[Unknown Target]

Lib, you're dumb.
Everyone else, you're dumb for trying to talk Lib out of his opinions.


That's my thoughts on the entire matter

[Kosh]

Innocents getting killed cause they were too dumb to get out of the way means that that stupidity won't be bred to the next generation.

That's Darwinism. But isn't that heresey?

I don't think you quite get it, it is WAR. Mistakes happen, people die, we mourn, we go on.

Are you in the military?

Everyone else, you're dumb for trying to talk Lib out of his opinions.

Lib can never be talked out of his opinions, no matter how ill-informed they may be. We just have nothing better to do.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't think you quite get it, it is WAR.  Mistakes happen, people die, we mourn, we go on.  Innocents getting killed cause they were too dumb to get out of the way means that that stupidity won't be bred to the next generation.

No offence, but that's a truly idiotic viewpoint. It's pathetic.  People die in war... of course - why do you think people are against it?

 Presumably the thousands killed in 9/11 are better off dead because they were 'too stupid to get out of the way'?  When American constracters were killed and hung up in Fallujah, I don't think you chastised them for being dumb in going to work in a warzone, did you?

Originally posted by Liberator
If you can't tell, I'm pissed off at the soft shoes in the world who think everything should be happiness and light all the time.  I hate to break it to ya, creep, Life is Pain, get used to it or move on.

If you're happy for the world to suffer (to paraphrase), then that's your problem.  You keep on wallowing in that; the rest of us want to try and improve the world in the small ways we can as individuals.

I find it strange how you can rally against the perceived evils of illigitimate children, homosexuality, immigration etc - anything that offends your particular sensibilities - but when it comes to criticising uneccessary deaths, then it's ok because 'the world is bad'.  Bit hypocritical, no?

[Zarax]

Lib, why don't you get a military or political career if you believe in what you say?
It's too easy to shoot sentences from one's own comfortable bunker without never going out.

[Liberator]

I believe you all have continued to miss my point, the helpless and innocent will continue to die in mass numbers if we don't obliterate the enemy.  Will some die, sure, but when I here stories about our troops doing a sweep through a neighborhood, going into a house, being told that the person under a blanket is the families sick grandfather and then finding out that it one of the missing aid workers, I start to believe that there are far fewer innocent in the Triangle than certain agencies would have you believe.

Also, study history, the only way wars have ever been won is through one of two ways, overwhelming force or making continued offensives too expensive for the enemy to maintain.

I'm advocating the loss of a few to benefit the large whole of the region for a longer period.  Yes, it's cold, yes i know it's out of character for me a bit, but I've gotten totally pissed off at the whole situation and you'll forgive me for taking the short way out.  Diplomacy is all fine and good, but who is the first to die when things go pear shaped?  The diplomats.  I have little patience for people who want to "handle me".  Either do it or don't just don't stop someone else from doing it.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't think you quite get it, it is WAR.  Mistakes happen, people die, we mourn, we go on.  Innocents getting killed cause they were too dumb to get out of the way means that that stupidity won't be bred to the next generation.

It's a war America started though. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and every sensible person in the country knew that.

The claim was that America was going in to stop the tyranny of Saddam. How on Earth can you justify that claim by slaughtering civilians and claiming they were collatoral damage?
That's actually worse than anything Saddam did. At least he mostly went after political enemies. What you're suggesting would actually make life worse for the people of Iraq.

[vyper]

Lib, this isn't a "war" in the conventional sense. You're trying to fight an army that doesn't exist.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
I believe you all have continued to miss my point, the helpless and innocent will continue to die in mass numbers if we don't obliterate the enemy.  Will some die, sure, but when I here stories about our troops doing a sweep through a neighborhood, going into a house, being told that the person under a blanket is the families sick grandfather and then finding out that it one of the missing aid workers, I start to believe that there are far fewer innocent in the Triangle than certain agencies would have you believe.

Also, study history, the only way wars have ever been won is through one of two ways, overwhelming force or making continued offensives too expensive for the enemy to maintain.

I'm advocating the loss of a few to benefit the large whole of the region for a longer period.  Yes, it's cold, yes i know it's out of character for me a bit, but I've gotten totally pissed off at the whole situation and you'll forgive me for taking the short way out.  Diplomacy is all fine and good, but who is the first to die when things go pear shaped?  The diplomats.  I have little patience for people who want to "handle me".  Either do it or don't just don't stop someone else from doing it.

Advocating the loss of a few is an easy tactic when those few are very far away, and from a different place.  It's all very nice touting 'obliterating the enemy', but you're talking about an enemy whose very tactics revolve around hiding themselves in a civillian population, for the simple reason that Americans killing innocent arabs brings them support.

This isn't a conventional war; it doesn't matter how relevant or not your definition of the only way to win a war is.  There is no state apparatus to attack.  There is no vast army to meet and destroy in open battle.  There are people - both terrorists, insurgents, whatever -  who operate in the shadows, and rely upon civillian support to do so.  And people support them, because the US army makes itself the enemy when it comes in, and bombs a neighbourhood, or abuses a few prisoners, and loses any hope of looking the 'good guys'.

Your 'strategy' is based along a supposition that Iraqis are already guilty, that killing them - thousands of them - doesn't matter as long as you think you've got a few enemy combatants with them.  How many Iraqi lives are worth being able to claim 'victory'?  1,000?  10,000?  100,000? A million?

Who are you to determine what the 'best' is for the region?  It's not your region, it's not even near where you or I live.  I'd bet you've never even visited it, that you don't speak the language, you don't know the religion, the customs, the history, what makes these people tick.  All you know is what you are told is best for America, and you force that upon these people claiming that it's best for them.

It's no wonder they hate you back in return.  And if you keep on doing it, it'll spread.  It won't be the reservation of the looniest section of fundamentalists that hate you, it'll be the entire population who feel oppressed by the guns of a foreign power.  Same as the US did when it was a British colony, and the British decided what was best for you.

[Unknown Target]

Once again, everyone of you involved in this argument is dumb. Arguing against Lib is like running into a brick wall repeatadly at top speed. He's not gonna move.

[aldo_14]

Doesn't matter.  To remain mute implies acceptance, or even understanding. And threads are not just viewed by those who participate within them.

[Unknown Target]

This is a typical Liberator argument:

Lib: "Typical uninformed, biased, untolerating comment"
Forum: "Lib, you're wrong, these are the facts, here here and here. Here are the links from respected web sites, here here and here."
Lib: "Usual babble about the rightousness of America"
Forum: "Retort about how it's possible for America to be wrong once in awhile"
Lib: "A variation of either 'im right, you're wrong,' or 'if i'm wrong, then it doesn't exist'"
Admin: "Stop this tomfoolery at once."


Tomfoolery ceases.

[Singh]

Originally posted by karajorma


It's a war America started though. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and every sensible person in the country knew that.

The claim was that America was going in to stop the tyranny of Saddam. How on Earth can you justify that claim by slaughtering civilians and claiming they were collatoral damage?
That's actually worse than anything Saddam did. At least he mostly went after political enemies. What you're suggesting would actually make life worse for the people of Iraq.

Errmm....Saddam was a despot, a particularly evil one at that. While I don't support the US invasion, his deposition is by far worse than any of what America has done so far.

Note, this does not preclude the fact that yes, in the future what the Americans do might just end up being worse. But truth to be told, so far Saddam's spread and influence was far worse than the Americans, and he intended to cause harm - at least the Americans are trying to help, if not actually succeeding at it very well.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
This is a typical Liberator argument:

Lib: "Typical uninformed, biased, untolerating comment"
Forum: "Lib, you're wrong, these are the facts, here here and here. Here are the links from respected web sites, here here and here."
Lib: "Usual babble about the rightousness of America"
Forum: "Retort about how it's possible for America to be wrong once in awhile"
Lib: "A variation of either 'im right, you're wrong,' or 'if i'm wrong, then it doesn't exist'"
Admin: "Stop this tomfoolery at once."


Tomfoolery ceases.

Then you've proven my point;

Forum: "Lib, you're wrong, these are the facts, here here and here. Here are the links from respected web sites, here here and here."

If we have facts, show them.  If we see something we know - or believe - to be wrong, say so.  If there is another opinion, show it.  But don't stand baclk and do nothing, if there is something you know to be wrong, just because a single person might choose to disagree with you.

[Unknown Target]

I don't stand back, I've gone through more arguments with Lib than I care to remember, and right now I'm too tired to try and make another one.
And what the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about me or Lib or what?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
I don't stand back, I've gone through more arguments with Lib than I care to remember, and right now I'm too tired to try and make another one.
And what the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about me or Lib or what?

In principle, I'm talking about me.

Originally posted by Singh


Errmm....Saddam was a despot, a particularly evil one at that. While I don't support the US invasion, his deposition is by far worse than any of what America has done so far.

Note, this does not preclude the fact that yes, in the future what the Americans do might just end up being worse. But truth to be told, so far Saddam's spread and influence was far worse than the Americans, and he intended to cause harm - at least the Americans are trying to help, if not actually succeeding at it very well.

Well, the first thing is - why this despot?  Why Iraq? There's no shortage of them, after all - some are even the US' allies.

The second thing is - was it even to remove a despot?  The arguement was always along the lines of WMD or terrorism... it was never about simply removing Saddam.  Perhaps because, evil as he is/was, if you begin to force your selected leader or form of government upon other countries, you risk contradicting the freedom you claim to represent. Gunboat diplomacy has always been hard to defend, regardless of the target.  

Combined that with the above question, it's hard not to see an ulterior motive - oil, strategic positioning against Iran, alternate operating bases to those in Saudi, etc.

The third thing - did this help?  Is Iraq safer?  Is the world safer?  Has this reduced the threat of terrorism, the anti-Western antagonism, or even the suffering of everyday Iraqis?  In the former 2, it's no - and the latter is highly subjective and possibly even unanswerable; how many Iraqi deaths would be considered acceptable in this scenario, for example.

The fourth thing - the UN.  By taking a unilateral action, the worlds only organization set up as a global talking shop, to avoid conflicts and try and ensure freedom for all (a possibly unobtainable aim) has been severely damaged - possibly irrecoverably.  Not only does this mean the US can act with relative impunity, it means other nations can do so by following their example.  China or Russia, perhaps.

In general, the concern is whether the US is doing these things for the benefit of humanity as a whole, or it's own.  Most evidence would indicate the latter; particularly the infamous 'project for a new American century' or whatever it was called.  I find war hard to view as an altruistic act on any circumstances where it is not in response to a direct attack.

[Singh]

Originally posted by aldo_14

Well, the first thing is - why this despot?  Why Iraq? There's no shortage of them, after all - some are even the US' allies.

The second thing is - was it even to remove a despot?  The arguement was always along the lines of WMD or terrorism... it was never about simply removing Saddam.  Perhaps because, evil as he is/was, if you begin to force your selected leader or form of government upon other countries, you risk contradicting the freedom you claim to represent. Gunboat diplomacy has always been hard to defend, regardless of the target.  

Combined that with the above question, it's hard not to see an ulterior motive - oil, strategic positioning against Iran, alternate operating bases to those in Saudi, etc.

The third thing - did this help?  Is Iraq safer?  Is the world safer?  Has this reduced the threat of terrorism, the anti-Western antagonism, or even the suffering of everyday Iraqis?  In the former 2, it's no - and the latter is highly subjective and possibly even unanswerable; how many Iraqi deaths would be considered acceptable in this scenario, for example.

The fourth thing - the UN.  By taking a unilateral action, the worlds only organization set up as a global talking shop, to avoid conflicts and try and ensure freedom for all (a possibly unobtainable aim) has been severely damaged - possibly irrecoverably.  Not only does this mean the US can act with relative impunity, it means other nations can do so by following their example.  China or Russia, perhaps.

In general, the concern is whether the US is doing these things for the benefit of humanity as a whole, or it's own.  Most evidence would indicate the latter; particularly the infamous 'project for a new American century' or whatever it was called.  I find war hard to view as an altruistic act on any circumstances where it is not in response to a direct attack.

All good and valid points, as well as important flaws in the US's campiagns, and are also some of the reasons I dont support the campaign itself. I was more referring to Karajoma's post where he stated that the US was worse than Saddam. Regardless of the reason of invasion, the Iraqies are, in the long run at least, better off in US forces than that of Saddam's. However, its not an excuse to conduct an invasion at all, as the US has so proven.....

[karajorma]

Read my post again Singh. I didn't say that the US was worse that Saddam. I said that if they did what Lib was suggesting they would be worse than Saddam.

In principle I support the idea of removing tin pot dictators. My problem with the war is that I doubt the ability of Britain and America to do it right.

Either way so far I'm not going to say whether Iraq is better or worse off than it used to be. Some things have improved while others have gotten worse.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma
Read my post again Singh. I didn't say that the US was worse that Saddam. I said that if they did what Lib was suggesting they would be worse than Saddam.  

I think that's spot on; what distinguishes the worst dictators, IMO, is that they are not concerned with the cost of innocent lives it takes to remove their enemies (actual or perceived), nor the political fallout of said deaths.

[Liberator]

I would like to ask a question, and I will do it is as unexplosive a way as possible.

Which shall it be?  

1)America is to use her status as a "super-power" for the betterment of the world.

OR

2)America doesn't do a damn thing.

Case 1)America does something and automatically it is assumed that they are worse than leaving things as they were.

Case 2)America is bad mouthed and touted as 'not caring enough' and not doing enough.

Which shall it be, gentlemen?  Because quite obviously there is no middle ground and frankly I'm tired of America not being able to win.

[Rictor]

I would prefer #2, America doesn't do a damn thing. Sure, most people will talk about Rwanda and all that, but honestly, people die all the time. So a million people were killed. Welcome to Africa. Civil wars, starvation, tribal killings. The whole continent is, frankly, a shithole. Tribal massacres are the status quo, so there's no use pretending that Rwanda was unique and horrible. Read this, and tell me I'm wrong.
.
The choice is either to respect national sovereignty, and let a few people be killed here and there, or legitimize the concept of intervetionism, and return to the days of might makes right. I'm too cynical to believe that the idea of "humanitarian intervention" will not be abused and misused to serve the political agendas of those with influence enough to declare a "crisis" at will. They have in the past, and I have no reason to believe that anything has changed. In the long run, I believe it's more important to retain what is left of a nation's right to conduct it's own affairs as it sees fit, no matter how bloody they may be, than to throw sovereignty to the wind in a useless effort to save those who are going to die anyway, it's just a matter of whether it's the neighboring tribe, AIDS, starvation or the regularly scheduled civil war and/or coup d'etat.