The War is (almost) Over!

Almost peace. Right on. But there are still u.S. troops over there trying to control the insurgents. By biological brother, (who's in college right now) has a freind from high school that entered the military just so they could pay his college tuition. Shows how the system takes atvantage of people. Anyway, I've met the kid, and he's allright. My brother is really worried about it, and so am I. Worried that the dude might be sent over there to "maintain order" or whatever TF it is that they're doing, and end up dead. Does anyone else belive in 100 percent passivism and isolationism, that all the troops should come home, and that America should not interfere with the affairs of Iraq, or anywhere else, PEROID?

 

I don't think we need to be over there, that's for sure. I feel like we need to come back and leave them alone. Don't do anything until something to done to us and justified. I'm a pacifist =)

 

Here's my take on the Iraq war.
Saddam was our monster. We aided him, we set him up to be in a position of power. We, in effect, created this monster who preyed on his own people, due to our past policies of screwing with world affairs. Therefore, like the owner of a dog, it was our job to take care of hm when he went "rabid".
However, it is not our job to spend billions of tax payer dollars mucking around, trying to "fix" Iraq. We shouldn't even have a standing military, according to the documents this country was founded upon.
I don't believe in passivism, but I believe we should stay out of things that are none of our business. America has been playing world policeman, and it needs to stop.

 

I believe that the United States is to be the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and protector of ours alone.

 

i agree with what Fjolnirsson said, for the most part. sadaam was pretty much our creation, and therefore, our problem to fix. however, what i don't understand is this: why are we still over there? why are we still sending men over there, and not allowing the ones who are already there to come home? i don't really understand enough about the war to hold a discussion or an arguement about it, but i know enough to believe in peace and love above all else. i am glad that sadaam is out of power. but, like the person above me said, america is not the world's policeman. it's time for us to back off.

xoxo, chely

 

Dont worry another one well start prob in your own back yard as police storm troopers raid your house for not having the aproved color you just used to paint your house with.

 

These questions have been debated widely, and unfortunately will likely never have legitimate answers. I guess the official Reason of the Day we're still engaged is that it would cause more harm than good to just pull out. If you listen to the administration's rhetoric long enough I suppose it could make sense, but I just figure it's because the members of Camp Bush have found some way to make a profit on it, and/or it makes a nice distraction from the corruption of this administration. Who knows the real reason. I don't even know how Bush managed to start it in the first place. Wait a minute, now I remember .... he lied.

But if rational people only went to war for rational reasons, there would be no reasons for war. Gizzee has a wonderful ideology, too bad we'll never be able to follow it. We just can't seem to let the rest of the world go about their business and pass up any perfectly good opportunity to start a war, regardless of how preposterous or insignificant the reasons may be.

 

you forgot the racial wars,religius wars, drug wars,homophobias wars, drug company wars, police vs civilians wars, they are smaller impact wise until you face it 1 day then you go oh shit!.

 

Yeah. The Drug war sucks too.

 

Yeah i guess people should have the chance to go down other routes..and it is difficult... but i guess people do have the chance .. it is just the circumstances people have that might prevent it. .

I assume if there was a other way to go to college your brothers friend would have taken it... unfortunatly your brothers friend may have had no other choice.. not always the 'systems' fault though.

I don't think it is a illegal or unethical war... but thats my POV...

 

1441 stated that the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Iraq should be honored. In that respect, the U.S. violated U.N 1441. Nothing is more blatant than the overthrow and occupation of another country by military force. That goes beyond anything stated in 1441.

The U.S. never was able to muster the support it needed in the security council to authorize military intervention. It needed 9 votes and couldn't get them. After the U.S. realized that, Rummy said, "Oh well, we don't need to get U.N. approval to use military force."

Even if it had gotten security council support, the military action of a complete overthrow and occupation of a country would have never been sponsored by the U.N. There may have been some other avenues that could have been explored that utilized military force but not the complete overthrow of a country.

But I'm sure someone will come up with another rationalization of why it was legal and still more government apologetics to try to smooth it over.

.

 

didnt something like that also end the league of nations?

 

Legality only matters if you lose.

 

They shouldn't of been over there in the first place. The U.N. told Bush not to, he ignored them, it's a simple matter of law...the war in Iraq is illegal. George Bush should be impeached, put in jail. and the troops taken out of Iraq.

 

...if you want it.

 

"why are we still over there? why are we still sending men over there, and not allowing the ones who are already there to come home?"


president jr. says we have to kill the shopkeepers, teachers, and others in Iraq or they will come over here and kill us.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10594430/

.

 

Why is 'claiming' something alternate 'apologetic'.. clearly it is not within either of our POVs interests to have the alternate POV [than we do] about the legality.. but it is not being apologetic.. it is just a alternate POV.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4482029.stm

Personally... i think Saddam brought about his own eventual downfall. Peaceful means were given.. he did not 'comply' simple as that.

You only have to hear his bullshit in the dock to realise he is delussional and will never accept ownership of the failings he clearly made...

What part of the U.N resolutions ?.... i am not being sarcastic i must have not noticed.. but many people say this and never back it up with anything precise.