Grocery store experience
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 515
You are spamming this forum with your liberal agenda, which you cant back up? <- Simplest way to put it. You also ignore other posts or just libel against the person who made the post (attack the messenger, not the message)
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
Juggers said:
No one is against the troops obviously, but against the reasons for this war in Iraq. You'll be trained to carry out orders and no matter what it'll be in the name of the U.S. There's nothing wrong with joining the military. Good luck as it will be a life changing experience without doubt. Whatever is said about the troops being over there has little to nothing to do with the troops themselves. It has to do with the people giving the orders, planning policy, and governing the civilians. Did you plan the war to go into Iraq? No, but you volunteered to serve in the military which is engaged abroad in something a good amount of people disagree with and subsequently would like to see our family and friends in the service back home safe and sound or at least somewhere they are needed more. As it stands the situation in Iraq is a catch-22. "We" broke it or in other words made the country less stable and potentially helped create more terrorists, killed who-knows (100,000+) Iraqi civillians, and now "we" have to fix it. However, it seems there are American troops and civillian contractors for example in danger if we stay there in the same fashion and we are all in danger even if the troops are sent home as there is more incentive for terrorists who are potentially more capable and willing to plan attacks around the globe. The West is now as vulnerable as ever. No one can say that either side has their hands clean to date. I hope Bush is right and will be someday proven right, but right now it seems highly unlikely that will ever be a part of reality as there is nothing to suggest terrorism is going to stop being planned in Iraq in the least bit.
You said it.I know it might be hard for you republicans to recognize, but that is what truth looks like. Instead of swallowing the "propaganda" put out by the Bush administration and the main stream press, maybe you should rethink your pathetic resigned position of "aw shucks guys, were there, so we just have to deal with it" Quite frankly that is a bullshit position.
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 515
Who-knows exactly? Do you have the facts or are you 'swallowing that (liberal) propaganda'? I am sure we have killed far less innocent than Saddam did deliberately with gas 
derringer57 said:Who-knows exactly? Do you have the facts or are you 'swallowing that (liberal) propaganda'? I am sure we have killed far less innocent than Saddam did deliberately with gas
I highly doubt that, even though Saddam murdered a lot of people, we killed a whole lot more with sanctions, invasions, and especially, this illegal occupation.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Kal-el said:
Obviously the military campaigns have killed some Iraqis, but the sanctions thing is horseshit. Those sanctions were UN sanctions, not US sanctions. It wasn't called the "US Oil For Food" program, but the "UN Oil For Food" program. So, it's not as if the sanctions didn't pass the same "global test" that would have supposedly legitimized the war, regardless of whether the war was a wise decision or not.
The whole death by sanctions argument is nonsense, because Saddam was able to buy food and medicine under the program, he just didn't like the restrictions that were a condition of ending Gulf War I. He did not participate in the program to the degree that would have made a meaningful impact to his people. This death by sanctions argument does not even pass the test of liberal ideology. Liberals tend to believe in an endless amount of social assistance programs to take care of every need of every individual from cradle to grave. Then they turn around and blame the US for what the UN established, instead of this guy that had numerous multimillion dollar palaces but would not comply with the program to take care of then needs of his people. It fails the test of logic.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 1,156
Kal-el said:
Haven't kept up with the whole thread. Just chimmed in to see where it was at, but where are your numbers? :s
You hear a few civilians died so you think nothing was worth fighting for. There's going to be civilian casualties in any urban combat warefar. Why don't you take up your problem with war itself and not the war in Iraq, as you degrade and devalue what the armed services are doing to stop terrorism, inadaquate human rights, and everyone that suffered from Saddam's tyranny? I know why you don't though, you're just one of those people that doesn't get it, but that's okay. We have democracy for this reason.
penguinsfan said:
Penguinsfan, I posted a link on another post I made alot earlier about all the deaths caused by UN sanctions. 500,000, and 10,000 of them children. Yes, Saddam does have alot of blood on his hands, but it pales in comparison with the US and company.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
penguinsfan said:
It was supported heavily by the U.S. (the UN sanctions.) The Oil for Food program was abused and with the way it was set up there should have been little shock of how little the amount of money actually went towards aid. Corporations took most of the money that was supposed to go towards medicines and food. It was just too easy for say contractors to cover up the real accounting records. I mean it was a hard situation to be handled what with madman Saddam doing what he had done and the U.S. being as pissed as they were at Saddam. Those two factors worked against the people of Iraq to get the help they deserved. The way the program was organized and ran really hurt them. Dual usage was banned under the sanctions and I think this included several essential elements to regain sanitary living conditions. Water purification was a problem and the program's policy of no chlorine hurt the people there badly. It was a shitty situation. It didn't work out and there isn't much that can said for the Iraqi people's future other than Saddam and his party not being as "influential" in the country now. The Iraqi citizens now have the U.S. to protect them I suppose but it's one thing to believe in and be lead by an idea, but another to be able to plan for something appropriately without thinking of policy first and have it work out for the overall good of the people. Here's to the idea though and I hope the current Iraq situation works out because the U.S.A. could use a good friend in the future over there in the Middle East.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Kal-el said:
I'm not disputing the numbers. I don't know what they are and didn't dig up your source, but 500,000 does sound to be about what I have heard elsewhere.
That still doesn't address the point that this line of reasoning doesn't even pass the litmus test of liberalism. Saddam couuld have released more oil under the program. Saddam could have spent a little more on his people and less on his multiple multi-million dollar palaces. Just because Saddam did not like the terms of the oil sales, which were conditional for ending Gulf War I, does not absolve him of responsibility here. I'm not at all denying that the sanctions didn't end up being devastating on the population, but that is mostly a combination of corruption (and it sure looks like that absolute joke Kofi Annan had his pockets lined) and Saddam's decision to have minimal participation wiht the program.
Anytime there is a rebuilding process following a war, it is obviously a hardship on a nation. But am I to seriously believe that removal of sanctions would have made a significant difference? Am I to believe that if Saddam was allowed to sell oil freely and buy weaponry that he would have been struck with a desire to make sure the needs of his people were met? I just don't buy it.
Yes, I agree that Saddam was a terrible, horrible, horrendous individual. And he did exterminate alot of his own population. But, removing Saddam, IMO, was not worth a single human life. Look at the famous little child who lost his arms, legs, parents, and who might not even survive given that over 60% of his body is burned. Was it worth it? Definetly not, and politicians call this "collateral damage". This is the worst possible abomination. We should'nt ever forget this child I talked about. We have to exploit this memory to hope to avoid further atrocities. Some people might say that is the exploitation of someone else's suffering. I say yes, and we need to show it, just as we exploit those photos taken of the poor, half-starved Jews on their way to the gas chambers in the concentration camps, so as to make sure that it won't happen again. And that no tyrant or government in the world dares to kill even one human being for a foney cause.
Yes, that is quite a sticky situatuon to call. I don't know if the removal of sanctions would have made a difference, other than to save numerous human lives. Saddam was a murderer, but he could'nt keep up the pace of killing like the UN sanctions did. Anyway, what in 2003 had suddenly made Iraq (a power much lessened by the first Gulf War, which had been contained for 11 years) a threat we could not live with?
Yes, that is quite a sticky situatuon to call. I don't know if the removal of sanctions would have made a difference, other than to save numerous human lives. Saddam was a murderer, but he could'nt keep up the pace of killing like the UN sanctions did. Anyway, what in 2003 had suddenly made Iraq (a power much lessened by the first Gulf War, which had been contained for 11 years) a threat we could not live with?
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Kal-el said:
I have to disagree on that point. I think to take such a staunch stance on such things really lessens the sacrifice that people have made throughout history. The aftermath of removing Saddam has gone poorly, but I think most people would disagree with the "single human life" argument. I truly believe that one life (admittedly ther have been more) is a small price to pay to liberate millions from an empty life of totalitarianism where people have such little hope. Look at the men at the Alamo that knowingly gave their lives to hold-off Mexican forces. Clearly they felt the sacrifice was worthwhile as they could have easily negotiated a surrender of some sort. And that was over disputed land, not so much over freedom and liberation. I know it's not a perfect comparison, by any stretch, as it compares a civilian casualty to men that chose to give their lives. But the point is, as awful as the price of war is, there are times when it is worthwhile. Now, the postwar environment is Iraq has been rough, largely due to outside meddling, but if a sound democracy is successful, I don't think you'll have very many Iraqis that would go back and undo it all if they had the means.
I don't believe there would have been much difference had sanctions never been put into effect at all. Iraq was devastated after Gulf War I and the people were suffering. But I highly doubt that Saddam would have opted to spend the money on food and medicine over weaponry, had there been no sanctions. The number of deaths from Saddam's atrocities may not equal the deaths resulting from sanctions, but to me they're almost inseparable. Saddam repeatedly demanded the removal of sanctions instead of taking what was offered to his people and letting the pipeline flow freely to bring in an adequate amount of food and medicine. The deaths number 500,000 because Saddam was very complicit in making sure they numbered that high. Had the Iraqis truly had a leader that was committed to making sure the needs of his people were met, the deaths would not have been anywhere near 500,000.
As far as the threat level of Iraq, you may well have a good point there. Any reasonable person has to look back at this now and ask if it was worth it. From a standpoint of justification, I consider the war justified in the sense that Saddam had terms of surrender and repeated antagonized the UN and clearly failed to comply with the restrictions that were put on him. From that angle, it is for lack of a better term legally justified. However, perhaps the US would have been better off to maintain the containment and deal with Saddam at a more appropriate time. There are many atrocities in the world and, while I firmly believe we would have every moral justification to intervene on the behalf of suffering people, we cannot take them all on. Perhaps we would have been better off leaving Iraq alone.
You are correct, most people I'm sure would disagree with the "single life" arguement. But that's what I like: not following the crowd, or thinking differently from everyone else. My goal is to find a point of view that is the oppositte of the norm. I don't intend to "follow the rest of the sheep." But anyway, can we call it heroism when someone uses violence to intimidate others into suBathmateission as a means to make them do as they wish? Is it justified even if the outcome is a cause of peace? I say no way! Causes, we can justify them till we're blue in the face, they are Always wrong because they create death. And the death of a single human being is a bad thing, whatever uniform they're wearing. People talk about innocent civilians. I guess that implies that the military is guilty and does that justify killing them? There is no more justification for killing innocent civilians than there can be for killing guilty military soldiers and vice versa.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Kal-el said:
Well, you definitely are an independent spirit. I tend to think of myself as one to some degree too. Even your ideas I cannot accept at all I can tell they are ideas you have given considerable thought about. I would suggest that just because one agrees with a commonly held sentiment does not automatically deem him a "sheep" regardless of what it is we're talking about. Sometimes the majority has it right, and sometimes they have it wrong. I have heard poor arguments and good arguments, in favor of, and against the war, from every point of view, it seems. Just because two people hold the same position doesn't mean the thought process is identical.
I would say it depends on what the goals and motivations are. Can we call it heroism to use violence to intimidate others into suBathmateission? If we had used such actions to stop the slaughter in Rwanda or stop the slaughter in Sudan, I'd say damn right that is heroism. Of course that is merely an opinion, but had we done so in Rwanda you could actually get opinions from some Rwandans that would be alive today, instead of floating down the river in pieces.
Admittedly, I do feel more sorrow for the woman or child that never saw it coming or at no point posed a threat to anyone than a soldier in uniform that at least realized the reality of the situation he was in. Call it a character flaw if you so choose--it's the way I'm inclined to think. At the same time, I recognize that not every soldier is an evil individual, even if they happen to be serving an unjust cause. I do feel bad for the Average Joe Iraqi that was in Saddam's army, simply because the choice was serve Saddam in the military or risk what Saddam might do to him. But people like Saddam's sons that were incredibly heinous individuals by any and all accounts...I freely admit I think their deaths were wonderful for mankind. When it comes to individuals such as those two, or obviously bin Laden, I totally disagree with your statement that the death of any human is bad. In most cases, the death of a human is a bad thing, but not in all cases.
Violence never solves anything. It is simply a means to an end. Saddam's sons were terrible, but killing them was IMO worse. They killed before, but to kill them you're going by the adage "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", which is definetly not correct, not to mention primitive and barbaric. It is terrible that this world is building up a huge wave of violence. In this blinding aggressive cycle, which is being displayed everywhere as the way to be, it will just indoctrinate future generations into this terrifying logic of violence.
Our so called "civilized" countries, actually aren't all that civilized at all. Because for them, the synonym of civilized Is militarized. You can't be both at the same time, a country is either civil or military. If it is militarized, it enters into a military logic, it punishes: "If you don't do what I want, then I will correct you." on the flip side, if it is civilized it teaches: "what you are doing is bad, it is reproachable, and I will explain to you why."
