WAR?????? PART 2

[Big J]

+1....and as for everyone complaining about all of the soliders that have died...25-30 people die in murder related in detriot cases every month(thats only one US city, think about all the others). I'm not saying that i don't care about the soliders, but if people want to complain about people dieing, just look around). Hundards of thousands of people can live there lives because saddam is in captivity. And as for if we should be at war, YES! for what reason? I'm sorry, we were attacked on Sep. 11th, thousands of INNOCENT people died. Is that a good enough reason for us to be at war??

I never complained about people dying, I've seen more death than 95% of the people on this board. Soldiers know damn good and well that dying and killing are in the job description. Afganistan was the result of an attack on our country by an uncoventional enemy, and as such an unconventional responce was used. That responce was generally more widely accepted by Americans and the global community, and is justified, although a little iffy, under chapter 51 of the UN charter.

The basis on which the war with Iraq was founded was; insufficent, losely compiled from sources with questionable creditability, as of yet is unfounded almost in it's entirety, and in violation of UN policy and decree. The UN was setup after WWll and acted as a succesor to the League of Nations. It's main purpose was to prevent Actions like those commited by Germany, unfounded agression towards peace, stability, human rights, and the like. The US went before the UN and lost it's case, plain and simple. They then managed to shoot most of the world the bird by acting on it's own. The salt in the wound is that for the better part the UN resolutions and actions were effective in their goals, which we voted on, allbeit narrow goals and the actions laden with a little corruption. The UN isn't perfect, nor is the US government.

This has opened up the door for other countries to express a desire to harm or enguage in conflict with this country based on percived threats (Iran). This is the precedence our actions, and the mannor in which we justified them, have established. However Iran has a better case: unfounded agression aganist a sovereign nation, actions contrary the UN charter and decree, stockpiling of chemicial, biological, and nuclear weapons, just to name a few. We have done more harm to the stability of the world through our actions than Iraq could ever do in it's post Gulf War l state. The results of our actions will become more clear as your childern inherit what we've left for them.

You can believe the war is justified, but I guarantee your basis for those belifes are compiled from a narrow and incomlpete examination and understanding of the wider implications. Like you pointed out you are statistically more likely to die living in the US, than in the war zone, and on the same note you are statistically even less likely to die from the acts of actual terrorism. Statistics aren't a substitution for knowlege, they're a tool for pacifing peoples need and/or desire to rationalize the variables in the equation.

[Jaimecbr900]

I never complained about people dying, I've seen more death than 95% of the people on this board.

How so?

Soldiers know damn good and well that dying and killing are in the job description. Afganistan was the result of an attack on our country by an uncoventional enemy, and as such an unconventional responce was used. That responce was generally more widely accepted by Americans and the global community, and is justified, although a little iffy, under chapter 51 of the UN charter.

Remember this quote for later.....

The basis on which the war with Iraq was founded was; insufficent, losely compiled from sources with questionable creditability, as of yet is unfounded almost in it's entirety, and in violation of UN policy and decree.

Since when does the U.N. regulate, propose, or direct U.S. policy? Are we not a sovereign nation? Then why do we have to wait on the permission of someone that has CLEARLY NOT had OUR best interest in mind for eons???? That's like asking Ray Charles to help you pick out a color to paint YOUR wall.... :jerkit: .

The UN was setup after WWll and acted as a succesor to the League of Nations. It's main purpose was to prevent Actions like those commited by Germany, unfounded agression towards peace, stability, human rights, and the like. The US went before the UN and lost it's case, plain and simple. They then managed to shoot most of the world the bird by acting on it's own. The salt in the wound is that for the better part the UN resolutions and actions were effective in their goals, which we voted on, allbeit narrow goals and the actions laden with a little corruption. The UN isn't perfect, nor is the US government.

:jerkit: :jerkit: The U.N. is not only worthless, it has NO TEETH. WHO do they protect? How many "U.N. resolutions/mandates/aggreements" have other nations/dictators wiped their hind ends with? I'll give you one great big pertinent example........THE 1991 SURRENDER AND DISARMAMENT AGREEMENT IRAQ SIGNED AS A CONDITION TO THEIR SURRENDER WHEN THEY INVADED A SOVEREIGN NATION FOR OIL AND CRIED MERCY........Saddam gave not only the U.N. the great big middle finger, but he directly said out of his own mouth that he would take us out.

Hmmmm, is that the same U.N. you would have dictate what WE need to do to defend ourselves?????? :jerkit:

The U.N. is about as good as a kick in the nuts, and as worthless as the IRS.

This has opened up the door for other countries to express a desire to harm or enguage in conflict with this country based on percived threats (Iran).

And Iran liked us since when?????? Just like Bush haters, nations that hate us will hate us regardless of what we do. If you let your actions be dictated by political correctness, you may as well give the fox the key to the hen house.

This is the precedence our actions, and the mannor in which we justified them, have established. However Iran has a better case: unfounded agression aganist a sovereign nation, actions contrary the UN charter and decree, stockpiling of chemicial, biological, and nuclear weapons, just to name a few. We have done more harm to the stability of the world through our actions than Iraq could ever do in it's post Gulf War l state. The results of our actions will become more clear as your childern inherit what we've left for them.

I've challenged others before and never been taken up on it, so I'll extend the same to you: Show how Saddam being in power was "good" for anyone but Saddam? He killed his own people for pleasure and to test weapons. He was a facist dictator for decades. He opressed his own people for the entire time he was in power. He CAME to power via a coupt, not any ELECTION AT ALL. He harbored and supported terrorists sworn to KILL EACH AND EVERYONE of us, including YOU.

You are right about one thing though. Our children will have to make tough decisions themselves some day because as history has proven, bad men don't just die and go away. There will be other Saddams. There will be other Ossamahs. But what are we to do? Sit in our cozy recliner and say "that's someone else's problem to deal with"???? What's going to happen when another 9/11 occurs? Who are the Liberals going to point their finger of blame to then for not "preventing" this from happening????

You got to rip weeds out by the root. Even if they are to comeback, it will take far longer to come back again than if you just pluck a petal here and there. Liberals want us to coddle criminals that don't give two dead shits about us, their own people, nor the world for that matter.

You can believe the war is justified, but I guarantee your basis for those belifes are compiled from a narrow and incomlpete examination and understanding of the wider implications. Like you pointed out you are statistically more likely to die living in the US, than in the war zone, and on the same note you are statistically even less likely to die from the acts of actual terrorism. Statistics aren't a substitution for knowlege, they're a tool for pacifing peoples need and/or desire to rationalize the variables in the equation.

Statistics, smatistics.....domestic terrorism is not something that can be quantified in numbers. Body bags can be counted, but loss of freedoms can't. How much freedom have we lost, most of which gladly, to secure ourselves after 9/11? How much is YOUR freedom worth?

YOU want the U.N. to dictate what those freedoms are? Go for it. Personally, I'd rather have an AMERICAN decide what and AMERICAN is going to do instead of someone that has plenty of hidden agendas with our enemies.

Since you seem to like the U.N. so much, why are you glossing over it's secret ties FOR OIL with Iraq? Why do you think they like to coddle them? Why didn't they call foul when they weren't let in to inspect for WMD? Why did they give them so much heads up when they were coming? Why did they not make a resolution that had any teeth on it when Iraq was clearly in contempt of previous orders?

I'll tell you why: They are a bunch of U.S. hating, ultra liberal, hidden agenda having, run by a bunch of politically correct sissies.....

You want that telling you what to do, fine......move to France.

[tatodotcom]

I never complained about people dying, I've seen more death than 95% of the people on this board. Soldiers know damn good and well that dying and killing are in the job description. Afganistan was the result of an attack on our country by an uncoventional enemy, and as such an unconventional responce was used. That responce was generally more widely accepted by Americans and the global community, and is justified, although a little iffy, under chapter 51 of the UN charter.

The basis on which the war with Iraq was founded was; insufficent, losely compiled from sources with questionable creditability, as of yet is unfounded almost in it's entirety, and in violation of UN policy and decree. The UN was setup after WWll and acted as a succesor to the League of Nations. It's main purpose was to prevent Actions like those commited by Germany, unfounded agression towards peace, stability, human rights, and the like. The US went before the UN and lost it's case, plain and simple. They then managed to shoot most of the world the bird by acting on it's own. The salt in the wound is that for the better part the UN resolutions and actions were effective in their goals, which we voted on, allbeit narrow goals and the actions laden with a little corruption. The UN isn't perfect, nor is the US government.

This has opened up the door for other countries to express a desire to harm or enguage in conflict with this country based on percived threats (Iran). This is the precedence our actions, and the mannor in which we justified them, have established. However Iran has a better case: unfounded agression aganist a sovereign nation, actions contrary the UN charter and decree, stockpiling of chemicial, biological, and nuclear weapons, just to name a few. We have done more harm to the stability of the world through our actions than Iraq could ever do in it's post Gulf War l state. The results of our actions will become more clear as your childern inherit what we've left for them.

You can believe the war is justified, but I guarantee your basis for those belifes are compiled from a narrow and incomlpete examination and understanding of the wider implications. Like you pointed out you are statistically more likely to die living in the US, than in the war zone, and on the same note you are statistically even less likely to die from the acts of actual terrorism. Statistics aren't a substitution for knowlege, they're a tool for pacifing peoples need and/or desire to rationalize the variables in the equation.

The fact that hunderds of thousands of people can now live freely and are saved from saddam is a good enough reason to go to war, not to mention 9/11. As for my beliefs being compiled from a narrow minded examination, what more do u need! We were attacked by these terrorist! They have threatend us on numerous occasions. I think its ironic that you're saying i'm close minded because you to are taking one side of the debate. I was giving statistics to show that just because 2500 soliders have died, i think(with no disrespect to soliders) that it is worth freeing the THOUSANDS of people and putting saddam in captivity. People are going to die, and i believe that it is justified. I have tried to look at it from others point of view, i really have. But when you look at the FACTS, i just don't see how people can think its unjustified. If the US didn't do anything, how many innocent lives would you like to see be taken before you think it is "justified" to go to war.