Originally posted by BlaxicanHydraSaying a war is unjustified is to say that people in them were dying in vein. There is no humain way you can say that WWII was unjustified.
War is NEVER justified. Just because the peole who fought in it THOUGHT it was justified doesn't mean it IS jestified. Killing another person is never justified.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
Saying a war is unjustified is to say that people in them were dying in vein. There is no humain way you can say that WWII was unjustified.
no, the actions of the allies in ww2 are not justified by the benefits afterward. That is a logical fallacy. Were the justification in the benefit, any form of persecution can be justified so long as it is against the minority so that there is still overall "benefit" in the action.
ww2 was necessary, but still wrong
Originally posted by leonheartmm
bull. it was completely avoideable. and your whole argument falls apart cause those GROUPS never fought in the long rule of his and the only fighting was with KUWAIT and IRAN and those internal groups were not included in that. those GROUPS are being made to fight indirectly by the occupiers.
It was avoidable for the moment, but it would have happened anyways- it was a timebomb. No matter if people die now or in 50 years they die all the same.
They are not 'made' to fight -they choose to. A small sad fraction of the population of Iraq that chooses terrorist action to assert control and fear. The only reason they can cause so much damage and death is because of modern warfare. An army of suicide terroirsts -only 100 men- can take out 70 times their number because of explosives. And they fight eachother more than they fight U.S. troops.
and there was one very easy way to deal with the whole thing. assasinate saddam and his sons. then assasinate any new similar leader that came from the group. furthermore, manipulate the UN, to describe saddam's entire party as terrorists and demand their retrieval, if itwasnt done, sanctions, then more assasination. america is MORE than capable of doing such things. heck israel does em all the time{albiet for more evil perposes than what i mentioned here}.
What are you talking about? Assassination then framing Saddam's regime as terrorists? Have you ever considered what would have happened to Iraq afterwards? It would have been the current struggle x100. Numbers dead would be far more, and there would be no resolution. That is what we are trying to prevent, but to no avail because of the idiots over there.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
Saying a war is unjustified is to say that people in them were dying in vein. There is no humain way you can say that WWII was unjustified.
dude, i have NO idea, how you can even make that ridiculous claim. england didnt enter that war due to altruistic reasons to free the germans. it entered because hitler was agressive against it and it had to defend itself. same with america, america entered near the very end when the fighting was apparently reaching its shores{and it did in pearl harbour}. the allied troops too commited many atrocities{most are not there in american history books, but for gods sake, open a german/russian one} and didnt give a second thought to the people who were actually suffering due to hitler under him. in an effort to disable the enemy, the allied forces indiscriminately carpet bombed factories/power stations etc, without thinking twice about the majority of innocent workers/slave workers employed there. entire dams were destroyed and the predicted ensuing water destroyed THOUSANDS of homes downstream and killed thousands of people, not to mention destroyed thousands if not millions of acres of farm land used to fead the poor. americans also EXECUTED an insanely large percentage of prisoners of war, all this goes for the british too. they allies were openly cruel to even civilians who supported the third reich. in america itself japanese were rounded up and kept in condentration camps for a significant part of the war. furthermore the alies practically BROKE UP whatever was of the german empire and redistributed its stolen resources/leading scientists/intellectuals/gold/raw materials/reaearch hungrily amon each other and made different countries which each suited one of the allies purposes in the way they were laid out. also the main reason for the war, was the treaty of versailes, which was made BY the selfish allies to disadvantage geramany extremely unfairly and was the REASON why extremely frustrated and hence extremely ambitious psycho nationalistic leaders like hitler were given birth to in the repressive atmosphere. really u think the entire nation was mad to follow a man who shunned and wowed revenge on the wrest of the world like a lunatic????? no they were ANGRY.
and lets NOT forget what america did to the japanese empire, continuously carpet bombing its CIVILIAN areas which killed hundreds of thousands. in the napalm raid, nearly half a million people REPORTEDLY died, all civilians, all purposely targetted. and oh my what happened next, america invaded the nearer islands, and committed as much atrocities on foreign ground as hitler did on his own. civilians and militants included, indiscriminately. and really, just because japan REFUSED TO SURRENDER{which was too much for the american ego to take}, americans NUKED THEM, "TWICE" and cause the single greatest loss of life{actually sumwhat less then the earlier napalm bombings} in history, not to mention suffering on the civilians. the abonimable weapons were used to TEACH JAPANESE A LESSON, and to break morale, NOT to try n put down the "evil people". and what were the targets?????????? hiroshima and nagasaki, two of the greatest CITIES in japan, FILLED with innocents. any idea how many CIVILIANS that killed????????????????????? and has killed even now to due radiation posinong, on top of mutated births etc. oh hey, did they actually try to SUPPORT the people who had suffered during the war after the war ended???????????/ NO, they just left em there, their own interest met, they cudnt give more of a damn about the victim.
and before i forget, in the period leading upto the occupancy, due to psuedo IQ TESTING by a known eugenics supported{forgot his name}, he was, falsely, able to show to the government how the nordic people were the most superior in intelligence and how the slavs,gypsies were exceedingly dummer. this lead to immigration QUOATAS being formed which barred{guess how many................} a little over 6 MILLIION immigrants from entering the country due to the passed immigration act. a number of some significance in the history of europe. just goes to show how NON ALTRUISTIC america and its ally's purpose for entering the war were.
any1 who calls the second world war as justified or humane in the long run needs to have his head examined by a neurologist. ignorance has its limits.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
It was avoidable for the moment, but it would have happened anyways- it was a timebomb. No matter if people die now or in 50 years they die all the same.They are not 'made' to fight -they choose to. A small sad fraction of the population of Iraq that chooses terrorist action to assert control and fear. The only reason they can cause so much damage and death is because of modern warfare. An army of suicide terroirsts -only 100 men- can take out 70 times their number because of explosives. And they fight eachother more than they fight U.S. troops.
What are you talking about? Assassination then framing Saddam's regime as terrorists? Have you ever considered what would have happened to Iraq afterwards? It would have been the current struggle x100. Numbers dead would be far more, and there would be no resolution. That is what we are trying to prevent, but to no avail because of the idiots over there.
one basic thing we need to realise is that unless ur predicting a conflict in the very near future, you cant use the pretext to justify anything. and just for your info, there were no significant number of TERRORIST acts while saddam was president. even people who were in JAIL due to him for over 10 years say that his time ws far better and safer than the current enviornment. atleast rule of law wasnt arbitrary. and no, they fight each other because they are insinuated to fight each other by america directly or indirectly. if they wanted to fight each other so badly, they wud have done it in the last 50 years and in saddam's rule, they didnt. they do now as a direct result of america's direct and intentioned interference.
not framing, saddam's regime was terrorising the kurds. and yes assasinations, the same way israel does. yes i have considered what wud happen in iraq afterwards, sumwhat more liberal and less evil tyarnts wud rule the country from the same post. theyd atleast be scared enough of the west to not openly insinuate action against it{or they might be targetted} and the entire infrastructure and level of order of the country would still be present, itd just be a substituion of leadr and the mechanism{the couyntry} wud still be no more damaged thaan the last regime. heck easier way, set up a puppet government which is pro west and on america's parole{its easy, i live in one where the entire ruling party is on the bush administration's parole}, america can has and continue to do that, in many places like south america, africa etc. thatd be nearly perfect in the situation. and no what u suspect wudnt happen at all, and ive given u reasons why. they are not fighting for no reason, its cause america is covertly encouraging tensions in between em.
Originally posted by chithappens
War is never justified, period. If we wanted to justify it then let the "leaders" go duke it out instead of the many "little men" who have no personal beef with them in the first place.
For example, if someone beats up a friend of mine, I can go help him fight him or whatever.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
one basic thing we need to realise is that unless ur predicting a conflict in the very near future, you cant use the pretext to justify anything. and just for your info, there were no significant number of TERRORIST acts while saddam was president. even people who were in JAIL due to him for over 10 years say that his time ws far better and safer than the current enviornment. atleast rule of law wasnt arbitrary. and no, they fight each other because they are insinuated to fight each other by america directly or indirectly. if they wanted to fight each other so badly, they wud have done it in the last 50 years and in saddam's rule, they didnt. they do now as a direct result of america's direct and intentioned interference.not framing, saddam's regime was terrorising the kurds. and yes assasinations, the same way israel does. yes i have considered what wud happen in iraq afterwards, sumwhat more liberal and less evil tyarnts wud rule the country from the same post. theyd atleast be scared enough of the west to not openly insinuate action against it{or they might be targetted} and the entire infrastructure and level of order of the country would still be present, itd just be a substituion of leadr and the mechanism{the couyntry} wud still be no more damaged thaan the last regime. heck easier way, set up a puppet government which is pro west and on america's parole{its easy, i live in one where the entire ruling party is on the bush administration's parole}, america can has and continue to do that, in many places like south america, africa etc. thatd be nearly perfect in the situation. and no what u suspect wudnt happen at all, and ive given u reasons why. they are not fighting for no reason, its cause america is covertly encouraging tensions in between em.
First of all, I am from America, but I do not support every action they take across the globe. The U.S. like any power, wants to use its power to spread its power...I dont know of any powerful country that hasnt done that.
About the assassinations, I wasnt talking about being afraid of a dictator leader being in place, it was the fact that that could have been the spark of civil war. Although a conflict definately is going on, Iraq is not in the middle of real civil war. It is fighting a gurellia war between its radical fundamentalists for power. In an assassination, the same thing might have happened, except worse. When you go in and kill a countries leaders, especially a dictatior, there is a power struggle in its wake. Unfortunately it happened anyways. No one cared about Iraq much until the causualties started mounting.
Could Iraq have existed under Saddam's rule forever? No. Therefore it is safe to assume that there was no stopping what was not forseen in the war. Saddam was a murderer, a criminal who killed his own people, therefore he needed to be deposed. Although many people beleived the same, it is unfair to now come back after other events have taken place and change the statement about the war being important or not.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
No, war can be perfectly justified. Its just not always right how it is handled. Iraq was mishandled, but the cause was just.For example, if someone beats up a friend of mine, I can go help him fight him or whatever.
First of all, I am from America, but I do not support every action they take across the globe. The U.S. like any power, wants to use its power to spread its power...I dont know of any powerful country that hasnt done that.
About the assassinations, I wasnt talking about being afraid of a dictator leader being in place, it was the fact that that could have been the spark of civil war. Although a conflict definately is going on, Iraq is not in the middle of real civil war. It is fighting a gurellia war between its radical fundamentalists for power. In an assassination, the same thing might have happened, except worse. When you go in and kill a countries leaders, especially a dictatior, there is a power struggle in its wake. Unfortunately it happened anyways. No one cared about Iraq much until the causualties started mounting.
Could Iraq have existed under Saddam's rule forever? No. Therefore it is safe to assume that there was no stopping what was not forseen in the war. Saddam was a murderer, a criminal who killed his own people, therefore he needed to be deposed. Although many people beleived the same, it is unfair to now come back after other events have taken place and change the statement about the war being important or not.
Your argument is ridiculous at best. If Saddam would have died it would have left the country in tact. Perhaps there would have been a civil war to get power back, but that's very unlikely seeing as all those that followed Saddam were still alive and his generals and soldiers were still there. His sons could have taken over. What we have here is something far different. There is no clear Iraqi leader, there are dozens of groups trying to take control over the country. The only reason we don't speak of a civil war yet is because we don't have two army's facing each other. But it's as close as it can come to that. The second the US leaves there will be a civil war. More so then now. Still a civil war is the only way that this entire situation can be stopped from continuing. A clear powerful leader is needed, something that Saddam was like him or not. Something that his sons could have been like them or not, something that Saddam his generals and government officials could have been.
Of course the reign would end one day, and it would possibly be very bad, or not. But does that mean we should invade country's just because they might have leadership problems in the future? If that's the case we should probably invade the US as well, there might be problems in the future when a new president is elected. There is a chance that a civil war will happen there, perhaps we should just nuke them to be sure tht doesn't happen.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
No, war can be perfectly justified. Its just not always right how it is handled. Iraq was mishandled, but the cause was just.For example, if someone beats up a friend of mine, I can go help him fight him or whatever.
First of all, I am from America, but I do not support every action they take across the globe. The U.S. like any power, wants to use its power to spread its power...I dont know of any powerful country that hasnt done that.
About the assassinations, I wasnt talking about being afraid of a dictator leader being in place, it was the fact that that could have been the spark of civil war. Although a conflict definately is going on, Iraq is not in the middle of real civil war. It is fighting a gurellia war between its radical fundamentalists for power. In an assassination, the same thing might have happened, except worse. When you go in and kill a countries leaders, especially a dictatior, there is a power struggle in its wake. Unfortunately it happened anyways. No one cared about Iraq much until the causualties started mounting.
Could Iraq have existed under Saddam's rule forever? No. Therefore it is safe to assume that there was no stopping what was not forseen in the war. Saddam was a murderer, a criminal who killed his own people, therefore he needed to be deposed. Although many people beleived the same, it is unfair to now come back after other events have taken place and change the statement about the war being important or not.
the CAUSE was anything but JUST. the pretext was, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. this was further aided by INVOLVEMENT WITH AL QAEDA. "BOTH" have been proven COMPLETELY untrue, so no, those CAUSES, were given to cloud the judgement of the population. saddam was not in any way a threat to the united staes, let alone, an illegal threat.
and just because you dont KNOW of any country that hasnt doen that doesnt make it any more RIGHT. and doesnt mean it shud be condemned any lesser.
and no, saddam never was in his long years of rule, a spark for civil war, sumthin that cud POSSIBLY have happened in the unseen future{not near future} without any pressing reason for believing it is not reason enough at all to take measures against it and justify it. there was no reason to believe that civil war wud have erupted anywhere near the time the usa attacked. also remember that PREVENTING civil war was not why bush attacked, he isnt altruistic and had completely other motives. also, the situation right now is not guerrilla war, its a TEXT BOOK definition of a civil war, just cause u have an american puppet government SEEMINGLY running the country doesnt mean thye acually have any power. that whole argument is illogical. and if u kill a leader there is a power struggle, but its a political one with far lesser violence. however, once a foreign agressor has already killed whole number percentages of the population, destroyed practically the entire infrastructure, and is actively creating situations which cause tensions among groups, then a power struggle becomes the worst kind of civil war.
and no, the correct statement wud be "NO AMERICAN{talkin about the average} cared much about iraq until the number of AMERICAN casualties started mounting". even now, a single american casualty is given 8 times more air time than 100 iraqi ones. most often, the iraqi numbers are often not show, seen as insignificant. even of the people in america complaining about the war, the reason is always, BRINGING "OUR" TROOPS HOME cause theyr dying. no1 really argues{even among the democrats/liberals/population} that we ought to stop the war because countless more IRAQI CIVILIAN than american troops are dying. thats practically a no factor.
and yes, saddam needed to be deposed, but so do many, MANY others in south america/africa/mexico etc. yet america doesnt do it to BETTER the lives of the people under those tyrants, it just pics the ones who are advantageous to ITSELF{without being positively branded as evil or otherwise} and makes em a scapegoat, and rationalises it infront of its impressionable public by saying, it was trying to LIBERATE the region. when the objectives are completely differet.
furthermore, no country can exist under a single ruler forever. shud that be my cue to attack america next???????????/ completely illogical. iraq had existed under saddam longer than america had existed under any of its preseidents. it was stable, there had not been any signs or history of civil wars. hence theres no justification of the scenario u put up. and really if taking HIM out was so important, why not just assasinate him??????? simpe, this wasnt about him or any threat to america, it was about destabilising the region and stealing oil and turning the world fuel market on its heals {the correlation between high gas prices and the iraq war, cronologically is uncanny}.
Originally posted by Fishy
Your argument is ridiculous at best. If Saddam would have died it would have left the country in tact. Perhaps there would have been a civil war to get power back, but that's very unlikely seeing as all those that followed Saddam were still alive and his generals and soldiers were still there. His sons could have taken over. What we have here is something far different. There is no clear Iraqi leader, there are dozens of groups trying to take control over the country. The only reason we don't speak of a civil war yet is because we don't have two army's facing each other. But it's as close as it can come to that. The second the US leaves there will be a civil war. More so then now. Still a civil war is the only way that this entire situation can be stopped from continuing. A clear powerful leader is needed, something that Saddam was like him or not. Something that his sons could have been like them or not, something that Saddam his generals and government officials could have been.Of course the reign would end one day, and it would possibly be very bad, or not. But does that mean we should invade country's just because they might have leadership problems in the future? If that's the case we should probably invade the US as well, there might be problems in the future when a new president is elected. There is a chance that a civil war will happen there, perhaps we should just nuke them to be sure tht doesn't happen.
Except the invasion was not about stopping a future leader/civil war it was about the Iraqi government/Saddam. I was saying that the fact that it happened and the fact that is was unpredicted would not have affected the outcome. Hitler had order in Germany and much of his conquered territory, but was that reason not to stop him?
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Except the invasion was not about stopping a future leader/civil war it was about the Iraqi government/Saddam. I was saying that the fact that it happened and the fact that is was unpredicted would not have affected the outcome. Hitler had order in Germany and much of his conquered territory, but was that reason not to stop him?
Hitler conquered enemy country's, much of the country's taken back could soon become somewhat stable and the population wasn't about to enter a Guerrilla war, the two can not be compared. And don't start acting like America was trying to do the Iraqi's a favor, the US installed Saddam in the first place.
Not to mention that there are people out there far worse then Saddam and they are left alone.
I've gone ahead and put a couple of key points in your post in bold print.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Except the invasion was not about stopping a future leader/civil war it was about the Iraqi government/Saddam. I was saying that the fact that it happened and the fact that is was unpredicted would not have affected the outcome. Hitler had order in Germany and much of his conquered territory, but was that reason not to stop him?
Originally posted by Fishy
Hitler conquered enemy country's, much of the country's taken back could soon become somewhat stable and the population wasn't about to enter a Guerrilla war, the two can not be compared. And don't start acting like America was trying to do the Iraqi's a favor, the US installed Saddam in the first place.Not to mention that there are people out there far worse then Saddam and they are left alone.
Please don't forget that we also armed Saddam.
Observation: Iraq was a quagmire, not because it was an impossible mission, or that it wasn't noble, but rather unesscary. The concerns of Iraq do not relate to the concerns of America. And the taxpayer should not have to pay the differance.
Reaction: The Iraq war disturbs me in the relization that our government cares more about a couple of opressed sandrats who would given half the chance set you on fire, then concern themself with the eroding middleclass American who struggles not to go bankrupt and be out on the street.
Conclusion: Iraq's democracy is already more straightfoward and honost then our's. We should all move to Iraq.
Originally posted by HK47
Observation: Iraq was a quagmire, not because it was an impossible mission, or that it wasn't noble, but rather unesscary. The concerns of Iraq do not relate to the concerns of America. And the taxpayer should not have to pay the differance.Reaction: The Iraq war disturbs me in the relization that our government cares more about a couple of opressed sandrats who would given half the chance set you on fire, then concern themself with the eroding middleclass American who struggles not to go bankrupt and be out on the street.
Conclusion: Iraq's democracy is already more straightfoward and honost then our's. We should all move to Iraq.
It was unnecessary it wasn't noble in the least, and the US government certainly doesn't give a flying **** about the Iraqi citizens, there concerns are oil and more power. That's all.