quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
Calum, I have to say on this subject I disagree with you.
of course you do! i'd be surprised to get anybody to agree with me on this forum. this really seems to ba a haven for those prowar fuckers and i know i am climbing a hill even mentioning it here. no offence intended to anybody here, you're all very intelligent et c, but i know a lot of you think marching off to war is good for the spirit or some shit.
quote:
You do make some valid points. But have you tried looking at it from our point of view?
no. have you tried looking at it from the point of view of iraq? no. it is impossible for a US citizen to do so in my opinion.
quote:
I don't want there to be a war, but if there's no other way then I say go for it.
i agree, however i think your president has far from exhausted all options, wouldn't you say? assasinating saddam out of hand may be illegal but so what? that's never stopped the US before.
quote:
We've tried time and time again to resolve this peacefully. We caught him lying and sneaking around weapons. How can we trust that he doesn't have nukes?
the weapons inspectors are not there to find out if he has nukes or not, they are there to assess whether he is cooperating. the inspectors say he is, bush is squirming because he wants to get his war over with before the hot season.
quote:
Saddam is one crazy son of a bitch, I'm sure most would agree. Just killing him wouldn't help because he's corrupted so many other people i'm sure.
bullshit. how can you be 'sure'? so what, you want to just kill a shitload of people to 'make sure'? i will always oppose such ridiculous sentiments. where do you and your country get off? look how up in arms you were after your new york attack. that's a tiny fraction of what you so casually propose to inflict on iraq. and you think the next generation of iraqis won't bear a grudge against america for shoving its nose in where it doesn't belong? think again.
quote:
Saddam would have to be a lunatic (hey, he is) to attack countries just because there's a war between the US and him.
so what?
quote:
It's wrong to blame his post-war actions (pending his survival) on America just because they had a fight.
ah i see. no i meant that if you kill people's fathers, they will grow up making it their life's dream to make you die in a more painful way than you killed their family. i would, and i suspect many americans see revenge as their right too, why else are you all so eager to march off to war (or at least to send other americans you don't know off to war on your behalf).
quote:
War is necessary sometimes, how the hell could you argue otherwise? Think back to the american revolution. Would the US be there own country if they just kept asking britain over and over again? They tried that for a long while, so there was a war and they one.
good point, well made. not that i want to disagree with you, but maybe we'd be a more peaceful planet today if the US had not become its own country. still, i'll be the first to assert that a country should push for independence from the so called 'british' empire.
quote:
You say there is never a use for war, but if the iraqi citizens joined together to take out saddam there'd be a civil war.
hmm, i suppose you're right in a way, but you can't talk about war as if it's a game of tennis! people have hideous things happen to them in a war. the aim of a war should be a really good strategic effort to contain the damage done and to achieve as many goals as possible in as little time as possible, ideally before the opposition even knows you are there. and by that definition of the perfect military strategy, it would not be a war but an undercover strike action. mobilising thousands for months beforehand and digging in for the long haul is just not benefitting anybody except those who need to drag it out till the next election.
quote:
And you seem to promote that idea. Maybe it's because it doesn't involve you and you aren't at any risk.
bull fucking shit. hark at the american! your country is so uninvolved in all the wars it has ever waged compared with other nations that you all forget how horrible a war is and that's why you all get out your US flags at the mere hint of a quick skirmish in the middle east. i am very grateful that i have never been called up for service. i am incredibly grateful for that. but this country and all of europe's countries have had closer brushes with war than the US has ever had. the civil war was your last big one. you're only bordered by mexico and canada so your war options largely involve you sending planes to far off countries and bombing the fucking shit out of them till they roll over and die (along with their civilian population). and lets not forget the US' natural habit of staying out of a war until it becomes completely obvious that they can no longer sell weaponry to either side. money does come before peace for the US, why the hell else are they not in turkey or israel or even north korea sorting it out once and for all instead of fucking iraq? not that that'd be any better, but why pick one out of all those setups and ignore the rest unless it's all down to selling arms to both sides?
quote:
i'm going to stop now... I'm sure I've said a few things to make me stupid, but I'm not looking back. the US shouldn't take the risk, there's no peacefull resolution.
listen, i didn't mean to insult you, so i hope my harsh words didn't offend you personally, but i agree, the US should not take the risk, there are many options for a peaceful resolution before the risk of global nuclear war needs to be taken.
quote:
Originally posted by Macman:
I'll try to pick some of the main points to respond to since I have limited time and a limited attention span.
bored of your own topic? how can we trust a nation to police this planet against our wishes when they can't even be bothered to read through a page of information discussing the issues? think about it:
Colin Powell: Give me those briefings, i need to find out if there's a case for war - ah fuck it, don't bother, i can't be assed reading all that, let's just flip a coin for it
not my idea of a good way to run the planet.
quote:
Actually a lot of people join the army for financial/educational/career reasons. I'm not saying it wasn't totally up to them, but none of them probably foresaw this.
can they spell 'stupid'? how the fuck do you NOT foresee being sent off to war when you join the army? this is GROWN UP life you know, they knew what they were getting into, they signed the contract, get over it. as i said, they could have gone down to their local KFC, i think you'll find there is no clause in KFC's contract requiring you to go to war at no notice whatsoever. no. there is no way to say you joined the army but didn't expect to go to war.
quote:
They could easily organize a guerrilla war? I don't think so.
i agree
quote:
The Iraqis have been completely brainwashed.
ah! and it was all going so well. what the fuck are they telling you on CNN over there? the iraqis want saddam out as much as you do (i bet a lot more than you do), except for those who will lose their jobs et c from having a regime change. that's a lot of people who don't want saddam out, but the vast majority do. the thing is that iraq is a state controlled dictatorship, so you don't hear people saying they don't like saddam very much, or at least if you do, you don't hear it for very long.
quote:
Saddam has loyal followers everywhere, not to mention all of his general buddies and other high-ranking officials. It would be very difficult to organize a resistence, even if they wanted to. I'm not sure if Saddam gassed his own people or not, but they're still suffering. How would you like to go to an election where the two options are yes and no, then if you vote no you get dragged off at night? How would you like to live in a place where debates such as this one are illegal, where everything but your thoughts are controlled? Oh, okay! Saddam gassed the Kurds instead of his own people! That's much better! Wow I see your point now. Saddam is actually a saint for gassing the kurds and not his own people.
some of those comments are a little misinformed but i see the point you make and agree in principle. but you are saying that killing and torturing a lot of innocent people is bad and that the perpetrator should be stopped from doing it again, yes? i agree totally, but look, bush plans to kill and torture many innocent people and nobody is going to be able to stop him doing it again, let alone stop him this time. two wrongs do not make a right, and it is important for me to know who died and made george w bush God?
quote:
Umm actually, at least in my area, the troops have become the source of the protesters anger a lot of the time. I know of one guy who got spit on while he was just walking through Gig Harbor. GIG HARBOR OF ALL PLACES!!!
well, those people are fuckasses too then. how can they expect soldiers not to do their job? i do not agree with what they are being told to do in the slightest but for fuck's sake! soldiers have to do their jobs or it all goes to shit. it's the one single industry where i think that unions and strike action should not be allowed. this is one of the reasons i would never become a soldier, but i do not have anything against someone who does (unless he harms somebody for no good reason or is just a cunt)
quote:
A bit of a misunderstanding here. I simply meant that I was talking about the troops, not the subject of "should we attack iraq?" Sorry, it was kind of unclear.
no problem, again, the troops are not the issue in any way. in this country there is no anti troops sentiment at all, although there is a strong anti war sentiment. you do ocassionally get the odd soldier speaking out saying he feels people are protesting against the troops, but honestly nobody feels that way here, and if a few troops feel put upon, it is only their own insecurity that makes them feel it. here anyway i mean.
quote:
There are tons of desk jobs in the army, as well as cooks. As i said before, people usually don't join the army because they want to fight, they do it for money/education/careers.
where do they go if they want to fight? do they join a restaurant? or an accountancy firm? bollocks. anybody who signs a contract with the army should have read the bit saying they would be sent off to war if one came up. if they did not take that part of their contract seriously then they have deep issues with reality and adult life that they should definitely think about dealing with.
quote:
I'm not saying they're dying, I'm saying it's just damned uncomfortable to be living in that kind of place for four months when you're from Alabama or something. Day after day of combat readiness routines, twenty second showers, living in tents. The Iraqis and other Middle Easterns have lived there for millenia. They also have houses and air conditioning. Innocent yankee statements?
yes innocent yankee statements. humans are humans. i will say it again. the americans have the best standard of living for miles when they are in the middle east. sure it goes above 50 degrees celcius during the day and all the other stuff, but fucks' sake, how can you just brush off the fact that humans can and do live there with much less in the way of home comforts than the US soldiers? i heard that the rations of ten US soldiers for one week could feed 100 iraqi children for a year. not sure if that's true or if it meant the cost of those rations could feed 100 children or whatever, sounds a bit dubious to me, but the sentiment is true. the US soldiers have better food, accomodation and clothing than anybody else around. they have no right to be complaining about inhumane conditions. they've got a fucking edge over anybody they might be planning to fight that's for sure.
quote:
Actually, fuckass, I was talking to Americans when I said that. I don't expect you to understand what the American flag stands for anyway.
i understand what the american flag stands for better than you ever will. sometimes you need to be outside a situation to truly get a perspective on it. and you never said you were talking to americans. you addressed the reader directly and told me (the reader) that if i was going to protest war, i should do it under a US flag. bollocks. i object to the US flag almost as much as i do to the union flag.
quote:
Okay, we'll just close our borders and let all the other countries sort out all their problems with nukes, gas, and whatever other horrors those "children" can unleash on each other.
fine. do that. do that for 20 years and see how well the world gets on without you. or are you scared to find that perhaps the rest of the world might be better off without another US war every ten years to test its new batch of fighter planes?
quote:
I mean, it's not as if world events actually EFFECT the US! Haha that would be silly!!
well, better 'effect' them before they 'effect' you, isn't that what they teach the little american capitalists?
quote:
Well, after the UK is a big crater (which would probably be an improvement) because us yankees took that advice and completely ignored the rest of the world, you'll most likely think differently!
what a moron. just stop and think about what you just said. you said that the US' continual overseas intervention in matters that its ailing administration knows nothing about are actively responsible for the 'british' isles not being bombed by nukes? the only way i could see that that might be true is if you are saying the US itself would bomb the UK out of spite. is that what you are saying? are you in fact threatening the UK? that would be typical of US tactics right enough. how can you seriously claim your politicians can manage external affairs when your school systems, your welfare system and your entire social structure are caving in faster than you can say 'american dream'? Your fucking president can't even finish his own sentences without trying a few times!
quote:
I mean, what the Allies did during WWII was complete hogwash right? Sharing resources?? Fighting side-by-side?? Complete nonsense!!
pardon? i think you'll spot that i am against war in its many guises. anyway, the mechanics of the second world war are very different to the current possible war scenarios in many fundamental ways. lastly, you don't seem to actually be making a point with this statement unless i have missed it completely.
quote:
Point taken, but there's always a different point of view. I like cheese. To me cheese is just. Someone else doesn't like cheese. To them cheese is unjust, right? But if you liked cheese you'd still say "Yum! Cheese is good!" not "Well I like cheese, but that guy doesn't, so I guess I'll just keep quiet about the cheese." No! That's now how things work! If we attack, it will be unjust to Saddam, but to all the people he's causing to suffer it will definitely be a just war for them. So all of Iraq and the surrounding countries' citizens deserve to be shot is what you're saying?
not quite. if you were really adamant that cheese wasn't actually good, i'd probably say 'in my opinion cheese is good' instead. now saddam is not going to negotiate, so talking semantics in this situation is pointless. you can change the cheese statement to be as politically correct as you like but saddam will still disagree with you. obviously something must be done to force him out. the best way would be simply to kill him, possibly the US could help along a social revolution in iraq. that would be the best way, but it would not be a good solution for the US who ideally want to retain control over whatever regime iraq has after saddam is out. thus they must have a war. then when they win, it is acceptable behaviour to install whoever you like in power because you 'won the war'. that's how it is historically. you can't just install a new government unless you win a war against the country you want to fiddle with.
as for those civilians, quite the contrary. i think that if some nasty ruthless political assasination (CIA style) were to be done instead of waging a war, they would be alot better off. even if they did have a civil war, it would be their own one. you were saying earlier on what a great thing the US war against the british was, but remember that at the time that was a civil war. if the iraqis have their own war and install their own government, they will not bear a grudge against anybody else in the world, they will have got rid of saddam (due to him having been quietly shot by 'somebody') and everybody;s happy. except the US government who will be pissed off that they didn't get to choose who to put in power. that's not a big deal except that iraq has so much oil and to a Bush, that's everything. bush will not give up on this war for that reason alone. many people say 'it's all about oil' when they have no idea of what that statement means. it simply means shortsightedness on the part of the US president, who would rather place the US economy ahead of US national security - and in my opinion, US national security involves not pissing people off who might have kids who launch terrorist attacks on your country in later years. of course, by that time some other fucker will be president so to bush, that's firmly in the territory of 'not my problem'.
quote:
You think the best way to handle this is to assassinate Saddam? Would that be just to you if they assassinated Saddam, Calum? Isn't that a form of war? So I guess your suicidal then, huh?
uh? ah no actually. i mean what i just said above. i said let's remove the current administration in iraq as quietly as possible, then as quietly as possible, we halp the iraqi people form their own government. not necessarily a liberal democracy, but it would be something they wanted. mostly what would be best is if the three distinct parts got to be three individual countries (in my opinion) like it was set up before the second world war (i think india was administrating the three territories that later became iraq at this time - i could be wrong). this would be good forthe iraqi people but would take much economic dominance away from some oil buying countries. also, it's higly illegal (in international terms, and we all know international law doesn't exist, if it did then the US would not be allowed to go to war at all until another UN resolution gets unanimously passed).
quote:
And besides, if we take out Saddam and only Saddam some other dumbass will definitely come in to replace him. We have to change Iraq for good.
as i said above.
quote:
You don't think that being the last super power gives us some sort of responsibility?
yes i do. that's why your country has to stop fucking people about. the only reason you are the last big superpower is that you like throwing your weight around. how about canada? never been a superpower, probably never will. but it could be. their economy is better than the US, christ they have it sussed better than the US in many ways, but they don't go declaring war round the globe so nobody says they're a superpower.
quote:
We've been pretty goddamned nice to everyone, I say. Who decides that we are in charge? Who decides that the teacher is in charge of a class? Who decides anything? That's just the way it is.
and it's this sort of attitude that makes me state vehemently that the US should not be in charge of anything. they cannot shake this childish idea of somebody being in charge of it all. "we've got the bomb so fuck you, we're in charge" - it really pisses me off. for a country that goes on about democracy so much, you would think america would be the first to promote a liberal democracy in the world arena instead of picking fights in the playground.
quote:
My ancestors didn't say, "Hey everyone, let's become the most powerful nation in the world so we can control everyone else's asses in two hundred years! That would be sweey!" No, this is just the way things turned out. If we wanted to we could just sit back and let everyone else settle their problems any way they want? If we had done that we would have been destroyed during the world wars.
hmm, i see what you're saying but all the wars the USA has been involved in since the second world war have been wars they had no place in. they just wanted to test out their new machinery and generally justify the "defence" budget.
quote:
We don't just intervene to control everyone else's asses, we intervene because our country is effected as well (not to mention the fact that we are compassionate for other people. well, most of us are anyway).
i do believe that about USA's citizens, but i think you are being misled about those reasons making you go to war all the time. people just resent the US sticking their big beak into affairs that don't concern them. the cultures and societies of the world are not the same as they are in the US and the US' world politics seems to assume that everybody wants to live like US citizens. sadly, this is the case in the EU, but in other countries, societies, territories, people don't think like US citizens. fact of life. it's easy for the US' attempts to be generous to come across as crass and rude from the point of view of other countries. i just think that if the US is going to try to play in the world arena, it should be a lot more considerate of other regions' cultures and personalities than it is.
quote:
Again, I merely meant that I was talking about the troops instead of the whole war on Iraq debate. I whole-heartedly agree that Saddam needs to go. If I'd lived back in the late sixties then I probably would have been a hippy because that war was a fucking disaster. We had no real objective then, other then to go in and take over.
no. the objective in viet name was exactly the same one that you have in iraq right now. oppressive regime, "peacekeeping force", US fails to evaluate the sociopolitical situation correctly and marches off to war to 'sort it all out' in the best interests of the US, and of the viet people. the only reason it seems different from today's situation is that you have the benefit of seeing in hindsight what was really going on in viet nam. i am sure that popular opinion about viet nam was totally different in 1970 from what it is now.
quote:
This time we have a clear objective: Saddam and all the other asshats that are going to take over. No, our track record for taking care of these types isn't good (Noreaga and Castro comes to mind) but we've also learned from these mistakes (yes, mistakes that should never have been made). We're not blindly agreeing with Bush in any way, in fact I'm anti-Bush, and if at all possible I'd rather see almost anything but war. But there are worse things than war.
again, i agree entirely with you here. in fact my stipulation for going to war is to ask the iraqi people if that's what they want. it is not good enough to ask them 'do you want saddam out?', we need to ask them 'do you want us to go to war against saddam in iraq?'. that's a tough fucking question, but if the consensus amongst iraqis was that the US should go to war against saddam then i agree, that is the best option. the best people to judge whether there is no option left but war are the iraqi people, not the US politicians. it is possible indeed that if you performed such a survey in iraq that you would indeed get a pro-war result. in that case i would say go to war, make it quick and make it effective. as you say there are worse things than war (but only just).
quote:
You have no compassion for these people at all? I find that very hard to believe. I'm not asking you to speak up and be a major supporter or anything, just sign the thank you note. It takes two seconds, it's easy.
those people are doing their job! do they write emails to me saying 'thank you for working in an office in london'? no. and i think i have as much respect for them as they do for me. we are equals, none of us have met, none of us have anythng against the other, but we have no basis for respect yet either. i feel for people who get sent off to war against their wishes yes, but life is hard, and it blunts my compassion a bit when i think that they are being sent off to kill as well as to die. i am sure they hope to kill many more people than they expect to be killed too. not a nice thought.
quote:
C'mon, you know exactly what he means. The American colonies were being oppressed. They really had no choice but to fight. How ironic that the free, peaceful world we know today was borne from war.
how ironic that you think today's world is free.
quote:
My general statement to all of you who protest the troops and the war: there are things that are a hell of a lot worse than war. Not many, but there are. Like in business, you have to spend money to make money. Well you also have to make war sometimes to prevent war. It's the truth and I don't see how that can be denied.
i think the US' foreign policy would be better if the US people would stop seeing everything in terms of running a business and venture capital. i know it's drummed into you from birth so it's hard to get rid of, and i wasn't going to mention it but you forced my hand. not everything conforms to a business model. the US should pay more attention to politics and sociology and less attention to how to make money.
Macman, sorry if i offended you, it's not personal against you or the troops, or any compassionate US citizens, i just get a bit passionate about people being needlessly bullied and killed.
