1RottenJohnny
Posts: 113
Joined: 11/12/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NoPinkBalloons
Ok, then I don't understand what you meant when you said: My country has been attacked. Period. And now someone has to pay.
To me, that indicated that we were making Iraq pay for the attacks on the US. Since the Iraqi's had nothing to do with those attacks, I didn't see the connection. I still don't.
I can see where my original statements may have been too loose in how I explain my justification for the war in Iraq. Please understand that they were more of a "rant" as opposed to an exact thesis on why I feel we are correct in going to war. However, I do feel that my reasons are fairly well laid out and don't require too much interpretation. Others seemed to understand what I meant but if you would like more specificity then please allow me an opportunity to attempt to clarify.
My opinions are based on an my personal understanding of the policies of the U.S., countries in the Middle East, certain organizations within the Arab population, and how those policies have directed events to a point where I feel there is little choice other than for the U.S. to use force in bringing about a resolution to our conflicts.
Saddam's tireless pursuit of war, the breeding of hatred, religious zealotry, terrorism, and various other factors have mutated the Middle East into a chaotic cesspool that is creating a state of perpetual violence. Much of which is directed at the U.S. The attack on 9/11 was the final straw that justifies our actions in finally using military force in an attempt to end the chaos. For me, it's not just Osama or Saddam. It's the whole damned mess. But Osama and Saddam are the only factors that currently REQUIRE the use of force.
quote:
By that logic, then, the US and any other country where Al Qaeda operates is also equally culpable then. The Al Qaeda members that attacked NY and Washington were living and working inside the US, just as there are members of that fundamentalist group in many other countries. Each faction has someone in charge. That doesn't make the country where they're hiding culpable, to my way of thinking.
I do consider a country that is not actively searching for, or at the very least investigating, known Al Qaeda cells within it's borders to be POTENTIALLY culpable in harboring terrorists. However, that does not mean that I think those countries must be attacked. I do not want to see ANY further expansion of this conflict. If you will please recall I did say "different methods for different problems...".
quote:
I've never taken the time to study WWII history, so I don't feel knowledgable enough to comment on what similarities or differences there may or may not be between Hussein and Hitler.
Very well. However, I hope you will at least agree with me that a better understanding of history is useful for understanding current events?
quote:
Boy we have crappy aim then. How many of the people who have died due to US arms were actually trying to kill us?
If you are asking me to give you an exact number, I can't. That type of information is not readily available as far as I am aware. But warfare is not a zero sum game in which we only ever kill just the enemy. If you look at the statistics over time it is plain to see that the ratio of civilian casualties to enemy dead has decreased significantly where the U.S. military is concerned.
Should I assume that you believe that even one dead civilian makes any conflict not worth fighting? If so, may I ask how you feel about the fact that 9/11 killed virtually nothing but civilians or that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds was also a blatant attack on civilians?
quote:
I don't buy at all that the US does much in the way of reducing the possibility of civilian death.
The U.S. has spent billions, if not trillions (collectively), in an attempt to develop "smart weapons". The intent of which is to create a weapon that hits it's intended target with the highest amount of accuracy possible. The reasons for this are to reduce civilian casualties and the number of munitions required to destroy a military target. Perfect? No. But "smart bombs" are far less damaging than the carpet bombing method used into the Vietnam war era. I believe the current accuracy statistics for a satellite guided 500 lb. bomb are well into the 80% (or possibly 90%) category. We have not perfected the "smart bullet" yet but, believe it or not, it does exist at this time.
quote:
The attacks on Fallujah are a prime example of the US not doing anything at all to reduce civillian deaths. Civillians weren't allowed to leave the city - they were shot when found trying to do so. They were attacked when trying to access medical attention, etc after the US stormed the city. This, to me, isn't the shining example of keeping civilians safe that the US wants to think they promote. From where I sit, it's all talk and little or no action on that front.
I think if you look at news archives you will find that the U.S. announced it's intent to occupy Fallujah many days before doing so thereby allowing the majority of civilians to leave the combat zone. Those who decided to stay must have known they were risking their lives. I refuse to blame U.S. troops in a combat situation for inadvertently killing a civilian who placed themselves in harms way by their own will. I think it is important to understand the amount of stress a soldier is under during combat operations and the concept of the "fog of war" in order to understand how some civilians can unintentionally be identified as enemy combatants and killed.
quote:
I don't have a solution to the situation we currently find ourselves in. I do know, however, that if we hadn't attacked and illegally occupied Iraq, we wouldn't have to try to find a solution to it, because the situation wouldn't exist. As I said, fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.
I do understand the point you are trying to make but I don't necessarily agree with your use of the word "illegal". Saddam ignored numerous U.N. resolutions he agreed to comply with after the first Gulf War. That constitutes a criminal action on his part. I believe the U.N. made a statement indicating such. I also believe that Congress gave authority to the President to execute the war. Combined with my belief that we carry a responsibility for his use of weapons we gave him to kill Kurds and Iranians I feel we have all the legal grounds we need to remove him.
_____________________________
Compassion is a wonderful thing...taken in moderation!
|
RE: Starbucks and the war. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread