What you just said has no bearing on the current discussion. You don't live in a dictatorship, unless you chose to call the Us one. Your founding fathers did not fight for the right to impose their ideals on other contries. Yes - Hussan is a nasty dictator, but so are many others. If you're attacking him because he's a dictator then why single him out? If you're attacking him because of a "war on terrorism" then PROVE that he is either harbouring terrorists or plotting terorist attacks first.
You still haven't answered my question - how many Iraqi lives equal 1 American life?
Originally posted by belgianfreakAll your points are very valid. Especially the last one. It would not surprise me to find that simple racism is at the bottom of much of the anti-Iraqi sentiment in the West.
What you just said has no bearing on the current discussion. You don't live in a dictatorship, unless you chose to call the Us one. Your founding fathers did not fight for the right to impose their ideals on other contries. Yes - Hussan is a nasty dictator, but so are many others. If you're attacking him because he's a dictator then why single him ou ...[text shortened]... first.
You still haven't answered my question - how many Iraqi lives equal 1 American life?
From belgianFREAK: You still haven't answered my question - how many Iraqi lives equal 1 American life?
My grandfather's resting place for eternity is in Normandy, not far from you. He is far from his home - Oklahoma, a state in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. So to answer your emotional (not logical) question, I'll give you an emotional answer - His one life is worth THOUSANDS of Europeans.
Originally posted by britt2001byour grandfather was from oklahoma, cool (so am i, look in my profile for more details)! i don't think it is possible to say how many Iraqi lives equal 1 American life....it just doesn't seem right 🙁
From belgianFREAK: You still haven't answered my question - how many Iraqi lives equal 1 American life?
My grandfather's resting place for eternity is in Normandy, not far from you. He is far from his home - Oklahoma, a state ...[text shortened]... emotional answer - His one life is worth THOUSANDS of Europeans.
I still can't see the link from fighting Nazi Germany and attacking Iraq.
Just because we were allies once doesn't mean that we must agree over every issue and the correct course of action forever more. It should mean that we listen to each other though, instead of declaring that we are going to do what we please on our own.
And it's not me getting emotional & unobjective.
from belgianfreak:
I still can't see the link from fighting Nazi Germany and attacking Iraq.
I don't expect you to. You must be young and have no conception of how to relate, but, fortunately or unfortunetly many people do. The LINK is fighting for protecting your way of life. Now, the Evil actions that have prevailed in Europe and Asia for so long have come to our shores. It hit us hard and many could not believe that type of Evil actually existed. It has been proven that Iraq is harboring terrorists and they have a means to provide them to hit us again with even more powerful weapons. President Bush has made it plain and simple - we will not only go after those responsible, but also those who help them make it responsible. I put my trust in my leaders. I believe in what Colin Powell had to say this past week. I put my trust in what I know of my history and how things play out, I put my trust in the belief in standing firmly for protecting my way of life. As I said in an earier post, some will defend, some will not.
Before I begin, I want to express that my entire rant here is my pure opinion. I am open for other ideas, so if it seems a little strong please do not be offended.
Let me tell you that this war is far beyond dishonourable. The killing of so much as one person unnecessarily is unconsciable. I know many people would write that off saying "A government cannot make decisions for the sake of only one person". Nay I say. Our government has declared that we must strike now because we BELIEVE they will strike first. I would like to point out that such an action in a one on one scenario in our country would land the agressor in jail, and the premise of the other individuals intent would not even be considered seriously in a court of law. Our law makers have long ago decreed that this is both a morally and socially unfit course of action within these parameters, and yet here they are about to do the same thing on a global scale. Hypocritical falls short of doing this justice.
There is a fine line between being a warrior and a masochist. The difference is in the "WHY". Being afraid of anothers power is not a justified reason to attack first. For the record, I refuse to consider 9/11 as the entire Arab world striking us first. Further, I cannot impress strongly enough that the US government is NOT acting upon the wishes of the US people. I firmly believe that the Bush administration does not give one hoot what the people of our country think or feel and the true motives behind this war don't have a damn thing to do with terrorism. Our administration being willing to defy the good councel of the world is bad enough, but when they dare to defy the will of the people for whose benefit their position exists........for the sake of us all, this cannot stand!
Originally posted by britt2001bWell now you're just making stuff up. When the facts don't fit the ideology, just change the facts, right? There is no proof that Iraq has a policy, explicit or implicit, of harboring terrorists. Nor is there any proof that they have weapons capable of striking the United States other than by importing them here and detonating them locally. But we have no proof that any attack is planned. There is no 'clear and present danger'... The rhetoric of warmongers to the contrary notwithstanding. Some will murder, some will not.
from belgianfreak:
I still can't see the link from fighting Nazi Germany and attacking Iraq.
I don't expect you to. You must be young and have no conception of how to relate, but, fortunately or unfortunetly many people do. ...[text shortened]... fe. As I said in an earier post, some will defend, some will not.
Originally posted by britt2001bI intend to make this my last post on this topic, as I don't believe we are being constructive any more. I have been trying to answer your points one by one, but all I am getting back is the same rhetoric about fighting the good fight for the betterment of mankind against an enemy that noone is sure of. Your way of life isn't under attack, but maybe more people will die in terrorist attacks and if you don't like it maybe you should look to what the US has done to annoy people to such an extent that they feel that blowing themselves (& others) up is the only way to be heard. And steamrollering in without just cause tends to annoy more people than it placates.
from belgianfreak:
I still can't see the link from fighting Nazi Germany and attacking Iraq.
I don't expect you to. You must be young and have no conception of how to relate, but, fortunately or unfortunetly many people do. ...[text shortened]... fe. As I said in an earier post, some will defend, some will not.
Your saying that this must be done now that "the Evil actions that have prevailed in Europe and Asia for so long have come to our shores" and that "many could not believe that type of Evil actually existed" illustrated a major problem that the US has, in that it sees itself as apart and above all the other nations of the world (no offence meant to any of you nice US people, it's just the impression I get a lot of the time). You make it sound like terrorism is a disease that has finally reached the US from the outside. Maybe it is, but don't think that the US has had nothing to do with feuling terrorism. They have by their political, economic & financial actions for decades.It's taken an attack on your home soil to realise just what terrorism is all about, something most other contries have know all along. And you can't be suggesting that the country that has gettos of gangs who invented drive by shootings and kids who are so tortured by your system that they turn up to school with guns is so perfect.
You have chosen to believe your administration. Fine, that's your right. It's ours to not believe them, and as our allies you should respect our views.
nb. Young is a very subjective term, and you can't dismiss my views on it when you know next to nothng about me. How old do you think I am? 12? 22? 42? 62? all are young to someone 20 years older than them, and age and wisdom do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Alright, in an attempt to find a common ground again I propose this:
1) We can agree that Saddam is one crazy a-hole.
2) We can agree that given proper ability, Saddam will eventually attack someone.
3) I even think we can agree that Saddam needs to be dealt with in one fashion or another, by one person or another, for one reason or another.
Now, with that said I suggest the followind points to be of debate:
1) Are we attacking Saddam for the right reasons?
2) Should WE be the ones to take action?
3) Is war the most plausible and/or moral solution?
Well gentlemen? What say ye? (From my previous post I think you already know my stance on most/all these questions.) Whatever you think, I believe these are good questions we should be asking ourselves.
From bbar:
"There is no proof that Iraq has a policy, explicit or implicit, of harboring terrorists. "
Our Secretary of State, presented quite a case before the UN. Let's look at the proof presented by him:
*He chronicled Iraq's longstanding disregard for UN resolutions.
*He revealed intercepted conversations among Iraqi leaders which speak of their efforts to hide weapons.
*He told of efforts by Iraqi officials to destroy documentation pertaining to Iraq's weapons programs.
*He Showed reconaissance photos picturing Iraqi crews scurrying to hide items from UN inspectors.
From bbarr:
"Nor is there any proof that they have weapons capable of striking the United States other than by importing them here and detonating them locally."
*Before the UN council Secretary Powell talked of how Saddam is just one ingredient away from making a nuclear bomb, and how Saddam already has chemical and biological weapons along with the technology to deliver them through water systems or through the air we breathe.
*If all this is not enough to cause concern, he documented meetings between high-level Iraqi officials and members of Usama bin Laden's terrorist network, lending even more concern about the clear links between Saddam, bin Laden and terrorism.
From bbarr:
"The rhetoric of warmongers to the contrary notwithstanding. Some will murder, some will not."
Here's some more of my rhetoric:
I've witnessed many of my friends, neighbors and family receive their call to defend their country over the last few days. They are now in the middle east away from their families and friends. Some will pay the supreme sacrifice and not come home. But, their home and children will be safer more righteous place because of them. I can guaranty that they are ignoring you and your beliefs, but they will be fighting to protect your right to have and make public those beliefs.
The action will be short and decisive and afterwards you will witness a jubilant Iraqi people celebrating in the streets ( if you choose not to ignore it ). And at that point, those who have criticised Bush and our leaders will have rendered themselves irrelevant.
Originally posted by britt2001bIf we are going to war to make the US a more "righteous" place, then my anti-war sentiments will doubly increase. The last thing we need is more righteousness.
Here's some more of my rhetoric:
I've witnessed many of my friends, neighbors and family receive their call to defend their country over the last few days. They are now in the middle east away from their families and friends. Some will pay the supreme sacrifice and not come home. But, their home and children will be safer more righteous place because of them...
well, i'm happy you all like my name.
however, yes, i do think bush is more dangerous than Sadam - Sadam never had the power to blow the world.
in fact i think we should do something against US's and other countries massdestruction-weapons too.
and the reason the US will never attack Korea is that they have nuces 🙂
From Atanas:
"and the reason the US will never attack Korea is that they have nuces"
If Korea had slammed jets into United States buildings filled with innocent people or if a connection had been made with the Koreans with those responsible, or if it is determined that Korea is haboring terrorists, or God forbid, supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, YES, they would have to face the U.S. military.