Is this really our monsters of soldiers playing with children?! Oh, NO! Agh!
Why not look at all the good we're doing? Protecting, saving lives...Isn't that really important, being brave enough to put your life at risk for humanity?
-
War is humanities answer to peace!?! What???War will only gain a temporary peace for humanity. An illusion of a peacful time follows the end of wars. When in fact it all just creates a "Domino effect" causing more wars in future times. A true lasting peace for humanity will never be won by killing.33% Voted for by dollar, Jackymania, TheRedPen.
-
Too manyI am thankful for the upsides of the war. Saddam was a bad man. Some people are getting help.22% Voted for by Weydon, sca.
So what? How long was Iraq in a state of terror and misfortune? How many other places have been in similar if not worse situations? We went to Iraq for WMD, not "Maybe we can make these people happier". If we were concerned with humanity's well-being we'd have been there years ago along with Cambodia and North Korea and all the starving nations of the world that would no longer have a child die every 3 seconds from starvation with our 300 billion dollar loan on killing.
Speaking of North Korea, they've outright bragged about their WMD multiple times, and we're just "wary" of them.
We were lied to about why we went to Iraq--and we'll be lied to about why we go to Iran. When the false reasons don't pan out, they'll show us people adapting and having fun.
What about when America butchered all of it's Native Americans? Good came of that. Half of us wouldn't be here today. We're the nation we are today making "the world a better place". Lots of advancements have been made. Doesn't justify the cruelty and arrogance we had as we stomped these native people out. Though at least then we were honest about our motives. -
Killing Humans for Humanities sake?..... Plz stop this humbugKilling Humans for Humanities sake?..... Plz stop this humbug.Voted for by Jackymania.
Lets see an scenario......
There is a town of less than 100 people.... they live their own life, with their beliefs, sell their products, and there is a chief who used corrupt and questionable means to get authority; he is a rogue; there is nepostism and self aggrandisement......
now another town few miles away, has a different community, different belief, they all are self righteous, all go to church, they have their priests, and are economically well off. They have a strong army of wrestlers and well trained soldiers...
One day, a poor peasant from Town A comes seeking help from Town B elders asking them to please "save me and my family". The Town A chief has used his powers to usurp his family's land and wants to use the land for building a sports stadium there and a training ground for wrestlers and soldiers.
Town B calls a Council meeting. They all agree that great injustice is being done. To justify his claims, the peasant also further testifies and says that in Town A, life is hard, the chief is corrupt, tortures his own citizens and genrally people in Town A is unhappy.
Believing such a testimony from a peasant, Town B sends their best well built wrestlers and well dressed soldiers from among the young and healthy youth resources, with all gadgets and technology they have in their disposal.
Town A is attacked, the soldiers pound and carpet bomb a town where no technologically advancement had taken place. Before the actual attack, Town B intimates other nearby town saying that Town A is a curse on society, we need to get rid of its tyrannical chief. his chief is so ambitious that it wants to build a dam across the river which feeds all the downstream towns.
Town A is conquered. A lot of houses are destroyed, set on fire and people are killed. No School, No proper sanitation, No hospital, no police, no jobs, and no industry. What does the desperate local people do? They loot, they kill each other for food and water, there is more anarchy and disorder.
Now the supposedly righteous Town B men are unable to control the conditions. Some Businessmen in Town B sees a business oportunity, offers arms and ammunition to the citizen and governement both, so that both will feel safe. feel safe. The very arms are then used to
kill and mutilate one against each other. The poor soldiery and constabulary and over burden local citizens are killed more and more, while the decison makers and the powers behind the decision makers are having cocktail parties. Moreover, we see that Town B guys have pitched tent on the dam and is now controlling the flow of water.
Now here are the Qs: Is this scenario a everlasting peaceful scenario? Is this going to bring peace and stability? Were they justified in acting with such alacrity, swiftness and without any consensus among other neighbours. Was the peasant credible? Was testimony of a peasant enough, even if what he said was true? What if what he claimed was all false? Was an Invasion necessary? What were the power play behind the decision making? Can a wrong be corrected by another wrong? On one side it was called a liberating army, on the other a few shrewd silent people made business and earning profits? Was injustice and torture the reason? Was democarcy and freedom an alibi?
There are several questions. But let us remmeber what the Great Soul Gandhi had said "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
Each one of us will find a thousand excuses, but what difference does it make to the dead, to the maimed, to the destitutes and orphans, widows etc. see how the Great Soul saw violence and war, causes and effect. History teaches us alot, but apparently not every one learn our lessons well.
When we talk of the upsides, we are like the marketing executives who want to sell this package called war, he offers us great discounts and we beleive him and buy it. He goes home laughing. You sit home with your excuses, reasons and justification. However, before you buy their (the sellers) story, understand what Gandhi said "There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."
-
I agree with the war, I wanted to goI tried to go to Iraq, I tried to enlist so that I could back up what I say even if it put my life at risk. However I was rejected, 4F'd,(i don't want to discuss why).Voted for by Nathan Explosion.
I don't agree with the reasons that "America" has there, politicaly, but morally I agree with it. I know alot of american soldiers are dying over there but thats WAR. You take that risk when you join, its not like they didn't know they might have to fight if they join the army.
I don't say that lightly, I HAVE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OVER THERE TOO, but they new the risks when they joined and support my stand.
The only problem I have with Iraq is that far far worse things are happening in the country of Dafur and we are ignoring they requests for help -
A lot of Iraqis are thankful...Why is it that no one takes into account things like this? Just a few nights a go a soldier from my neck of the woods was on a local talk show to dedicate a song to his wife, and he said 'You know, the news and media fail to mention the people over there that hit thier knees and grab our hands and thank us for what we're doing.' And he's right.Voted for by Oral Fixation.
If we pulled out of Iraq, what would happen? Mass loss of life, that's what! Those people are pretty much defenseless. People are shot and killed on the street for no reason but for hate. We're protecting them and helping them all get back up on thier feet. And what the heck is wrong with that!
Don't you anti-Bush people get it? We aren't just doing this for ourselves, we're doing this for MAN KIND, HUMANITY, AND FOR GOOD! Yes, I agree, we need to pay more attention to hungry and poor people in our nation, but why stand back and watch hungry, emaciated African children die in thier huts when we can ship over MREs and medication. It's not like it's hurting diplomatic reputations to offer help to countries in need. Yes, Pyongyang is probably nuts, bonzo, several fries short of a happy meal, and a lot of his followers would kill me dead if they got the chance, but let's be diplomatic about it. Protect our homeland, but let's protect HUMANITY.
My brother's a Marine, and I probably will be too. My mother was, my biological father was, and my step father was a Navy Officer.
Let's look at the bigger picture. -
Millions of Iraqis are dead, dying, and displacedIt was a lie that got us into war. HELLO PEOPLE, WE INVADED A COUNTRY! When we invade countries and blow up people's homes THEY TEND TO FIGHT BACK. And what do we do to justify us being there?? We say THAT THEY ARE TERRORISTS FOR FIGHTING US. And because WAR WAS NEVER DECLARED(which is the law) AND WE ARE NOT FIGHTING A SOVEREIGN NATION(WE ARE FIGHTING TERRORISM) that causes PERPETUAL WAR. A NEVER ENDING WAR BECAUSE WE HAVE NO DEFINITIVE ENEMY. AND BECAUSE WE HAVE NO DEFINITIVE ENEMY WE CAN DECLARE ANYONE WE PLEASE "TERRORISTS" AND BY JUST THAT WE CAN INVADE AND KILL WHOEVER BUSH'S LITTLE HEART DESIRES. AND BECAUSE BUSH ILLEGALLY BRIBED MASS MEDIA OUTLETS WITH NEARLY $2 BILLION, ALL'S WE HEAR IS CONSTANT WAR PROPAGANDA. WELCOME TO 1984.Voted for by Carpool.
2 things to think about:
Bin Laden is NOT WANTED for the 9-11 attacks(source: fbi.gov)
All of the hijackers were SAUDI ARABIAN, and WE INVADED AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, AND NOW WE'LL GO INTO IRAN. WHAT HAPPENED TO "NOT TOLERATING NATIONS THAT HARBOR TERRORISTS"?? WHY DIDN'T WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE SAUDIS??
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
June 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
then what will???
what will make war stop;]
its not right
sca
November 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
In fact, it would seem logical that the world wouldn't know, so that by default North Korea wouldn't know.
What I find hard to believe would be that someone in on the operation would spill the beans on allphilosophy
Jackymania
November 22, 2007
Edit | Reply
Town A has never attacked Town B. Town B has the right to defend, no doubt, and can attack only when attacked.
Invasion has always been a political strategy for ambitious powers and dacoits.
Jackymania
November 22, 2007
Edit | Reply
Town A has never attacked Town B. Town B has the right to defend, no doubt, and can attack only when attacked.
Invasion has always been a political strategy for ambitious powers and dacoits. Only difference is dacoits have short term goals - enjoy quick gains and fast bucks, while powerful nations have long term goals with larger bounty as a target.
The one thing that comes out is, that people especialy in America,
and more horrifying is the lack of general knowldge among the American politicians, about the geography and politics of Asian and middle eastern countries. One Presidential hopeful/candidate did not even knew where Afghanisthan was, some think that Iraq and Iran are same, pronounced differently etc.
A Goebbelesque propaganda by the American Government and its media hammered out a scenario that Iraq was at the centre of terrorism, while the fact was that it was Al-Qaeda - a network of fundamentalist groups and individuals - which was waging this war against America. And since, America could not find the master of this terrorist organisation, they found a clever way to wriggle out of the target and continue this so called heavily financed, technology based 'Global war on Terrorism', was by using a poor and already disabled and divided Iraq, an easy and gulliable punching bag to let out its own frustrations.
Yeah, why not kick and kill the street dog if you dont find your neighbour! Justice my foot, I was jsut venting out my frustration. A policy
reasoned by rioters and egoists.
Or should we say ambitions. The neo-conservationist funded government led by people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld
(mind you Bush Jr does not have much shrewd brain) made a mockery of modern humans with their inflated Reason and Intelligence.
The Blitzkreig, the audio-video presentation at the UN Security Council as evidence, the embedded journalists, the lies of all of the American top intelligence officials, and its generals stands exposed today. The ambitious greed of few politicions and business men of America, and other geo-political forces have brought the world into turmoil, and is clearly not a safer world.
Further more, with Oil prices soaring to $100 a barrell, unprecedented in scale and rise, we are still not clear who is winning the battles in Iraq. Forget the war. Its a shame for a town to have leaders who led them beleive that to invade is the best policy for defense. The price is to heavy for pre-emptive wars and military takeover of nations, in todays time.
Anyone who thinks its cheaper this way, is living in a fools paradise, just like those who lived under the Third Reich.
Jackymania
November 22, 2007
Edit | Reply
Town A has never attacked Town B. Town B has the right to defend, no doubt, and can attack only when attacked.
Invasion has always been a political strategy for ambitious powers and dacoits. Only difference is dacoits have short term goals - enjoy quick gains and fast bucks, while powerful nations have long term goals with larger bounty as a target.
The one thing that comes out is, that people especialy in America,
and more horrifying is the lack of general knowldge among the American politicians, about the geography and politics of Asian and middle eastern countries. One Presidential hopeful/candidate did not even knew where Afghanisthan was, some think that Iraq and Iran are same, pronounced differently etc.
A Goebbelesque propaganda by the American Government and its media hammered out a scenario that Iraq was at the centre of terrorism, while the fact was that it was Al-Qaeda - a network of fundamentalist groups and individuals - which was waging this war against America. And since, America could not find the master of this terrorist organisation, they found a clever way to wriggle out of the target and continue this so called heavily financed, technology based 'Global war on Terrorism', was by using a poor and already disabled and divided Iraq, an easy and gulliable punching bag to let out its own frustrations.
Yeah, why not kick and kill the street dog if you dont find your neighbour! Justice my foot, I was jsut venting out my frustration. A policy
reasoned by rioters and egoists.
Or should we say ambitions. The neo-conservationist funded government led by people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld
(mind you Bush Jr does not have much shrewd brain) made a mockery of modern humans with their inflated Reason and Intelligence.
The Blitzkreig, the audio-video presentation at the UN Security Council as evidence, the embedded journalists, the lies of all of the American top intelligence officials, and its generals stands exposed today. The ambitious greed of few politicions and business men of America, and other geo-political forces have brought the world into turmoil, and is clearly not a safer world.
Further more, with Oil prices soaring to $100 a barrell, unprecedented in scale and rise, we are still not clear who is winning the battles in Iraq. Forget the war. Its a shame for a town to have leaders who led them beleive that to invade is the best policy for defense. The price is to heavy for pre-emptive wars and military takeover of nations, in todays time.
Anyone who thinks its cheaper this way, is living in a fools paradise, just like those who lived under the Third Reich.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free