Quoting:
Most of you do, from what I've read.

If you do, then that's good for you, I guess. But does that mean you accept this war, too?  Cause I sure don't.  I don't choose sides either. As far as I know, both sides are WRONG.    
End Quote

Tough question, but good question.  I think that this was the only way to take him out.  I wish there was another way, but obviously the UN wasn't getting anything out of him but the token gestures.  I agree that both sides are wrong...I don't think that anyone is ever 100% right.

Quoting:


Tough question, but good question.  I think that this was the only way to take him out.  I wish there was another way, but obviously the UN wasn't getting anything out of him but the token gestures.  I agree that both sides are wrong...I don't think that anyone is ever 100% right.
End Quote

Take him out?  What, or who, gave dubya the right to decide who needs to be taken out?  Threat  to U.S. security - yeah, right, they can't even defend their second largest city (Basra) much less mount an attack against the U.S.  So next lets "take out" a real threat, like the Chinese (North Korea is also piddling - Iraq, 1 month - N Korea, one  day with nuks, 2 months without).  China, on the other hand, is the real long term threat to U.S. preeminance, both economically and militarily.  So if we are going after threats to U.S. security (preeminance) lets do it right and go after the real threat.  But you see, little Georgie has no more gonads than his daddy.  Can't take on the sleeping giant. GOOD THING - COWARDICE HAS ITS VIRTUE

Quoting:


Take him out?  What, or who, gave dubya the right to decide who needs to be taken out?  Threat  to U.S. security - yeah, right, they can't even defend their second largest city (Basra) much less mount an attack against the U.S.  So next lets "take out" a real threat, like the Chinese (North Korea is also piddling - Iraq, 1 month - N Korea, one  day with nuks, 2 months without).  China, on the other hand, is the real long term threat to U.S. preeminance, both economically and militarily.  So if we are going after threats to U.S. security (preeminance) lets do it right and go after the real threat.  But you see, little Georgie has no more gonads than his daddy.  Can't take on the sleeping giant. GOOD THING - COWARDICE HAS ITS VIRTUE
End Quote

For someone who speaks so extremely opposed to the U.S. you sure enjoy the freedom of speech this country gives you. ;D

Quoting:
  If you have any background in military history, you also know that Vietnam was shortened by domestic protest, and by soldiers fragging superiors who would get them killed for nothing. Vietnam began with far stronger public support at home than did the occupation of Iraq. America lost that war because it was unjust and insupportable in the long run. Vietnam vets are among the most outspoken critics of the Iraq intervention.
End Quote

My dad (who has tons upon tons of background in military history), not to mention my Vietnam vet uncles, argue that Vietnam was NOT shortened by domestic protest.  They say it was LENGTHENED by protests.  

I have no background in military history, so I couldn't tell you if they're right or not.  But I can tell you that their argument is as follows:  Because of the many protests, we did not go into Vietnam intending to win the war, which would entail going into the country and, instead of just sitting there, going into North Vietnam and blowing s*** up.  Because that was unpopular, we just sat there defending the territory, while the politicians in Washington tried to gain political ground, trying not to look so bad in the eyes of the protestors, and told the army to do nothing, while soldiers ended up shot and dying.

The Vietnam War could have ended in months.  We could have gone in there and bombed them into the Stone Age.  That's what war is.  It's horrible, but it sure beat sitting along the border for five years and watching the bodies pile up.  We should have gone in there to destroy the enemy, or we should not have gone in the first place.  America did not lose that war because it was unjust (and don't you ever try and argue that to me).  America lost because it was not prepared to win.

My dad says he remembers watching the anti-war protests, and hating everyone there.  In his opinion, the people marching in the streets were lowering morale, delaying the war, and in effect trying to get his brothers killed.  And even if the U.S. were involved a war that he thought was wrong in every possible way, he could not bring himself to protest it while the war was going on.  The more you protest, the longer the war goes on, the more soldiers get killed.

Me, I'm not sure if I buy any of this.  I'm just in an argumentative mood.

Quoting:
For someone who speaks so extremely opposed to the U.S. you sure enjoy the freedom of speech this country gives you. ;D
End Quote

Really, how many times will this fallacy be wheeled out?
If it weren't so sad, I'd laugh!
Suggesting that anyone who has freedom of speech should be so grateful they shouldn't use it.
The amazing thing is, you (decide for yourselves who this applies to) seem to think that the US is the only country in the world with FOS - seriously, you should get out more!

Quoting:
Many of us were opposed to the idea of this war. Many protested. That should have been and was done before the war. The time to be divided and protest is over, IMO. This is the time for unity.
End Quote

Another falacy!
IMO, anyone who opposed war but changed their minds because it started is a hypocrite.  This is just the same old 'patriotism' fallacy! if you abandon your beliefs and toady up to the regime, you are destroying the very democracy you claim to support.

Quoting:

Really, how many times will this fallacy be wheeled out?
If it weren't so sad, I'd laugh!
Suggesting that anyone who has freedom of speech should be so grateful they shouldn't use it.
The amazing thing is, you (decide for yourselves who this applies to) seem to think that the US is the only country in the world with FOS - seriously, you should get out more!

End Quote

I could probably count with the fingers on both hands the number of countries where the citizens enjoy this freedom. In Iraq, of all places, people are not allowed this simple, basic freedom. The people there are not allowed to speak their minds, let alone say anoything against their ill-reputed leader. If getting out means getting acquainted with the loss of whatever liberties we have here in the US (and, no, we don't have them all, but we have far more than most!), then f**k "getting out more."

Now, as to the invasion of Iraq. It is an invasion. It is an act of aggression. I don't understand how Iraq became the point of all our contentions right after 09-11, BUT it would be interesting to hear what the citizens of Iraq really think about this. Who cares what France, Russia, China, and all those bastards who invested in Saddam's regime think. Of course, they're going to be against it! They invested so much of their money. It's all about the bottom-line for them: Profits. The actions of those countries are just as bad, if not even worse then an invasion of Iraq. They want to prevent the overthrow of Saddam's regime by violence, but will not lift a d@mn finger to speak out against the atrocities this dude is reputed for. The USA placed Saddam where he is, but it is them who are keeping him in power. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Sh!t, this might be the one time the US will be able to right a wrong. War sucks. I hate war. If it were for me, we wouldn't have war. I'd like to think that war and violence is preventable, but there are some leaders who can only be brought to understand by violent means. Saddam is one of them. You cannot reason with sub-humans. You can only demonstrate your point through very overt and violent means. You have to condescend to their level and fight them and destroy them. Granted, the motivations for all sides are evil! Which one is the least of all? Saddam's sons were being groomed to be the next leaders of Iraq: This means it will continue for generations if nothing is done NOW. And some of you may be right. Iraq possesses no threat to the US and the UK. There is no connection to Al-Qaeda. What of it? That still leaves us with a crazed animal who's not afraid to use violence against anyone to show he means business. Well, we mean business too. We mean it so much, we're willing to stick the necks of our families and friends (if we're not in the military ourselves). Oil is there. It is a big interest to nations like this one and, without a doubt, the victors WILL get to divide the spoils and it is a worthy victory, don't you think? There is a possibility that Iraq may turn out to be the next democracy in that f**ked-up place of the world. People there should be so lucky. Usually, these types of leaders are ousted by the people in bloody civil wars that last for decades and have body counts that would make the heavens weep. Nobody could possibly be deluded to think that Saddam and his band animals were to ever hold an election. So, okay, I'll give in this much. Violence doesn't solve anything. War is wrong. Yes, war is very wrong. Having ulterior motives is evil. Lying is bad. Putting our kids' lives on the line for the sake of oil is unimaginable. Okay, it's done. They've shipped them to the other side of the world to come face to face to death and hopefully come out alive and victorious out of this. They're not there to kill civilians. Who in their right mind would WANT to do such a thing? They are obeying orders from high command. High command gets no benefits from killing civilians, so they also would not WANT to do such a thing. This evil war has begun. Saddam has no problems in putting his people in the frontline. This shows you and everyone else who we're dealing with (and, yes, for more than 12 years we KNEW this: Reagan knew this, Bush Sr. knew this, Clinton knew this, Bush Jr. knows this - WE all know this). Indirectly, through the interests of the fat cats of to-day, the citizens of Iraq may not have to worry about Saddam and his regime. Indirectly, through the good intentions of the people from peace movement and the evil govts. they belong to (such as France, Germany, and Russia), the citizens of Iraq will have to live in fear for bog knows how long (generations?). Kill two birds with one stone. Invading Iraq IS the least of all evils if we're concerned about the people of Iraq. Now, if it's about the commercial interests... that's something else we'll have to fight about on another day... There is a time and a place for everything. First Iraq, then we take care of Bush and his cronies by electing them out of office and perhaps reform our countries... but first Iraq.

I'd gladly be a Pacifist if the world were rid of people like Saddam and the Ayatollahs and Kim Jong-Il and Musharaf and Bin Laden and...

Quoting:
IMO, anyone who opposed war but changed their minds because it started is a hypocrite.  This is just the same old 'patriotism' fallacy! if you abandon your beliefs and toady up to the regime, you are destroying the very democracy you claim to support.

End Quote

She didn't change her mind, Taoist.  She just does not believe that now is the time to speak it.  She apparently is of the opinion that if you protest while the war is actually happening, you cost lives (see my previous post).