Are You For Or Against The War In Iraq?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
[I think you'll find that the reason why many of the people are against the Iraq war is precisely the reason you mention. Im sorry but I do not support the machinations of those intent on the exploitation of the regular guy in order to make a quick buck.


It isn't about who's making a quick buck. It's about the entire economy.

No oil, no economy, it is that simple. At least in its current infrastructure and living standards we have in America and the world, seeking alternative forms of energy to completely replace oil and the entire hydrocarbon-based economy will take up to a century as long as there are still producing or hidden oil fields around the world.




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
the_oleneo,
So its ok to kill to save yourselfs?
To slaughter millions so that you can have oil?


I don't think you truly grasp the reality of every economy around the world is entirely dependent on oil.

For example:
An artist in India have crafted beautiful vases, earned international recognition for artistry and beauty of crafting vases. In North America and Europe, people would like to buy his vases for their homes. Nowadays, you can access to that artist's website in India, pick, order and ship the vase to you. How would the vase get to you?

On horseback traveling through China, Russia, then ferry across the Bering Strait to Alaska and then onward to your home to delivery a lovely vase in 2-3 months?


And just how you get or earn the money to buy the vase? You hit up your Mom for money?


[edit on 5/18/2005 by the_oleneo]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   


I don't think you truly grasp the reality of every economy around the world is entirely dependent on oil.


This is a very good point.

Many people believe a war for oil is bad, but when the whole world depends on it, is a war for oil such a bad thing???



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee



I don't think you truly grasp the reality of every economy around the world is entirely dependent on oil.


This is a very good point.

Many people believe a war for oil is bad, but when the whole world depends on it, is a war for oil such a bad thing???


you can even sharpen the point a little more by saying its a war to beat the ruskies and china to the oil. Its a jungle out there. Eat or be eaten. Dog eat dog. Kill or be killed.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee



I don't think you truly grasp the reality of every economy around the world is entirely dependent on oil.


This is a very good point.

Many people believe a war for oil is bad, but when the whole world depends on it, is a war for oil such a bad thing???


It is when we are dependent on oil by choice. I'm not talking about alternate forms of energy even, just simple changes like tighter engine efficiency standards in the US would make a huge difference, but the oil companies have too many politicians in their pocket for that to happen. So we fight wars instead.

-koji K.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
I don't think you truly grasp the reality of every economy around the world is entirely dependent on oil.

For example:
An artist in India have crafted beautiful vases, earned international recognition for artistry and beauty of crafting vases. In North America and Europe, people would like to buy his vases for their homes. Nowadays, you can access to that artist's website in India, pick, order and ship the vase to you. How would the vase get to you?

On horseback traveling through China, Russia, then ferry across the Bering Strait to Alaska and then onward to your home to delivery a lovely vase in 2-3 months?


And just how you get or earn the money to buy the vase? You hit up your Mom for money?


[edit on 5/18/2005 by the_oleneo]

So its ok to kill, mame and basically steal to ensure our survival which inevitabley will kill us anyhow.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
It is when we are dependent on oil by choice. I'm not talking about alternate forms of energy even, just simple changes like tighter engine efficiency standards in the US would make a huge difference, but the oil companies have too many politicians in their pocket for that to happen. So we fight wars instead.


Koji is right.

I propose a $2 tax on gas. The resulting money (and I have a feeling there will be a lot) should be allocated to a universal free medical care. The economy will sag for a few years before we adapt, but then will recover, especially with employers no longer saddled with HUGE health insurance costs. And, we'll breathe fresh air. And, we'll not give a rats a double ass about the Middle East.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   


I propose a $2 tax on gas. The resulting money (and I have a feeling there will be a lot) should be allocated to a universal free medical care.


In the UK we pay that on petrol(gas) and we do have free medical care but our country is still a shambles!!!



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
In the UK we pay that on petrol(gas) and we do have free medical care but our country is still a shambles!!!

Hey!

The NHS may be flawed but its by no means a "shambles" , rumour has it that the army, navy and airforce nurses are all trained at NHS hospitals.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee



I propose a $2 tax on gas. The resulting money (and I have a feeling there will be a lot) should be allocated to a universal free medical care.


In the UK we pay that on petrol(gas) and we do have free medical care but our country is still a shambles!!!


Don't be shy. It's a fine country, really. I don't know about shambles. We could really use some free medical care here in the US.

My only complaint about the UK is that the pubs are closing darn early.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
1. Yes, I support the war and have supported the war from Jump Street. History will prove that it was the right thing to do.

2. Where to start? Saddam Huessein has been responsible for the murder of more Arabs than any single person in modern times. He had and used weapons of mass destruction on his own people as well as his neighbors. His military fired on US and Great Britain jets on a DAILY basis, patrolling the No-Fly Zone. This alone is an act of war. He defied over 16 United Nations Resolutions. He violated weapons agreements by producing missiles that exceeded the range he was limited to. He sponsored terrorism in Israel (regardless of your opinion of them, they are a US ally) as well as in other states. He sanctioned and orchestrated the attempted assassination of a former President of the United States. That, also, alone, is an act of war in my book. I could go on and on. But the bottom line is: When does the will and the word of the United States mean something? At what point do we say "enough is enough?" How can we expect other nations or other dictators to respect our demands if we refuse to take action against those who violate the will of the Free World?

Saddam had more than enough chances afforded to him in the past 15 years to straighten his act and/or step down from power. The majority of those who are/were against this war are against any war. They are the same liberals who refused in the past 60 years to recognize the evil of Communism, Fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. They have been on the wrong side of history for half a century and are on course to continue doing so indefinitely. It is because of the brave leadership of our conservative representatives, who recognized and confronted evil where evil existed, that we continue to be the greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Now go on ahead Hippies and rip my post apart. I won't return to this topic to give you the time of day, because I've already made my final opinion known on the subject. Thanks! USA! USA! USA! USA!

GOD BLESS OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM! SEMPER FI!



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Well, quite frankly, yes. I am saying that. Are you saying that you had no problem with him murdering over 500,000 Iraqis and injuring in some way more than 1,000,000?

That was his basis for his government. Fear. That is wrong, and the people (I don't know if you remember but this but the Iraqi population isn't totally against the U.S. occupation), needed to be freed. No doubt about that. So, yes, to your question.

Secondly, the WMDs were still active. Like I said, these troops found them in Northern Iraq. Stashed away in a bunker. Chemicals of all kinds - mustard gas, etc.

Sadly, in this occupation, like I said, from a military standpoint, some things have gone wrong. The deaths of the innocent can't be avoided in war though, and anyone who thinks this can be done is simply living in ignorance.

Like Rasputin said, history will prove that this was the right thing to do. Look at the democratic and FREEDOM revolutions occuring already. The trend is spreading, no doubt about that.

-wD



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Well, quite frankly, yes. I am saying that. Are you saying that you had no problem with him murdering over 500,000 Iraqis and injuring in some way more than 1,000,000?

I have a problem with it but frankly its not my place to say whats right or wrong in a land I know nothing about, never been to or even know someone from there.


That was his basis for his government. Fear. That is wrong, and the people (I don't know if you remember but this but the Iraqi population isn't totally against the U.S. occupation), needed to be freed. No doubt about that. So, yes, to your question.

Firstly, every government is run on fear.
Take a look at our own, my country told me that there where weapons that could be launched in 45 minutes.


Secondly, the WMDs were still active. Like I said, these troops found them in Northern Iraq. Stashed away in a bunker. Chemicals of all kinds - mustard gas, etc.

Like I said, being destroyed, they where left over from the original war.
How hard is it to understand this?


Sadly, in this occupation, like I said, from a military standpoint, some things have gone wrong. The deaths of the innocent can't be avoided in war though, and anyone who thinks this can be done is simply living in ignorance.
[/qupte]
I expect casualties in war, that is not my issue here. My issue is the war and the reasons behind it itself.


Like Rasputin said, history will prove that this was the right thing to do. Look at the democratic and FREEDOM revolutions occuring already. The trend is spreading, no doubt about that.

No history will look back and say it was yet again ANOTHER war, the lasting things are made in peace not war. Did vietnam do anything ? No.
Did versailles cause anything good?
No.

We had no right to go in and tell them how to live, we have no right to dictate what is right or wrong in there land.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Your point on the wars of history is moot. Did World War Two do anything? Yes. Did the Gulf War (1) do anything? Yes.

Your point, like I said, is moot.

Now then, I agree that it is not your place to say what is right and wrong in a country you know nothing about. Yet you assume that I know nothing about it myself.

Let me tell you, as you may or may not know, I did serve in the military, (for quite a long time, I might add). With that being said, let me tell you also that I served in the first Gulf War, and I may even be called up to serve in this current conflict. I've had buddies call me from Iraq and PERSONALLY tell me that those weapons are there.

First hand experience from soldier's fighting there. Ya know something else they've told me? They've told me that they've encountered NUMEROUS Iraqis who can't thank them enough. That in itself, my friend, is enough to convince me.

I've seen this stuff myself. I doubt you have.

-wD



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Your point on the wars of history is moot. Did World War Two do anything? Yes. Did the Gulf War (1) do anything? Yes.

WW2 was created by WW1, point proven, read up versailles.
Point 2 , gulf war one saved kuwait but the actual things that affect the future happened after the fighting was done.


Your point, like I said, is moot.

No its quite valid thank you.


Now then, I agree that it is not your place to say what is right and wrong in a country you know nothing about. Yet you assume that I know nothing about it myself.

I never said you did or did not know anything.


Let me tell you, as you may or may not know, I did serve in the military, (for quite a long time, I might add). With that being said, let me tell you also that I served in the first Gulf War, and I may even be called up to serve in this current conflict. I've had buddies call me from Iraq and PERSONALLY tell me that those weapons are there.

If those weapons are there then why are they not across the news?
If the 45 minute weapons are there then why did my goverment change what it said?


First hand experience from soldier's fighting there. Ya know something else they've told me? They've told me that they've encountered NUMEROUS Iraqis who can't thank them enough. That in itself, my friend, is enough to convince me.

So people are thanking them for being freed, did that make it right?
I dont call myself friends with anyone who agrees that killing hundreds of people was "worth it" to kill one man.


I've seen this stuff myself. I doubt you have.

I havent seen war, I doubt I will, but I still wont have any try and tell me what is right or wrong and damm wont have anyone try and tell anyone else what is right or wrong.
We went into iraq under a lie, that is a fact.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
First of all, yes. I do know that WW2 was a direct result of WW1.

Secondly, you ask why the media doesn't cover it? Well, they did. Now they don't because nothing has been found since.
Also, do you not know the media's heavily biased slant to the left? That's also a fact, thank you.

They show it, but it is twisted in a left-agenda kind of way.

Finally, the men and women I've talked to have not "killed hundreds". Your stance on this whole subject is, "I don't know them, so I won't help." - in a nutshell.

From your stating of it isn't your land, so you can't say anything, yet you are against the war? Or to your stating that you would not help them because it killed some others.

We agree to disagree, as we will never see eye to eye. However, I will leave you with two final thoughts:

1) I've seen freedom ring and people cheer because of it. Yes, I have killed. Am I proud of it? Not at all. A necessary evil, like your quote states. Yet, those who I killed (who wanted to kill us because they wanted to keep power), helped me, and MY COUNTRY, free thousands upon thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children. It helped me bring to justice a man that killed hundreds of thousands and hurt millions.

2) I leave you with a quote, regarding your stance on not helping because you don't know the land, etc.:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke

3) Actually, I'll add a third. "Your welcome."

-wD



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I have always supported and still support the War in Iraq.

I supported the war because Saddam was in violation of the cease fire agreement with the U.S. and allies from the original Gulf war as well as all later UN Security Council resolutions. I also supported it because I thought it would be good long-term for the Iraqi people and the region in general.

Oh I forgot to mention Saddam was also firing on U.S. and British planes monitoring the no-fly zone under UN mandate.

[edit on 5/17/2005 by djohnsto77]


I agree. To add to this, Saddam was an EVIL dictator who tortured thousands of people. Also, if someone says that this war wasnt justifyable, wat do you base that off of?



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
First of all, yes. I do know that WW2 was a direct result of WW1.

Then you will know that my point is valid.


Secondly, you ask why the media doesn't cover it? Well, they did. Now they don't because nothing has been found since.

What a few old chemical weapons?
Thats hardly the 45 minute weapons I was shown and told about.


Also, do you not know the media's heavily biased slant to the left? That's also a fact, thank you.

Uh no it is not a fact, just an opinion.


They show it, but it is twisted in a left-agenda kind of way.

Really?
So thats why the ABC report on galloway was VERY right wing?


Finally, the men and women I've talked to have not "killed hundreds". Your stance on this whole subject is, "I don't know them, so I won't help." - in a nutshell.

The men and women make up a force that has killed hundreds of people.
My stance is , I dont know them , I have no right interfering in another persons affairs.


From your stating of it isn't your land, so you can't say anything, yet you are against the war?

I said its not your land, you have no right to invite yourself and do as you wish in another land.
I never said you cant say anything.


Or to your stating that you would not help them because it killed some others.

We dont know the land, we dont live there, we have no right to get inolved.


We agree to disagree, as we will never see eye to eye. However, I will leave you with two final thoughts:

1) I've seen freedom ring and people cheer because of it. Yes, I have killed. Am I proud of it? Not at all. A necessary evil, like your quote states. Yet, those who I killed (who wanted to kill us because they wanted to keep power), helped me, and MY COUNTRY, free thousands upon thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children. It helped me bring to justice a man that killed hundreds of thousands and hurt millions.

Firstly you have "freed" them , that is good , but they are a diffrent country, diffrent rules and interpretations of "freedom". Might I add they wanted to kill you because you where invadeing thier country at the time.



2) I leave you with a quote, regarding your stance on not helping because you don't know the land, etc.:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke
[/qoute]
Might I also add that winston churchil made a similar statement to this about appeasement in 1930's.
Sometimes acting is necessary, but acting under a lie and acting to kill one man.....is not necessary.


3) Actually, I'll add a third. "Your welcome."

Right then...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   


Many people believe a war for oil is bad, but when the whole world depends on it, is a war for oil such a bad thing???


You are willing to kill people so you can drive around in your car and kill the planet, slowly, but surely?
This is sick, how can anyone morally justify a war because they want cheap oil? I would prefer to live without oil than kill people purely for the continuation of an unsustainable way of life.


Semper vi et armis.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Codycougar91
I agree. To add to this, Saddam was an EVIL dictator who tortured thousands of people. Also, if someone says that this war wasnt justifyable, wat do you base that off of?

I base it that we could have ended this mans life without going to war.





top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join