Something I don't understand about those opposed to the war..

[Wishydoo]

I don't disect or analyze issues dealing with the war.

I just know I want peace.

 

[ckr]

But is "peace" worth turning our backs on the people of Iraq?

Is "peace" worth letting a man with means and power and money to carry through with the hatred he feels towards the US continue to thrive?

Is "peace" worth KNOWING in the depth of your heart that there WILL BE another, even worse, terrorist attack on the US?

Is "peace" worth living in fear here in a country of freedoms that make us all the more vulnerable to the inhumane terror tactics that the Iraqi regime uses on its own people?

"Peace" cannot be achieved unless both sides want and work for it. A one-sided "peace" is simply suicide.

 

[Wishydoo]

maybe I should have said...I want peace for all.

you know.."Peace on Earth"

 

[glo]

Peace and freedom have always historically come with a high price tag sad but true.

 

[ckr]

Then we're in agreement.

However, I don't understand how those who are opposed to this particular war hope to achieve that WITHOUT war.

Can anyone explain that to me?

(I ask sincerely. I agree with Robinrs in that this thread has gone on as all should. I'd like to understand the opposing perspective -- without name calling or fighting. I think this may be the thread to do it.)

 

[Wishydoo]

It doesn't even matter to me if people agree with my thoughts or not. I'm secure in them, and they work for me.

 

[VintageKnight]

I'm hearing a lot of real indecision on this thread.

a lot of close mindedness this country is unfortunatly known for.

lets get some stuff out in the open. I love the french people, but there government has had a list of really bad negotiating efforts this last hundred yrs ( they had a rough time coming out of the last pounding britain gave them around the time of our revolution.)

pretty much any major issue about the character of other country's dictators that theyve been included ended in a disaster when the united states kept there nose out of things ( WWI, WWII, and lets not forget Vietnam, yea we went there as a favor to our atlantic neighbors. )

So I have no problem with us being in country, the one country where conditions can only get better for the civilians. yes bush may have jumped the gun on his excuses this yr ( cuz i can tell you as of may 2002 we were supposed to be doing this crazy litle thing called war. ) we've post-poned it due to political negotiations.

iraq has been a target since 9/12 2001 when we found out who took responsibility for that action, becuase we knew at that time that the two ring leaders had shared resources in the past.

And by the way, i live in oklahoma, ya know that other place that got bombed, yea you really think 2 white guys did that by themeselves?, americans take sniper rifles into parks, foriegn terrorists blow buildings up...people still die but americans tend to be loners when they do it, not party afterward. ( im not just saying this, there are so many reports that WERE givin to investigators that were never followed up simply because some cop got lucky on north I-35 and caught the little pr@#k with his hand in the cookie jar and they could make a water tight case, he deserved what he got but would have been nice for them to actully follow up the other stuff( yes a lot of it directly included iraqi nationals)).

Ok i'll get off my soap box, but im gonna finish first.

you anti-conflict (thats a new one) people need to realize nuthing this country has done that actually mattered AND made a difference in society was done bloodlessly: american revolution ( yes i'll say thanks to the french since they kept them busy while we got prepaired for that thing) american civil war, WWII

the only two "defeats" we've encountered was an enternal conflict between a colony and france that we should have stayed out of in the first place and the other was. and is a UN conflict that we didnt have the final say in which was korea....which is now going to come back and bite us in the rear.

bottom line, were going to finish this conlict with dead americans ( one of which as i write this we just found out we lost an Oklahoman in the 1st expeditionary force) dead britons and lots of dead iraqi's. but theres going to be a heck of a lot more FREE iraqi's when were done.

yea ya might see the price of a tank get below a dollar for a few yrs since were going to take oil to pay for this thing but those millions of iraq's that took a chance to leave the main areas so they wouldnt die in town "the smart and brave ones" are goin to be thankful in the long run i.e. grunt labor force money going into rebuilding the infrastructure that saddam ran into the ground the last 20 yrs thru war and neglect.

I guess in my rambling hopefully i've expanded your understanding of why were there why we need to be there what were going to be doing after we succeed in the basic mission.

I dont like that were there, but i understand the need.

i do have brother there, so dont think im just supporting it to support death, I think freedom is a right that is worth fighting for even tho in this conflict its not MY freedom were talking about.

My name is Chris, rhodesc@cox.net flame me if ya wanta just dont waste the board space.

 

[damo]

One thing that bothers me about the conflict is that it is being labelled as "Operation Iraqi Freedom". I honestly do not believe that the main reason this war is being fought is to free the Iraqi people.

 

[lisajl]

Are people forgetting that Saddam tortures people?

Are we forgetting that his army uses women and children as shields?

Are we forgetting about people like Hitler?

I don't like war. I don't like killing.

But are we going to stand by idly and watch more of the Iraqis be killed and tortured by their so called leader?


Why do they put no value on life over there?

Does anyone remember the woman in the middle east who had a child out of wedlock? As soon as the child is weaned they will stone her to death.

Take a look around everyone. Life is not fair or fun all the time.

You have to take a stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

God Bless our troops.

 

[AllyandJack]

I think the name given to the conflict is more for the Iraqi people. I guess if we called it Operation MOAB or something, they would feel more indimidated and scared. We had to name it something that would let the people know that we weren't targeting them. Not that their government will ever let that name be known to them. They probably said we're calling it Operation Crispy Camel to make us look like "Al Capones."

 

[Saffron]

Lisa, I'd like to answer some of the questions for you, from my perspective.

Originally posted by lisajl
Are people forgetting that Saddam tortures people?
I don't think anyone has/did/will ever forget that. I don't think anyone condones his actions, supports his regime or thinks that he should remain in power.

Are we forgetting that his army uses women and children as shields?
Absolutely not forgetting! That's one of the things that makes him dispicable, along with a meriad of other things.

Are we forgetting about people like Hitler?
I guess you ask about Hitler in this post to compare him to SH. I think they are very much a like. Here's where the US differs on how they handled Hitler and SH. WWII raged on in Europe for several years. We knew about Hitler's plans to occupy as much as Europe as he could. We knew Japan and Germany were allies, that is, if you declared war against Germany or Japan, both would declared war against you. We knew about the concentration camps. We know about the genicide. We knew about the torture. We did nothing until we were attacked. We declared war on Japan once they attacked us on our own soil. That's when Germany declared war on us, because they had a pact with Japan that they would declare war against any other nation that declared war against Japan. We did not go into WWII in order to stop Hitler from killing people. We went into WWII because we were attacked on our own soil (Pearl Harbor). Maybe we should have gone in 3 or 4 years earlier, before 2 -3 million people died in concentration camps, but we didn't, even though we knew what was happening. But -- once we were attacked on our own soil, we had to. We defended our own land. Once in the war, we went in and we were there to win, Hitler was going down. That's the difference between how we got into WWII and how we are getting into Iraq.

I don't like war. I don't like killing.

But are we going to stand by idly and watch more of the Iraqis be killed and tortured by their so called leader?
I have to answer that question with other questions. Are we going to step into other countries with other brutal dictators and stop them? Where/when do we stop intervening? If we only go into Iraq, is that fair to all the other people in the world that will be tortured and killed by the heads of their country? It happens everyday. Is it right not to do anything about those other countries?

Why do they put no value on life over there?
I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm not sure who you mean by "they", but I value human life very much. That's one of the reason I hate to see weapons of mass destruction, like cluster bombs, dropped on Iraq. Those cluster bombs that do not explode, with be burried in the dirt until they are accidently hit while someone is farming or building, then they will explode. They last for years, decades. You can read all about cluster bombs and how the people (mainly children who are attracted to them because they look like brightly colored balls) of Cambodia, are still being killed and maimed by them today, 30 years after they were dropped. There are international peace groups trying to find as many of these hidden bombs, before any more children loose their legs, arms, eyes or life to them.

Does anyone remember the woman in the middle east who had a child out of wedlock? As soon as the child is weaned they will stone her to death.
Yes, I remember that story. I'm not sure if it was a Middle Eastern country or an African country. Should we go into that country and free those people? Why or why not? Should we go into all the countries who feel they have the right to kill women if they are no longer wanted or needed? Why or why not? If we are going to stop SH, why aren't we going to stop the heads of other countries? In Rowanda, 100,000 were killed by the dictator of that country, mostly by the army, mostly with machetes. The army went into elementary schools and slaughtered all the children in the schools while they were having class, just because. Should we have stopped that? Why or why not? Should we take the head of that country out before it happens again?

Take a look around everyone. Life is not fair or fun all the time.
You're absolutely right. How do we make it fair or fun for everyone? Or should we just make it fair for some? Or should we not even try?

You have to take a stand for something or you'll fall for anything.
You're absolutely right again, that's why I choose to take the stands I take.

God Bless our troops.
Amen.

lisajl, I ask the questions that I posed to you, to myself all the time. Leaders of lots of countries ask themselves the same questions. That's why the UN was organized, so that no other country would invade another country unless other nations voted on it and said that it is the best thing to do. Some people say, "UN, SchmooN, forget the UN, the USA knows the right thing to do." I respect their right to their opinions. I would just respectfully disagree, at least when it comes to this conflict.

Do I want to see more Iraqi people die at the hands of SH, absolutely not. I don't believe there is a person on the CB that would like to see that.

 

[dandave]

Saddam models himself after Stalin- not Hitler.

http://www.emergency.com/hussein1.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

IMHO, the reason our government is going after Saddam now is 9-11.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

I'd like to make some points about the WWII points...

Originally posted by Saffron
Are we forgetting about people like Hitler?
I guess you ask about Hitler in this post to compare him to SH. I think they are very much a like. Here's where the US differs on how they handled Hitler and SH. WWII raged on in Europe for several years. We knew about Hitler's plans to occupy as much as Europe as he could.

Actually most the UK & Neville Chamberlin thought a treaty in '38 with Hitler would keep peace between the countries. This was a fatal error. It was in '39 that they learned that Hitler had no intention of honoring the agreement (much like Saddam & the ceasefire of '91).

In the mid-30s Hitler was touted the world round for being able to turn Germany completely around. The Graf Zeppelins were touring the world & part of the Nazi PR machine. Berlin hosted the '36 Olympics & while a few of Hitler's anti-semetic views made it outside of Germany, most of the world thought he was Germany's savior. It wasn't until way into the war that most of the world learned how truly mad he was.

We knew Japan and Germany were allies, that is, if you declared war against Germany or Japan, both would declared war against you.

True, but the US was the only force that was regularly fighting them on both fronts full force. IOW, the UK wasn't being attacked by Japan & south Asian countries weren't dealing with the Germans. The UK was helping in the Pacific, but it was mostly US & Australian forces.

We knew about the concentration camps. We know about the genicide. We knew about the torture.

Actually this isn't quite true. We knew that the Nazis were rounding people up, but the Allied soldiers were shocked & horrified to see what was really happening. Many of the Germans were forced to see the camps because they didn't even really know what was truly going on in the camps.

We did nothing until we were attacked.

Also not quite accurate. We were busy heavily supplying the UK with arms. Though we were officially not in the war, we were certainly doing something. The country was very much in the grip of the great depression & spending money on a war was the last thing the average American was concerned with. It was a completely different story when we were attacked. That's when we officially joined the war effort, but we were already in it in indirect ways.

We declared war on Japan once they attacked us on our own soil.

Actually at the time, Hawaii wasn't even a state, so it would've been like an attack on military ships in Puerto Rico. I wonder if that happened today if the massive effort would have come forward. Actually we have had attacks on our military stations & embassies & the average American just shrugged & thought it was a shame, but didn't call for action. That's how bin Laden was able to work to set up 9/11.

That's when Germany declared war on us, because they had a pact with Japan that they would declare war against any other nation that declared war against Japan. We did not go into WWII in order to stop Hitler from killing people.

And yet we realized that Hitler, though he didn't attack us directly, was the greater threat & thus focused on taking Berlin first. It was a good thing we did too, because Germany was mere months away from developing rockets & jets. Sound like anyone else? Just switch "rockets & jets" with nuclear weapons.

We went into WWII because we were attacked on our own soil (Pearl Harbor). Maybe we should have gone in 3 or 4 years earlier, before 2 -3 million people died in concentration camps, but we didn't, even though we knew what was happening.

Again, that wasn't well known until after the fact.

But -- once we were attacked on our own soil, we had to. We defended our own land.

True, but while we were worried about more attacks from Japan, we still realized that Germany was the greater threat.

Once in the war, we went in and we were there to win, Hitler was going down. That's the difference between how we got into WWII and how we are getting into Iraq.

I think that we're very much in this to win & Saddam is definitely going down.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

dandave,
I agree but I think people make the Hitler connection because the average person doesn't really know how evil Stalin was, but Hitler's evil is well known. Not to mention the other similarities between this war & WWII.


My friend's wife didn't even know who Stalin was - I personally don't think anyone should be able to graduate HS without knowing something as important as that.

 

[caitycaity]

jeff, you are wrong about the american government not knowing about the holocaust until "after the fact." there is documented evidence that the government knew about it, way before the war ended.

saffron, great post.

i think on this kind of issue, people have had enough time to make up their minds. people have strong opinions on either side and no one is going to change them.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

Originally posted by caitycaity
jeff, you are wrong about the american government not knowing about the holocaust until "after the fact." there is documented evidence that the government knew about it, way before the war ended.

But the average American did not.

I've not read the evidence that the gov't knew (got a link?), & I'm sure they had some idea but I do wonder if it was aware of the extent to which it was happening (6 million people)?

 

[caitycaity]

i guess i don't see the relevance of the american people not knowing if the government did. the american people weren't the ones deciding when to go to war or why.

i first heard about this on the history channel. i've also seen an exhibit about it at the holocaust museum.

this is the best link i can find right now. if you are curious, i'm sure there is more information out there if you do some research. there is actually a class being taught about this at my alma mater this semester.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/primary/

 

[lisajl]

Saffron,

Thanks for answering those questions for me.

I still hate war, but I understand why we are there.

My father was in WWII. He saw Mussolini (sp), hanging by his ankles. He always told me we need to fight to defend our freedoms.
I am afraid if we do not fight now, what will happen in the future.
I am afraid for my childrens future.

SH to me is a bully. You know, the one on the playground that won't leave the smaller, weaker kids alone.
I don't understand how he can kill, torture and maim his own countrymen.

I had acestors that were French Hugenots. Only one, My GGGGGG grandfather is the only one that survived the killing.
He was out doing something....came home and found that the goverment had killed his entire family. due to their religious beliefs.
This is the kind of craziness I just don't understand!
It makes me want to cry.

Jeff in Big D, Thanks for clearing up some of the things Saffron and I posted. I appreciate seeing that info.
I know my father was proud to serve in WWII. They originally would not take him due to his age. Then, I guess they needed all the help they could get and he went. He went gladly to protect his country.

"Are we going to step into other countries with other brutal dictators and stop them? Where/when do we stop intervening? If we only go into Iraq, is that fair to all the other people in the world that will be tortured and killed by the heads of their country?"

I know we cannot police the entire planet. But, don't we have a right to speak up when we see such atrocities? What if you had moved here from Iraq and left family behind? Would you want them tortured?

I guess we Americans don't realize how lucky we are. I could never live under a regime that uses women and children as shields. I hope I never have to know that kind of terror!

 

[Grog]

i guess i don't see the relevance of the american people not knowing if the government did.

Because prior to Dec. 7th, 1941, there were many Americans opposed to going to war. Whatever the Govt could have told them about the state of affairs in Germany, they probably still wouldn't have supported the war, viewing it as a European problem. We know without a doubt what kind of person SH is, but Iraqi refugees are still being told they are wrong by people who don't want us in Iraq. It makes it easier to protest when they can put their fingers in their ears and not listen to someone decribe seeing his family killed because he didn't agree with Saddam.

If our Govt had gone to war with Germany in 1939 or 1940 we probably would have seen a bigger backlash then we are seeing right now.

 

[AllyandJack]

I sort of agree that we're REALLY there to get rid of the terrorists. And, if we happen to liberate the Iraqi people, that's great, too.

You can say that there is no DIRECT link to Saddam and terrorism, but our government believes there is and, if it prevents another attack like 9/11, that's good enough for me. Personally, I believe there is a link. The guy is a nut-job. He's gathering loads of technology. He hates us. I believe that he wouldn't think twice about sending people over here with some chem or bio weapon and killing thousands of us. He wouldn't even ask the UN (gasp!). He's a threat to us and, I think, that's our MAIN reason for being over there. However, I think the government does care about the civilians and they are happy that we can help them while protecting us. I would compare him to Hitler since, we were able to stop him from capturing Kuwait. What if we didn't stop him? Where would he have turned next? We'll never know, but you don't all of a sudden invade a country and then say, "Oh....you don't like that? Nevermind. My bad. Won't happen again." He's gathering the technology for something....whether it be to invade more countries over there or send them over here. I think one just inevitably leads to the other anyway, so whichever comes first is irrelevant.

Just my opinion....not everyone sees things the same way. I like black olives, my husband doesn't and we manage to live a happy life in disagreement!