[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


In Afghanistan the military option worked reasonably well by making it so that no country would harbour Osama any more. It also had the effect of disrupting the terrorist cells.

Then instead of delivering the knock-out blow Bush decided to invade Iraq instead (Something he had actually been planing before 9/11!). This gave Osama a chance to reorganise himself in Afghanistan and the wilder parts of Pakistan.

You'll notice that almost the entire UN agreed with Bush on the invasion of Afghanistan. So it's not the case of everyone going against Bush just cause of who he is. I may think that he is a dick but I agreed 100% with why he had to go into Afghanistan and supported the entire campaign.

If you look you'll find that most of the people arguing against Bush now agreed with him over Afghanistan. What we disagree with is his current policy. Invading Iraq has done NOTHING to stop terrorist attacks in any country. It was a stupid idea poorly executed. The sooner Americans realise that and replace Bush with someone who can actually do something to even lessen the danger the better off they'll be.

That's probably a fair point.  But the military effect of Afghanistan has now been negated - i.e. Al-Queda is just as dangerous as it ever was, and possibly even more so.  I think that war failed, because it wasn't backed up with the support needed to not only completely secure Afghanistan, but also to rebuild it into a moden nation-state.

When the Afghan war started, I was for it.  Because it offered an opportunity - everything that was knocked down should have been rebuilt, 10 times better than it was before.  i.e. it could have been used as an example of positive change, to send a message that we could build as well as destroy.

Instead, we're backed to chasing ghosts again, diverting all that money to fight in unecessary wars.  And I don;t think any military action can effectively combat terrorism unless it is backed up with political action aimed at removing the reasons for terrorism.

[Viper1000]

Originally posted by Rictor
two things, if I may.

1. I never, ever claimed to support people like that. They can all go to hell right along with Bush. And no, criticsing one side does not equal supporting the other.

2. We've been over this before, but lets do so again.

Kim Sun-Il = one man. Iraqi victims = 10,000+. If killing one man makes you a barbarian, killing 10,000 (and close to a million more with sanctions) makes you the High Emperor of the Infinite Kingdom of All Barbarians.

You really have issues that need to be sorted out.  People die in war.  Too bad.  Innocents die in war.  That's also too bad.  Bush didn't kill these innocents Rictor.  That's right, I didn't see Bush walk up to all these 10,000 people with a target pistol and put a bullet in their head.  And Kim Sun Il?  Just like Nick Berg, I don't think having a countryman (I'm South Korean) killed in that way is in any way justifiable.  The indirect killing of innocents, while unfortunate, is.

[.::Tin Can::.]

He knows where its at...

This "war on terror" has not left us empty handed, of course. We have basically cut their funding in half and of course, arrested several people responsible for a lot of these attrocities.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
That's probably a fair point.  But the military effect of Afghanistan has now been negated - i.e. Al-Queda is just as dangerous as it ever was, and possibly even more so.  I think that war failed, because it wasn't backed up with the support needed to not only completely secure Afghanistan, but also to rebuild it into a moden nation-state.

When the Afghan war started, I was for it.  Because it offered an opportunity - everything that was knocked down should have been rebuilt, 10 times better than it was before.  i.e. it could have been used as an example of positive change, to send a message that we could build as well as destroy.

Instead, we're backed to chasing ghosts again, diverting all that money to fight in unecessary wars.  And I don;t think any military action can effectively combat terrorism unless it is backed up with political action aimed at removing the reasons for terrorism.

I agree 100%. Bush knows how to fight a war but he's not got the faintest f**king clue what do do afterwards.  Had we rebuilt Afghanistan it would have robbed Osama of a lot of his grass roots support and made people think that the US wasn't so bad. Instead we squandered the chance so Bush could settle his daddy's grudge with Saddam.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Not to mention the fact that this WMD claim was not ONLY made by Bush, but also by Clinton, and by Al Gore. You can look it up if you wish, they've said it. Why else do you think Clinton bombed targets in Iraq?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Not to mention the fact that this WMD claim was not ONLY made by Bush, but also by Clinton, and by Al Gore. You can look it up if you wish, they've said it. Why else do you think Clinton bombed targets in Iraq?

2 wrongs don't make a right.  It's that simple - this isn't an issue of politics / leader, but of the core policy.  It's simply that Bushes pub fight* strategy of pre-emptive wars has had a devastating affect on  world stability.  i.e. there is a difference of scale between air strikes, and actually sending in US troops to an Arab country - and thus a difference of reaction.

And, of course, what makes it worse it that the weapons inspectors were actually back in the country, and there was an attempt to increae the numbers.  Had the US allowed this - or at least given a respectable amount of time to the inspectors on the ground - rather than hinder it, then maybe it wouldn't have been apparent how much of a sham this excuse of WMD was.

*i.e. "are you looking at me?  Then come and have a go!"

[karajorma]

Clinton bombed targets in Iraq mainly to enforce the UN mandated no-fly zone.

Remember that Saddam quite probably still had WMDs at the start of Clinton's term. Although he undoubtably got rid of them before the end.

Besides even if Clinton said it he wasn't stupid enough to use it as the pretext for a land war in Iraq.

[Flipside]

Also, the claim was made by Blair, and he's more or less admitted that he was suckered.

Possibly Bush isn't any worse than any other President, maybe people are just becoming more aware of the world we live in and the actions of those in power.

Even if this is true, does that mean we should just sit back, do nothing and accept it because 'that's the way it's always been'??

Bush is a failure, be it of his own making, or be it his government's making.

[.::Tin Can::.]

If you asked me, any homeland decisions made by Bush have surpassed Clinton in most ways. People love Clinton and worship the ground he walks on, namely Democrats.

Whenever ANYONE gets involved in forein policy, it usually means they have the world deciding as well, not just the country.

War is a big responsibility, and everything that happens in a war will always directly affect the guy who made it possible. But, if any of you have ever tried to run a war, then you have the right to decide what is right and what is wrong. Put yourself in that persons shoes, then you can judge. But non of you have been the president, none of you have run a war, hell, I bet none of you have ever had even an administrative political job, IE: working in direct with the prez or any major political figure of your country.

Half the people in this forum probably live in different country's, meaning that since you DONT live in America, then of course you arent going to hear the full story. You may take what is given to you, example, the internet, which while is a good news source still has biased turnings and flaws.

Yes, we could increase our numbers in Iraq. But the point is that a lot of people at home are already whinning about how we should withdraw some of our forces from Iraq, so I guess putting them in will make things worse. Who are you going to listen to first, people you only know in the board room, or the people of the country you are running? I know that everyone is your resposibility, but everyone also has a priority.

There is no right way to run a war. There is no "you should do this and that". There just IS no right way to go about doing it! So, do not think you all are "masters of armed combat" and think we SHOULD do this or SHOULD do that. Bigger numbers means bigger problems, which also means bigger numbers of body bags. You make a cluster of guys bigger so that more can be caught up in road-side bombs.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
War is a big responsibility, and everything that happens in a war will always directly affect the guy who made it possible. But, if any of you have ever tried to run a war, then you have the right to decide what is right and what is wrong. Put yourself in that persons shoes, then you can judge. But non of you have been the president, none of you have run a war, hell, I bet none of you have ever had even an administrative political job, IE: working in direct with the prez or any major political figure of your country.

So in other words we should pack up democracy and give it up as a bad idea cause none of us have ever tried to run a country?

I've never tried to fly the Space Shuttle but I know that pointing it straight at the ground is a bad idea. Bush's mistakes are so stupid that you don't have been president to see that he's wrong. Any fool can see he's wrong.

Besides we're arguing that Bush should have never started the war in the first place so your entire arguement is moot anyway.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Viper1000


You really have issues that need to be sorted out.  People die in war.  Too bad.  Innocents die in war.  That's also too bad.  Bush didn't kill these innocents Rictor.  That's right, I didn't see Bush walk up to all these 10,000 people with a target pistol and put a bullet in their head.  And Kim Sun Il?  Just like Nick Berg, I don't think having a countryman (I'm South Korean) killed in that way is in any way justifiable.  The indirect killing of innocents, while unfortunate, is.

I'm sorry, but thats ridiculous beyond belief.

1. Do you think Hitler walked around with a Luger and killed 6 million Jews? What about Stalin, or Pol Pot (yeah, someone made the same point earlier)? Did they personally execute millions of people? Bush ordered the war, he's resposible for the dead. I don't see how you can even challenge that.

2.It makes not one bit of difference if someone died intentionally, for example by way of beheading, or as an "unavoidable casualty of war". Dead is dead, bullet or bomb or gas or sword. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that those who died during the bombing and occupation are worth less because their deaths were...what, unavoidable? Sorry buddy, it is a well known fact that civilians die in a war. If you don't want to kill civilians, don't start a war. And even so, there is MUCH that could have been done to minimize civilian deaths. The simple fact is, no one cared how many ragheads died.

Muhamed Reza, and Iraqi shopkeeper (just making this up) and father of three is worth neither more nor less than Kim Sun Il or Nick Berg. 10,000+ Muhamed Reza's are dead, but only a handful of of Kim Sun Ils.

What I suspect is that at the root of this sentiment is just good old fashioned rascism. I mean, yes, all people are equal and all that lovely stuff, but most people still harbour in themselves, deep down somewhere, the belief that people who are different are worth less. You say you're South Korean, right? So, do you think you would dismiss the casualties of the war, occupation and sanctions as easily as you do if they were South Korean? What if you lived in  Iraq, would you say "a few Iraqi here and there, it was unavoidable"?

aldo and kara: I probably should mention, I don't know if its common knowledge or not, that the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden if the US could show them proof of his guilt. They said "**** off" and well, the rest is history. I'm wondering whether the reason most people (well, most Westerners anyway) supported the invasion of Afghanistan is becuase 9/11 was still fresh in their minds. As you know, because probably you were part of it, there was an enormous outpouring of support and sympathy for the US after 9/11. And consequently, that gave the Bush administration a carte blanche more or less, to act as they would for a period of time. I'm wondering, if 9/11 never happened, or if the invasion of Afhganistan happened several years after the event, would people have been so quick to support it?

[Flipside]

Nobody is getting the full story Tin Can, not you, not us, not anyone.

You are right that there is no 'right way' to run a war, but there are 'standards' to judge these things by, Human Rights, Losses to friendly troops etc, (this is from a political, not a humanitarian point of view). And Bush really hasn't made those targets, nor has he reacted strongly enough when he has made a mistake. When the Abu Ghraib situation was uncovered, we didn't see the blood and fire 'Human Rights' Bush emerge. If we had, I may be thinking differently of him, but all he did was mumble about it 'Not being what America is about' or suchlike.The rest has plodded through the legal system much the same as for a soldier found drunk on duty.

The fact of the matter the Mr Bush started the war, it was his (and Blairs) rhetoric that bought this all to a head. If he starts the war, he damn well better be taking responsibility for it.

In a small way, I agree with America's view, it seems to me that these days we see evil things being done and stand there and wring our hands and say 'Ohhh this is terrible, we must debate this'. America got up off it's arse, for better or for worse, and acted against what they percieved as evil (and gassing people IS evil, whether done by Iraqis or Americans or any other country). For the information that was given, it seemed the right thing to do.

The same thing needs to happen again, you can't just sit and wring your hands and say 'Well, he keeps making mistakes, but he's old and this is a tought war he started, we really should take this into account'. He's the leader of your country, if he's not doing a good job, get another one that will do a better job, leaders are nothing special, most teams have them, and when they longer perform, they are replaced. That is humanity.

There are 2 sides to this crisis, the American and the Iraqi side of things, it's not just about how many soldiers should we send, I wonder how much information you actually recieve on the impact of this war on the Iraqi people, or, indeed, the entire Middle East?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
If you asked me, any homeland decisions made by Bush have surpassed Clinton in most ways. People love Clinton and worship the ground he walks on, namely Democrats.

Whenever ANYONE gets involved in forein policy, it usually means they have the world deciding as well, not just the country.

War is a big responsibility, and everything that happens in a war will always directly affect the guy who made it possible. But, if any of you have ever tried to run a war, then you have the right to decide what is right and what is wrong. Put yourself in that persons shoes, then you can judge. But non of you have been the president, none of you have run a war, hell, I bet none of you have ever had even an administrative political job, IE: working in direct with the prez or any major political figure of your country.

Half the people in this forum probably live in different country's, meaning that since you DONT live in America, then of course you arent going to hear the full story. You may take what is given to you, example, the internet, which while is a good news source still has biased turnings and flaws.

Yes, we could increase our numbers in Iraq. But the point is that a lot of people at home are already whinning about how we should withdraw some of our forces from Iraq, so I guess putting them in will make things worse. Who are you going to listen to first, people you only know in the board room, or the people of the country you are running? I know that everyone is your resposibility, but everyone also has a priority.

There is no right way to run a war. There is no "you should do this and that". There just IS no right way to go about doing it! So, do not think you all are "masters of armed combat" and think we SHOULD do this or SHOULD do that. Bigger numbers means bigger problems, which also means bigger numbers of body bags. You make a cluster of guys bigger so that more can be caught up in road-side bombs.

So you want me to pity Bush becuase running a war is a big responsibility? First of all, if Bush was in any way involved in the war effort, the US would have attacked Nepal, been decimated by some sheep-herders, proceeded to make a tactical withdrawl to Latvia and then regrouped for a counterattack against Jamaica. All the while, US warplanes would be striking Tokyo and US bombers would be dropping bombs on their own troops.

With a multi-trillion dollar military, the best equipped soldiers in the world, some of the best training and a small army of generals, you're telling me Bush was under stress? What, did he not get his Garfield cartoon in the Sunday paper? Face it, he is nto in charge. His advisors tell him what to do, and he does it. He doesn't even read the newspapers. What I would expect from a President is someone intimately familiar with political relations, economics, social issues, an encylopedic knowledge of history, philosophy and literature. No to mention military history and modern warfare. That man would be fit to make decisions, and therefor he would be under stress. but Bush isn't making any decisions regarding the war, at least not specifics. He said "go to war" and everything after that was handled by subordinates. That still doesn't excuse him from the responnsibility, because it was his initiative, but he was not involved in any of the specifics.

****, that was too long, I had intended it to be like four sentences. Anyway, the point I was tryng to make, before I went off on a tangent, is this:

Wars don't just happen. It takes a conscious effort to start one. And let me just mention it one more time, for the hell of it. WAR IS NOT A GOOD ****ING THING! We should not respect those who go to war, except to defend themselves, and even then, they are murders.

It takes far more courage, wit and moral strenght to make peace. Any dumb**** can pull a trigger or order an airstrike, to solve his problems by force. We should respect those who are men of peace, not those who bomb their problems and enemies out of existance.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
-Isaac Isimov-

By that standard, Bush is not only a murder, he is totally inept as a human being. He deserves no respect.

[ionia23]

Look, Ric, no matter how hard you try to deny it, you do fully back the actions of those in the 9/11 attacks, these nitwits beheading people for Al-Jazeera TV, etc.  You've stated over and over again that their actions are absolutely justified in light of America's crappy foreign policy decisions over the last 50 years or so.  Oh sure, you might use the words 'unjustified', but it doesn't take long to read between the lines to get the true message.  That bothers me.

If it were only that simple....You hate America for being rich, succesful, and free.  The same freedoms you are enjoying now that allow you to talk smack about it.  Anyone who has amassed wealth and can use it for influence is bad.  Grudgingly, I can respect that.

See, the 'deaths of innocents' only matter to you if they happen to be Arabic, as someone else might only care for the 'deaths of innocents' if they happen to be American.  When asked about Kim Sun-Il, you went off about 10,000+ Iraqis.  Not one decent acknowledgement.  Did you go watch the video?  Probably not.  You really, really should.

Yes, yes, you'll try to say otherwise and then promptly negate your position.  I read what you wrote last night, very intently.  Racist?  Perhaps, but that's an awfully strong way to put it.

So fess up already and get it over with.  Stop hiding behind liberal idealism, you're not.

I'd be interested in your position on Timothy McVeigh.  He felt as you do.

collateral damage, indeed.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
aldo and kara: I probably should mention, I don't know if its common knowledge or not, that the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden if the US could show them proof of his guilt. They said "**** off" and well, the rest is history.

Get your facts straight. They never offered to hand him over to the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,563965,00.html

They offered to try him or see him get an islamic trial. Had they actually arrested him and been holding him at the time they might have had the right to continue argueing that there was a diplomatic solution but while he was free to move around at will they had no real arguement.

Even if he wasn't guilty of the 9/11 attacks they knew he was guilty of the previous attack and the one on the USS Cole.

[Rictor]

If you think you can speak for me better than I can myself, by all means, continue. However, I have said and I will continue tosay, whats more I will continue to believe, that killing innocents is wrong, no matter who is being killed and who is doing the killing. And until such a time as you can prove that I am clinically insane, my thoughts regarding my opinions will continue to have greater authority than your thoughts on my opinions.

One of us may or may not, depending on who you ask, support the beheading of civilians by rebels who are fighting to expel an occupying force from their nation. And one of us openly supports a nation who's foreign policy has killed over 15,000 innocents in the past 3 years, over a million in the past decade, and several million in the past several decades. Even if you're right, and I do support the people who beheaded Kim Sun Il, the people I may or may not support are still amateurs compared to the people you admit to supporting. Even in your worst case scenario, I'm still better off than you, no?

Now, regarding my freedoms. No government, American, Canadian, Serbian or the UN, can grant me that which I already possess. You see, no one has given me my freedoms, I have them when I am born. I have absolute freedom, and therefor absolute responsibility. However, I, and most human, have agreed upon a social contract. I give up some of my freedoms, for example the freedom to murder, steal and so forth, in order to get rid of some of my responsibilities, such as the responsibility to protect myself from bodily harm, to guard my property, to exact punishment for certain wrongs. The state takes on these responsibilties, in exchange for which I give up some of my freedoms. The less freedom I have, the less responsibility. Free speaeh is one of the freedoms which I am born with, but have not given up to the state. Certain others, like owning property, the right to elect a government, the right to worship and so on, are not commonly among those freedoms which a person consents to give up.

See, the 'deaths of innocents' only matter to you if they happen to be Arabic, as someone else might only care for the 'deaths of innocents' if they happen to be American.

Don't presume to know what I think, just because you think it. To me, all human life outside of my immediate family and friends, is equally valuable. The fact that you don't think so is not my problem.

That, as I mentioned, is rascism. So, lets define the word shall we? I define it as holding the view that any race, nationality, gender or religion is superior to any other, and that its members are worth less. So, the fact that you care more about a dead GI than you do about a dead Iraqi child, thats rascism. Sure, its called nationalism, but its a different side of the same dice. This is perfectly fine, so long  as does not negatively inlfuence anyone else. But when it used to justfy a war that has killed tens of thousands, in not benign anymore.

What you also have to keep in mind, is that your opinion is only yours. You can not expect affairs between huge groups of people, lets call them nations, to be governed by your opinion. The fact that you think America can do this and that, means dick. There is international law, to which your nation has agreed, thats governs interactions between nations.

I think that what you just can come to terms with is that I refuse to make a double standard. Believeing that Iraqis killing innocents is wrong, but America doing the same is A OK, thats hypocricy. Saddam invaded Kuwait, and got smakced down. America invaded Iraq, and what do they get as punishment? Nothin'. Your thoughts on international policy as very subjective, and therefor can apply to no one but yourself. When America accepts that it must be held to the same standard in regard to international affairs as any other nation, thats the time when it will never wage another wage again.

As for the "you hate American wealth and freedom" bull****, I won't even comment, its so stupid.

[aldo_14]

The war in Iraq was, militarily at least, a success.    Although even in that respect it's worth noting that a great deal of that was luck - both that the Iraqi army didn;t fight as hard as would have been expected, and also in that the US central command rejected Rumsfelds suicidal plans to use a tiny force and rely on local support / rebellion.  And it's also worth pointing out that, during wargames simulations, the US 'army' was decimated by non-conventional tactics such as suicide attacks on ships.

It's the peace where Bush & co have so spectacularly failed, and - unfortunately for all of us - it is the peace that is of singular importance in combating the causes of terrorism.

[Rictor]

kara: I read differently from a different source, I'll try to find it.

aldo: I always found it strange that people change their opinion on the legitimacy of an action depending on whether it succseeds or fails. Of you believe the war was wrong, whether it went well or not is irrelevant. Similarly, if you believe that it was justified, you believe so regardless of the outcome. I fall in to the former group. Even if everything went splendinly, and Iraqis were living in peace and happiness, I would still feel that the war was unjustified. I woulnd't feel quite so bad about the situtation, but my thoughts on the legitimacy of the war would still be exactly the same.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Peace in Iraq is going to take a long time, you know. It's a long-term commitment and Bush saw that when he started it. That is why he said he would keep it up and not back out if he was president again. If someone is commited to finishing the job they started then I think they have balls.

The people who said that "Hitler didnt personally kill Jews." You are just a friggin idiot. Comparing accidents in mis-guided bombings, or civilians getting in the way, is not the same thing. Hitler hated the Jews and so he PURPOUSFULLY commited Genocide. 10,000 civilians dying in the line-of-fire is NOT ANYTHING close to full murder. Hitler had an intent to kill. He KNEW that all those people who would be extinguished and he liked it. 10,000 civilians dying in the line of fire does NOT match up to that scenario.

And at the moment, we have only lost a fraction of our forces in Iraq. Even if half of them were taken out tomorrow, we would send it another half to make up for it. We dont over-excess our troops, we just keep them up to standards.

Just because our military is the strongest in the world DOESNT mean you wont be nervous when sending them off to battle. A marine could only take a maximum of a few machine gun rounds. A gun is worthless in the hands of a dead man. Everyone is still human. One easy gunshot to the right spot will bring him down just as easily as if it was a terrorist.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor

aldo: I always found it strange that people change their opinion on the legitimacy of an action depending on whether it succseeds or fails. Of you believe the war was wrong, whether it went well or not is irrelevant. Similarly, if you believe that it was justified, you believe so regardless of the outcome. I fall in to the former group. Even if everything went splendinly, and Iraqis were living in peace and happiness, I would still feel that the war was unjustified. I woulnd't feel quite so bad about the situtation, but my thoughts on the legitimacy of the war would still be exactly the same.

Not necesarrily.... because the converse is true, for one thing.  In the 1930s, 90% (+) believed appeasement was the best course of action, yet 10 years later it was viewed as foolish.

If the war in Iraq had led to a stable, democratic and prosperous nation - a 'beacon' to the middle east  - I would have been prepared to accept it (because Saddams human rights abuse was a key factor in the justification of it, at least over here).   Because my issue with the Iraq war was always that "fighting the peace" would only lead to trouble.  And it has.

NB: US troops are dangerously overstretched, thanks to commitment in Iraq, South Korea, Phillipines, etc.  That's why National Guard reservists are being sent ot Iraq, etc.