an old one but a goodie - dear warmonger and war supporter why won't you go to iraq?

No.
Our Tanks are attacking the Taliban and Insurgent forces - I thought that was an easy question to answer.
Yes, I do know how many (roughtly) have died and yes I know we caused many many of them; not all.

What do you think the Taliban do when they are not shooting at "us"?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/13/asia/afghan.5-318094.php

Working together: http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11337&Itemid=128

I'll answer it for you: Afghans and Iraqis.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12290&Itemid=46

Don't be silly.

(I'll slide over I could deem that as tacit support of Al-Quaeda and the Taliban)

So you are a "war supporter" then?
Just a different type of war.



War:

1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.

Don't you think these things occur in any type of war:
Families killed
Fathers dragged into the street and shot
Mother raped and killed
Children bombed

Or do you think the two sides just keep it between themselves and go home for tea at night?

Overlooked? Since when? WW2 ? 2001 ? When?
Then I maybe able go and find you some figures.
This will have some figures for the UK:
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/fco-in-action/conflict/peacekeeping/

UN peacekeeping forces are not always allowed into Darfur.

"The mandate of the African Union Mission in Sudan expires at the end of September (2006), but UN forces will be allowed to take over only if Sudan agrees. Currently the government in Khartoum insists that the Sudanese people "will not consent to any resolution that will violate its sovereignty." "

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7567/514-b

Sudan agrees to UN peacekeepers:

"More than 3,000 United Nations troops will be allowed into Darfur, according to Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol.
The apparent change of heart comes after months of international pressure, but there is no UN confirmation so far. Mr Akol told a news conference that Sudan has now fully accepted the second phase of a UN plan to support 7,000 struggling African Union troops there. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6559897.stm

Your prejudices are coming out now, mate.

Nice words but answer my final question and I might believe you.

Ofcourse I would not wish these things to occur.
But, these things occur in war.
Think about the definition of war, and what occurs in all war, and the fact you also have this moral dilema to deal with too.
You see if you can answer it more succintly and with out hypocrisy.

I look forward to your subsequent posts.

I thank you too. :cheers2:

 

[rapid side-effects tv voice] "May cause blindness, loss of limbs, psychosis, paralysis, coma and death. No children were harmed in the making of this war."[/rapid side-effects tv voice]

You know...smart bombs aren't very smart at all. Besides, without an invasion there would be no insurgent forces. So if your nation were attacked, if you fight back we should call you insurgent?

Regarding Iraqi forces driving tanks, all we've done is empower one side in a civil war that we helped instigate. Not that the tension wasn't there but we sure did lift the lid off the pot and stir things around a bit.

I guess we should make some things perfectly clear at this point. You believe that we're over there (Iraq in particular) with altruistic motives in mind? Spreading peace and freedom? What exactly do you think the motives are? Because it is human nature to want to think such a thing and politicians present motives as such to the public to gain approval for war.

You think we are there to stop terror? The War on Terror has caused terror to go up by 1000%. That's a real statistic.

So why do you think we are there?

Not quite so fast, mate. First of all, what I said was,

Seeing as how Al Qaeda is a group not affiliated with a country or nation, now that doesn't really apply, does it? And the Taliban were really just easy scapegoats. Bunch of uneducated, illiterate war-orphan farmers trying to implement what their understanding of Islam is. Sure they're backwards...but harmless (to us, anyway). The threat was and is from Al Qaeda.

So yes, I support anyone's right to try to protect themselves, their families and their lands from an invading army. It would be a natural response. Fight or flight.

No, that's the whole point. I don't support war. But I support the right to defend against an attacking army. You can't see the difference? One is on another one's soil...their wives and children safely far out of harms way...and the other's are not. The battles are in their neighborhoods.

Exactly why I'm against war. I don't understand your point here. Afghanistan has had conflict for years....but it's not as though we're helping solve that! And Iraq was relatively stable despite the sanctions that killed a million children.

Yes, well obviously the US doesn't need international or UN approval to go where she wants, now does she?

I don't see it as a prejudice...simply realistic viewpoint. Believe me, I wish things were different. And my goverment doesn't corner the market on evilness. Things are the same everywhere. All governments: Big mafia. Funny how people are the same all over...easygoing, peaceful...just trying to raise a family- but give them a little bit of power and the worms get into their brains.

So that's why I asked you what your viewpoint is on why we are there? Especially Iraq...?

It's exactly because these things occur in war that I'm against war. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for here. You seem to be saying that war is necessary to stop greater war?
My definition of peace is the total eradication of weapons. Certain men will always want to fight each other- let them do it with their fists and leave the rest of us out of it. It's just a bunch of p****-waving, as Carlin(r.i.p.) has said...so let them use their p*****.
We need to ban weapons not plants.

 

How did we get into that?

Not necessarily, but,

1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government;

I'd say the Taliban, Al-Quaeda (and all the others that are fighting against the elected government)...fall into that category.

Sunni and Shia infighting in Iraq (and us in the middle) is one thing.
Fighting the Taliban and Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan is another.
I notice you miss out Afghan troops.
I hope this is a mere oversight!
Rather than deliberate ommision because it does not fit your arguement.

We did not "stir the pot" btw, we did though facilitate an environment where it could occur.
Which ended up making Iraq a disaster for a while.
Maybe Iraq is now better off and more united because this occured.

It obviously is not as completely rose tinted as that, there are other paradigmes at work. But, on the whole, yes.

"Spreading peace and freedom" is a little bit of a cliche, but yes I do think that.

Erm, to "Spread peace and freedom" .

Pacifists never find the justification. Others can.

Are you sure it was not 600%?
http://tinyurl.com/559t5y

In any case two unrelated notions imo.
The fact (statistically speaking) it has risen globally does not mean it has not being reduced locally (In Iraq/Afghanistan).

"Spreading peace and freedom".

Tell that to the aid workers and the villages too scared to speak up.
It seems you are against certain forms of Interventionism, right?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/13/asia/afghan.5-318094.php

Just kidding

But,

You seem to not see that removing the Taliban and to remove Al-Quaeda was a GOOD thing.
Afghans (on the whole) and the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistanon, wanted intervertionism.
You should respect that they wanted the Taliban/Al-Quaeda removed. And accept therefore they accepted the somewhat personal opinion: unless someone is willing to say that it is ok for their family to be killed...their father to be dragged into the street and shot, their mother to be raped and killed and their children to be bombed...unless they are willing to subject their family to that....then to say that a decision for war is the right one is rather hypocritical.

I appreciate this issue is very complex.

With this part:

"One is on another one's soil...their wives and children safely far out of harms way...and the other's are not. The battles are in their neighborhoods."

Yes I can see the difference.
But we live in a globalised world where countries are reliant on each other and pacts are made.
You will be telling me next you don't think we should have been involved in WW2...

It is one thing to disagree with war...
It is another to not see what is going on...
Mixing a philosophy with reality seems a little wrong...but I guess we all do it to a certain degree.

Post No.99 onwards:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=311185&page=10

Afghanistan:

International Security Assistance Force (10) (ISAF) is the name of a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan which was established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom

Maybe the wrong word to use.

But:

My goverment doesn't corner the market on evilness.
Because the real interest is not in spreading freedom or stopping oppression.
The interest is in profit.
All governments: Big mafia.
And Iraq was relatively stable despite the sanctions that killed a million children.

Certainly takes us into the realms of...well I have no words for it.
So what ever that is, you were and are drifting into it.

Sometimes it is.

That would be cool if everybody did that...as we know people do things in secret.

 

war supporters have evolved

they are now war supporter - supporters (for a better word)

that is they complain if you call out the war supporters and also claim that they are for peace and harmony and how they didn't know how it all really was and then claim that they now have some magical insight into the new situation that is exactly as the same as the old situation.

by this way they can evade the question of going to fight in the war for their beliefs (because they now know that the reasons for war in the first place weren't true). they now use the same faulty logic and reasoning that they applied in the first place for the same old situation today.

it was a valiant effort to dodge responsibility for supporting such a stupid venture but the whole logic of being a war supporter supporter is deeply flawed and open to deconstruction

better luck next time



in the meantime the war still rages, more men, more machines, more time, more effort will be spent on a very bad idea and the american public will remain happy to be bled for as much money as it takes to win an unwinnable war.

whats worse is that these kinds of unwinnable wars will continue to be championed by a motley crew of religious fanatics and fellow travellers . it is these people who are ultimately responsible because they keep momentum for the war going long after all hope of winning has gone, mainly because they aren't fighting the war themselves.

 

Guy, I think you have already said this before.

 

yes i know

 

...I'll respond to that comment in a week.

Ok I'll respond now, might as well...why say it again?

 

The sad truth is that the worst possible outcome in Iraq is that the mission succeeds, with Iraq left with a strong and aggressive military and central government willing to start wars to advance American interests. Because we successfully achieved precisely about a generation ago, and look where it led.

 

Is this true? "aggressive military and central government willing to start wars" - what do you base that on?

 

No, they use other words, like "peace" and "freedom" when talking about war, torture, etc.

 

Oh right, not based on anything much then.
Just your POV.
Fair enough.

 

tell me odon

do you believe in god?

 

Nope. I'm an athiest. Why?
I don't believe in santa clause, either (if that is your next question).

 

Oh right, not based on anything much then.
Just your POV.
Fair enough.

Look at the history of Republican Party actions with regards to both Iraq and Iran in recent decades. There's no good reason to believe that a "successful" outcome will be anything but disastrous for our future. Conservatives simply regard the region as a market for weaponry sales, and the more armed we leave the Iraqis, the more profitable it will be when we wage war on them 15 years from now.

 

Anything to suggest your original thought had a point? Nope.

 

Anything to suggest your original thought had a point? Nope.

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

You said:

The sad truth is that the worst possible outcome in Iraq is that the mission succeeds, with Iraq left with a strong and aggressive military and central government willing to start wars to advance American interests.

Your last post had nothing to do with this it seemed.
Therefore:Anything to suggest your original thought had a point? Nope.

 

i often have that feeling of deja vu with odon too

i hope odon really doesn't believe in god because it would be eternal damnation for his soul by denying god's existence by pretending that he didn't believe in god.

 

?????

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

I believe in God, so what.