The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[friskylez]

Ok im back in this thread, its easy to sit here and debate the meaning of hero or heroic when youre sitting at home watching TV, going to school, going to work, partying whatever the case may be..



Its a little more diffucult when you think about these soldiers leaving their homes, families, friends and children to go fight a war no one wants muchless the soldiers themselves..



Tell the two young children of the female soldier MIA after

the attack on the 507th that their mother isnt/wasnt a hero..



Or the children of the other soldiers who are involved in the fighting or POWs or MIAs that their mothers and fathers arent heros/courageous ..(notice i didnt specify sides in this statement)



As an ex Army Sergeant who was proud to serve her

country for 6 years, had i been called to go to war during

my time in service, i would like to think id be remebered

that way.



Not because i killed people but, as a bumper sticker my parents used to have on their car said, "our daughter serves proudly"...



Personally i dont think this should be even be debated but thats just me..



And let me add this, IF the Iraqi soldiers executed the soldiers in the 507th Maintenance Div, that would not be heroic by any stretch of the imaginantion, in fact just the opposite..

"Life is what happens while waiting for your ship to come in"

Edited by: friskylez  at: 3/26/03 8:07:47 pm

[Kieli]

I think you're missing the point. While the soldiers themselves could be considered heroes for fighting despite their reservations and doing honour to their uniform, its not heroic to go to another country and wipe it off the map for no reason other than we could. That's not the soldiers' fault, it's their leaders' fault. And thus, their actions (by this I mean the war itself and not the action of saving lives of comrades-in-arms) are not heroic. Our country is not being threatened (although Bush would have us believe we are) and this war is not being fought on OUR soil for freedom. So the definition of heroism and courage can be redefined depending on perspective. Is one saying that the soldiers themselves are heroes by putting on a uniform everyday to go and give up their lives on the orders of someone who might not be so willing to give up their own? Damn skippy. But are their actions heroic in this war? That is debatable. What is or isn't up for debate is not really for us to decide. If you don't want to debate it, fine. You've said you were leaving this discussion and anyone can respect that. But what should or should not be debated is not for you or me or anyone else to decide. That would be censorship. And as you well know, censorship in this country is not permitted (but it does go on all the time, one can note).

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[friskylez]

If you will read my statement again, please note the "personally" regarding MY feeling on whether this was a good topic for discussion..No where did i say Xita and mods please do not allow this particular discussion to take place..



I stated MY opinion..Didnt say anything or anyone needs to be censored..if i feel the need to come back and make a statement about something that really bothers me or answer a question, then that i shall do..



I just read back thru the previous page and this is the statement that prompted my initial response " Please,

explain to me why exactly soldiers on either side are heroes"..Nothing in that statement about "actions"..



But you have reminded me why i didnt want to be a part of this discussion anymore...Thank you..

"Life is what happens while waiting for your ship to come in"

Edited by: friskylez  at: 3/27/03 12:01:51 am

[4WiccanLuv]

Quote:

---

Our country is not being threatened (although Bush would have us believe we are)

---

I disagree, 9/11 proved that. And I don't recall this much noise when President Clinton was dropping bombs during the Monica scandal, well, except from the far Right, but that was to be expected.

Quote:

---

But what should or should not be debated is not for you or me or anyone else to decide. That would be censorship. And as you well know, censorship in this country is not permitted (but it does go on all the time, one can note).

---

Thousands upon thousands of men and women in our military have died to give me, to give us all these rights. It's because of them we enjoy (uncensored) freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc... So fricken a...I call them heroic for affording me these rights.

_____________


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John F. JFK

Edited by: 4WiccanLuv at: 3/27/03 12:22:09 am

[barnabasvamp]

friskylez...I also believe that your personal opinion was mis-interpreted as a desire to influence others regarding this thread. However, those that do express their feelings in that way, tend to read more into what has been said then was intended by the writer.

Quote:

---

Our country is not being threatened (although Bush would have us believe we are)

---

I have to agree with 4WL here. 9/11 being an example as well as the first attempt to take down the World Trade Buildings. We know there have been, and still are terrorists in this country. Their support comes from outside. It has been proven that SH sympathizes with Ben Laden and supports terrorist activities against the US. The fact that there are so many other nations involved in support of this effort, leads me to believe they feel much the same.



As long as this country remains a strong force, a free nation, and tries to keep dictators from control over nations in a way that goes against UN decisions, we will always be under a threat from others.



Fortunately, we have the right to agree/disagree with political issues and actions. Others also deserve this right. We can come and go as we wish, allowing us to leave if we feel that this country's direction is one we just cannot justify personally. And just how did we achieve these rights?? By fighting for ourselves, and those unable to do so on their own. Any loss of life on either side is unfortunate, but just as out troops fight for their beliefs, so do theirs.



BV

"When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before"-Mae West

[darkmagicwillow]

4WiccanLuv wrote:

---

I disagree, 9/11 proved that.

---

I agree that there is a terrorist threat to the US that should be taken seriously, but there has been no connection shown between SH and the terrorists. As others have pointed out, attacking Iraq because of 9/11 is like starting a war with China over Pearl Harbor. Al Qaeda must be loving this response, as this war will generate more grievances and thus more terrorism. Remember that bin Laden turned his focus to the US after the first Persian Gulf War.



barnabasvamp wrote:

---

And just how did we achieve these rights?? By fighting for ourselves, and those unable to do so on their own.

---

It's been a long time since the ACW, the last time the US fought a war that was about our rights. Most countries that have fought successful wars for independence, have done so without attaining the rights that the US established in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitutional Convention was how we achieved those rights, not the war. War usually leads to more oppression, and rarely has a free country been established in a culture that doesn't already share Western values, even with US help.



The right that Arabs want is to be free from American military forces. I think that's an important right, don't you? The US has convinced some Arab governments to allow its forces to remain since 1990, but the Arab people are overwhelmingly against their presence, which has inspired terrorism such as the WTC attack. What would we think about thousands of Iraqi soldiers on American soil who claimed to be there to protect us?



lauriebear wrote:

---

DMW I think you would like it.

---

Thanks. That's a really good site.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 3/27/03 6:45:09 am

[dekalog]

dmw totally agree with you that this war makes the US more vunerable for terrorist attacks. Also wanted to add that terrorism doesn't have only one kind of face - America has its own terrorist groups that are home grown in militias across the country as the people in Oklahoma City can attest to.



Also on a side note SH an OBL despise each other - in fact until very recently OBL was supported by the US government. The only reason I say this is because ALL the issues in this war are complex and layered and shouldn't be answered by the simplistic sound bites offered up to the press.



It is unfortunate that this war happened when the real issues could have been worked out through diplomacy - now the world will pay a heavy price because of the need to save face, and save costs because troops were already in the area.

Edited by: dekalog at: 3/27/03 6:37:23 am

[xita]

I want to know how Iraq had anything to do with 911, where is the proof?



The fact is that the majority of people involved with 911 were Saudi Arabians, and guess what they are still our allies.



Proof that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction presented by Colin Powel to the UN was forged, forged, forged.



I am scared about North Korea, that's where I am feeling threatened. Yet I hear this administration say that they will exhaust every diplomatic course with North Korea. I am not interested in a war with North Korea at all, but I am baffled by the hypocrisy of this admnistration. Does anyone really feel all avenues were exhaused with Iraq. Waiting a few months would have given us more allies, and perhaps avoided war at all.

-----------------------------------

Only 50 cents

[themagicpixie]

I don't understand why they didn't wait longer before invading Iraq either. Why couldn't we have given the inspectors more time to do their jobs? Why couldn't we have engaged in more dialogue with other countries and tried to get more nations onto the US/UK's side? The United Nations was set up after WWII to try to prevent war and we should have worked at it longer before going in to try to prevent armed conflict, and to win more allies and support. Why the mad rush to war? Saddam has been in power for more than 20 years and the Gulf War was what, 12 years ago? And now within a few months of starting to talk about it, we invade Iraq.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I disagree, 9/11 proved that. And I don't recall this much noise when President Clinton was dropping bombs during the Monica scandal, well, except from the far Right, but that was to be expected.

---

4WL: You're response is an emotional one and I can understand that. But we have NO PROOF whatsoever that Saddam was a direct threat to the US other than he totally loathes us and speaks out against us. In what world is that a crime? We have NO PROOF that he was directly involved in 9/11 and Bin Laden's recent vocalization of his own personal loathing for Saddam would suggest otherwise. And you can't compare Clinton's bedroom affairs to Bush's dragging us into war. Logically, the argument is fallacious. Personally, I could care less what a leader does in his own bedroom so long as he is a good, effective leader. IMHO people tend to forget that leaders are human and lead very human lives outside of their leadership responsibilities. No one has called into question Bush's home life and thus your doing so undermines your argument and your comparison. Is there a terrorist threat? Very much so. However, until we can have concrete proof in order to hammer the nail in the proverbial coffin of the perpetrators, we cannot say that Iraq is indeed that threat.

Quote:

---

It's because of them we enjoy (uncensored) freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc... So fricken a...I call them heroic for affording me these rights.

---

I hate to disagree with you but our speech is censored all the time. Notice how you don't see BOTH sides of the war being presented in the media. Only the propaganda being given by the government. I'm sure that there is a lot of truth not being told by the media that has been squashed "in the name of homeland security". I don't buy that excuse for a second. Television shows regularly have certain words "bleeped" out. Even the harmless ones as I noticed while watching a DS9 rerun episode the other day. Words that have certain indicators for television censor filters (even the harmless ones) are bleeped out. Nudity is censored on television, even gay themes are censored on television. So your argument that we have "uncensored" freedom of speech is left wanting. While you might like to believe it's true, it's not. Do we have an environment that is "relatively censor-free"? That, I would agree with. In that we are more fortunate than some countries. But we are by no means free of censorship. We aren't even the only country that is considered "free" and have the rights you seem to think is only indigenous to the US. There is Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Spain. While they all have as many freedoms as we do, I'm sure they feel the same limitations on those freedoms. Just because we have a Constitution, doesn't mean we're the only Democratic society.

Quote:

---

However, those that do express their feelings in that way, tend to read more into what has been said then was intended by the writer.

---

That might very well be, barnabasvamp but do realise that the Internet is quite a limited medium and the opportunity to hear vocal inflection, see facial expressions and other methods of interpretation of one's intent other than words, does not exist (unless of course one is speaking to another using a microphone and still there is potential for misinterpretation). So I apologise for misjudging your intent; I only had your words to go by.





All of that being said, I also agree that this war makes us more vulnerable to terrorist threats not only from terrorists outside this country but from within. Look at all of the anti-government, ultra-violent, white-power militia groups that have terrorized others in this country. And lest we forget, Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber are terrorists from our own country and against our own country. Why have we not gone to war against these groups and asserted our right to do so as we have with Iraq? Does their being American citizens mean they are any less dangerous? The families of the victims of the Oklahoma bombing would probably give a resounding No.



All in all, diplomacy could have won the day, even with Saddam's attitude. But we'll never know. What saddens me more is that some of my fellow American citizens actually believe we are fighting for freedom. From whom? The Iraqis want to be free of US and for some reason we just can't fathom why. Maybe that is a form of arrogance on our part. But make no mistake, even if Saddam were to live or die tomorrow, we'd still be free. Even if this war had not come to pass, we'd still be free. The man we want is still out there, still hiding and he is laughing at us.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[sparrow]

As someone who was in the military I can tell you that those who I served with are very heroic. Each and every time they are called, knowing that they might not return to see their families again, they do so willingly. They do not make policy nor do they get to pick and choose where they go or how they do there job. They have to make difficult decision knowing the fact that these decisions and actions might lead to the deaths of others. It is a thankless job but they do it without hesitation. To call them anything other than heroic is a complete disservice to their sacrifice and a complete misunderstanding of the military life that some of us are a part of.

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[Kieli]

I found something that might interest:

Quote:

---

Heroic Virtue

The notion of heroicity is derived from hero, originally a warrior, a demigod; hence it connotes a degree of bravery, fame, and distinction which places a man high above his fellows. St. Augustine first applied the pagan title of hero to the Christian martyrs; since then the custom has prevailed of bestowing it not only on martyrs, but on all confessors whose virtues and good works greatly outdistance those of ordinary good people. Benedict XIV, whose chapters on heroic virtue are classical, thus describes heroicity: "In order to be heroic a Christian virtue must enable its owner to perform virtuous actions with uncommon promptitude, ease, and pleasure, from supernatural motives and without human reasoning, with self-abnegation and full control over his natural inclinations." An heroic virtue, then, is a habit of good conduct that has become a second nature, a new motive power stronger than all corresponding inborn inclinations, capable of rendering easy a series of acts each of which, for the ordinary man, would be beset with very great, if not insurmountable, diffulties.

---

I found this definition here. So by this particular definition, would that not also make the Iraqi soldiers heroic? Or the people we ignore every day who don't pick up a gun, or kill others because they are following orders? Are they not heroic too? I think of our soldiers as couragous, selfless, and worthy of our support. But my definition of heroic is different than yours. Just because I don't see them as heroic does not mean I am any LESS patriotic or supportive of THEM in general. I support our soldiers efforts in maintaining their professionalism and doing their jobs in spite of insurmountable odds. I do not however support this war. There is a BIG difference so you can see that doesn't make me Anti-American. It means that I would like to think more carefully about what my country is getting itself into than to blindly follow whatever our leaders put forth as "truth".

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[sparrow]

You don't have to support this war or even agree with our politicians. I have had serious doubts about why we are in country and why we are putting lives on the line but the war has started, it's in it's second week and the debate over why we are there is now kindof mute. We are there and that's not going to change anytime soon, unfortunatly. These soldiers, air personal and Marines do not follow blindly, they follow the course, they do their jobs. They do not take this lightly at all. They understand what they are doing, the repercussions and do to this may be haunted for the rest of there lives but they know what they must do. Were in country and no amount of discourse will change that in the near future. They do what the must do, acceptint the fact that they might die and never see their loved ones again. Nothing is ever taken lightly and they are not mindless robots. I for one am thankful that there are those, who I have served with proudly, who do the things you can't even think of nor should you, that never ask for thanks but day in, day out do their job.

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[darkmagicwillow]

I don't think the debate over the reasons for US involvement is moot, because those reasons will affect what happens after the war, in the reconstruction of Iraq and in American politics. Ideally, I'd like to see Bush impeached, as I think he's far worse than Nixon, but I have little hope of that as the worst that's happened to a President for starting a war was James Polk being censured by a Congress, which incidentally included Abraham Lincoln. However, I'll be content if Americans become more aware of the perfidy of Bush and are less easily duped in the future. I'd also like to see a real reconstruction of Iraq, and even if Bush does that in order to distract from his motives for causing the war, it'll be better than if he treats Iraq like Afghanistan.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 3/27/03 10:03:59 am

[Kieli]

I disagree that they have no choice and "know what they must do". There are times when that surely is the case but not in this one. US diplomats and government officials who oppose the war are quitting their posts in protests. Soldiers have requested to be discharged if they felt they could not in good conscience obey the orders given to them. Everyone has choices open to them. It just depends on which ones they feel they could make that would be helpful to them and to those they care about.

Quote:

---

for one am thankful that there are those, who I have served with proudly, who do the things you can't even think of nor should you, that never ask for thanks but day in, day out do their job.

---

And do the policemen, firemen, medical care workers not do the same thing? Are they not afforded the same respect and title of "hero" in your book?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[sparrow]

I do not support President Bush nor do I agree with how he got us into this action however he is our commander in shief and if called I would follow his orders as those in country now follow. We are at war and do debate wheither or not we should go is moot because we cannot change that which has already come to pass. Seek change for that which is to come, something that can be changed not on things that cannot. On the matter of his ever being impeached due to his Iraqi campaign, never going to happen especially with the majority in chambers that he has.

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[Kieli]

True we cannot change what has already come to pass but there is not wisdom in saying that we are debating a moot point. Debating and above all LEARNING from the grievous mistakes being done here will hopefully help to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.



While it is your choice to follow a leader, no matter how wrong he may be, there are others who feel no such compunction. It is your right and your privilege to act as you see fit, but it is also the right and the privilege (and some may say the duty) of others to question their leaders when things go horribly wrong. If things weren't debated, pointed out and discussed, it would no longer be a democracy, it would become a dictatorship. And regardless of how much stock we put into the Constitution, if we are not careful about allowing our inalienable rights under that document to be undermined, set aside or ignored when the government sees fit under the claim of "homeland security", this democracy could just as easily become a dictatorship. And make no mistake, it CAN happen.



As the checks and balances of the Oval Office have slowly been disappearing, I fear that very few have even noticed and surely not the majority of the American public. Dante Alighieri said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions....what he is also implying is that once you go down that road, it is hard as all hell to come back. Once we allow one civil liberty to be trampled on it will only be a matter of time before they ALL are. Regardless of who is in command, blind loyalty does no one a service. As you said here:

Quote:

---

however he is our commander in shief and if called I would follow his orders as those in country now follow.

---

What is that but blind obedience and "mindless robot" like behaviour? I mean no disrespect but how can you say that you don't support something but will go and do it anyway because someone else tells you so and not think that is just rote behaviour? I am genuinely curious.



[ETA: I find it very depressing to note that the US was ready to impeach a President for what he does in his bedchambers but are unwilling to impeach a President for dragging us into an unjustified, unsubstantiated, vendetta-like war where hundreds of thousands of civilians and loyal soldiers will die.]

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 3/27/03 11:09:33 am

[Diebrock]

I don't think anyone here denies that soldiers in general have a hard and dangerous job. I also don't think anyone denies that what they do is courageous.

But I too have a problem with the word heroic, because there is nothing heroic about war. Ever. There may be certain heroic acts and behaviour performed by soldiers on both sides but that doesn't make the troops heroic per se. Just like deplorable acts performed by soldiers (rape/deliberate killing of civilians/standing by while allied troops execute POWs...) doesn't reflect back on the troops as a whole.

The example of heroic soldiers that comes to my mind is the Polish cavalry. They stood against and tried to stop invaders who had the most powerful and modern army of that time. They fought on horseback against German tanks.



We have to talk about what happened with Iraq not because there's anything to stop it now, but to make sure that it doesn't happen like this again. Remember, there are still at least two other axis of evil members. Of course the one with the dangerous, oppressive dictator has nuclear weapons, so he should be relatively safe. I guess Iran should try harder to get its hands on nuclear weapons as soon as possible before the US and the rest of the willing finishes with Iraq.



By the way, sparrow, since we're discussing Afghanistan as well as Iraq it's a little confusing when you only use country.



And while reading this thread I get "Irony is kind of ironic that way" moments. I totally disagree with the people who support the war (war not troops). And I'm not sure about the views of some people regarding the troops. But these same people make me feel better about my great- and grandfathers' roles in the German Wehrmacht. Go figure.

_____________________

"MURDERERS! Remember Orca!!! Free Willy!!!" Yun-kyung bellowed. "The shark in Jaws was just misunderstood!" - Castaway
I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

Edited by: Diebrock at: 3/27/03 11:46:26 am

[cassiopeia191]

I wasn't surprised to see my post evoke such strong emotions and I can see how people have very different opinions about it, yet I still expect that you respect mine as well and don't label me as someone who has no understanding of the issue. True, I have never been part of any kind of army and I intend to keep it that way because I see the service soldiers do to mankind everywhere -- but not in a war, especially not a war like this.



friskylez, I still feel free to discuss my interpretation of the word "heroic" and how IMO it doesn't apply to the common soldier and his actions. First of all, a person is usually judged by his actions so how can we keep this apart? Second, I see a soldier as someone who does a service to his or her community, which is something I respect, but I refuse to label every soldier a hero just because he has chosen this (or in other countries than the US, is forced to choose) profession. I say, they are courageous (generally, I don't really believe in statements that are so general) but yes, I will tell the children of a POW fighting and dying in this war -- or better, sent to die in a war waged for no plausible reason other than the American desire to dictate other countries' domestic policies-- that their mother/father was a person who fought for his country and brought this sacrifice, but no they're not heroes because they were led into a war, fought and were killed. My point is, they should not have to do this, they should not have their lives risked and get killed. And just because this does happen, they're not heroes. Also, intention does matter in this war and those soldiers weren't led to Iraq to defend freedom or save civilians ( ->WWII). This war is about many things but foremost, it is an invasion of a foreign country based on the feeling of an imaginary threat in the attempt to justify actions that ignore international laws and simplest ethics. There is no proof that SH and Al Qaeda are linked and you know, they probably aren't... if wars can be started because a country feels threatened (stress 'feels' here) or because they just feel like it, hell will break loose around the globe. It's highly irrational and I think Bush is deliberately using the panic and hysteria Sept. 11 produced.



Friskylez, you said that Iraqi soldiers executing soldiers in the 507th Maintenance divison can not by any means be considered heroic --did anyone say that? That's my point!-- but do you think American soldiers just run around Iraq, feeding smiling Iraqi babies? Those things happen on either side (look at Afghanistan ... please, just take a look at Afghanistan) and this is why I don't consider them heroic --killing anyone or supporting actions that might lead to the deaths of people (please look at what the US army is doing to Basrah), is sad and wrong and has absolutely nothing to do with heroism. But this is something that deliberately and unstoppable takes place in a war, it's a direct consequence.



My grandfather has fought in WWII - Stalingrad, to be exact- and he thinks that the Wehrmacht was a bunch of good guys fighting for the just cause. Yet, we all should agree that this was not the case. So of course, intentions in a war do matter.



I think I have a totaly different understanding of the meaning of the word "hero" and I don't apply it as frequently as I have the impression you do. I'm sure this depends on our personalities, cultures, backgrounds, whatever... yet, I feel that you are reacting quite harshly and not in a very fair way when you announce to leave the thread every time you hear opinions you don't like. Those are not good prerequisites for a discussion... so far, I have basically agreed with nothing you've said but I don't take it personally.



I don't think it's important to tell a kid who just lost his mother thats he was a hero, it's important to never let the child forget that he/she was loved by his/her mother, who was a good person (we'll just assume) and to keep her spirit alive, to never forget that she was a real-life person once. You don't need the label "hero" as comfort, you need to remember the person with all of her faults and wonderful weaknesses and great strengths - why does she need to be a hero, isn't it enough that she was who she was? Do you explain the unexplicable better when you glorify the person?



Another thing: Sept. 11 was horrible. I was in the US when it happened and was able to observe the shock my friends felt as well as their disbelief. But for Christ's sake, it can't be misused to justify everything. Sorry to say that but this isn't the worst thing that happened to mankind and it does not mean that the US has the right to strike "back" against entire countries and in this case, without proving a connection. It might be convenient but I can't go around and beat up people because I was beat up once and suspect they might have had something to do with this or know someone who was involved. Bad comparison but reality isn't much better.

"Oh, isn't life a terrible thing, thank God?"

Edited by: cassiopeia191 at: 3/27/03 11:35:27 am

[sparrow]

There are those of us who can follow orders, do our job and not like our boss. This is the way for thousand of people in ever walk of life, every socioeconomic status, every religious belief. We have chosen this life and accept the responsibility. So how does that make us blind to what is happening. A choice was made to serve and for those who do not feel this particular sense of duty then they will not be signing up. You can never truly understand unless you've been apart of it and to make judgements of those who wear the uniform in wrong.

I am just a person who doesn't see the need to get into a discussion, in this forum, about facts that have come to pass. The past is done and what needs to be discussed is what comes next and how can we get our people home, safely. If people want to envoke change do so within your community, with your city, state and government leaders, join peaceful protests, get involved. Stop making blanket statements toward those are living and dying this very moment.

And yet, I just can't seem to care
Buffy as you know it is over

[4WiccanLuv]

Saddam's regime may not be in "total" co-hoots with OBL, but al Qaeda terrorist camps have been operating freely in Northern Iraq for some time now. That SH doesn't fund them, perhaps, but the fact that these criminals are there, undetained, unpunished and able to provide specialized terroristic training and plan attacks is unacceptable to me, it's aiding and abetting. The US must take an aggressive stance, otherwise, we'll have a repeat of 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, the Bali nightclub bombing, anthrax scares, etc…. This also includes the Oklahoma Federal Bldg. Bombing. We definitely have problems here at home with the militia types and the terrorists that come in and easily blend in. Could be my neighbor, could be yours.



I am more inclined to believe my government and other European intelligence agencies than SH's denials of any link. SH has done nothing but lie, stall for time and impede the UN inspectors of their job. Iraq was not complying and diplomacy was not working.

Quote:

---

The right that Arabs want is to be free from American military forces. I think that's an important right, don't you?

---

Absolutely, it is. If Arabs were ask the US to leave their perspective countries and we did not and they chose to forcefully remove us, I would respect them for their courage, more power to them. We don't always "convince" Arab countries to let us in, sometimes we are invited, i.e. Kuwait and Qatar. In other instances, we compensate financially and they accept our presence, i.e. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc… We benefit, they benefit, that's the way it works. Everyone is looking out for their own interests.

Quote:

---

The Constitutional Convention was how we achieved those rights, not the war.

---

Correct, but what events led to the Constitutional Convention? I doubt we would have gotten there without the American Revolution. BTW, are you saying that WWII did nothing to preserve these rights?

_____________


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John F. JFK

[cassiopeia191]

There must be something between "heroic" and being disrespectful. I respect every single soldier on either side but I understand the word hero differently and the actions a soldier is to take in a war generally aren't of heroic nature. This doesn't mean that I don't honor and respect them as people and don't see their sacrifice.

"Oh, isn't life a terrible thing, thank God?"

[Kieli]

Again, the comparison you make is apples to oranges. The difference between a soldier following orders and a desk-jockey following orders is that in the soldier's case, bad orders might get him/her killed. Not ONCE did anyone say that any soldier in uniform was wrong in any manner. Some of us just cannot see the correlation to "hero" status. I think you are misinterpreting what is being said. No one is bashing soldiers (in fact, more than a few of us have noted soldiers to be courageous and brave while not necessarily being elevated to hero status). My father and brothers were soliders and served their country countless times. They don't agree with my opinion on war but DO agree that war is nothing that should be taken lightly by any means.



Don't condescend to tell those of us who disagree with you that "You can never truly understand unless you've been apart of it and to make judgements of those who wear the uniform in wrong." Since you know nothing about me, let me inform you that I HAVE been in a uniform and my job was search and rescue not with a gun in my hand. Does that make me less of a patriot? I don't think so. No one is judging those in uniform. We are however pointing out the fact that they too have choices just like those who quit their jobs or discharge themselves in protest. I would rather a soldier leave the service than do like that poor Muslim US soldier did and throw a grenade in a tent full of his superior to kill them. That was horrifying.



You mistake fiction for facts. There have been no true facts given about the necessity of this war. There have been half-truths, blatant untruths and I'm sure straight up lies. Until there is concrete evidence brought forth, there is no truth that has been brought to light. The only person I've noted who has made any blanket statements is you. Look deeper into the discussions instead of just pulling out a few random words. You do the debaters an injustice by focusing on words that might inflame you instead of looking at the logic within.

---

4WL: Your comparison is also apples to oranges. You state:

Quote:

---

Correct, but what events led to the Constitutional Convention? I doubt we would have gotten there without the American Revolution. BTW, are you saying that WWII did nothing to preserve these rights?

---

The Revolutionary War was fought on our own soil in order to free ourselves from the British Empire. Where in the Iraqi war have we done something similar? Or even better, where in this war is there a justification akin to the Revolutionary War. You won't find one because there is none. As for WWII, the US had ample opportunity to get involved with it. They didn't even want to be involved until Pearl Harbour was attacked. That gave the US quite a scare. Where was the US when the very beginnings of ethnic cleansing by Hitler was stirring? The US knew what was going on and chose to sit back and do nothing until it was too late. The Axis all of a sudden became a very real threat to US safety. Are you saying that Internment camps in the US were totally justified?

There were a lot of things that went on in WWII that you won't find in the history books. The US was not as pristine as people would like to believe.



And the Al Qaeda have been operating in various countries not just Iraq. They've been found in the US, France, Germany, Italy and several others. Shall we go attack all of them too just because Al Qaeda members exist there unpunished and planning more attacks?

Quote:

---

I am more inclined to believe my government and other European intelligence agencies than SH's denials of any link. SH has done nothing but lie, stall for time and impede the UN inspectors of their job. Iraq was not complying and diplomacy was not working.

---

Well you my friend have more faith that our government wouldn't lie to the public than I do. Diplomacy was never really given a chance to work. Bush already had made up his mind what was going to happen. Going through the UN was merely a formality if one were to interpret his actions.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 3/27/03 12:14:32 pm

[4WiccanLuv]

Quote:

---

And the Al Qaeda have been operating in various countries not just Iraq. They've been found in the US, France, Germany, Italy and several others. Shall we go attack all of them too just because Al Qaeda members exist there unpunished and planning more attacks?

---

Unlike SH, most of these governments are arresting, searching, bringing them to justice. Big difference, IMO.

_____________


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John F. JFK

[DianaBouvier99]

Quote:

---

but al Qaeda terrorist camps have been operating freely in Northern Iraq for some time now

---

There are NO al Qaeda terrorist camps operating in Saddam controlled Iraq. He hates them, they hate him. That is a lie that some newscasters got a hold of and won't let go.



Saddam does give $25,000 to the families of suicide bomers

[cassiopeia191]

So you think invading this country that does not act in the US interest (again, please bring on the proof--the whole "Saddam is evil"-argument just doesn't work for me) and killíng many, many civilians in the process is the right reaction?

"Oh, isn't life a terrible thing, thank God?"

[darkmagicwillow]

4WiccanLuv wrote:

---

I am more inclined to believe my government and other European intelligence agencies than SH's denials of any link.

---

Are you still willing to believe the US government after it's admitted that it presented forged evidence to the UN about Iraq's WMD as Xita pointed out in an earlier post?

Here's a Washington Post article on the subject in case you haven't read about it.

---

If Arabs were ask the US to leave their perspective countries

---

Arabs have been polled whether they want US forces to leave and their responses ranged from 80-97% positive, depending on the country. Their governments are another matter, because as you point out we pay them to allow this presence.

---

Correct, but what events led to the Constitutional Convention? I doubt we would have gotten there without the American Revolution.

---

I agree that conflict is occassionally important for defending freedom; however, what happens during peacetime is more important. That's when freedoms are achieved. War can be a prerequisite to those peaceful events, but rarely has it been so. Far more often it has led to a reduction of those very freedoms it claims to defend, both abroad, such as when the US overthrew the Iranian government and put the Shah in power, and at home, from the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790's to the internment camps of WWII.



Would America have become a free, independent nation without the ARW? Given the free, independent status of the other British dominions like Canada and Australia, I'd have to say yes, but it would have taken much more time. Given that length of time and the fact that the American revolutionaries don't have the benefit of my historical perspective, I think the war was justified, but as Kieli points out, it's hardly comparable to the war in Iraq.

---

BTW, are you saying that WWII did nothing to preserve these rights?

---

Let me explain the real historical threats of both Japan and Germany and see if that answers your question.



Japan's merchant marine and armed forces were severely overstretched supplying its occupations and operations in China, India, and the Pacific. It had no hope of invading the US proper. However, Japan would have likely have seized all of the American Pacific island colonies, and American citizens living in those colonies would have had to leave or become Japanese citizens. The war against Japan successfully defended against a real threat to US territories abroad.



Germany was not a threat to US sovereignty or rights. They didn't have the navy or even the shipping to invade the UK over the English Channel; the thought that they could invade across the Atlantic is absurd. However, the Nazis were evil and I think that it does us credit to have fought a war which enabled us to restore the freedoms of Nazi occupied Western Europe, though we were not directly threatened ourselves. I'm glad that Hitler was foolish enough to declare war on the US after the US declaration of war on Japan.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 3/27/03 1:48:03 pm

[Kieli]

IMHO they're only doing it now because of the possibility of US retaliation. I have to say Germany impressed me greatly by not turning over to the US he Al-Qaeda they have arrested. They knew that the US was too emotional over 9-11 for a fair trial to be possible. And I'm sure that there are still hundreds of Al-Qaeda that are still moving about freely in those countries and other places where anti-American sentiments run high. We can't be every place at once and war really serves no point. It only exacerbates the problem.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[BeatNikJackie7777]

frankly, I think what bothers me about this entire thing is the IMO biased anti-american backlash ive encountered on a regular basis now. Nations arent entities that exist beyond us...they are a collective group of human beings, living, dieing, feeling and trying to make sense out of the uncertainty that is life. I wish I could be an pathological optomist and say that war isnt a part of humanity, but the fact is that as far as we know, war has always been a part of human life. Yes the US has been involved in wars. So have almost every other country! Yes the US has started conflicts....So have many other countries! Yes we've made mistakes. So has every other nation. War is a huge part of our existence. We are constantly at odds with each other, because we experience more than mere empathy and instinct...we have emotions like love and jealousy and greed and hatred and devotion and obsession and on and on and as long as these things exists WAR WILL ALWAYS EXIST. Is that a pessimistic view? yes. And its also absolutely true. War is a part of our collective history...its a part of soem of our most popular religious doctrines. This of course doesnt make war right. Its simply yet another obstacle to navigate on the moral landscape we traverse every day. But please, dont assume the US is alone in this..when every other nation on this planet is affected right now by their human emotions and their human imperfection and their human conflicts and pain and death and war. These are fundamental aspects of humanity as a whole! AND while it may seem easy to show the US to be this warmonger in this case, few influential nations in this matter are basing their responses to this war on an interest for peace. Even those (and in some cases especially those) who oppose the war. So no, I dont think its valid to simply say "oh i'm just against war in anyway. the US is evil for starting it." because its too late for that. war is here. Its happening. And it will most probably continue to happen in the future. between other nations and other groups of people. And it will affect us all in some way. You may not like my vision of the future, because denial is also a natural human weakness/coping mechanism, but that doesnt make this any less true.



So the only thing left is to choose a side in the matter. To make a moral judgement and weigh the difficult issues. And i'm sorry, it is biased and one-sided to feel the US is the evil warmonger here and defend Saddam's regime as the innocents. Let us not get so consumed by anti-american backlash that we forget the fact that SH's regime is an opressive, muderous (to his own people), corrupt regime, with successors known for their violent excesses. The true question here is not whether or not Iraq would benefit in the long-run from a new, better government. That is a given. The issue is whether the US and coalition members should aid them in getting that. I have heard arguments that the US shoudl butt out because the Iraqi people should fight this for themselves. I have heard people accuse us of killing innocent Iraqis as a result of intervening. However, if the Iraqi people revolted and formed their own rebellion many of them would be killed as well, in the same way, people have died in all other revolutionary wars and other wars in the past. People die in war. no matter who's waging it. It doesnt matter who's behind that gun when its shot. But here's the sad truth:



Freedom is not an individual force in our lives, it is a part of a dichotomy. Freedom is the opposite of captivity and vice versa. We have no understanding of a freedom that does not mean overcoming captivity/opression at some point and in some form and usually that means by fighting...more often than not that means war. It means World War; it means civil war; it means revolunary war, but with few exceptions there are no peaceful paths to freedom. Its a sad fact. Its humanity, but then again thats what makes humanity so beatifully complex--the fact taht we have no simple answers.



So again, it is a fact that one way or another, the Iraqi people in teh long-run would benefit from a less opressive government. How they should go about getting it is the issue. Should the US and coalition forces intervene as we already have done? Or shoudl we let them revolt alone? In either scenario people will die, sadly. So to boil it down, for the US, this means deciding whether or not you think being a superpower makes you to some exent the police of the world. My opinion? It does. Simply, because I dont think you can be so niave as to think taht you can be so powerful and remain in a bubble, apart from teh world--that you can think that that power doesnt also bring great responsibility. It brings the responsibility to intervene in teh face of an international crisis, because in many cases you may be one of the few nations with the influence, the money, and the manpower to do anything about it. Plain and simple. Thats my final rant and with that I leave this thread. Thanks for listening and sharing your thoughts.

[Kieli]

No disrespect intended but I do not think having more resources than the rest of the world gives ANY NATION the right to "police" it. True we are part of the world and we must live in it but that gives us no right whatsoever to impose our own views upon it. If the Iraqi people were so deeply oppressed why did not some individual coalition come to the US as ask for our help? Surely that was not beyond their capability to do so. Why is it that the Iraqis that we hear of on the news are sneering and still supporting their "oppressive" dictator? True it is our opinion that he is evil incarnate but why do they still feel intense loyalty toward Saddam? Isn't it possible that we could be mistaken in our view of him only because he loathes us?



Let's face the ultimate truth shall we while we're at it. WE PUT HIM THERE. The US funded and supported his rise to power. Now, we disciplining him like an unruly child because we are embarrassed at his behaviour toward us. He's bitten the hand that fed him and that simply cannot be tolerated. I think this little fact that we helped many of these "oppressive regimes" come to power in the first place. Shouldn't the Policeman to the World be held accountable for that?? We cannot escape that simple fact that Saddam was our doing.



True war will always exist. That is no justification nor an even logical reason to excuse it. Even justified wars have some proof for it to happen. Unmitigated and unjustified wars are simply evil and wrong. This war has nothing to do with our freedoms and everything to do with greed. How obvious was it that the first "military targets" were the Iraqi oilfields. Uh, blatant much?

We cannot excuse war by saying it's part of our moral landscape. That is completely unacceptable and in no way is denial. Excusing something as "just another thing in life" is denial of its power. No one here denies its presence. But to pass off this war as some mere blip on the map and to "suck it up and deal" is simply shortsighted. The entire argument based on that premise and that freedom is part of a dichotomy does not hold up.



It's obvious that almost everything one encounters is part of a dichotomy, for every yin there is a yang. But what does that have to do with the wrongness of the present situation? In short, nothing. While fighting in truly desperate situations may vilify war, in this case it does no such thing.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.