Before you start handing out more sympath for the "poor" Iraqis...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ferret, Mar 29, 2003.

  1. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I wrote it because I do understand those rights... and how we obtained them... We basically said - "We're not going to take your oink... and not let you get to a point where you can give us your oink..."
    We said it to England, Mexico, France, Spain, Native American Indians(Whom I think we owe quite a bit...), Austria, Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea, Vietnam(we just never should've been there damn LBJ!!! - we got our faces muddy there...)... and we'll keep saying it...

    And I guess it would've been directed more at those in the U.S....

    Sorry you can't really leave our country LM...;)
  2. Zhaneel Resident Gryphon Queen

    "If you aren't enjoying the rights you're using everyday... leave the country... if you have a problem with what we've done to keep those rights - don't use them... and if you don't like what we're doing now, to actually better the world... no one is keeping you here..."

    What do you think I'm doing when I'm arguing?

    What could be more patriotic than fostering open debate on the war?
    by Steve Chapman (edited for length, http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2003/03/28/news/editorial/5499582.htm for the whole article)

    Are you patriotic or antiwar? If you think that's a false choice, you probably weren't in attendance at one of the "Pro-America/Support Our Troops" rallies held in cities across the country last weekend....

    It's hard to see why people should be expected to leave a free country because they have the gall to exercise their freedom. Maybe the ones who should leave are their critics, who would be more comfortable in a country whose government tolerates no criticism - say, Iraq. Or maybe they think we can't deliver liberty to the Iraqi people unless we first confiscate it from the American people.

    There is no contradiction between loving your country and wanting it to stay out of unwise wars. Nor does demonstrating imply a desire to see the United States lose. I can't speak for all critics of the war, but once the bombs started falling, I wanted exactly what the supporters want: a swift victory and the safe return of all our troops....

    Antiwar protesters have no duty to gag themselves once war is under way - any more than Bill Clinton's enemies had a duty to cease their criticism once he won his impeachment trial.

    Nor is blind support of government any favor to those in uniform. Supporters of the war often suggest that the debate is between those with military experience and those without. Not so. Many of its advocates in the administration haven't served - including Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. The main skeptic has been Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff....

    Playing the patriotism card or the veterans card is a shameless attempt to discredit and intimidate dissenters, which is easier than proving them wrong. The real divide is between those who see open debate in a democracy as a weakness and those who see it as a strength. The antiwar demonstrators may be wrong about some things, but they're right about that.
  3. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    Spiderman: I was kind of putting you with the 2 that were originally against 1, that is to say, the for side (if you mean for war).


    I agree that what many Iraqi soldiers are doing to civilians is horrible, but I want to say two things in defense of my analogy.

    The Revolutionary War was only really staunchly supported by about a third, maybe 40% of the colonists. A lot were against it, almost that many, and a lot didn't care.

    Also

    You have to understand that the colonists used what was shocking in those days. The Iraqis are using techniques that are shocking now.
    As much as I hate that now it involves arbitrary killing, it's a sign of the times.
    Because while our society might have progressed internally over the last couple of decades, our foreign policy during the cold war only really helped the situation with the USSR. Meanwhile in the rest of the world we wandered around containing communism and whatnot. It may have been necessary then but it's different now.
  4. Apollo Bird Boy

    I think the difference here is that at the time the Germans were a major military power and were running around rampaging over much of Europe. The Iraqis, on the other hand, are certainly not among the strongest military countries around and haven't done anything in quite some time. If we had gone in earlier to WWII, it would've been defending the countries getting attacked. We go in now, we're not defending anyone, we're the agressors.

    This argument is just silly, I'm sorry. What do you think I'm doing right now? I'm enjoying those rights. It seems to me that you're the one telling me not to employ those freedoms you think you're defending. For that matter, really, as a teenager in this society there are lots of things keeping me here. And when something is wrong with the things around you, you don't run away, you try to make them better. So why leave when we can try to make the U.S. a better country than it already is?
  5. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Just think if we did get into WWII earlier: We could have prevented a majority of the holocaust and could have saved a few hundred thousand lives of people from other countries (Italy, France, the USSR, and of course Germany). Iraq was a country that already proved that it's not afraid to invade its neighours in 1990 and they're not afraid to unleash atrocities against their own people.

    I like to think of it as being proactive instead of invading. Should we keep out of it and allow anothet tyrant to come into huge ammounts of power - I mean, we've done it before - or should we try to stop it before the inevitable happens?

    Another question this brings up: What right do we have to do this? None, really. But, I figure 'why not'? We have the weapons and no else seems to want to (except for maybe, the United Kingdom and Australia.) Even though, we live in a Republic (not a Democracy) where our views are supposed to be important, I like to think that this is something that is just too big for you and me, Joe (or Jane) Somebodies to handle. The scope goes beyond any decision we've ever had to make in our lives.

    -Ferret

    "...it's all relative..."
  6. Lotus Mox New Member

    If you heard the German pacifist voices and not your anticommunist ones, the League of Nations could've checked out the situation with weapon inspectors long before the war actually started.
    That's what i think is the major difference, in Iraq there were weapon inspectors and an army which pressured Iraq quite a bit. In Germany there were no weapon inspectors.
    Another difference is, as Apollo mentioned, Iraq being nowhere near the relative powerlevel that Germany had at that time.

    If the US had started a war with Germany BEFORE it attacked the USSR (but after Germany started the war), Germany might've even won the whole thing. :eek: (Unless you could somehow make the USSR help you). Contrary to what many people in America believe (at least from what I've heard them say), WW2 was basically lost by Germany in Stalingrad, not in the Normandie (dunno how it's called in English :) ). However the US troops certainly helped to make the war end sooner.
  7. Shiro Time Devourer I have returned!

    In English, it's called Normandy.
  8. Svenmonkey Pants Chancellor

    Oh, boy, lets be proactive and kill some folks while we take over their government and impose one that will ship us cheap oil! I'd like you to look at the US and tell me it's not a tyrant and that it hasn't already come into huge amounts of power.

    Hmm... Who's the tyrant with huge amounts of power, now? Lets see, who's the only recognizable country in the world that has gone to war on a large scale twice in two years to try to keep the terrorists out? Oh my gosh. I'm so scared of the terrorists that I just defecated in my trousers.
  9. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    TICM: I thought there were equal against (it seems Zhaneel and perhaps DUke?) and for (train and Ferret?) I'm sort of on the fence but I think I'm actually against the war but support the people fighting it.

    True, but I'm not sure of the relevancy of this other to compare it with not a lot of support now?

    This was only the case in the beginning battles when the colonies didn't have an army and just the "minutemen", if you will. Once Washington was appointed commander-in-chief, he proceeded about raising and training a professional army and engaging in traditional tactics.

    Originally posted by Apollo
    This statement made me think some, I know most of you debating now where in grade school when the '91 Gulf War happened, but did you have any feelings whether that should have occurred?

    Originally posted by Ferret
    Though possible, it's equally possible that more lives (including American) could have been spent. The US was not really ready when it entered in 41. And I agree with Lotus Mox - if Hitler hadn't been so dumb to open a second front against his ally, he should've taken Britain and consolidated Europe.
  10. Shiro Time Devourer I have returned!

    Now there are equal with mixed feelings (Spiderman and Shiro)

    War is never really desirable, and I hate that it had to come to that, but it would be worth it to send Saddam away, after torturing, murdering and generally oppression his Iraqi people. The sooner Iraqi Freedom can safely end, the sooner Iraqi freedom can safely begin.

    That having been said, I think the whole Shock and Awe thing was a waste of time.
  11. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Apollo - It was specifically talking about war... not the conditions of the streets, or medical aid, or needy families here... just our actions on the war, and making the world a better place by ridding it of Saddam... A statement of how we've used our military to maintain our liberties, and if you don't like our military maintaining our liberties... you wouldn't have to stay here... but by staying here, you show you're enjoying those liberties our military fights for, and yet may disagree that they do so... so why would you want to enjoy those rights?...

    No one has argued that the world would be a better place by leaving Saddam where he is...

    They have argued that lives could be saved, but in the end, he could take more than are lost getting rid of him...;)
  12. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    You don't live in New York do you? Now, I'm not saying that Iraq was anywhere near responsible for what happened. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But, the same kind of regime runs Iraq that ran Afghanistan.

    Well, let's see. I live in America. I have many freedoms. I'm proud of those freedoms. So, I would have to say "No. We're not tyrants." Now, the invasion of Kuwait in '90 by Iraq? That was done by tyrants. There's a difference.

    I was in college at the time and I was also in the Naval Reserve. After watching the US sit on their hands throughout so many other invasions we actually got to do something for a change. In the past we were always worried about going to war w/ the USSR (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan (ironic)). This time we could actually step in and help out another country. It's the same thing all over again - at least, from our leaders' stand point. A country needs help and we're there for them.

    Why is it so wrong to try to end tyrany in another country?

    -Ferret

    "Because I'm right and you're wrong! Why won't you just be rational and change your opinion to match mine????" (average war protester)
  13. EricBess Active Member

    So many opinions here...

    Zhaneel is correct. There is nothing unpatriotic about protesting the war. However, there are certain things that need to be taken into consideration.

    I think Spidey's comment made me realize that the Gulf war really was quite a while ago and there is a good chance that many of the people here don't remember much about it. Suffice it to say that going after Hussein is not unprovoked, people.

    And speaking of learning from history, people who don't remember the Gulf War probably don't remember Vietnam. I don't either. I was born around that time so it was before me, but I do know that there were a lot of anti-war protests and I know that the US troops came home expecting to be supported, only to be rediculed instead. A lot of really bad stuff happened and many vets snapped when they came home to that.

    So, whether or not you agree with the war, I would encourage you to support our troops. They are risking their lives whether you agree with it or not and they deserve respect for that.

    Next, if you are going to protest, there is a right and a wrong way to do it. I don't agree with the anti-war protests myself, but I admire those that go through proper chanels and do it right. I have no respect for mobs that form and disrupt traffic and the daily lives of other people.
  14. rkoelsch Angel Boy

    I was in college during the Vietnam war and actualy enlisted in 1974(I had a low number and chose to enlist rather that be drafted). The war was on the downswing and already ended by the time my training was down so instead of going to the Far East I went to Germany. :D

    During the Gulf War I was a full time Supply Sergeant in a National Guard company. We had to live with the rumors of being called up but we never were although some of our Medics went.
    In 1997 I retired after 23 years in the military.

    So now the present war is going on. I whole heartedly support our troops and hope they come back as soon as possible. I feel they have been placed in a very dangerous position and no matter the outcome the troops will suffer for it. We will not be able to win anyone's trust or friendship, the feelings of hatred for americans runs too deep. We may remove Saddam but we have no guarantee the next leader won't be worse.
  15. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    You're such an old fogey, rkoelsch! ;)

    I was a freshman in college during the Gulf War and didn't really think much of it aside that I thought we were doing the right thing in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. Not really sure or can't remember about whether we should have driven him out of Iraq totally.

    One of my friends was worried the draft was going to be re-instituted and talked about moving to New Zealand. Not sure he was serious or not, but I thought it was a poor way of trying to get out serving just because he didn't want to serve.
  16. Svenmonkey Pants Chancellor

    No doubt kicking an invading force out of a country is a good idea, but attacking a country with the world in opposition is not such a great idea.
  17. EricBess Active Member

    There is a difference between opposing something and just not wanting to be a part of it.
  18. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Svenmonkey said:
    and then EricBess said
    This brings an intersting question - why haven't the other governments that were so against this done anything to us? Are they afraid of us? I don't see why...

    -Ferret

    "...we'll just brand them as terrorist threats and remove their leaders :)"
  19. Zhaneel Resident Gryphon Queen

    "This brings an intersting question - why haven't the other governments that were so against this done anything to us? Are they afraid of us? I don't see why..."

    We're only the most influential country in the world... What were you thinking they'd do to us? Declare war?
  20. Svenmonkey Pants Chancellor

    Bad Analogy- What would you do if there was some bully kid walking from child to child in a classroom with a pistol because some kid hit him with a spitball? I don't think you'd be too obviously against him, especially after he pulls the trigger on two little annoying kids...

Share This Page