that Saline book that said "there is no honor in dying for one's country"(or something similar). I just think that alot of the cause for terrorism is based on alot of heinous things that my country has done, and I don't beleive there was enough serious consideration for the possibilty that changing some of our methods might help to prevent attacks better than an invasion would.

Maybe I would think differently if I knoew more about what was really going on, maybe I would do the same thing if I were in the place of the leaders and had access to the info that they have, but from where I am standing this is the way I see it.

The war in Iraq was nothing to do with the war on terror. The US government originally did say to the UN that there were links between al-Qaida and Saddam but they later admitted there were none. Either way, 9/11 was not the reason America wanted to invade Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil My one line means more than the paragraphs of crap that you post every day so spare me your arrogance. If this was a discussion where validity was based on the amount of words you type you'd win hands down. Please don't compare working in a supermarket or car wash to working in the military, it has no correlation what-so-ever. This is the army, you carry big guns with the intention to protect the country, you are trained in combat, who else do you expect the government to use? These aren't bag boys asked to stay an extra shift because a co-worker is sick. Here is the enlistment PDF contract stating that reserves may be called to duty in times of war and that those who are out of duty their terms may be extended. If you don't understand the contract for Christ's sake don't sign it. http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf

Whats this bullshit "protecting your country" crap. What are you protecting the USA from???? WMD's????

This veiled threat has and always will be indoctrinated by this ridiculous administration.

Why are the soldiers in Iraq. Please give a coherent and reasonable and REALISTIC answer. So far.. my answer is that they are occupying Iraq.. that is why. and we all know why... becuase the poor iraqi's need to be saved... ahhahahhahahah

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Whats this bullshit "protecting your country" crap. What are you protecting the USA from???? WMD's???? This veiled threat has and always will be indoctrinated by this ridiculous administration. Why are the soldiers in Iraq. Please give a coherent and reasonable and REALISTIC answer. So far.. my answer is that they are occupying Iraq.. that is why. and we all know why... becuase the poor iraqi's need to be saved... ahhahahhahahah

Well as far as the public (and that includes soldiers too) is concerned yes, the war was about WMDs as that is what the government (and intelligence) told us

So "protecting your country" is not crap

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well as far as the public (and that includes soldiers too) is concerned yes, the war was about WMDs as that is what the government (and intelligence) told us So "protecting your country" is not crap

What was america being protected against?? those weapons were going to somehow bomb the US?

Iran wasnt even afraid and Hussein was mortal enemies with the persians.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King What was america being protected against?? those weapons were going to somehow bomb the US?

Or bomb to military bases in Saudi Arabia...

Don't get me wrong, nobody knew before the war whether Saddam had WMDs and he was doing his best impersonation of someone that did have WMDs, but I didn't think that he would use them against the West or give them to terrorists (possible they could be used to threaten Israel?)

But as far as the public were concerned (and again we include soldiers here) the government told us, or led us to believe, that yes, those weapons would be used, through one means or another, against the West

I didn't believe they would, you didn't, but I can't really blame some people who did believe when that's what they were told by "official" sources and intelligence sources

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Or bomb to military bases in Saudi Arabia... Don't get me wrong, nobody knew before the war whether Saddam had WMDs and he was doing his best impersonation of someone that did have WMDs, but I didn't think that he would use them against the West or give them to terrorists (possible they could be used to threaten Israel?) But as far as the public were concerned (and again we include soldiers here) the government told us, or led us to believe, that yes, those weapons would be used, through one means or another, against the West I didn't believe they would, you didn't, but I can't really blame some people who did believe when that's what they were told by "official" sources and intelligence sources

ok. i get what you mean now

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by TheNobleEu There was: 1. Forced activation of primary reserves as primary combatants; 2. Forced activation of the national guard as primary combatants; 3. Forced re-enlistment for all branches including those who: a. were short-timers (term of army commitment nearing end); b. people who were already passed-term and were due to be discharged from the army; c. people who had already been on tour to Iraq and returned home. There's also a propaganda network (er, "recruitment") for 'a career in the army' that service people are forced to attend in the event they somehow can't be immediately shanghaiied in one of the above ways. Ever heard of selective service? You might very soon.

No draft though.

Those people in the military are contractually obligated to live out their contractual obligations. So before you sign at the bottom line it is up to you to read the "fine print". When you sign a contract you do so affirming the terms of said contract.

No one forced anyone to read the "fine print".

quote:

CONTRACT. This term, in its more extensive sense, includes every description of agreement, or obligation, whereby one party becomes bound to another to pay a sum of money, or to do or omit to do a certain act; or, a contract is an act which contains a perfect obligation. In its more confined sense, it is an agreement between two or more persons, concerning something to be, done, whereby both parties are bound to each other, *or one is bound to the other. 1 Pow. Contr. 6; Civ. Code of Lo. art. 1754; Code Civ. 1101; Poth. Oblig. pt. i. c. 1, S. 1, Sec. 1; Blackstone, (2 Comm. 442,) defines it to be an agreement, upon a sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing. A contract has also been defined to be a compact between two or more persons. 6 Cranch, R. 136. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Why are the soldiers in Iraq. Please give a coherent and reasonable and REALISTIC answer. So far.. my answer is that they are occupying Iraq.. that is why. and we all know why... becuase the poor iraqi's need to be saved... ahhahahhahahah

Don't ask him to respond intelligently, he can't -- he's obviously to be ranked among the board's indigenous plant life.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 No draft though.

Pay attention to what you're quoting (not sure you're comprehension of English is sufficient).

You have the mechanism of a draft without it being called that -- it appears you're dependent on official labels in order to draw basic personal conclusions.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Those people in the military are contractually obligated to live out their contractual obligations. So before you sign at the bottom line it is up to you to read the "fine print". When you sign a contract you do so affirming the terms of said contract. No one forced anyone to read the "fine print".

Right, so when you're electrocuted to death working in a plant, it's your fault because even though you read the fine print, you understood this to be not a distant potential risk, but a probable one. After all, you signed the contract.

Never disappoint yourself by expecting anything but sheeplike behaviour from sheep -- they know no different.

Get away boy, ya' bother me.

-N

___________________

Join the campaign to ban political sigs in the Political Discussion / Debate forum!

Last edited by TheNobleEu on Aug-31-2005 at 16:02

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Don't get me wrong, nobody knew before the war whether Saddam had WMDs

No offence George, but that's a load of crap.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But as far as the public were concerned (and again we include soldiers here) the government told us, or led us to believe, that yes, those weapons would be used, through one means or another, against the West I didn't believe they would, you didn't, but I can't really blame some people who did believe when that's what they were told by "official" sources and intelligence sources

Learn a lesosn from that then. It should tell you something about the credibility of "official sources."

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No offence George, but that's a load of crap.

How so?

quote:

Learn a lesosn from that then. It should tell you something about the credibility of "official sources."

Eh?