Refusing to go to War (edit)

[mackvinyl1967]

Oh come on now...that is just a silly comparison.

Ok, fine...we are in a tournament. It is a tournament against lunatic, murderous dictators who are generally known to kill people in a heartbeat. Guess what? I do strike to disable/kill even before the fight starts...pre-emptively.



Ummm, not sure if only I feel this way, but...YES!!

 

[LilyP]

Is it ? Its similar to the "Eye for an eye" scenario. Just because someone attacks you, you attack them too ? So then they can come back again and attack you AGAIN because you attacked them ? Great, so this goes around in circles ending up in what ? Believe me, those terrorist attacks won't stop even if the President of US believes he has eradicated the last cell. Why ? Because someone will get angry at the lives taken by him and attack him for it ! So it becomes an "Eye for an eye" situation again.




You assume you are in danger so you attack the person first ? What, if that person never intended to attack you ? What kind of a person would that make you ? In my eyes more evil than him.

 

[FoxHound]

What if he did?



Depends, it could be the difference between life and death.... (Better wrong and alive, rather than wrong and dead.)





Aren't opinions cool........





Depend's, if it was for the rite reasons they would not have to make me go, I would volunteer. But give me a B.S power struggle, do your worst, I will not do what I find wrong.

 

[bob1442]

I need to point out that there are two arguements here and they should not be confused.

The first is: what are the options available to people who don't wish to go/disagree with a war?

The second is: is preemptive striking correct (and is Gulf War 04 justified)?

Two entirely different things. Don't confuse them.

Now... I also find it somewhat rich that our British friends seem to be calling into question American action while their country is standing by our side in the same occupation (and also still engaged in its own military occupation of a former colony off their own coast and dealing for years with insurgents over there).

While there seems to be a great deal of debate about our country's actions, I don't see any of you leaving your own country or acting in protest of your own troops. I don't mean this as a dig as much as pointing out that the debate seems directed away from your own back yard).

As stated earlier, I neither voted for the current administration, not supported the current Iraq occupation. However I did my civil duty as a citizen to protest both. But at the end of the day, I still consider myself a US citizen and doing my best to fulfill the related duties. And, I expect that the other half of the country would do the same thing if our guy had won in the last election cycle (something they did for most of the 90's). That's part of the civil contract we are all engaged in, regardless of what nation we live in.

- Matt

 

[bananastt]

you hit the nail on the head once again.

"war cannot be avoided, it can only be postponed to ones advantage"-Niccolo Machiaevillo

 

[crochetfeind]

The question you have to ask is with reason for war, would the consequences of NOT going to war be worse than actual war!

 

[razaqmoin]

And the answer to that is of course mere speculation, which leads to all sorts of sillly debates on martial arts forums.

 

[TaraTara]

valid point, and in the case of the iraq war, ABSOLUTELY with out a shadow of a doubt, we have prevented 10xs the loss by going to war to begin with. pre-emptive is always a good thing.

 

[ReneeC]

I'd really like to see that "ABSOLUTELY with out a shadow of a doubt" evidence that you've got. Because, from where I sit, I think that the money could have been spent in a number of other projects that would have far more stablized the region *caugh*isreal/palistinian conflict*caugh*Saudi Arabi*caugh*

In fact, to this point it's interesting to note that even Bush has said in a private interview that we won't know the full results of this action for generations to come (perhaps one of the most insightful things I've ever heard attributed to him). The plain fact is that we don't know.

We're there now and have to make the best of it. But as far as proof... let me know what you have that I don't know about.

- Matt

 

[danielsuperchef]

tekkengod, the US prevented ten times the loss of what ? The allies killed 20,000 iraquies, thats more than the number of poeple that were killed at the Twin Towers. And for what purpose ? Also your statement "pre-emptive is always a good thing". Why is it a good thing ? By making someone else a victim first ? Great sense of morale there.

 

[oscar_the_penguin]

If you volunteer to join the armed forces... for whatever reason (some for training, college money, adventure, etc)... and your Commnader-in-Chief (President) opts to deploy you to war, I have to say that yes, you are obliged to go. Signing up for the armed forces should be done with the clear and conscious knowledge that your job (bottom line) is to fight for your country when told to do so.

A draft situation is a much different deal. Personally I believe that the military should be all-volunteer... and if you can'tr get enough troops to go invading people... maybe your cause is wrong. Citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms in case they need to defend their country (from enemies foreign or domestic)... but I cannot agree with a government that forcibly impresses its citizens into combat service.

I volunteered for the army and served my country, with the knowledge thatI could go to war. I did it of my own free will and accepted the consequences. Igf the government were to try to draft me and force me to fight against my will... they'd have to haul me to jail me. I'd serve time in prison before fighting against my will. I don't like the idea of running away to another country... why should they have to take responsibility for my own government's actions... actions that are inherrently supported by a voting mass?

A free nation, supported by voters and by a volunteer military are parts of the checks and balances that are supposed to keep us "free".

 

[stargirle4ever]

Well said Thomas, well said.

- Matt

 

[blargin]

ten times the loss of life that would have accoured had saddam been left in power, also you have to remember that 95% of the iraqis are FOR this , the 5% that aren't are the ones who wern't being gased or executed by saddam for having an opinion or looking at him funny. the ones loyal to saddam will fight this to the end, and we will kill or capture them all so that any terrorist acts by them in the future will be prevented and that the rest of the 95% of the country can enjoy the freedoms that we do. pre-emptive is good, by stoping something before it starts.

if you are hanging around, and you know there is this guy in the corner with a knife who is planning on killing you, aren't you gonna go sneak up and break his neck before he gets the chance? same concept. but primarily, we are liberating a country.

 

[stewlesss]

Whose life? What's your source?
Source?

So why aren't we acting in places like the Sudan that are seeing terrible cases of Genocide equal to Iraqi attacks on the Kurds?

That wasn't the goal ever presented to us until we already were IN Iraq and no smoking guns were found for the reasons given.

I do believe that the Iraqi's are better off, for the most part, now. But don't play the liberator card. That wasn't why we were told we went to war. And if we're so concerned about liberation, there are a heck of a lot of places that need it just as bad that we're not going any where near.

All you are doing is spewing rhetoric at this moment.

- Matt

 

[Mashy23]

Saddam as killed over a million people in the last 20+ years! Can you imagine what would happen is he remained for another 10 or 20 years.

 

[40something]

tekkengod, 95 % of the poeple in the country weren't for this.....I don't even think 50 % of the country were for invading the Iraq. Also, what that posts makes you sound like is as if ALL the terrorists the US is looking for came from that country ONLY. Osama bin Laden is the terrorist here, not Saddam. And by stopping something before it starts you actually also prevent to find out IF it will ever happen. There were NO indications Iraq was ever going to attack the US nor were there WMD's found in the country which could have been used to do such an attack. So, in fact +20,000 iraquies. and 1,500 soldiers died for no reason at all !! And also, it ever occur to you that maybe those constant bomb attacks at the moment are happening because no one wants the US there ? Or ever wanted them there in the first place ?

By the way, pre-emptive strikes are like looking in the future. And how can you predict or the US government predict what will happen or take the 'right' to know what will happen ? From what I read I imagine you as one of these Western movie guys: "Shoot first, ask questions later".

I sure hope I'm wrong.

 

[WayneS]

Then why did we (US, England, the World) not act in similiar fashion in the cases of the Killing Fields or the current Genocide going on in Africa? Or in any of the countless other cases of ethnic cleansing going on today?

While it is true that Sadam was a bad guy and that he killed a heck of a lot of his own people, the idea that this action was enough for us to go to war is, quite frankly, a load of bull. Sadam was doing the exact same thing when he was an ALLY of the US and England. The liberation thing has been a wonderful after the fact explanation. But it isn't a JUSTIFICATION. And WASN'T a justification.

Now if someone had said something along the lines of -> this has all really been about Iran and their nuclear capacities... then you might have been right. Though its still a dubious justification.

- Matt

ps. note that we're getting back onto a merry-go-round in which no one is going to abandon their existing viewpoints. We probably want to stop this madness/empty debate before it gets too bad.

 

[supestitches]

Thank you Matt. How many times do people need to hear that the "Liberation" explanation is just alot of BS. Even the US has admitted there were never any WMD's in Iraq. And Yes, why attack Iraq when there is lots of Genocide going on in Africa ? Or even worse, the population in some parts of Africa is fighting with AIDS and hunger. Instead of 'liberating' a country maybe the US should have instead spend their war budget on food and medicines for Africa.

 

[Chantel]

You raise a good point. Looking back on their reasons, you could say the war was unjust - BUT, i understand why they went. They beleived, but they beleived wrong, and that IS worrying.

But looking at what we have been and are doing in the country - i simply cannot say that it ISN'T a good thing. For that reason i beleive the whole war was a good thing.

Anyone who thinks America and Britain have made good decisions is a moron, and anyone who is thinks Sadam wasn't a danger is delusional.



Thats a pretty big risk to take, dont you think - considering who we were dealing with.

 

[NickGe]

Here's the issue. Take the was as a good thing, remember it as such, and associate the reason as being "liberation" and it becomes all the more easy the next time to get the public to accept this type of action. And to forget about all of the issues, like faulty intellegence surrounding it.

Good things came out of the war. That doesn't make the war good. Those are two entirly different things.

A petty dictator who has been built up to be this generation's Hitler? Sadam as his family were bad. But they are by no means the worst that are currently out there. He was a bully without any backing... Seriously, anyone who can be firmly beat down in less than a month... give me a break.

And even the insurgency is based on terror ability rather than military might.

Let's be serious, Sadam was not a power player. I'd put the Saudi's and Iranian governing council much higher than him on that map.

- Matt