To the cause of war

[Phantasm66]

I don't think its quite as simple as that, either.

You make much of Israelis killing palistinians, but all the time I turn on the news to see that some palistinian head case has gone into a shopping centre crowded with innocent people and like detonated a plastic explosive, etc.

To be honest, I think that nearly everything going on in the middle east is violent, bloody, murderous and also pretty damn immature as well.

Its like watching children playing guns. Only its adults and the guns are real.

These countries seem to me to ALL be less advanced, less demoncratised and less civilised. They SHOULDN'T get to fight each other into extinction, they SHOULDN'T get to have weapons of mass destruction, and they SHOULDN'T be able to take their problems to my shores in the form of international terrorism, etc....

These brainwashed, opressed, fanatical people ALL make me sick. Not the ordinary people but the leaders. They are all insane.

I DO agree with war I think. All of these insane nutters like Ossama Bin Laden, Saddam, even that funny little palestinian guy with the tea towel all needed sorting out.

Total Commitment in the War on Terror - we can presume from the destruction of Alderaan, and the elimination of the Rebel base on Hoth, that Lord Vader would take an aggressive approach to terrorists. Terrorist bases would be totally destroyed, and the military might get to use those really cool Imperial walkers in the process. Captured terrorists could expect to have their veins shot up with truth serum by sinister looking droids. And no matter where Osama was hiding, Lord Vader could use the power of the Force to strangle him to death.

.

Darth Vader says NO to terrorism.....

 

[MaskedBurrito]

I diasagree. The U.S. had a chance to put Sadaam away a few years back when a rebellion rose up at the urging of Geaorge Sr. and threatened to put Sadaam out of power. What did the U.S. do? They temporarily lifted the no fly zone, allowing Sadaam to use his helicopters to put the rebellion down. Hipocritical, no? And for what? Because the New government would not have been 'friendly' (as in not as corrupt) to the U.S. and probably sold the majority of it's oil to France and Russia.
You ever wonder why Osama hates the U.S.? Maybe because the U.S. backs a corrupt Royal Family in Saudia Arabia (his home country) that opresses its people instead of backing an elected government. Granted, Osama's still a wacko and nothing justifies what he did. Anyways, in return for this 'support', the family re-invests the majority of its oil profits into the U.S. Hence the craphole that is the middle east. This people, is the price of the American lifestyle and freedom. You don't really think the whole world can hope to be as prosperous as the U.S. do you? Some must suffer for us to prosper. I'm realistic about it and accept it, but the fact that Dubya lies about it and makes up these pathetic stories about a threat to freedom just makes me roll my eyes. If the government isn't going to be honest then it doesn't have my support.

 

[Amigosdefox]

In order to answer why many people dislike america: http://www.usm.edu.ec/~amadorm/images/americaworld.gif

I dont mean to be disrepectful but I think it pretty much sums up how many people outside the us percieve americans attitude towards the rest of the world. I dont think it is too far from the thuth. Watching news programs like cnn and fox over satellite Í also see commentators having this self centered attitude, for example I was watching fox news the other day and they were discussing Frances position towards war. The commentator was clearly very one sided in favour of the war. Depicting French pacifists as stupid and ignorant and friends with Saddam Hussein. Other news channels around the world seem to be more objective. My guess is that many american people are very misinformed because mass media there hasnt got many lines of thought. I also get the idea that in the United States, anyone who disagrees with "the american way of life" is viewed like a kind of a freak.Well thats just my opinion.

 

[conradguerrero]

what does the world want? America and the EU to 'stop' protecting the world? In our place would arrise China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia. Would the world be 'better' if these corrupt nations at the helm? face it people, we, the western nations, are your only chance for stability, growth, and freedom. All people who hate the US are living in a deluded dream.

Not even out most dangerous adversary - Russia, will dare veto our next resolution of Iraq. we are the supreme nations of the world. who would dare war with NATO?

If North Korea attacks South Korea, Hawaii will most likely be hit by a nuke, but I am assured that NK would cease to exisit. That is the fate of all violent anti-American nations.

We offer help to all nations, and in this century the majority of the world will join the UN. Who really is in charge of the UN? US and Europe, the beginings of a global goverment is seen in the UN's rabid reaction force. We are witnessing a better future for all people.

 

[Nodsu]

What do you mean by "protecting yhe world"?
People are living in miserable conditions and in constand state of war all over the world and no american/european soldiers in sight. We "protect" only ourselves and a few other places we need for strategical reasons. Russia and China are happily "protecting" places like Chechnya and Tibet and all that US and Europe do is mumble when they have nothing better to do.

If NK attacks SK tomorrow, a nuke will miss Japan by dozens of miles and nothing else.

Who really is in charge of the UN?

I sincerely hope it will never be US or EU or any single other powerful force. UN is juat about the only place in world organization where even the smallest country has the same amount of power as the largest.

 

[young&wild]

Most people would agree with me that the feelings of anti-US is much more towards the government itself than the people. Policies are made in such a way that it benefits US. Yes, US government is sometimes generous, giving financial aids to other countries. Most of time, it carried out with certain motives, for resources which can generate profit. Sometimes I wonder why is the US is so keen in helping other countries in poverty when there is still millions out there is the US living below the poverty line and homeless? American government's ego is another issue. Many don't like the American government bossing around with their problems. This really gives an image that they are the most powerful nation in the world, threathening and untouchable.

I can't really make up my mind whether to agree or disagree with war...it pretty much of a complicated situation after having some brainstorming.....

If US is going to have war, the world will never be the same again:
- thousands of soldier are going to die causing burden to their spouse having to meet the ends of raising children....i don't like this idea of sacrificing the lives of so many happy americans just to remove Saddam Hussein
- offcourse the lives of many civillians in Iraq will be affected as we all know Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator daring enough to carry out any task like sacrificing everyone of his people just to keep himself alive.
- another dreadful 9-11 like terrorist attack carry out by Al-Qaeda cell in the US+ its interest overseas not to mention her allies too. Al Qaeda activities carried out are almost invisble. US and it's allies
- US gets to control oil

If US doesn't go on war:
- there less risk of another terrorist attack
- if there are really any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Saddam Hussein will continue his production of this weapons, acting too late when there may risk even more lives The problem may be harder to sort out
- US feels that her image of being a world power will be distorted, later feeling embarrased to not having the guts to dispose Saddam Hussein.
- Saddam Husseing might start another invasion of Arab allies nations of the US

 

[conradguerrero]

so now that Hussein's government is ruined, but terrorist are flocking to Iraq, and with a likely increase of UN peacekeepers in Iraq, i would like to hear everyones thoughts.

 

[PakAsad]

Thanks to this war we now have to deal with an even greater terrorist threat

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by PakAsad
Thanks to this war we now have to deal with an even greater terrorist threat

The 'threat' was already there, just hidden. Ulimately, education is the best way to solve the problem. Many of these 'fundamentalist' views are misguided and are the result of narrow minded individuals that don't understand the world, and have been brainwashed with religion and fundamentalist ideas. Throughout history, religion has been the cause of many wars, and it is the same now. Maybe people should understand that religion is a human invention and was never intended to be the source of conflict, but a means to avoid it. Just my view. Hope this doesn't start another conflict.

 

[XtR-X]

I agree and I think the attack on Iraq was justified.

1) Iraq was a potential danger to the world. A country against the US known to use terrorism is in possesion of weapons of mass destruction. What do you do? "Yeah... lets let them live... they'll just kill us all in about 10 years or so." --that is basically the opinion of people against it. They just don't know it.

2) The attack on Iraq liberated [most] of the Iraqi people. No more tyrant rule.

3) The only bad thing about attacking Iraq and liberating its people is that now it's going to be another Isreal (sp?). Terroism here... terrorism there. Car with explosives crashed a building... killing 100 civilians... etc.

What I don't understand is that, some people agaisnt the war claimed that Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction as if they knew more than US intelligence.

If there is another attack, I know where that will be... the nuclear power plants... so watch out. (Only makes sense right? Spill the radiation all over Americans). I think the US should have super security for the inside of the plants.

 

[Didou]

Originally posted by XtR-X
What I don't understand is that, some people agaisnt the war claimed that Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction as if they knew more than US intelligence.

In case you hadn't noticed, they're still looking for those WMD.

 

[Nodsu]

1) Iraq as a potential danger as opposed to what? Several countries developing nuclear weapons? An unstable muslim nation with a tested nuclear weapon+missiles to carry it? Huge uncontrolled beasts like China and Russia? A powerhungry not-too-bright cowboy leading a superpower?

2) "Liberation" as foreign soldiers patrolling the streets. No law or people to enforce it. You get raped, robbed or murdered unless you happen to have sturdy family with assault rifles guarding you? Liberty in a country with no water, electricity, communications? Liberty without a father, a brother, a son? A "non tyrant" strange rule carrying out random raids arresting and killing people?

3) Of course, the only bad thing that can possibly be is that a bomb might go off near a hotel and kill some americans..

I am not a flaming anti-american BTW.
Just making some counterarguments here..

 

[StormBringer]

Could have fooled me. Looks like you were directly flaming America.

 

[Nic]

Ideal solutions anyone?

War on Iraq was unnecessary, but Saddam had to go.

 

[Justin]

Originally posted by Nodsu



3) Of course, the only bad thing that can possibly be is that a bomb might go off near a hotel and kill some americans..

So the, "only bad thing" that could possibly happen is the brutal murder of innocent people?

I wonder, Nodsu, and this is entirely from my own curiousity, if you would let someone kill a member of your family, or let one of your family kill one of them.

 

[Nic]

I feel Nodsu is simply over-reacting to make a point about how America seems to do as it pleases. This makes America appear as a bully to the rest of us, though we know that America isn't really the evil that some moslem nations seem to believe. Things need to change.

I think the way Americans do business, and constantly show disregard for fair practices, doing whatever it takes to win, and eliminate competition, is also how the American nation treats other countries. Basically, America looks after its own interests at the expense of others. This type of unethical behaviour has been ingrained into American society over many years and is unlikely to change overnight. Just look at the way America ignores environmental concerns simply because of the impact it would have on business. I think its time the US government got its priorties right and stop letting the dollar dictate American policy.

 

[XtR-X]

Originally posted by Didou
In case you hadn't noticed, they're still looking for those WMD.

'talkin bout... you know they got rid of em. Many countries to move it to.

Originally posted by Nic
Basically, America looks after its own interests at the expense of others.

Don't you remember? They bombed Iraq and droped medical supplies, food, and necessities to live. I find that a bit funny.

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by XtR-X
Don't you remember? They bombed Iraq and droped medical supplies, food, and necessities to live. I find that a bit funny.

That's true, and no one is saying that the US hates everyone else and doesn't provide help when it can. The point is, that when it comes down to business/economic interests (i.e. money) or doing what's right, then money usually wins. Economic interests come first (Iraq = future oil reserves).

And before anyone here gets upset at my comments, I'd just like say that I am deliberately focusing on the bad points, just to make it clear why some countries dislike the US. Overall, I feel the world is a safer/better place because of the US, and the US does do many things right. But it gets things wrong also, due to the fact that the US is run by big businesses rather than by the people, or the president. The dollar rules.

 

[Nodsu]

I wonder, Nodsu, and this is entirely from my own curiousity, if you would let someone kill a member of your family, or let one of your family kill one of them.

I think the iraqi death toll is around 10 000 right now . Does that justify a hypothetical successful terrorist act killing 1000 people? Would you shoot a black person walking behind your fence since he just might come in and kill your family? (I know, racism is bad, but it makes a good point)

'talkin bout... you know they got rid of em. Many countries to move it to.

That sure was a spectacular operation. To move those enormous stockpiles that CIA counted from satellites across thousands of kilometers of open desert without anyone noticing (not even the most capable and unerring CIA). And all that in a couple of weeks..

Don't you remember? They bombed Iraq and droped medical supplies, food, and necessities to live.

"Hey there little kid. Your family has lived in poverty and lack of essential good for years because we have imposed economical restrictions on your country. And we just blew up your family. Here, take this bandage and some chocolate.."

And yes, just like Nic, I'm exaggerating the anti-american arguments because there are other most capable and passionate people taking care of the opposite.

 

[vassil3427]

There were economic restrictions because of Saddam Husseins continued want to create weapons and other things. What should we have done? Eased all restrictions, allow him to do whatever he wanted...no. Saddam was a maniac, that killed way more than 10,000 of his own people, while testing weapons....his sons, raped woman every night for the fun of it. What we did in Iraq had to be done, and anyone that thinks otherwise has a very liberal, shallow mind. Now that saddam is gone, the Iraqi people will finally be able to live somewhat good lives, it will take time. But thank God he and his sons are out of power....

 

[Justin]

Originally posted by Nodsu I think the iraqi death toll is around 10 000 right now . Does that justify a hypothetical successful terrorist act killing 1000 people? Would you shoot a black person walking behind your fence since he just might come in and kill your family? (I know, racism is bad, but it makes a good point)

Would I shoot a person (who cares about color?) who was crawling around in my backyard at midnight? Yes, I would. I would put a bullet in his leg if he's lucky, his chest if I see him with a weapon. The way I feel, your family, friends, and country are what need to be protected the most. If someone threatens any of them, you can be sure I will do my best to make sure their threat, idle or not, is never carried out.

The way I see it, it is entirely justified.

 

[vassil3427]

That's right Soul Harvester....feel the same way....I'd probably go for the knees though....

 

[Nodsu]

There were economic restrictions because of Saddam Husseins continued want to create weapons and other things.

Now that we are in Iraq, does it look like Saddam had lots of economical problems? I'm sure his humble palaces, dozens other installations and weapons projects speak of the effectivness of the embargo.

Yes, I would. I would put a bullet in his leg if he's lucky, his chest if I see him with a weapon.

That's nice. Good luck explaining the police later why there is no weapon on the corpse. And it sure seems to me that Mr. Bush has greatly overestimated the size of his back yard.

 

[Justin]

He was in my yard, my castle. If he's a threat, he will be dealt with. Period. That's the way it works.

 

[schizoid77]

Private property and trespassing at night is grounds enough to fire a few shots...damn, if you actually hit him...lesson learned on his side....the police can't do anything about it.....'cept make sure you have a license for the firearm.

As for that war...if there are countries harboring known terrorists that make plans for American terror attacks on a daily basis....I say we turn the whole part of that world into a parking lot.

Educated ignorance is dedicated bliss.