War...

[LWACE]

Everytime you look around on the BB you see posts about war against and for. I wonder why people are always against war and bushes war in iraq and afghanistan?

I personally dont like war either, good people die, young people who havent even got a chance at life really. But IMHO war is inevitable and world peace is impossible, i think there will always be war if there is people, there is always gonna be someone who is pissed and decides they need to kill people to get what they want, we've seen it over and over from ww1 and 2 to the gulf war.

Sure the iraq war wasnt totally justified, but IMO taking saddam out of power was justification enough, going to afghanistan and removing the taliban and rooting out members of terroirst groups IMHO is all needed, it might not stop war or terrorism overall, but it might save some innocent peoples lives.

War is a lose lose situation, if we do nothing, terrorist will still attack us and kill people, if we go to war, people will still die and we still get attackd. I hear stuff about people saying if we werent at war, there wouldnt be terrorist attacks all the time now,but what about 9/11 and all the other attacks before we were really at war?

overall IMHO war is bad but it is needed, itd be nice if world peace was possible and everyone got along with each other, but to me that seems damn near impossible, with the population of the world at afew billion, there is always gonna be some who see different than others.

So im just asking what everyone else thinks about war, and the current war we (the allies) are in, there is no need to flame each other or the post, its just my view on it and i wana see what others think of war. What else could bush have done? Why should we have not removed saddam and why should we not hunt for bin laden and members of terrorist groups?

1 last note again, if your gonna post some smart arse commet etc, dont way ur time, save urself the time and effort and go flame somewhere else, cuz i could care less who agrees or disagrees with me. I dont care if you do disagree, just post it in a civil way.

also if grammer and spelling etc is wrong, i typed this really fast, sorry for anything mispelled or wrong in the post.

[Nilsen]

The bombing in Madrid a few days ago was a direct result of Spain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan sais Al Quaida in new videotape.

Sometimes hitting back is not the way to do it. After the US with its allies started a war agains "terror" after 911, groups like Al Q have gotten more indirect support from poeople that otherwise have had no problem with USA.

So, rather than just having "a few" fundamentalits as enemys, the US now has alot more folks that see the US in a far less positive way than before the war on "terror".

After 911 almost the entire world was behind the US and felt truly sorry for the american people. The "terrorists" got their way when the US responed in the way they did.

[Monk]

....hmmm Ostrich politics?

[Rino]

Originally posted by Nilsen10
The bombing in Madrid a few days ago was a direct result of Spain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan sais Al Quaida in new videotape.

Sometimes hitting back is not the way to do it. After the US with its allies started a war agains "terror" after 911, groups like Al Q have gotten more indirect support from poeople that otherwise have had no problem with USA.

So, rather than just having "a few" fundamentalits as enemys, the US now has alot more folks that see the US in a far less positive way than before the war on "terror".

After 911 almost the entire world was behind the US and felt truly sorry for the american people. The "terrorists" got their way when the US responed in the way they did.

     Again, I do not see any alternative posed by the fence sitters,
what, exactly should the US have done?

[Nilsen]

Going in cowboy style with guns blazing is not the way to go. To hit the US and any other nation for that matter is easy cause its a BIG target. Trying to take out terrorists and evern one person using armys and artillery is extremly difficult as we all can see. Maintaining good relations and building networks with the nations that actually can help to stop terrorist is alot smarter.
If the US goverment thinks that it can get support by saying "we are going in wether the rest of the world likes it or not" is not the way to go, and im afraid that terror is gonna grow alot in the years to come.

The reason for going to war in Afghanistan  and Iraq was a way for the US goverment to say to its voters.."hey look at us, we are doing something"

[Pei]

The second gulf war was an inevitable consequence of the first. The business was left undone (for valid reasons) and the ceasefire agreement was always going to be unacceptable to Saddam. Saddam had been in violation of the ceasefire from at least '98 onwards, if not earlier. No-one (including the US and the UK) had the political will to take it to the inevitable conclusion until after 11th September 2001.

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime was a good thing. Hoping to build a successful democracy amongst the failed dictatorships of the middle east is a noble, if extremely ambitious, project. It's success will not be measured in a month's time or in six months but years from now, probably after Mr. Bush has left office.

The doctrine of pre-emption has been implicit in international law since the rise of nuclear weapons (and even before that when it was thought that conventional bombing could deal a "knock out" blow). If your enemy can do significant harm to your infrastructure in one attack your only option is to hope you get wind of it and attack first. That being said there is littel proof that Saddam Hussein was planning or supporting any attacks at the time of the invasion. Taking pre-emption to the level of "he might do somehting at some unspecified time in the future" is what has caused the controversy.

The fact is that the second gulf war was a giant object lesson to other "rogue" states in what it means to challenge the US and it's allies. Everything else was secondary to this. In and of itself going to war to teach people a lesson is not the most morally sound activity. Mr Bush obviously believes what this will make the US and it's allies safer, which is a perfectly ethical aim. Whether he is correct remains to be seen. I am sure it has cautioned other states (Libya being an example) however this might be outweighed by the mileage terrorist recruiters can make out of it. It has also lead the US from the moral high ground which weakens it's support amongst it's allies and the world in general. Perhaps the time has come where the US does not need any allies anymore but recent events concerning Iraq seems to mitigate against this. If the US was willing to devote more money to defence spending then in a few years time it may not need the likes of the UK, Poland and Australia. France and Germany obviously believe they do not need to rely on the US much any more.

This war, like any other conducted by reasonably non-corrupt regimes is a matter of realpolitik. The aim is to make things safer but it is a huge gamble. Time will tell: either Mr Bush will be recognized as a far sighted risk taker or he will be regarded as a warmonger.

[Nilsen]

What prolly bothers me the most is leaders that refer to the civilian deaths that always follows these pre-emtive actions as "unfortunate but inevetable".

These "unfortunate" deaths wich alot of the time is counted in the thousands are always someones families and friends. If those "unfortunate" deaths was american, british or watever there would be public outrage and goverments may even fall. When those deaths are on the other side of the world then they may just get a few lines in a paper and a shrug from those responsible.

[Lance]

I was for the war in Afganistan.

I still believe the war in Iraq was a miscalculation the costs of which outweigh the gains.  We have expended a considerable amount of lives, material, money and world support to take down Saddam.  Its good that he is gone, but I think that he and his government were way down the list of threats to the U.S.  I would have much rather have seen all these troops that are in Iraq over in Afganistan/Pakistan and for us to have made Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda leadership our priority.  

Basically, I don't have a problem with a war on terror.  It has to be done.  I do have a problem, however, when we expend the resources that we have to fight this war in such a quixotic manner.  I think the current administration has us chasing windmills in Iraq insofar as our security interests are concerned.

[medicboy]

Ok, you had some good points and some ignorant points.  Yes I agree that war is both bad and unavoidable.  Sticking your head in the sand is what led to ww1 and ww2.  Getting involved early saves lives in the end.  Sitting on our hands will eventualy cost thousands more lives.  If other insignificant countries don't like what we are doing that thats just too bad.  If they get in the way, we will kill them too..

Nielson10:  This is not a personal flame, and I am of norweagen decent so I say this with respect.  It was not your country that was attacked over and over for a dozen years leading up to 9/11 and then had thousands of innocent people killed all because some crazy nut with a towel on his head didn't like the fact that there were american troops on his native soil.  He (Bin laden) started this, and we had a chicken watermelon president during much of this "war" who refused to do anything but lob a few cruise missles into the dessert and call it revenge.  
     What people like you don't get is you think that if we pull out, stop and go hide with the covers over our head that they will stop.  We were not doing anything on 9-10-01 to provoke that.  You act like this is some game of who gets in the last punch, well its no game, its kill or be killed.  I would rather be in a state of war any day over living in fear in a state of "peace".  War sucks and people die, that is just a fact of life, get over it.

[Toad]

I think Osama and Saddam just had bad childhood experiences. Perhaps we could have offered them a few sessions with Dr. Joyce Brothers and avoided all this unpleasantness.

Even now the people of Evil Spain should apologize to Osama for siding with the Evil Amreekans. Spaniards should burn our Embassy to show their repentance.

A soft answer turneth away wrath, so we should speak gently and softly to Osama, begging forgiveness for our existence.

It might have worked in '39 too. But the Evil Breeteesh and Freeencheesh didn't work hard enough at maintaining good relations and building networks with the nations that could have actually helped to stop unfortunate, inadvertent border crossings by huge armies.

Let's all get together now and work on

Harmony and understanding      
Sympathy and trust abounding   
No more falsehoods or derisions   
Golden living dreams of visions   
Mystic crystal revelation      
And the mind's true liberation

with the open-minded folks that support and understand Osama and his unfortunate childhood. Like the Taliban; they truly liberated the minds of Afghanistan and here we've gone and messed all that up.

[Nilsen]

Dont worry medicboy..i dont take any of this in as personal flame.


Sticking your head in the sand is not an option i would recomend either, but there is a big diff between doing that and attacking nations and people that may or may not pose a threat in the future. How do you decide who will and who will not do something like 9/11? If we in the "west" claim to be morally superior to terrorist and "rouge" nations than "we" should act that way to. You can't expect to be respected while going around and performing pre-emptive strikes.

Btw. One of the reasons for Bin Moron and his fellow tards to attack the US in the first place was because he and his gang was abandoned after fighting off russia in afghanistan when the US didnt have any use for them any more. Something similar to this happened in Iraq during part 1 of the war there. People dont like beeing used and abandoned...much like women

[john9001]

scene one::
 < a man gets off a airplane, he waves a paper in the air and he says:>

"i hold  in my hand a piece of paper signed by Mr Hitler, guanteeing PEACE IN OUR TIME"

< crowd cheers wildly and chants>

  "PEACE NOW ...PEACE NOW....PEACE NOW"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

peace is the dream of the wise, war is the history of man.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Otto]

To link the bombings to Spain's involvement in the Iraq war doesn't make any sense if you believe, as the 'Left' insists, that there was no link between al Qaeda and Iraq, and so,  no justification for the war.  But, if al Qaeda carried out the bombings in Spain then there is the justification for the war.  Period.....

[Nilsen]

Yes it does Otto, if Bin Laden thinks of it as an attack against the injustice they belive was done to Iraq and Afghanistan.

That would also mean that if the US and some other nations would attack say Iran or North Korea etc, Bin would also use that as a reason for doing terrorist attacks on the US and its allies. But it does not have to mean that Iraq and Bin Laden where in bed making nasty babies.

[10Bears]

Surprised this hasn't been pointed out.

By moving assets away from the war on terror, (invasion of the Rack) It allowed AQ to regroup...