Is it good to be drenched in the blood of war?, page 4


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 23-9-2004 @ 07:06 PM by KrazyJethro
Perhaps, but also maybe it is taken for granted. That which can not be found within, must be sought outwardly. We would not seek companionship (as humans do), we would not need affermation from others, we would not be self concious or vain, etc.

The fact that we can not love ourselves is what causes us to look for love from outside ourselves. But since we can not love ourselves, we can not love another unconditionally, and there in lies the problem. We seek what we can not give.

The only one who could love us unconditionally is God, and being that no one can prove he is there, there is always a kernal of doubt within us.

We are creatures who seek satisfaction, but that is not possible.

Yes, the great proponants of love know that greater love means greater peace, harmony, and all other things good. We are weak creatures, and are flawed.

This is evident in Shakespear, for instance. His plays are still popular because they deal with ideas timeless in the nature of man. Jealousy, hate, disire, lust, to name a few.

Never will man be different, and he is unable to become "enlightened" because of it. To be truely enlightened, would be to transend our situation and be able to step outside of it.

Someone truely wise would know of the impossibility of that, and inherent nature of man. This is the prime motivator behind my saying that more can be done to further your cause be addressing the root of it (love) rather than using the effects of it's lack (distain, anger, and the like).


reply posted on 23-9-2004 @ 07:19 PM by Muaddib
Originally posted by 27jd

It is very sad that you are so blinded by patriotism and brainwashed by the media that you do not acknowledge the point here. Children are being mangled, even if by accident. Is that really the answer to the world's problems? If it were your children it would be different, right? Children are children, innocents are innocents, no matter what nationality. Imagine, your child (if you have one) mutilated, scared, confused and bleeding to death, this is the reality for many innocents in Iraq, it makes me sick how many of my fellow Americans discount life just because they are not American. You should be ashamed, there is NO good in war, even if it is war made by this "great country" the USA. Arkaleus I believe is wrong on many issues, but not this one, perhaps you should consider medications if you think killing children is OK, as long as they're in another country.

[edit on 13-9-2004 by 27jd]


Ah, i see...so when the UN put sanctions in Iraq and over 500,000 children under the age of 5 died where were your cries for those children?

If there hadn't been a war, the UN would have made more sanctions, and 500,000 or more children under the age of 5 would have died in Iraq because of these sanctions.

Lets see what would have happened if we hadn't gone to war, don't just take my word, i always back up my information.

Iraqi Sanctions: Were They Worth It?
by Sheldon Richman, January 2004 [POSTED FEBRUARY 9, 2004]

In May 1996 Madeleine Albright, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the UN, was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq,

We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

To which Ambassador Albright responded,

I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.


That remark caused no great public outcry, although, according to journalist Matt Welch, some students protested when Albright spoke at college campuses. The following January Albright was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as President Clinton’s secretary of state. In her opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was considering her appointment, she said,

We will insist on maintaining tough U.N. sanctions against Iraq unless and until that regime complies with relevant Security Council resolutions.


Excerpted from.
www.fff.org...

Now, if you ask me what i think, i say the death of any child is not alright, not at all, but what would have been the consequences of not going to war?

Do you know how many children died because of Saddam's regime? hundreds of thousands, together with their parents.

You can see in the above how many died because of another more peaceful mean was adopted to try to get Saddam to comply with the mandates of the world.

What were the mandates of the world? that he had to stop trying to build more wmd, and destroys everything that was banned, including any wmd that were in his possession. Why did the world ask that? because he had shown to the world that he would invade other countries, and use whatever he had in his power against others and even his own people.


[edit on 23-9-2004 by Muaddib]


reply posted on 24-9-2004 @ 09:00 PM by 27jd
Originally posted by Muaddib
Ah, i see...so when the UN put sanctions in Iraq and over 500,000 children under the age of 5 died where were your cries for those children?


I am sorrowful for any suffering of children, but the fact is there never should have been sanctions, the US should have assisted the Shiite uprising after the Gulf War and finished Saddam off then. Now the situation in Iraq has deteriorated even more. How are the Iraqi children benefiting from this war (the ones that aren't caught up in the crossfire of the insurgents and the USA)? Not to mention the countless children in Sudan being raped and killed right now as we type, why are we not liberating them? And the many other nations whose governments oppress and allow the people to starve to death while they live in the lap of luxury? It seems our government is very selective about who deserves to be liberated.


If there hadn't been a war, the UN would have made more sanctions, and 500,000 or more children under the age of 5 would have died in Iraq because of these sanctions.


We (USA with UN backing) imposed those sanctions as part of the ceasefire agreement in Desert Storm, instead of taking Saddam out of power then, those childrens' deaths, unfortunately, were by our hands. Again, those sanctions should never have been imposed, the Iraqi people should have been assisted by us to overthrow Saddam back then and we truly would've been seen as liberators, instead we turned our back on them, and allowed Saddam to massacre the opposition, and did NOTHING about it, except impose sanctions, that was our fault entirely.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Australian schoolyard bullies to face job ban
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
No Indians or Asians job ad triggers outrage in Australia
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
Iran and the USA
  Posted 1 days ago with 2 member flags
Biden To Skip Tampa: Latest
  Posted 17 days ago with 1 member flags
Three axed ministers CRIED
  Posted 5 days ago with 1 member flags
Asia should have its own Facebook, Twitter: China official
  Posted 6 days ago with 0 member flags
Australia moves to buy $3b spy drone fleet
  Posted 2 days ago with 0 member flags