|
General Iraq War thread - Use this Thread only ! (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by KLINGKLANG77
JOIN THE ARMY FFS!!!!!!!!!! |
ok i heard u the first time....but i do not have to join the army to have be beleifs...jeeezzzz |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | | all of you saddam-loving, bush-hating hippies can now go to hell!!! |
Hating Bush doesn't imply loving Saddam.
| quote: | | but thats ok keep being retarted it suits u well. |
I'll quote myself on this one:
| quote: | | When you don't have arguments, then it's best to resort to insulting other people, right? |
|
|
|
| Robert |
i prefer sky news, was voted best news channel of 2002 (not that that says a lot). cnn and bbc news 24 are ok too.
as for dutch channels, rtl4 and rtl5 seem to do an ok job. prefer it over the ned1-3 anyway. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
I loathe to discuss this issue any further, as it has become very obvious to me that neither side is secure enough in its reasoning that it can avoid introducing mountains of irrelevant rhetoric which no objective analysis could conclude have any direct relation to the issue itself.
The issue, simply is the question. Should the U.S. attack Iraq?
Bush cannot answer this question. Hussein cannot answer this question. I've yet to hear any political leader in the world offer anything even approaching an objective attempt to answer this simple question.
It is not by any means a simple issue. It is not a question one can answer by looking at photographs of crying American children, or wounded Iraqi civilians. It is not a question one can answer by watching the news, or reading the paper. Because of the scope of the issue at hand, one is overwhelmed with rhetoric and extraenous data. That, I must assume, is why the debate regarding the issue has been of such poor intellectual quality.
Before I state my analysis of the war, I find it necessary to launch a preemptive strike, so to speak, on the many flacid arguments I have been confronted with in the past. These arguments, of course, are tied directly to the irrelevant rhetoric I've already lamented - and are also tied to Bush's overwhelming failure to justify the war himself.
Bush's argument is one of emotion. It is one of fear, and, yes, even wrath. It does not touch with justice or reason at any point. What I hope will be obvious to the reader, when I have finished this post, is that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are completely and totally irrelevant. Terrorism is irrelevant. Bush uses them either because he is a fool or because his strategists realize the majority is unable to comprehend the true justice of war. I suspect the former.
I do not care if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. I do not even care if they have sponsored terrorists, although it seems higly dubious.
Next, is the issue of civilian casualties. I expect the civilian casualties in Iraq to be significant. I have no sympathy for the dead. We will all share their fate one day, as would they have were they not killed. I have great sympathy for those who will miss them, for there is no pain greater than love lost - I understand this all too well.
And yet, the cries for peace, to "spare" the people of Iraq, seem to me so incredibly myopic. This peace you speak of, what is it? It seems to me only a cosmetic peace. What peace is there for the political prisoners Saddam Hussein tortures in his prisons? What peace is there for regional minorities he has slaughtered, and might at any time do so again? This is not peace. There has not been peace in Iraq in a very, very long time.
It is easy, to blame a country for dropping a bomb that killed an innocent person. It is harder, to understand a war as a whole, rather than to merely look at it as a series of undesirable events. And it is hardest, to know in the distant future, what results these events might have brought about.
There are those who would argue, with despicable idiocy, that the U.S. cannot wage a war to correct these injustices. Why? Because these injustices are not new, so if they were our purpose, we should have acted long ago. Woe is the man of such horrible reason, he who believes the only injustices that may be corrected are those which are new! Or, they cry, what of the many other parts of the world, where such injustices are as bad, if not worse? And yet by asking this question, they have departed from the issue that we are discussing. For the sage individual would recall, that question we were trying to answer -
Should the U.S. attack Iraq?
And then, the sage individual would see this rhetoric for what it is - completely and totally devoid of relevance, merely a distraction posed by a self-righteous peace advocate realizing, finally, how shallow his or her rhetoric really is.
Worse still, are those who attempt to suggest that past human rights violations by the United States, or violations facilitated by weapons provided by the U.S., somehow preclude the U.S. from correcting the same type of injustices they deride the U.S. for having caused. Such hypocrisy, such utter lack of reason - I cannot put into words the contempt I have for such people.
Perhaps there are a few among you who are still with me. Some, who would rather speak of truth, than of lies. I can only hope...
If indeed, it is truth you seek, then read on. If you would rather squabble about the rhetoric, drivel, and banter I have dismissed above, do not bother, for you haven't eyes for the truth.
Should the U.S. attack Iraq?
I've waded through the sewers of this debate for more hours than I would care to recall. I've survived the stench, and the infection, and I have found that which I had hoped to find. The question has an answer. The answer is obscured from most, but is not at all well hidden.
What I am asserting, is that the very complex question, "Should the U.S. attack Iraq?" can be reduced to two far more simple ones:
1. Is the state of human rights in Iraq acceptable, or even tolerable?
My answer is no, as is the answer of all honorable people.
2. Can it be corrected by any means other than the U.S. attacking Iraq?
This question is not so simple as the first. I've pondered it for hours, and I cannot find an alternative. I've challenged many great anti-war minds to answer it, and have heard nothing even approaching satisfactory affirmative response. Hence, at this juncture, I can only conclude that the answer is no.
If this is the case, then the U.S. attacking Iraq is the only means by which to correct an unnaceptable and intolerable injustice. In a word, the answer to our question is "yes."
Again I pause, to refute the imprudent argument before it is even made. For there are likely those who once thought as I did. Who saw, that while these objectives were the truly what was good, could not transcend the realization that this great opportunity to allow a deserving people to know the light of freedom will likely be squandered by a small man from a white house. My status says I am a cynical idealist, and this could not be closer to the truth. The cynic in me says this is right. That nothing can be achieved, so long as Bush is the one entrusted with such grave matters. And yet, the idealist in me sees the truth. Given unnacceptable circumstances, one must choose whatever path may lead to the acceptable, no matter how unlikely the chance of success. It is better to fail in a great undertaking, than never to have tried at all.
Yes, the price of the war is great. Economically, politically, and socially, the war will be devastating to all involved. Yet, it is the greatest good. For though we will lose much, we will gain something far more valuable - justice. The people of Iraq are afraid. It is only natural, and they are right to worry they might be killed. And yet, to allow innumerable future generations of Iraqi civilians to grow up in peace, that is, real peace, not the lie that is the peace advocated by so many, is so great a reward, both in a utilitarian and humanitarian sense, that to sacrifice even the chance of achieving it (for what? for the status quo?) is simply unjustifiable.
Many will lose their lives, undoubtedly. But, as I sit here, in front of my computer, living out my single, insignificant life - I know I will die, one day. And I could only hope, unlikely though it may be, that perhaps my death might have a fraction of the meaning that theirs will. Their deaths could lay the foundation for something truly great. And in the form of freedom itself, they are as a phoenix - reborn in the most brilliant of ways! |
|
|
| ampburner |
| yeah, they're ok I guess. just that just about every dutch channel rips 70% of their footage straight off cnn :D :D |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
Wow. Excellent Post Arbiter.
I agree with you all the way up until:
| quote: |
2. Can it be corrected by any means other than the U.S. attacking Iraq?
|
I believe it could have. I believe that saddamn was losing his power, growing weaker by the day, as UN sanctions and world scrutiny crippled his abilities. Already he had lost control of the northern and southern parts of his country. He's an aging leader and would have fallen eventually, just as Yasser Arafat will soon. He may have tried to pass power to one of his sons, but the people would have resisted, and nobody would have had his authority in the region.
With continued international pressure, we could have disarmed him completely, sent in scores of human rights workers to the jails to ensure the safety of prisoners, and ensured that the people of iraq are free from this tyrants murderous practices, while still letting him retain the country.
And if it were so decided by the UN that saddamn had to go, then that would have been a job for a special ops team, not 350,000 soldiers.
So, with my belief that the human rights situation could at least feasibly have worked itself out without fullscale war, I need to consider a third question.
What is the cost of war? in money? in lives both american and iraqi? in damage to the environment? in depletion of a dwindling resource? and more importantly, but less quantifiably in stability in the middle east, as well as a favorable view of the united states.
For me, I consider these costs enough to outweight any potential benefits of attacking iraq in a full scale war, and that is why i am against it.
I'm going right now to a peace vigil, we will be there all night, I will think of your words though, you are a wise man. |
|
|
| -=Sky=- |
damn too long, but i agree... except the part about the the deaths being meaningful.. who cares if it is.... their dead. its easy for us to say that. well i dont care about peace or war, im sitting with a full tummy, wondering how my spain trip for spring break is gonna be. Last night i was cramming for my mid term test today when i heard the news about the start of the war. I think its sad that some of us are lucky enough to argue about peace and war while some people are hiding from bombs but hey thats life.
the way i see, war started. people are going to die blah blah. lets think about tommorow and give props to the soldiers who are on the line so we get all get fat and rich. |
|
|
| trancEyes22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
ya i didnt think u could argue about the attacks thing u brought up...weak:rolleyes: ...stick to talking about green Day or Brittny Spears..oh wait ur new to the scene u liek trance now cus its cool at the moment:stongue: |
green day? wtf? and yup, trance is SO mainstream, everyone loves it, thats why i like it too. yeah i know nothing about trance, who is armin? you have my number tiesto14, wow, how did you guess.
dude, you are seriously like a minion of the anti-christ. you are prolly osama himself. like klingklang said, STOP FLAMING A PEACE THREAD FFS, and i wouldn't be too proud of the fact that hating seems to be the ONLY thing you're good at. mother ******. :whip: |
|
|
| BTG |
| I watch CNN. Its war coverage 24/7, and if there's somthing important, CNN would probably know first, or within 5 mins of it happening. |
|
|
| trancEyes22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
oh u got me there....more like i am typing to fast....but thats ok keep being RETARTED it suits u well. |
wow. couldn't have summed you up any better :rolleyes: |
|
|
| beema |
Hey Tiesto14, go join the army is your such a ing super-patriot.
quit sitting here and bitching about it.
Maybe you can go get shot up, or poisoned with gas, or have your face blown off, then maybe you wont think war is so cool.
btw, it hasnt been that long since we bombed Afghanistan, so the further reaching reprecussions of that attack are yet to be seen. One of the reasons I dont think we should be so fiesty to overthrow Iraq, we never even finished establishing a stable government in Afghanistan, and we are already leaping into another conflict.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
Wow. Excellent Post Arbiter.
I agree with you all the way up until:
I believe it could have. I believe that saddamn was losing his power, growing weaker by the day, as UN sanctions and world scrutiny crippled his abilities. Already he had lost control of the northern and southern parts of his country. He's an aging leader and would have fallen eventually, just as Yasser Arafat will soon. He may have tried to pass power to one of his sons, but the people would have resisted, and nobody would have had his authority in the region.
With continued international pressure, we could have disarmed him completely, sent in scores of human rights workers to the jails to ensure the safety of prisoners, and ensured that the people of iraq are free from this tyrants murderous practices, while still letting him retain the country.
And if it were so decided by the UN that saddamn had to go, then that would have been a job for a special ops team, not 350,000 soldiers.
So, with my belief that the human rights situation could at least feasibly have worked itself out without fullscale war, I need to consider a third question.
What is the cost of war? in money? in lives both american and iraqi? in damage to the environment? in depletion of a dwindling resource? and more importantly, but less quantifiably in stability in the middle east, as well as a favorable view of the united states.
For me, I consider these costs enough to outweight any potential benefits of attacking iraq in a full scale war, and that is why i am against it.
I'm going right now to a peace vigil, we will be there all night, I will think of your words though, you are a wise man. |
i agree with u totally on this post..and arbiter..do u think the US's main goal is to save the iraqi people? and why did we choose to save the iraqi people and not other? i can name lots of other countries in worst situation then iraq alot worst..why arent we saving them? answer these questions uf u can please.. |
|
|
|
|
