Okay I know that I posted this as a reply to the "Are you against..." thread. But I thought that this would be nice to have a reply to. It's just something to think about.
The answer you would provide would probably be "KILL HIM!!!" But did we have proof then that he was responsible for the murder of thousands? No. Some say America DID know and didn't do anything about it. And when we look back on that we get mad at US for it. Even those who are "antiwar". "What! We knew about the holocaust and could have stopped it earlier?!"
Now Sadam has heartlessly killed his own countrymen. And yet we're like, "noooooo. Bad war. baaaad war." I really don't know if I'm for the war or against it. Simply because I don't know how much we know. Is it proven that Sadam is in fact holding the country under his thumb? Then by all means, if we have the power to do so, we have an obligation to try to help them. But if we're lacking in that proof, I say wait until we have it. (Note: I have changed my view to say that I am for the war if it means taking Saddam out of power. I changed my view after viewing the pictures of Saddam's crimes in another thread).
On a final note: you know, I really hope that those of you who are against the war aren't doing it because it's "the thing, man." Anti-war. Yeah, we remember - or at least heard - how cool the 60's were with all the anti-war songs and the public protestings. People, please, don't. Just don't, okay. If you have true beliefs against this war, fine express it. But don't go with it because "AntiWar" is cool.
Be aware that the anti-coalition zealouts essentially amount to nothing more than buckets of viscous discharge that have oozed its way out of a very sick cows anal cavity.
Whenever the moment of opportunity presents itself, by all means, take a few seconds out of your schedule to shower them with verbal diarrhea.
most peace protestors can't come up with a good argument against the war except the proverbial "innocents will die" (as if they weren't dying under Saddam's regime) or "war is bad" or "america is controlled by zionists" or some other inane garbage.
Their typical argument always refers to something the US has done in their history. My favorite one is when people bring up how the Americans (even when all settlers were European and not American) slaughtered natives back in the 1600's so they have no right to attack Iraq now. Where is the connection in that? I don't know. But this is what they typically say.
Rambo, you're a little too much for me, buddy. There was a lot of rage in your reply there. A lot of visual images that I probably could do without. I wouldn't go as far as what you have said. But that's okay, your opinion is still welcome.
And Mike, people actually refer to the American settlers crap? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Not you, I'm talking about the people who use that defense. I work at a Child Development Center and I have toddlers that say more intelligent things than that.
Screw the "innocents"...again, you're stereotyping people who are against the war. I'm against it because of other reasons. It's not in the best interest of the USA. It's in the best interests of the Neocon/Zionists who pull Bushboy's strings. Americans are dying for the greater glory of Israel and not because America is threatened! Saddan IS NOT Hitler...he's NO THREAT to the USA, this war is not worth it. If the war was really in the USA's best interest, THIS ANTI-WAR guy would be screaming KILL THE INNOCENTS and win now! So quit stereotyping us all as peacenik hippies with flowers in our hair. I'd be the 1st to call for a brutal, unmerciful war, if I believed in the reasons, I cheered when we went after Afghanistan, because that was FOR US and not for Israel and the Neocons.
I`m from Germany and I like to say to this theme....please don`t forget, that so many thousands of people died because of the bombing in the cities. All that pain becuase a hand full of criminal people like the nazis. The most people in Germany wasn`t nazis, but they were anguished about their own live.
I think it`s not a kind of justice to kill people, who live in a country where a criminal man dictated all and who are not guillty about this criminal.
War is never a solution because of the unguilty civilian people.
We in Germany are not against the american people,only against the war. We know what it means, if bombs falling down in cities because of one man. Thousands and thousands people,children,women has to die, but the war was at the end long time, it`s only political.less people want to have the power and murdered others who don`t like to have a war...all is propaganda...we are the peoples!!!!
CONCERNING HITLER Please melissa remember that France and Uk DID declared war in 1939, before everybody knew the existence of the "camps of the death". During the blietzkrieg in 1940, there were 100,000 french victims (far more than during the 1st german assault during ww1). Then while France was occupied, diplomatic and industrial relationships between US and the nazis still continued (until pearl harbor I think, i'm not sure).
TO MIKEXXL : "most peace protestors can't come up with a good argument against the war except the proverbial innocents will die"
You should have read the forum before writing ! you will find the serious arguments.
I will sumerize for you (please read the forum for details) :
- this war is illegal
- this war will not bring the peace to Iraq (think about how the sunnites, the shiites, & the kurdes will fight for power/autonomy, with the implication of Turkey and Iran... Think about the similar situation in liban 20 years ago...)
- this war will (is) increase(ing) resentment from arabic/muslim countries against the western countries, and thus the risk of another 9/11 is highly increased.
- US and UK administations failed in giving a justification to this war. Some of the justifications were based on fake report. (you will find the report and urls on this site).
- etc...(check the forum you will find).
the Americans slaughtered natives back in the 1600's
I ve seen this dumb argument on other furum, but not on this one. maybe I missed some threads...
Another dumb argument I've seen several times on this forum is : "you should support this war as we saved your ass in 1944"
I think these arguments are irrelevant.
Originally posted by NothingSacred Screw the "innocents"...again, you're stereotyping people who are against the war. I'm against it because of other reasons. It's not in the best interest of the USA. It's in the best interests of the Neocon/Zionists who pull Bushboy's strings. Americans are dying for the greater glory of Israel and not because America is threatened! Saddan IS NOT Hitler...he's NO THREAT to the USA, this war is not worth it. If the war was really in the USA's best interest, THIS ANTI-WAR guy would be screaming KILL THE INNOCENTS and win now! So quit stereotyping us all as peacenik hippies with flowers in our hair. I'd be the 1st to call for a brutal, unmerciful war, if I believed in the reasons, I cheered when we went after Afghanistan, because that was FOR US and not for Israel and the Neocons.
NothingSacred, how can I say this nicely. Shut up and re read my original post. Did I say that all antiwar people are hippies? NO!!!!!!! For the love of God!
And for your frikkin information, Nothing, read the history books. Hitler wasn't a threat to the US either... yet. And yet even anti war people still support our involvement in WWII as far as taking Hitler out of power was concerned.
And Bebert, nice, thanks for the history lesson. But I'm talking about the US, not the UK and France. Your history lesson doesn't really address the main idea of my original point. I'm not sure what it does except give me a review of something that's already in my Western Civ. class textbook.
You can't compare Hitler with Saddam...that's so simplistic and funny. To compare them, Saddam would need an arsenal to match at least Russia's...he's not even close ZERO usable planes, 1970s worn out Soviet tanks and missiles...wake up...he's a toothless joke.
Now get down to Sam's Club and buy some duct tape and plastic if you're so damn scared!
Originally posted by Bebert [B]CONCERNING HITLER Please melissa remember that France and Uk DID declared war in 1939, before everybody knew the existence of the "camps of the death". During the blietzkrieg in 1940, there were 100,000 french victims (far more than during the 1st german assault during ww1). Then while France was occupied, diplomatic and industrial relationships between US and the nazis still continued (until pearl harbor I think, i'm not sure).
That's a tough piece of history. Don't forget about the "phony" war when the Brits were chomping at the bit to get at Hitler while he was still consolidating in Poland, but the French were reluctant to engage for fear of retaliation. Better to wait in the maginot line, ignore British requests to move into the low countries, have no strategic reserve, and wait until Hitler marshals his forces in the west?
There was a large (stupid) anti-war movement in the US at the time. I cannot say anything about support for Nazi's although I highly doubt it. The Russians did support the Nazi's and even had supply trains running up to 7/22/41. Roosevelt's position and allegience was pretty clear through the 30's. Lend Lease could not begin until he had one his election. There, in exchange for long term leases of Atlantic bases from the Brits, the US supplied naval combat vessels and war materials to the Brits long before the war started. We also engaged in combat patrols along our coast and deep into the Atlantic to protect the convoys to England (at great cost in US sailors lives).
Better to force the Brits to sink your fleet than turn it over (or at least scuttle yourselves) to them and let them continue a fight for survival against Hitler?
Better to fire on US/UK troops in 1943 North Africe than join them in common cause against Hitler?
-
quote:
this war is illegal
1441 can be interpreted differently. I am not a complete idiot (don't ask nowar for a reference). France/Germany supported US action against the Serb's without UN approval because they knew Russia would veto anyway.
quote:
- this war will not bring the peace to Iraq (think about how the sunnites, the shiites, & the kurdes will fight for power/autonomy, with the implication of Turkey and Iran... Think about the similar situation in liban 20 years ago...)
If the UNSC rallied around 1441, and didn't give the Arab countries an excuse not to even try to justify this to their people, the UNSC could provide a unified powerful front saying "this is how its gonna be..." Instead their position has exacerbated the problem and given support to pan-arab nationalism.
quote:
- this war will (is) increase(ing) resentment from arabic/muslim countries against the western countries, and thus the risk of another 9/11 is highly increased.
as above
- US and UK administations failed in giving a justification to this war. Some of the justifications were based on fake report. (you will find the report and urls on this site).
12 years of resolutions and defiance. No one said he was in compliance. No one wanted to enforce UNSC ultimatum.
- etc...(check the forum you will find).
quote:
you should support this war as we saved your ass in 1944
If you agree as you (France) did that Saddam is a rogue in violation of the UNSC, and if your FM agrees that Saddam can never be trusted to comply, then you should at least NOT actively and decisively lobby against your long standing ally's position. In so doing you further support Saddam's regime and throw fuel on the fire of muslim public opinion.
