The war

Do you agree with the war?

  • No

    Votes: 33 71.7%
  • Yes

    Votes: 13 28.3%

  • Total voters
    46

Dreeza

Active Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
6,359
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
Arlington, VA
Puckstop31 said:
A interesting quote I saw today... This is for you who believe in "peace" at all costs...

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)


Don't be a sheep... Be a wolf-hound.
i dont feel like talking about the war...but i just wanted to comment on this quote! I like that quote A LOT. nice find :)

I do wanna mention...there is a difference in fighting what you believe in, in a smaller, more personal sense, and fighting for your nation, with a gun, overseas. I would never be able to fight in the army...there is no way i could ever handle it...but if i had to fight for my family, loved ones...i am sure that would be a different story, and i would be willing to pick up a gun and shoot someone (however, lol, like i mentioned in the other thread i would probably miss!!)
 

Katja

New Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
125
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
47
Location
Sweden
Hi!

I don´t agree with wars.. especially like Irak..

I lived in Slovenia (although born in sweden and live there again) which used to be part of Yugoslavia and I was lucky enought that war for Slovenia lasted only 14 days after that the rest of Yugoslavia went to hell.. And one thing I learned from it all is NEVER, NEVER EVER expect that foreign forces can come into a country, liberate it and expect people to be thankfull for it, people have to fight and liberate their country alone. Look at what is left of Yugoslavia, Serbia.. NATO forces bombed it and threw in sanctions and so on.. at end people raised and said enough..

Irak, Afganistan are countrys that won´t become democratic because USA went in and liberated it.. they will become democratic when people of this countrys will want it. I belive USA is only pissing people off more and more.. imagine yourself for a second living in Irak, you are a nobody, don´t have money, no work, no nothing.. and than one missle (that missed its target) blows up your house and kills half of your family. What do you think those people feel than? They probably strip on couple pounds of explosives and run into usa army convoy.

Reasons for wars are stupid if you ask me.. Irak war is not fought for people of Irak and everyone knows it.. Weapons of mass destruction a lame story that just made it possible.. and at end there was no weapons of mass destruction.. just oil.

On other hand wars cost a lot, they are big bussines.. http://costofwar.com/

Number of killed soldiers till now : 9,500
Number of wounded soldiers till now : 24,000

Tell mothers of this 9.500 soldiers that war is something good.. their sons did not die for their country they died for oil.

War´s are terrible things and unless you have been in one you will never know how it is like. It is easy to be smart about things you never experienced and you never felt the terror of war.

I love USA although I don´t live in it, it is nice country with nice people so don´t jump the gun now and start jumping up and down about my post.
This all is my opinion and should be treated as such.

Peace, Katja
 

Puckstop31

Super-Genius
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
5,847
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Katja,

Thank you for your post. If you are so inclined, please read through the whole thing. There is a lot of good information presented, from both sides of the table. Some if supports your statements, some of it proves you wrong.

Enjoy!
 

Puckstop31

Super-Genius
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
5,847
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Katja said:
Tell mothers of this 9.500 soldiers that war is something good.. their sons did not die for their country they died for oil.

War´s are terrible things and unless you have been in one you will never know how it is like. It is easy to be smart about things you never experienced and you never felt the terror of war.
Mothers... How insulting to say that you know the feelings of mothers of those heros. How insutling to denegrate their sacrifice with your OPINION that they "died for oil".

I KNOW what war is like. I have been in combat several times. Some of it in Bosnia. I agree it is horrible. Yet, I totally disagree with just about everything you have said. See my signature for some reference.
 

Katja

New Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
125
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
47
Location
Sweden
Hi!

Well this whole is my opinion not reply to anyone. I am sure you can´t find 2 people on whole forum who would totaly agree with anyone about war or anything else..

Like they say about dog trainers: The only thing 2 dog trainers agree on is that third is doing it wrong.

Bye, Katja
 

Katja

New Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
125
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
47
Location
Sweden
Puckstop31

this is exactly what I expected will happen when I posted this post. You hold on to your opinion and I will to mine.

I did not insult anyone, I have a child myself and can´t even imagine my child to die before me. I even know people who lost their children and family in yugoslavian war..

I know you will never accept Irak war was fought for oil but it sure wasn´t fought to liberate Irak or remove terorist threat.

I feel it is pointless to go on about this.. It comes down to opinion I guess since we don´t know what top of usa army and Bush know.. to me it all looks like oil and nothing else. We better stick to dogs...

Bye, Katja
 

Puckstop31

Super-Genius
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
5,847
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Katja said:
Hi!

Well this whole is my opinion not reply to anyone. I am sure you can´t find 2 people on whole forum who would totaly agree with anyone about war or anything else..
I totally understand that. I also agree with you on this point. I simply disagree with you on your others.

Like they say about dog trainers: The only thing 2 dog trainers agree on is that third is doing it wrong.
Nice... I will be saving this one for future use. It is a very good analogy.
 

Zoom

Twin 2.0
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
40,739
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Denver, CO
AndrewF said:
At the VERY least, Saddam should have been removed at that time if for nothing else than invading Kuwait. Not enough was accomplished unfortunately and it left the door open for the current round of fighting.
I've always wondered the same thing. I was in 2nd grade when GWI happened and the most I remember about it was watching the news and seeing all those night-vision reports...and I wrote a letter in class that I thought we really were going to send to Saddam telling him how stupid he was for picking a fight with the US because we were going to kick his butt like the Ninja Turtles and then drop a bomb on his house. ;) It got posted on the front bulletin board up by the office.

One random historical note: Kuwait was a part of Iraq up until the 1940's when the British came in and decided to restructure the region without much thought to historical borders. Saddam was trying to reclaim what technically was rightfully his. We really did have an oil-motivated reason for going in on that one. And the fact that enough time had passed to make Kuwait it's own culture and establish soverignty, etc. etc. I'm not saying that we should have let Saddam have it by any means BTW.

Question: Puckstop, what does that acronym FWIWF or whatever mean?
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
42
Location
Lancaster, PA
I have seen people over and over in this thread say "I don't think its right for an american to die for another countries freedom"

so you think its not right for them to die for someone else but its alright if they are dying for you? Where would your freedom be without a soldier. UP the creek without a paddle thats where.

I think that is the most selfish statement I have ever heard. if they are dying for you its ok but not if its for someone else.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
4,003
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
The great whi...err...green(?) North
Zoom said:
One random historical note: Kuwait was a part of Iraq up until the 1940's when the British came in and decided to restructure the region without much thought to historical borders. Saddam was trying to reclaim what technically was rightfully his. We really did have an oil-motivated reason for going in on that one. And the fact that enough time had passed to make Kuwait it's own culture and establish soverignty, etc. etc. I'm not saying that we should have let Saddam have it by any means BTW.

Question: Puckstop, what does that acronym FWIWF or whatever mean?
FWIW = for what it's worth.

I skimmed a fair bit of that. I believe the reasons for going into Kuwait were two-fold. 1) historically, Kuwait was part of Iraq and Saddam made a grab for it and 2) Iraq was in debt up to it's eye-balls in spite of un-guaranteed loans by western countries (Italy being the best noted in this arena) and Kuwait was a nice rich country which could clear Iraq's debt from the Iranian conflict.
 

Puckstop31

Super-Genius
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
5,847
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Sorry to bump this thread... I just found some interesting quotes from certian people who now vehemently oppose the war...

_______________________________________________________________

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
4,003
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
The great whi...err...green(?) North
I can't believe you typed all that out!

I especially like this quote:

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

The reason for it's appeal is (to me) a laughable OVER-estimation of Saddam's weapons for a change.

Then, of course, there's Kerry's comments about voting to give Bush the authority to go to war. OOOPS!

Of course, I'm not versed in the Democrat platform, however I've got to ask this just so it's out there:
Was Kerry stating going to war was a mistake that shouldn't have been made? or has he been merely saying the US should get out of Iraq? (an honest screw-up is better than flagrant BS, which is better that a big pile of BS being swept under the carpet)
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top