How justified is this war?

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (SmokWawelski @ April 17 2003,19:19)]As to the chemical discussion: most chem factories/plants migrate out of this country to escape the harsh healh regulations, get cheap labor (both ethicaly questionable).

As my last post on any war-related topic let me only say this: No government created on the basis of military intrusion by a foreign power will be stable and fully recognized by its own people. It fails on the principle of people being able to decide for themselfs, and forcefully replaces one regime with another one, supposedly democratic. I stay correct: No to War
Japan. A government and constitution created upon the basis of military intrusion by a foreign power. It has been stable and fully recognized by its own people. Germany has also been stable as a result of the war. Both were tired of war as are most Afghans and Iraqi's.

As for chem plants. Yep, the labor is cheap overseas and some of the regulations weaker (depends very much on locale.) That does not mean a company has to hold itself to a lower standard (and in my own case I know that it is possible to maintain high standards in a foreign plant.) It's not just the operating labor so much as the reduced capital cost that drives some of this investment. Additionally, reduced shipping cost for bulk chemicals is a huge factor since the chemical plants are largely selling to downstream producers in the region and shipping costs can be a killer. Additionally, some regional industries won't buy your goods if they are not produced locally. The only way the US can stay ahead is by ceding commodity production to other regions, and continue producing innovative new products. We can't compete with the likes of China and India on labor cost. Personally, I would like to keep as much chemical production as possible in the US, but that is largely a money producing proposition. We've used much of the cheapest-to-extract feedstocks in our own backyard, and one way to reduce cost is to get closer to the cheap supply.

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (MrNiceGuy @ April 17 2003,19:00)]So when you're checking out that cat cracker or coke drum you don't notice all those wonderful, sweet light end aromas or delight in the small colorful clouds of coke dust you kick up when walking through a refinery unit.

As an inspector I've seen refineries up close and way too personal. After a job in a Hersheys factory it was over a year before I ate chocolate. In South American and Asian (excepting Japan) countries with little or no environmental laws you'll see petrochem industries more than 50 miles away from the flares burning off the parts of hydrocarbons they can't use. My favorite quote was from a brit showing me around one worksite when you see the number four flare burn green you should get indoors, that means the acid from the desulferization unit is out of whack. I can't vouch for any spot in Africa as I've never been and don't want to go.

So that evil foreign industry is also my main bread and butter as well as yours. The only truly clean and friendly company I've ever seen was every manned Air Products plant, but they only deal with gasses.
My experience is not in petro chem although I've toured a few refineries. My work has been in chemical intermediates and cracking plants associated with them. Some of the derivatives we make intentionally or as byproducts make those refinery chemicals sound mild. Then again, we handle our stuff very carefully so that we don't expose ourselves or our workers. Accidents do happen, but my plant's safety record is better than any other plants or industries I've had the opportunity to compare with. I'm hands on and never ask anyone to do anything I won't do myself (and frequently assist.) I don't accept chemical odors or leaks in my units so when I catch a whiff of something I start hunting.

Air Products, yeah, pretty easy to be clean when you are working primarily with air as your feedstock...LOL.

[MrNiceGuy]

Good point about Japan. Perhaps a regime change in societies that have long caste-like tendencies are easier to assume control without much civilian unrest.

I respect your opinion Red and accept that in some areas we ' agree to disagree' but this topic now seems to be pretty much a moot point now.

I look forward to meeting you on the battlefield (and most likely have my n00b arse schooled) sometime soon http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[The_Emperor]

Well the war is over... But America now has to win the peace, and that is where the real challenge lies.

Sadly the USA does not have a good record with nation building and Japan and Germany seem to be the only nations that they did a good job on (Yeah and that was over half a century ago)

As to if it is justified or not, in my view it was not and I voted in the 0-10% area

[Maedhros]

Despite all the glorious imagery and biased reporting, I am still unconvinced this was all necessary.

Is Saddam bad? No doubt, but he is still a small time thug on the global arena. Besides being a thug has never been a problem for US security planning or any previous presidents.

If we really cared about the people we would someplace where people are dieing on a huge scale. Like the Congo in Africa.

WMD? The technology behind some of those is now nearly a century old. Acquiring or developing them is inevitable for most of the countries in the world.

Does Iraq pose a threat to us? NO. They have no deep water navy, no airforce worthy of the name, and no advanced missile tech. No contacts with terrorist groups. (They give some cash to Arafat, but Hesbollah et al don't look further than the holy land.)

Iraq, despite what most americans think had nothing to do with 9/11.

What was then the real motivation behindthe invasion? Revenge, and control of oil. Control gained by replacing our old currenlty misbehaving puppet with new puppet who will do as he is told.

China will be the biggest global competitor to the US during the next century. The growing industrialization of China will push their oil requirements up substantially in the future. Where will that oil come from? They are getting oil in large part from the Middle East. We are getting our oil more and more from places other than the ME like Venezuala.

In part to counter any increase in the power of OPEC, and due the instability in the region. Also having the ability to squeeze China's throat with a mere phone call will be hugely important as the US and China begin their game of chess.

Control of strategic resources and the preemptive war theory (which dates back to Bush ptI) is the reasoning behind rummies push for war. I think the prez is a simple man with simple motives. I think he wants to avenge what he views as his daddies disgrace. He made his motives clear at a University speech during the presidential campaign.

Repect and support for the troops should not include using them like pawn or sending them out on personal vendettas.

[Puzz3D]

Maedhros,

I wholeheartedly agree with you, and the brushing aside of the UN along with the extra powers Congress has given Bush is frightening. I had to laugh when he said to the POWs in Texas, Thank god you're safe.. They wouldn't have been captured in the first place if not for Bush, and the dead and injured Americans wouldn't be dead and injured not to mention all the other people dead or injured. If Iraq had used chemical or biological weapons, the casualties would have been enormous. You can use the concept of preemtive strike to justify all kinds of military operations. The US people have been lied to before to justify military operations and escalations. Is Bush going to deal with North Korea the way he has dealt with Iraq? Think China will just stand by? Don't other countries have weapons of mass destruction that should be eliminated? Has Bush justified a preemtive strike using nuclear weapons in his own mind? He has certainly justified preemtive killing of men, women and children to himself.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ April 21 2003,12:06)]

Quote[/b] ]I wholeheartedly agree with you, and the brushing aside of the UN along with the extra powers Congress has given Bush is frightening.

OH GOD someone ingnoring the UN, wait no thats right. THe UN is a biast anti semitic organization that has iraq as head of disarming and libya as head of human rights. The sooner UN dies and stops teaching palestinian children with maps that do not include israel the sooner peace in the middle east will come.

And these terrifying measures they don't come in till 2005. Which do you think is better, dealing with rogue states with womd one at a time or letting them become stronger by the month until they start a nuculaer holocaust.

[Maedhros]

I have no argument the UN needs some revising. I wouldn't hesitate to say a complete rebuild.

However I can't say I can agree with antisemitic. They have never enforced resolutions against Israel, and have never pressured them on their human rights record.

Frankly, I can't say either sides hands are bloodless in that wonderful little quandry. Radically new leadership on both sides and a very extended incremental peace process which gives all sides security and equal treatment. It may also require the holy city itself be governed jointly.

maybe the city could be transformed into a theocracy with an appointed council? and a buddhist as head of state (no vested interest).

Excuse me while I dash to the window, I hear oinking in the sky. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Carrick1973]

People like to bring up Japan and Germany as examples of nations that we successfully 'built', but one thing that is not mentioned is how much it cost us. Here is a quote from the Marshall Foundation Organization's website: Marshall Foundation.org (http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#expenditures)


Quote[/b] ]Over its four-year life, the Marshall Plan cost the U.S. 2.5 to 5 times the percent of national income as current foreign aid programs. One would need to multiply the program's $13.3 billion cost by 10 or perhaps even 20 times to have the same impact on the U.S. economy now as the Marshall Plan had between 1948 and 1952. (Most of the money was spend between 1948 and the beginning of the Korean War (June 25, 1950); after June 30, 1951, the remaining aid was folded into the Mutual Defense Assistance Program.)

How much have we (the United States) spent in Afghanistan on rebuilding efforts? Only $290 Million in 2002, as opposed to the $10 billion that we spent on the destruction of Afghanistan. (Information from
The International Conference on Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan (http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/middle_e/afghanistan/outline0201.html) and from The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3362&sequence=0).

So before we bring up nations that we rebuilt properly, let's get it straight that 1) our economy cannot handle the expense of a 'proper' reconstruction effort and 2) the political environment in the U.S. would not attempt a 'proper' reconstruction in any nations that we 'rebuild'.

Don't get me wrong, I thought that kicking the crap out of Osama (does anyone remember who that is??) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and the Taliban was certainly within our right after 9/11, but the lame arguments that the current administration made trying to link Saddam to 9/11 and to purchasing nuke material from Nigeria were inexcusable. There is a thing in this world called sovereignty, and a little law passed by Ford that prevents assassination attempts on foreign leaders. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush slept through those classes in junior high. Unfortunately, the repercussions from this invasion will be widespread and it will be hard to connect to future events - meaning if another terrorist attack occurs on our soil, the administration and all neo-cons will say 'Just think about how bad it would have been and how many attacks we prevented by taking out Saddam...' when it is just as likely (or more likely according to the CIA) that future attacks will occur because of the attack on Iraq.

Anyway, enough rambling, but I guess you can imagine that I voted in the 1-10% range...

Oh BTW - What is this excuse that Rummie makes about not being able to find WMD's? Can't they just use those nifty satellite images that Secratary Powell flaunted at the U.N. to find all those 'Mobile Chemical Factories'? Seems to me that if the U.N. inspectors were so bad, and we know exactly where all the chem's are, we should be able to just saunter in and find them...

Steve

[Red Harvest]

Carrick,

I agree with you on the rebuilding part. While the Afghans are better off than they were not long ago, we should be putting more money into rebuilding efforts. I do see it as a responsibility after a war. It's also a wise political and economic investment in the long term. Additionally, subsidizing some US based rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan can also be a stimulus for our US economy. Unfortunately, Bush is rather short sighted and has very limited understanding of economics. Witness his tax cuts and the ballooning budget deficit. His solution right now is to pass on a tremendous debt to my children. Terrific, we had this deficit thing licked until he got into office. Not only has he resumed massive deficit spending, but he's determined to make it worse. He cut taxes at an economic peak, and many of us were screaming it was a bad idea for that very reason. The surpluses were part of the up cycle/unsustainable boom, rather than a long term trend. Of course, if you promise every one a pot of gold, you find it easier to get elected...or selected by the Supreme Court in his case. He lost the popular vote and his electoral win was only the result of voter error caused by a fluke of outdated technology and demographics.

[Efrem Da King]

The republican party is carrying a hit against colon powell with this stuff about how the US state department hasn't pavved 1 mile of road in 2 and half years. WHich of cousres coloon leads.I think it was pat buchananan. But the person after him on fox said that it was a hit and there is no way he would have done that without rumsfields permission.

[Popeye]

Just to weigh in with a my personal view of how we got to war in Iraq, this time. Conventional wisdom is that it's a choice between blaming the United States for the failure of diplomacy, or blaming Saddam for being stupid. I see it a little differently.

Bear in mind that I'm not judging right and wrong or international law here. Those concepts don't mean much in the context of war, and are usually decided by the one that writes History afterward.

Obviously the objective of diplomacy was to convince Saddam to do something he didn't want to do. How did diplomacy fail?

The nature of diplomacy is trade-off. The US wanted assurance that Saddam didn't have WMD. Maybe he had them, maybe he didn't, they wanted certainty. If he didn't have them, he certainly took great pains to prevent the US from being sure of that. That certainty was the goal. The question was how to get it.

One method is that Saddam could have allowed full and open inspections. That didn't happen, and even Hans Blix speaks in terms of ongoing negotiations to convince the Iraqis to be forthcoming. They were not forthcoming, and the question is why not. Well, it's clear enough that giving away the one thing we wanted held no advantage for Iraq, they'd rather go to the second method.

The second method is by diplomatic trading. They let us see enough to be certain he's unarmed, we give something they want. Don't ask what, it really doesn't matter.

The third method is we could just go in by force.

Those are the choices; One side wants something, the other can give it away, trade it, or we're down to naked force.

Now, in order for the diplomatic trading to work, the demands of both sides would have to be reasonable, and more attractive than using force. That's where the diplomatic process got into trouble this time.

It's fairly obvious that Saddam didn't really expect force to be used. This would lead him to expect to be able to make more demands in exchange for the certainty bargained for. As long as force was off the table, the price could go ever higher, or maybe the thing the US wanted was simply not offered at any price.

The problem was that the demands, whatever they were, got too high. Force was perceived as the better option. The US said that force was a better option, but Saddam simply didn't believe it was an option at all. If he took the possibility of a full scale invastion seriously, everything he's done looks totally irrational. You don't survive 20 years as a dictator by being irrational. He was simply mistaken about the likelihood of force.

Now, the question is, WHY did he not believe the US would use force? They said they would if it became necessary. They moved troops. They mobilized reserves, they did all kinds of pre-invasion things. He knew he had not the means to stop the invasion if it happened. He wasn't even able to hold Kuwait ten years ago, and hadn't repaired his army from that. Why was he apparently so certain that the US would not invade?

Because the French said they couldn't. He thought that was enough to prevent it. By trying to take force out of the equation, the French encouraged Saddam to be unreasonable (at least as perceived by the US) in the diplomatic negotiations, and basically garunteed the invasion.

Diplomacy is a great thing. I'm all for it. Preventing war is why we have diplomats. Diplomats that refuse to acknowledge the possibility of war would be like a priest that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of eternal damnation. You can't help people avoid what you won't talk about.

The bottom line is that this war is the fault of the French for trying to take war out of the diplomatic equation, and the fault of Iraq for believing the French had that power.

I doubt the UN will recognize this, so look for it to happen again, not necessarily with the same issues or parties. The UN will fail because they don't understand the reality is that violence is always an option, even when parties agree that it isn't.

[KukriKhan]

Well thought-out piece, Popeye. I only have a bit of trouble with laying the fault at the feet of the French, alone. In my view, there's plenty of blame to spread around. However, your posit of France's obstruction leading to Saddam's miscalculation makes good sense. I guess we'll only know if Saddam shows up 5 years from now on some TV interview show.

[Popeye]

I think it's a theme that has repeated itself throughout history though.

People and nations have a tendency to ignore the possibility of violence, and press their demands on the assumption that they will not be forced to drop them. The American Civil War is a classic example. The Federalists wanted their way, and did not expect the South to resist by force. The Confederacy wanted their way, and did not expect the Federalists to oppose by force. By the time both sides realized how wrong they were in these assumptions, it was too late.

Argentina annexed the Falkland Islands, in the assumption that Britain would not argue over something that far from London.

Iraq annexed Kuwait in the belief that no one would object after the fact.

Hitler was baffled that the Americans cared enough about Europe to get involved, and underestimated British resistance to Nazi plans.

Even look at criminals in any given society. It doesn't matter what crime you talk about, and it generally doesn't matter how light the punishment for those convicted. If criminals didn't expect to get away with the crime, they would not commit the crime. They don't expect to get caught, they don't expect force to be used.

Carry this down to the even more basic school bullies. They don't expect anyone to fight, that's why they get away with whatever it is they do.

It is the same thing with Iraq. Saddam didn't expect force to be used. The blame for the war, in my view, lies with those that made him believe that. It isn't a question of whether the force was justified, it's a question of whether or not it was foreseeable.

[Maedhros]

Video and witness testimony just prior to the invasion showed Saddam making people treat him as a prophet gives an insight I believe into why he resisted.

People who argued or delivered bad news were summarily executed. Sometimes even by Saddam personally just outside the meedting room where the offense took place.

He may not have been aware of how dire his armys morale problems were. Or the general condition of his military. He may have assumed he could engage in delaying tactics to stall and cause mounting casualites in American forces.

Demonstrations around the world, especially London and several major US cities was evidence that Bush and his puppeteers were an island alone. If the war went on long enough, and cost enough lives he may have assumed we would stop short and negotiate.

Remember who Saddams idol was? Stalin who made famous the battle of Stalingrad. Sacrificed millions of civilians, and much of his military dragging the Germans into a battle he knew the nazis could not win. The winter ultimately did more to defeat what was a better trained, and equiped army.

Remember the rush to invade? Summer was coming to the Iraqi desert. I believe Saddam thought it would do for him what the winter did for Stalin. His city would ultimately be destroyed, but he would be remembered in history alongside the greatest Islamic generals. Maybe even build yet another mosque dedicated to great victory, and ever growing god complex.

I don't believe it occured to Saddam that he was fallible. Even if he had all the relevant information to make a reasonable can I pull this off? judgement. Which I don't believe he did.

[Efrem Da King]

I'm just happy hes out of power.

[Theredlemming]

I felt the war was necessary. Saddam has killed more innocent Kuwaities in peace time then all the people who have died innocent or not in the war put together. They have found 10's of mass graves full of 1000 of people. Saddam acted like Hitler did with the Jews.
However i think the USA an the UK should have had support by the international community before going it alone.

The important think now is definitly to get Iraq up and running again and then to hand it back to the Iraqui's

the red lemming

[Furunculus]

was it justified? yes if you want even a chance for peace in the ME.

[PseRamesses]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
If USA could stop acting as Bigbrother, interfering in every thing to protect the American way of life she wouldn´t have problems with the muslim world. So most of the probs she has brought on to herself

[Furunculus]

uhm, problems in ME began most recently with the creation of israel, not technically the US's doing.

furunculus

[LestaT]

By the time I reply this post the 'war' has been over, only the casualties are keep coming. Hundred years from now some ppl will be playing NuclearAge Total War with gutso.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Accounting Troll]

And people will still be telling us that the latest war is necessary for world peace. Some things never seem to change.

[Inuyasha12]

Nope its not justified at all, even though Sadam was an #######. But i have to support my country

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Accounting Troll

Quote[/b] ]And people will still be telling us that the latest war is necessary for world peace. Some things never seem to change.

There will not be any world peace ever on this Earth until the end of the world (ie, Judgement Day, when Christ returns). Whoever is saying that a war will bring world peace is ignorant, confused, or a liar. However, THIS war has not greatly increased the destability in the MidEast (outside of Iraq). When a new Democracy is established in Iraq, the MidEast will be one step closer to STABILITY, though not peace (there is a difference).

As for the war's justification, we may still find WMD. Saddam was also an evil person who hated the US. Eventually, either he would find a way to hurt the US or his reign would have been overthrown by militant radicals who would be trying to hurt us. The future democracy in Iraq probably won't be trying to hard to hurt us.

[Lt Nevermind]

Correct furunculus, I'd say it's not a too bold statement that the problems between Islamic countries and the West exist mostly due to Israel. It's nothing but a dream to think there would be peace in ME without solving that conflict. Honestly I dont see peace until either one disappears from the map (and unfortunately neither one will do that). I dont actually understand how the US and EU can have such different opinions about Israel, the US is its best friend and supporter while the EU goes with the palestinians. And personally I follow the EU with this one, if palestinians were jews and israelis muslims the conflict would end faster than you can say 'war' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif.

[soibean]

that was a little more difficult to decide where I stood
I am basically against the war but my friend who came from iraq has family over there who are now free from that mad man so it did have some positive effect

[Inuyasha12]

Yeah but that wasn't the reason that Bush started it in the first place.

[Xiahou Liao]

Yes the war is justified. I voted 100%. You know why? Fate controls everything. Not many people believe in fate anymore, but trust me. If there wasn't this war, the future consequences bring about the reign of overpopulation. It's population control people...

Just imagine, if no war was ever fought...

How many people would live on this world right now? A lot...

It'd be so crowded...

and believe me, I say this because there are those hippies who act against war. Basically, I'm a nationalist, and a pro-war activist.

If I had my way, and owned a country, anyone that spoke against my wars would be lined up against a wall and shot.

:: Smiles innocently. ::

Okay, I'm ready to get bashed for my words.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Accounting Troll]

Quote[/b] (Alexander the Pretty Good @ June 26 2004,21:23)]Accounting Troll

Quote[/b] ]And people will still be telling us that the latest war is necessary for world peace. Some things never seem to change.

There will not be any world peace ever on this Earth until the end of the world (ie, Judgement Day, when Christ returns). Whoever is saying that a war will bring world peace is ignorant, confused, or a liar. However, THIS war has not greatly increased the destability in the MidEast (outside of Iraq). When a new Democracy is established in Iraq, the MidEast will be one step closer to STABILITY, though not peace (there is a difference).

As for the war's justification, we may still find WMD. Saddam was also an evil person who hated the US. Eventually, either he would find a way to hurt the US or his reign would have been overthrown by militant radicals who would be trying to hurt us. The future democracy in Iraq probably won't be trying to hard to hurt us.
I really hope that events will prove me wrong about this, but I fear that Bush & Blair have messed things up so much that the Iraqis will elect someone who hates the US and its allies even more than Saddam Hussein at his most insane ever did.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Quote[/b] (Xiahou Liao @ June 27 2004,15:44)]Yes the war is justified. I voted 100%. You know why? Fate controls everything. Not many people believe in fate anymore, but trust me. If there wasn't this war, the future consequences bring about the reign of overpopulation. It's population control people...

Just imagine, if no war was ever fought...

How many people would live on this world right now? A lot...

It'd be so crowded...

and believe me, I say this because there are those hippies who act against war. Basically, I'm a nationalist, and a pro-war activist.

If I had my way, and owned a country, anyone that spoke against my wars would be lined up against a wall and shot.

:: Smiles innocently. ::

Okay, I'm ready to get bashed for my words.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
what you say is bad but it does make alot of sense i never really thought about that. if there were so many people there would be no food no forest it would be crowded. hopefully we find and alternitave souloution to get rid of war and not over crowd later on.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Accounting Troll

Quote[/b] ]I really hope that events will prove me wrong about this, but I fear that Bush & Blair have messed things up so much that the Iraqis will elect someone who hates the US and its allies even more than Saddam Hussein at his most insane ever did.
I hope so too. By the time they can elect a leader AND our soldiers have come home, the Iraqis SHOULD be able to see the good we have done. Our troops probably won't leave until there is a stable, democratic government that has good, positive relations with the US. By that time, all the UNREPORTED good things we have been doing will have won over the MAJORITY of the Iraqi people. Or, that's at least what I hope for.

As for the overpopulation bit posted by Xiahou Liao:

You've made the right choice for the wrong reason. The dangers of overpopulation are currently not that dangerous. The world's birth rates are beginning to stabilize, and in some places, go under the stay even mark (thanks, at least in part, to our disregard for life at all stages). If you do the math, you may just find out that you could currently fit the whole world in Texas, an it would actually be less crowded (on average) than New York City is (on average). Just work with population densities and you can see that. So rooting for war to avoid overpopulation is... um... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif .

At least that is my opinion. I hope no one is offened by that. AND Xiahou Liao, you did say:


Quote[/b] ]Okay, I'm ready to get bashed for my words.


Techinically, you asked for it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Xiahou Liao]

It's cool, I respect people's opinions, so no matter how much I get bashed. I'll just smile. :p

Anyway, you know why the rates are going down? Violence is a main factor in America at least...

C'mon, I believe if Fate chose it, then fate gets it...I'm one of those people who've seen the light before and realized how hard it is to live the life, and how hard it is to teach people the way, so I chose something to believe in just...well, Someone who believes in something can defend it more strongly...you know?

Like STW warrior monks...

Anyway...

It's not like I'm saying to go around conquering every country though, and killing everyone. I'll use an example.

I don't care about the holocaust, you know why? I've seen more non-jewish people complain about the holocaust more than Jewish. Look, the jews lost an estimated 6 million during the war. 2 million were gased, 4 million starved. Most of the other 6 million died at the end of the war, when the Nazis DID give them the choice to stay or leave at the camps. Some did, those one survived when the Russians liberated them. ( For an account on this read Night...I think that's the title. ) My point is...

No one complains about the Six million deaths of the Chinese from Japanese Biological warfare and executions in only Three Months

That's bad, don't do that. o.o

Regular war is good...Genocide is bad. o.o

Edit: Oh I almost forgot, lol, Not all of the ones dead in the Holocaust were jews either. Most were though...and Hitler told the jews to leave his country, but they didn't...and he didn't start killing them until a jewish boy assassinated his Ambassador in France.

Oh and I know, It's off Topic slightly, sorry. X_e get me rambling and I ramble...

[Xiahou Liao]

The less crowded the better. Wh0a, don't forget China man, and I would've rather said put them all in Alaska...because Alaska is like. huge...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Seriously, my dad did the math one day a while back, I'll have to track down the numbers. Even including China. Remember, Texas is pretty big.

I personally find your disreagard for human life... disturbing. Do you not care that those are human beings you are speaking of in reagards to limiting the population by violence... the Holocaust was a terrible thing. Hitler was a monster. He killed way more than 6 million Jews and the millions of others he didn't like (including Christians who spoke out against what he was doing). He used the V-1 and V-2 bombs against English citizens. In most countries he conquered, death was used extensively to enforce the Nazi rule. Hitler also caused the death of the millions of Russians, Germans, English, Americans, and other soldiers who fought in WW2. Tell me that the millions of Russians and Germans who died on the cold Eastern Front was part of a good regular war. How is the Holocaust not a genocidal war (since that is what it was)???

And just because one Jew killed one of Hitler's staff doesn't justify an attempt to purge a continent of a specific religious or ethnic group.

And the Japanese were butchers, and the Chinese became butchers (or at least the Communist ones).

And I'm going to have to find out the leading casue for population growth stabiliztion.

[Lt Nevermind]

Wait a moment... if I understood correctly Xiahou Liao, you support the war because the world is overpopulated and war kills people?? I'm sorry to tell you that the war in Iraq 'unfortunately' only killed 10,000 - 30,000 people (this far). Here's an idea, why don't you simply carpet bomb Manhattan, Shanghai or anything similar? You'd get far more results faster, easier and without the billions of dollars which those troops in Iraq are sucking from the US budget every month.

[Accounting Troll]

Xiahou Liao, have you heard of Reverend Malthus, a 19th century economist who argued that the human population will keep on growing until it reaches a level where further population growth becomes impossible because people are starving? You sound as pessimistic as he ever was

If humanity wanted to, with our current technology we could arrange matters so that the world could support a far larger population than the current one through sustainable farming. Currently farmers in the European Union are being paid not to grow food while people are dying of starvation in Africa. Utter madness

HIV is responsible for the reduction in the rate of population growth in much of Africa. The devestation caused by HIV is already far worse than that of the Black Death in 14th century Europe.

In Western Europe the declining birth rate is due to several factors:

Television - old people often complain that they made their own entertainment when they were young... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Contraception.

The Welfare State - it is no longer necessary to have lots of children so that they will support you in your dotage.

The relatively high cost of raising a child in a modern consumerism driven society.

[Papewaio]

The Day After Tommorrow half the the USA population is possibly wiped out.

That takes it back a mere fifty years to WWII.

Iraq is losing less people now then it did under Saddam... so if you want population culling then allow despots.

If you want really effective population controls allow education for women. There is a strong inverse relation to the amount of education to the amount of children spawned.

[Scoony J. Delvio]

Quote[/b] ]Reverend Malthus, a 19th century economist who argued that the human population will keep on growing until it reaches a level where further population growth becomes impossible because people are starving?

umm... ok but the last page has been an assumption that he was right. Is there really any evidence that he is, other than guesswork?

1. What does this have to do with how justified the Iraq war was.

2. Why are you all assuming that he was right?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Not all of us have said that Malthus was right...

Malthus' Doctrine applies more to animals and plants than to humans, because we've managed to conrtol our populations through more ways than war, starvation, and disease (though there are arguments to be had over at least some of our population controls in use today).

This applies to Iraq only because Xiahou Liao brought it up as his reason for supporting the war in Iraq. In his original post, he said, among other things:


Quote[/b] ]Yes the war is justified. I voted 100%. You know why? Fate controls everything. Not many people believe in fate anymore, but trust me. If there wasn't this war, the future consequences bring about the reign of overpopulation. It's population control people...

Just imagine, if no war was ever fought...

How many people would live on this world right now? A lot...

It'd be so crowded...

And Xiahou Liao hasn't gotten back to any of our arguments yet...

I like arguments...

[Jason the Absentminded]

Personally, having close associates who fled Iraq in the mid to late nineties, I feel the war is necessary. I spoke to them a lot about Saddam and the first Gulph War. Their biggest dissapointment was that we didn't continue and take Saddam out of power. The are very appreciative of our efforts in the latest war and some have now returned to be reunited with family and friends. Despots and tyrants need to be removed from power, imho.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yeah, those opposed to the war often site the prisoner abuse scandal as one way in which we were wrong and Saddam was not so bad. But that's just ridiculus(spelling?). Saddam was so bad... I mean, to compare our troops to Saddam, even our *very* few bad ones... Just appalling. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked.gif

[Jason the Absentminded]

About the prisoner abuses... Unfortunately, that's another one of the many negatives of war. Even the good people have a tendancy to bring out their dark side. War brings out the very worst in humanity. The prisoner abuse is deffinately uncalled for, and certainly an embarasment to us and our allies. The fact that isn't as bad as what Saddam's regime did doesn't make it any more acceptable.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Doesn't make it acceptable - you are absolutely correct. And the soldiers responsible should be court marshalled and dishonorably discharged. But as a whole, I am 100% sure I'd rather be a citizen of Iraq now than when Saddam was in power (assuming I would not be in the Sunni Triangle O' Death, which may or may not have to be carpet bombed... Kidding. Somewhat.)

[Jason the Absentminded]

I agree with you. I would rather live there now, than under Saddam. Here's hoping for a bright freedom filled future in Iraq. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[HARALD THE RUTHELESS!]

The war had justification for certain people like republicans. If I agree with the war, I say no.

Its simple. Go to war and win, the people will love you. Problem is, the whole plan backfired like Vietnam.

The war had no ethical justification but wars seldom need any justifiaction, they're just like everything else, politics.

Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz screwed up big time.

[Plantagenet]

A complicated question.

Regardless of everything else I might have thought, I certainly wasn't sorry to see the ol' Saddamite in court this morning.

Can't wait to see Chemical Ali up there...get the popcorn...

[Serpent]

Okei...I have no Idea where to start... Finland yeee..

Must calm down...must.

First I have to shock you . I WOULD RATHER LIVE IRAQ UNDER SADDAM'S RULE THAN IN CURRENT IRAQ. Did that do it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Still Im not joking....I admit Saddam was evil man that did use really horrifying methods against any kind of enemy. But country was safe to live actually Iraq was much safer than it is now... and we should also remember that it was not only Saddam who made those horrific acts there was also baath-party

[cutepuppy]

Quote[/b] (Accounting Troll @ June 28 2004,23:02)]Xiahou Liao, have you heard of Reverend Malthus, a 19th century economist who argued that the human population will keep on growing until it reaches a level where further population growth becomes impossible because people are starving? You sound as pessimistic as he ever was
I'm afraid more people are dying from starvation and related diseases than there are from war other forms of violence.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

HARALD THE RUTHELESS

Quote[/b] ]The war had no ethical justification but wars seldom need any justifiaction, they're just like everything else, politics.
Yeah, how dare we removea dictator who butchered his own people. I mean, that just CAN'T be right.

Quote[/b] ]Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz screwed up big time.
According to the news, anyway. I agree, it would have been nice if all the extremists just surrendered and everyone cooperated, but it is not as bad (outside of certain areas) as the media is making it out.

Serpent

Quote[/b] ]Point is that even when Saddam and baath party ware despotic rulers and responsible of killing 1000000 or more.
I have no accurate figures. Country was safe to live.
Yeah, all those countries with despotic mass-murderers tend to be pretty safe. I mean, when you're not allowed to breath out of line under punishment of death for you, your family, and most of your neighbors, there aren't going to be many killers roaming the streets, right?

Quote[/b] ]There is also good reason why some people think that Saddam was best ruler ever. Well to them he was and they actually didint know anything about Killed political prisoners.My friend has been Iraq and some parts actually was quite luxurious. And people live fine and safe luxorious live.
So when Iraqis dance in the street when their former dictator is captured, that is a ... sign of sorrow that their best despot ever has been captured? And sure, there are always good places in every country, but I think that luxury takes second place to freedom from a tyrannical, bloodthirsty madman, right?

[Lt Nevermind]

You meen trade blockade = kauppasaarto, Serpent?

First of all, I'd also rather live in an Iraq lead by Saddam than the US _IFFFFFF_ I were a sunni(sp) muslim. If I were a shia or especially a kurd I'd be damn glad that Saddam was out of the picture.

I see Saddam as a certain 'wannabe unifier' of the (muslim, sunni) middle east, a bit like Nasser from Egypt in the 60's. Saddam however didn't get any support from other countries (ahem, I reeeally wonder why...) and was left alone in Iraq. It's his own fault that he went to war against Iran and Kuwait and his actions against Iraqiis are unjustified.

The US war is a different matter however. Going into war strictly because you 'dislike' someone is ILLEGAL by far, a democracy should know. The whole concept of having a war to prevent a war is completely nuts and ILLEGAL. Think if India would attack Pakistan to 'prevent' Pakistan of attacking Kashmir, how about South Korea attacking North Korea just to prevent a possible war.

The two arguments for the war _before_ the war: 1)Saddam has got ample of chemical and biological weapons ready to use and an active program to develope nuclear weapons. He is forming a serious threat to the United States of America 2)Saddam has connections to the so called 'Al-Qaeda terrorist network' and is possibly/likely involved in 9/11. The US has a right to get him into court for his actions against the US.


1)Like we have seen and stated for soooooo many times 'after' the war that there where NO weapons of mass destruction what so ever to be found in Iraq. The mobile laboratories dissappeared magically when the US and UK set foot in Iraq The only illegal weapons found this far are about ten units of missiles that had a radius of about 100 miles more than what the UN had allowed. The nuclear program had been shut a decade ago due to financial problems. In its current condition before the war, Iraq was able to barely harm itself, being in a trade blockade. Iraq was in no condition to go to war against any of its neighbouring countries nevermind the US.

2)First of all, what is a world wide Al-Qaeda terrorist network? I guess most of you hadn't even heard the word 'Al-Qaeda' before 9/11 (I hadn't IIRC). Osama was probably familiar. Suddenly we hear that there is a world wide network of eval people that are a foe of democracy and make bombings just to terrorise. The madrid bombs goes to Al-Qaedas CV, same with Istanbul ones, all guerillas in Chechenya are members of Al-Qaeda, the whole Palestinian 'goverment' is involved with Al-Qaeda, anyone missing?. Al-Qaeda here and there, I'm sick of that word in the news, everything has always something to do with Al-¤%&@£ - I dont buy that BS. Anyone who conciders Saddam to be a 'hater of the Western way of life' is wrong. As you probably know he was infact a fan of a luxurious way of life, he was anything but a fundamentalist. Before he was isolated from the world community (for reason) he enjoyed having tours in European cities and to spend money on EVERYTHING. Saddam was a consumer to the last bit, he made even his weapon arsenal to be as international as any western city in nationalities. Dont ask me why Osama has such opinions about the US (particulary), but Saddam didn't share them (IMO of course). And as has been shown, or should say as has not been shown, there were no connections to be found between Saddam and Al-you-know-what.


So, what's left with the arguments (that is with the *cough* legitime *cough* ones)? None that I come up with http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Its funny, the whole UN thing. Why did they not care that Saddam was hiding (or least acting like he was) things that we now seem to think were not WMD??? Did the UN forget their own resolutions regarding a failure to comply in allowing inspectors to look at EVERYTHING???

And about this ILLEGAL this and ILLEGAL that; what are you talking about? What law says a country can't defend themselves? If a nation saw an enemy army marching towards its borders, the first nation would probably work to preempt said army before it could damage the first nations property, correct? And while the situation in Iraq did not have that same immediate-ness quality, I believe it was reasonable to suspect (from Iraqi unwillingness to cooperate and from past expressions of having no love for the USA) that Iraq was working towards, if it did not have, WMDs and that it would use them against the US, either directly or indirectly. There's the added bonus that Saddam was a terrible leader, maybe a Nasser-Hitler cross. I just to see why everybody else is crying so hard over his removal, I guess.

[Serpent]

I say it again Saddam Hussein wasn't best possible leader... Still not all of Iraqis hated him... and yes we are talking about Iraq not about is despotic country good place to live... Because it might be if you are leaders sonny side... Also I should say that it wasn't just some people... Im talking about towns that had parks ,children's playing outside ,library's ,Streets buildings that are not just about collapsing andliving in city... not just in some
bombard ruins and hastily build ed houses.

everywhere was shortage of medical supply's but that was actually because we did UN UK USA...did not let the be...
And please don't tell me that it is because this madman...
WE do have plenty of madmen in this blue planet.


Lainaa[/b] ]Yeah, all those countries with despotic mass-murderers tend to be pretty safe. I mean, when you're not allowed to breath out of line under punishment of death for you, your family, and most of your neighbors, there aren't going to be many killers roaming the streets, right?


Think about if you would have chance live in Iraq where you have some money house job and just enough food to survive... You see news you read papers ...to you Iraq is center of the world and around you there is peaceful silence...Still your wife is sick and doctor says there is no medical supply's to treat him....Next day you read from papers that Saddam has had negotiated whit Iran to give some medical supply's...During next day doctor smiles treats your wife and you walk by magnificent Saddam statue.
Then you read about Americans that are saying that your Saddam Hussein your leader is evil.Come on live is getting better every day... This man would love Saddam Hussein and hate America.

At the same time happens some thin that he docent know about Saddam Hussein is killing Kurds and making them forget thinking about freedom. At the same time they are wanting it more and are actually ready to do anything to get it. Next thing what he does is killing political prisoners and trades some that he could get some medical supply's.

Now what about northern Ireland few years ago...or what about tsetshenia or...Spain ...Morocco ,Algeria ,Nigeria Burma...America just compare murder rates/population whit Canada or Germany... Now I just may have offended some one so I have to say that every country have flaws... But when you are living in country where somebody is killing 400 people per day you just may not know about it.

It is wonderful live in country where is freedom of speech... But what if you just think you have it... or you just love your leader blindly so much that someone must be just stupid ignorant greedy or something like this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif .

Now think that about that same man Who now have lost his son, wife, house,dog and almost everything that he owns because one bomb...Same man lost his friends other relatives and mayby even job... when he was working in factory. Same man found shelter from friends place... Now somebody has his friends house and killed his friend... Police wont do nothing because he says it was his home in a first place.
Then you see that magnificent statue shattered. Can you say that this man is happy. Also he is not only one. These man also judge terrorism and actually would kill any terrorist that they could find... Problem is some of them think that USA is just another terrorist croup.

Right now things are little better for this man. And now he has new friend but they hated Saddam... Still they hate Coalition more.This is because he wasn't only one who suffered from war and he is not only one who is still suffering more than when Saddam was ruling.

[Serpent]

By the way I voted 10-20%... Because in the long run I think this hurt ed more Iraqis than Saddam could have...But there is so much good things too that has happened or may happen. In this case war was not solution.
But sometimes future great nation must suffer so they can prosper later.

Cheers mates..Im goin to sauna whit my loyal mäyräkoira http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/barrel.gif 12-pack and I wont drink all of..just some..

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Quote[/b] ]In this case war was not solution.

Then what was?

[Serpent]

I have no Idea... CIA has now rights to kill anyone... on the other hand killing Saddam Hussein would have meant Civil war or new leader from baath party . Others may try also take leadership in Iraq...Still result would have been Anarchy. Or let the people in Iraq step forward and take what belongs to them...This is not something that should have been far lookt.Simply Iraqi people know how they could do it and many ware ready to do it...
again total anarchy... But this kind of civil war is healthier to nation in the long run. We have many European country's that proves it.

But if you think that war was necessary I think you are wrong... To me it wasn't. And if war itself was necessary but not in Iraq... I most say that there is better targets and despotic rulers that are far more evil.

I think this is to grim...lets but smiley http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[HARALD THE RUTHELESS!]

Quote[/b] (Alexander the Pretty Good @ July 01 2004,17:16)]
Quote[/b] ]In this case war was not solution.

Then what was?
Have you been playing MTW too much? There are other sollutions than war, you know.

NO WMD has been found. Fact. WMD was just an incentive for the Bush administration to go to war for political gains.

Due to the wave of terrorism the invasion released. Iraq is a worse place now than it was under Saddam.

Its just me but I dont think Bush agenda was to crusade against evil dictatorships when he invaded Iraq. The Bush family certainly never cared for the Iraqis before, why should they now?

[Lt Nevermind]

Quote[/b] (Alexander the Pretty Good @ July 01 2004,21:04)]Its funny, the whole UN thing. Why did they not care that Saddam was hiding (or least acting like he was) things that we now seem to think were not WMD??? Did the UN forget their own resolutions regarding a failure to comply in allowing inspectors to look at EVERYTHING???

And about this ILLEGAL this and ILLEGAL that; what are you talking about? What law says a country can't defend themselves? If a nation saw an enemy army marching towards its borders, the first nation would probably work to preempt said army before it could damage the first nations property, correct? And while the situation in Iraq did not have that same immediate-ness quality, I believe it was reasonable to suspect (from Iraqi unwillingness to cooperate and from past expressions of having no love for the USA) that Iraq was working towards, if it did not have, WMDs and that it would use them against the US, either directly or indirectly. There's the added bonus that Saddam was a terrible leader, maybe a Nasser-Hitler cross. I just to see why everybody else is crying so hard over his removal, I guess.

Quote[/b] ]Its funny, the whole UN thing. Why did they not care that Saddam was hiding (or least acting like he was) things that we now seem to think were not WMD??? Did the UN forget their own resolutions regarding a failure to comply in allowing inspectors to look at EVERYTHING???


The UN forget their resolutions? When the UN was kicked out of Iraq ('97 IIRC) one of the leading inspectors (forgot his name) evaluated that they destroyed _at least_ 90% of all WMD's and other forbidden weapons that Iraq had. The most were destroyed at the beginning of the 90's and there wasn't frankly anything left to destroy. So good by for UN since.


Quote[/b] ]And about this ILLEGAL this and ILLEGAL that; what are you talking about? What law says a country can't defend themselves? If a nation saw an enemy army marching towards its borders, the first nation would probably work to preempt said army before it could damage the first nations property, correct?

Correct, if you see someone marching towards your borders by all means prepare for it. Would you please tell me how exactly Iraq prepared to attack the US? There should be plenty of evidence if you want a right to declare war, right? You're trying to say that an offensive war can be legal??


Quote[/b] ]And while the situation in Iraq did not have that same immediate-ness quality, I believe it was reasonable to suspect (from Iraqi unwillingness to cooperate and from past expressions of having no love for the USA) that Iraq was working towards, if it did not have, WMDs and that it would use them against the US, either directly or indirectly.

Unwillingness? After kicking the UN out, Iraq showed his @$$ towards the US and re-inviting them once the US began to be aggressive. How nice of Saddam. Forgotten the guy called Hans Blix? Here's a quote from him:I don't understand how someone can have a 100% surance that Iraq has WMD's but a 0% surance where they are located.

I don't really understand you with 'working towards', if the coaltion had found _any_ proof that Iraq had WMD's or was 'working towards' them, they would've shouted it to the media.

LOOK, WMD's are finally found, YIPPEE, the war was justified after all
Or then not.

Blix found nothing, the US found nothing, there was NOTHING.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasarno.gif

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Serpent

Quote[/b] ]CIA has now rights to kill anyone...
Really. I didn't give them that rihgt. I doubt that you gave them that right. Nobody else to my knowledge gave them that right. What did you mean when you said that?

Quote[/b] ] on the other hand killing Saddam Hussein would have meant Civil war or new leader from baath party . Others may try also take leadership in Iraq...Still result would have been Anarchy. Or let the people in Iraq step forward and take what belongs to them...This is not something that should have been far lookt.Simply Iraqi people know how they could do it and many ware ready to do it...
again total anarchy... But this kind of civil war is healthier to nation in the long run. We have many European country's that proves it.

Well, I doubt killing Saddam would have been a good thing. First of all, all of Europe and much of the rest of the world would still be mad with us. Second, the civil war that could have broken out would probably ened in a theocratic Islamic state - worse than Saddam. They would be even less friendly towards us then before killing Saddam. Plus, Saddam's sons, the likely candidates for next ruler, were sickos like their dad. Again, not much better.

HARALD THE RUTHELESS

Quote[/b] ]Have you been playing MTW too much? There are other sollutions than war, you know.

I may have been playing too much MTW, but in this case, the other options were pretty much exhausted. At least the good ones. Sure, we could have ignored Iraq, but that is dumb. We could have put more sanctions on, but those only starved Iraqi children, not Iraqi rulers. And no one else wanted to do anything (UN = useless).

Quote[/b] ]Its just me but I dont think Bush agenda was to crusade against evil dictatorships when he invaded Iraq. The Bush family certainly never cared for the Iraqis before, why should they now?
Did you forget something? Gulf War I? The Bush family certainly cared during that little war (and Bush senior could've gotten Saddam and prevented this, but that's not the point). It would seem that the Bushes cared about Iraqis, quite a bit in fact.

Lt Nevermind

Quote[/b] ]You're trying to say that an offensive war can be legal??

Going back to my example about the enemy army marching to your border. What if the only way to stop said army is to move troops into the enemy country? To utilize a vital choke-point to gain an advantage? To have a hope of stopping that army?

Quote[/b] ]The UN forget their resolutions? When the UN was kicked out of Iraq ('97 IIRC) one of the leading inspectors (forgot his name) evaluated that they destroyed _at least_ 90% of all WMD's and other forbidden weapons that Iraq had. The most were destroyed at the beginning of the 90's and there wasn't frankly anything left to destroy. So good by for UN since.
But the Iraqis still KICKED OUT the UN people. It was more forced than if the UN people just said, OK our job is done. Especially if there was 10% of the WMD not acounted for.

And I never said I was 100% sure that there were WMDs. I don't recall if Bush said 100% that there were WMD. It was REASONABLE SUSPICION.

And by the way, hindsight is 20/20.

[Serpent]

Lainaa[/b] ]Serpent
Quote
CIA has now rights to kill anyone...

Really. I didn't give them that right. I doubt that you gave them that right. Nobody else to my knowledge gave them that right. What did you mean when you said that?


About This CIA thing Im not 100% sure...maybe like70%
I remember article about this and I fonded headline from Internet.

Was it during or before Afghanistan crusade I don't know.
and have they canceled this I dont know.

And whups.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif Did I say this
Lainaa[/b] ] on the other hand killing Saddam Hussein would have meant Civil war or new leader from baath party . Others may try also take leadership in Iraq...Still result would have been Anarchy. Or let the people in Iraq step forward and take what belongs to them...This is not something that should have been far lookt.Simply Iraqi people know how they could do it and many ware ready to do it...
again total anarchy... But this kind of civil war is healthier to nation in the long run. We have many European country's that proves it.
Alexander the Pretty Good Killing Saddam part I think we think pretty much same way.Damn I cant remember ..too much drinking http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/barrel.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/barrel.gif and more.
Still no hangover http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif just memory loss and scar in my hand.

But people ware ready to take over in Iraq and if they would have done it it would have more healthier than todays situation where people gets it from someone they dont trust....we all hope they takes it as an kind gift and whit open mind for better future.


Happy birthday for....me? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-party2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif jee

[Xiahou Liao]

Sorry, I forgot about this topic. Lol...

If you do not live in the U.S. ignore some of this post.

Look:

There will always be protaganist and antagonist. Why even bother arguing about something we can not change? Our country is at war deal with it.

The country was built on war.

Not god, I hate when they say it was built on god.

It was built on the blood and sweat of men young and old. We are a violent country, We have to deal with it. I support my country 100%.

and you have to remember, the media only shows the bad parts of Iraq. They don't show the good parts, because that wouldn't be too juicy for ratings. It is the same in reverse to the Arabics. It's the media's fault

Oh...and I do have a disregard for human life. Unfortunately, For great men to rise, the Little men die somewhere. It is the rotation of the world...and I'm not going to defy the stars, why? Because they'll twist and make you pay if you do.

[G-Con Daniel]

I think this war was just for the oil... nothing else.

[Jihad2Death]

We can`t go and invade a country just because we don`t like the leader.What's next we invade Cuba? People want to blame the CIA,NSA,and other departments,and while the do hold some of the blame,they shouldn`t get most of it. Let me give you a hypothetical that explains my point of view.Let's say you decide to hit golf balls in the back yard(lets assume you have a HUGE back yard)You hire the best golf pro in the world to help you with your game.So you and the golf pro go out back,and he tells you that with the club you have chosen,the MAX you can hit the ball is 150yrds.Now the next house from you is 175yrd,so there is no way you can hit the next house.So you drive away and hit the ball 180yrds into a window.Now who has to pay for the window? Yes the golf pro's gave you bad info,but its you who decides what to do with the info.Same with Bush,he may have gotten bad info,but he decided what to do with that bad info.HE DECIDED

[Xiahou Liao]

We shape the future, we rape the world.
- The Kovenant, The Human Abstract


'nuff said.

[Despot of the English]

Quote[/b] (G-Con Daniel @ July 11 2004,18:50)]I think this war was just for the oil... nothing else.
Nah. It was a war fought on flawed intelligence and a need for the revenge.

[Inuyasha12]

Either way that country won't stay like that too long, there are too many differences, and hate between those people. It should not have been a country in the first place, as soon as we leave(u.s.) the whole place will go crazy.

I say leave and let them sort out their own problems with their own lives. Too many american, and british lives have been lost already

Oh and take the oil too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif