I cannot STAND these people. I read a few articles about how they are against the military and their recruitment tactics. There is just so many things wrong with their claims I don't even know where to begin. They suggest a peaceful alternative, fair enough. Find me a peaceful alternative to 9/11 and December 7(Pearl Harbor) and I'll give them that argument. Ever since the dawn of mankind, the man with the biggest weapon makes the rule. Unless you can prove otherwise, I stand by my claim. Also, they're pinning the blame on the military because kids are joining the military. What is to blame? The parents inability to take control or the militarys need for more soldiers? They're doing nothing more than using the military as a scapegoat to mask the fact that their parenting skills is worth its weight in canine feces.Their narrow minded views is seriously starting to get on my nerves.
Its one of those things, fighting seems to be human nature making war inevitable... But its hard to say, every war has its own reasons and such but I guess its always good that some people oppose it to keep things in check, otherwise we'd all be war junkies and nuking everyone there are always alternatives to war and violence, but whether they work or how long they take is just as subjective as going to war itself, so its all a fools game thats why hindsight is such a beautiful thing
I agree there is no peaceful alternative when your enemies are throwing bombs at you (either human or missiles, whatever). But when a military comes up to your son or daughter and wash his brain with all these ideals about war... as a parent, I'm not sure I would be pro war. Having lost a brother, a sister, a cousin, a friend in Iraq or Afghanistan is already hard enough... but plus losing your own flesh and blood, it's gonna be even more unbearable. In war, even if there's 1 chance out of 50 to be kill, what assures you that the 1 person being killed won't be your kid? And it wouldn't even be worth it. War is just destroying life. It's human nature to try to be the most powerful possible and to take control, but it's also human nature to protect their children.
I think these arguments are mainly in response to the war in Iraq... people will fight for what they believe in... but most everyone in the US doesn't believe in the war in Iraq... therefore they view their children going overseas fighting this useless war as a possible waste of lives... you mention September 11, that's what Afghanistan was for... So what does Iraq have anything to do with Afghanistan? WMDs have been debunked as false... Bush finally admits we went for oil, but oil is still shooting up and gripping us by the balls... So as you can see... the war in Iraq has so far resulted in nothing but the lives of so many of our brave young men and women...
Allow me to ask; from what perspective do you speak? Have you ever been in the military? Do you have any children? I'm both a veteran and a father; I fully understand the need for a strong military and national defense. I would willingly give up my life and my children's lives in the defense of my nation if the cause was right and just. But, what if my nation proceeds in a course that I cannot morally or ethically agree with? Should I then lay my and my children's lives down on the alter of bad politics that fraudulently misrepresents itself as national interest? I think not. Further, why is our nation so great? What separates my nation from any other, that I may so love it to willingly come to its defense even with the ultimate sacrifice? It is because it is a nation of freedoms unlike any other on earth; the freedom to worship, the freedom to associate, and yes, even the freedom to protest. While marching on Berlin may sound patriotic, the reason why we did it was because it was also defending our right to march on Washington. Defending our nation against terrorism is a just course. However, what I think some haven't yet appreciated is that when a bad leader sends patriotic young men and women to Iraq, to die for nothing but bad politics, that can be the biggest threat to a state's existence as a nation. Mission accomplished indeed, eh? Ralph
the thing about that is that most people kinda supported the "great" War on Terror when it first started from 9/11 from Afghanistan to Iraq generally public was in support of "liberating" Iraq from its tyrannical dictator, but after all the dust settled soldiers died, WMDs were never found and hardly any progress was made, people turned Now everyone hates the war, its a 2 sided coin that's just being flipped over and over again and thats why I say again hindsight is wonderful
The War On Terror is probably the biggest bait and switch ever foisted on the American people. Weapons of Mass Destruction was revealed to be Words of Mass Deception. We were supposed to have been going after Bin Laden; instead we went after some petty dictator which was in no position to harm us, nor was he planning to. This much we already know (now). What gets me is, that the American body politic is so blind to what some politicians have done to this country in the name of national defense and patriotism. I'm personally hoping that whoever the next person in the big chair is, that they have the personal courage to look into all the facts, and criminally prosecute any and all that have lied, cheated, and hurt the American people. And no, there should be no "presidential pardons" for anyone. These get out of jail cards have been played too much; the American public is sick of flagrant abuses that go unpunished. The bad thing about Iraq now, is best coined like the old adage when you're browsing in a store; you broke it, you bought it. Now that we killed the only thing that held that place together, we're stuck. We certainly can't be as nasty as Saddam and get away with it like him. So we're stuck with administering that place because they won't be able to do it. And the reason why we have to is, because the place sits on the economic artery of the world, like da-uh, the oil? What many people in the US failed to appreciate beforehand was that the reason why Saddam was a petty but ruthless dictator is simply because thats the only kind of leader that can hold such a violently divergent nation together. Iraq was never a nation in any sense of the word. It was a former British colonial set up that was forced upon the indigenous population without regard to regional ethnic or cultural needs. The Brits had a long history of doing this sort of shit (making "nations" out of different peoples when they walked and gave them independence). Just look at what they did all over the subcontinent (India - Pakistan) middle east (Israel - Palestine), and Africa (Sudan). Just about every Garden spot in the world where there is terror incubation was a former European colony, and most notably English. Not that the US didn't try its hand in the imperialism game (mainly Spanish possessions that the US took over) but frankly, all the crap in the world today is the leftover shit from over three hundred years of failed European diplomacy. This war in Iraq is just the latest icing on a very old and stale cake; and you can thank George Bush for buying it for the American people. Personally, I'm hoping that some Chinese egghead comes up with some alternative fuel that would make oil obsolete. The US is already too petroleum intoxicated politically for something like that to happen. You need a country that has smart people who don't owe allegiance to big oil. I hope I live long enough to see oil selling for two cents a barrel, and all those big oil folks who have fucked the world go broke overnight. Why am I so angry? Think about it, Bin Laden got away, oil companies are making record profits while we pay more than four bucks a gallon, three thousand Americans were murdered in New York, over three thousand Americans were killed in action in Iraq, and the Bush administration is continuing to conceal the real numbers of wounded (suspected to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000)... Let me stop here before I put my fist through the monitor... Ralph
well, instead of picking parts out of my response, I did say that the war in Afghanistan was generally supported as it had (possible, the government could be lying bout Bin Laden) direct relations to the attack on 9/11... but when we turned the corner on to Iraq, many were led to believe that we might have been attacked again by some nutjub with WMD's... liberation of Iraq was just a bonus(or failure whichever you guys believe it to be) to preventing said possible attacks... which led to our results which you have so kindly summed up... results stemming from agendas in which we didnt' sign up for...
i wasnt picking on your argument in particular just dont like how people just are so anti war only because theyve had the luxury to see the outcome if the invasion had ended up with some kind of victory, maybe there would be less people complaining and maybe people saying how it was the greatest act of humanity to "rescue" those people and save the world from terrorism but then that would make it sound like the "successful" wars are good and the ones that go bad are the worst things in the world some people just see things in black and white
yes, but most people aren't disapproving of the war in Afghanistan and the search of Bin Laden... Most everyone is saying get our soldiers out of Iraq... Liberation of Iraq was never something the American people had invisioned to be part of the agenda... and now Bush is using that as an excuse to further said agenda... It's the same thing on Iran, now that the truth has come out, and Bush contemplates invasion on Iran... Most of the American public are saying no to invading Iran because we know Bush is :nuts:
exactly most people are not disapproving of Afghanistan probably because it is in no way near as violent as Iraq, less soldiers come home in body bags, so its gets the big thumbs up from people.... -rolleyes so its ok to say some wars are ok and some are not, which is stupid to me. So what people are really saying are, only go to war if we know we can win it...... either way its way too complicated to be able to just choose sides
I dunno how you can say how one war is "less violent" or easier... war is war... the war on Afghanistan wasn't a simple military coup or led by a single squad of marines... it was a full out war with support from allied nations... even now Afghanistan is watched by the UN and the US... Most people don't disapprove of the War on Afghanistan because Bin Laden WAS THERE... that was the purpose of the mission, to get Bin Laden... not because it was "less violent", or less soldiers lost... we had an objective that was supported by the general populous... Iraq was different... WMDs? none... Liberation of Iraq? done... Oil? $150 a barrel coming soon... why the hell are we still there then? why would u go to war when your own people do not support it? morale would go to shit... look what's happening now, many US soldiers are questioning the point of the war...
in less violent i mean less casualties and being less violent on the streets. its pretty clear that Afghanistan has less of a body count for soldiers/civilians than iraq i wasnt talking about why we went to afghanistan, yes i know we went there for bin laden, im talking about public opinion being different for afghanistan compared to iraq presently after the war was started The reason soldiers are still in iraq is simple, you dont create a mess and then just leave it there. could you imagine what would happen to iraq if all the foreign forces just suddenly left? im not talking about why people go to war or the politics involved originally i was just questioning how people choose sides such as being anti war or pro war and it being a fickle thing
but that's just it... public opinion is based on why people go to war and the politics involved... what kind of opinions would there be otherwise? public opinion changed when the reason for the war changed, when the policies framed for the war were changed... public opinion didn't simply change because more soldiers died... sure it might have played a role in it, but it can't be the sole reason behind public opinion on the war... In terms of leaving after creating a mess, sure I can see we should help clean up the mess... at the same time we don't need such a large force in there... we have a almost 200,000 soldiers in Iraq... where's the need in such a large force when all we're doing is policing and clean up? I mean we're also training the Iraqi army/police... Why is there a need for Bush to build a shopping mall sized government building in Iraq? choosing sides between pro-war and anti-war comes down to the war itself... the purpose of the war... humans in general will fight for needs and desires... fighting sometimes will lead to war... so whether or not someone is pro-war or anti-war comes down to whether or not the war is worth fighting for... i'm speaking of course in the general sense and do not include the extreme war nuts or the tree hugging peace nuts...
