war in iraq Options

[onenonly101]

But protesting was a potent strategy used by Ghandi and MLK. It's not as useless as you may think.

the thing is their protesting was against things going on in their country, not someplace else

[Spirited Away]

I don't think protesting should be taken so lightly, after all, it was a tatic used by Civil Movement leaders (and look how we turned out today). During the Vietnam War, America was in an uproar because of protestors. I think they made a huge difference in history.

Ah, I do agree that turning Iraq into a democracy is quite far-fetched, and that Bush is way over his head, but that doesn't mean I won't support my country. Iraq's history is filled with tyranny and I don't think that it will end even with this war... but I rather not focus on what this war has to do with Iraq, but rather what it has to do with terrorism.

[onenonly101]

I don't believe the protestors had anything to do with us pulling out of Vietnam. The president and his advisors do not care about the American people and what we are doing when it pertains to much greater things as war in other countries. They care about themselves. We pulled out because the loss was much greater than the chance of winning.
Protesting for things happening within the country does work because as you said The Civil Rights Movement. But when it is against things we are doing outside of the country I don't believe it affects the decisions our authorties take because they are thinking in the bigger picture rather than what we are thinking wich is the now and not of the effects.
The thing to me is it doesn't have to do with terrorism. That is what we are told on the surface, but we were going to go for Iraq no matter what.

[tkproduce]

but I rather not focus on what this war has to do with Iraq, but rather what it has to do with terrorism.

can you give us a brief summary on what this war has to do with terrorism?

[Spirited Away]

the thing is their protesting was against things going on in their country, not someplace else

I don't quite understand what you're saying. People all over the world protested US going to war with Iraq, and they were protesting something that wasn't their country's problem and there has been many other protests as such.

People protested in Spain and after the bombing of Madrid, Prime Ministry candidates knew what the people of Spain wanted because of those protests and made promises to withdraw troops to gain votes. Protesting isn't a right confined to US only.

[onenonly101]

No that is not what I'm saying. I 'm saying when people protest against things in places other than where they live it is not successful

[Spirited Away]

I don't believe the protestors had anything to do with us pulling out of Vietnam.

I think that's a matter of opinion. It's hard to work underpressure you know? If any President wants to be reelected, he must win the favor of the people. Well, how do you suppose he'd win, if everyone is protesting what he's doing?

can you give us a brief summary on what this war has to do with terrorism?

Sure. Though I think it's already so obvious. Here's my take on it:

War in Iraq or War Against Terrorism. Many would think that the two names is for two different things, but I think that Iraq's involvement with terrorism is a very good reason for war. Aside from other theories (oil, Bush jr wanting to finish what Daddy has started), I think America is basically, showing potential terrorists a good example of what it'll be like if they mess with US again.

*Then again, I haven't been following the news, so I can't further that arguement. I try argue based on facts, but I'm limitted to them since I don't watch the news...

[Spirited Away]

No that is not what I'm saying. I 'm saying when people protest against things in places other than where they live it is not successful

It was sucessful in Spain~~~ because people were protesting for Spanish troops to be withdrawed, and it worked.

I still don't get it?

[*Kathleen*]

These are my feelings about the war...

We were going to go to war NO MATTER WHAT. DOi agree with it no, but it was going to happen. Do i agree with the so-called reason, no because this is what i believe: Bush wants to finish what his father started, have control of the oil feilds, and remove Suddam from power. He is not doing this to free the Iraqi people, he don't give crap about what is happening to them. But let me clarify, it is not JUST Bush, it is his cabinent including his advisors and our representatives, that we vote into office who have voted ofr the war. We need to pull out right now. There have been so many casualities since the so-called major combat has ended a year ago on both sides. Most of the people dying have nothing to do with the war, in the aspect of being rebels and what not. These are civilians we are killing, and they are killing our soldiers. The thing is we need to get out now. Bush said he wanted to take Suddam and he did, he nows says he wants to set up a democratic government. That ain't gonna happen. The thing is it comes down to how dare we tell them what to do with there country and fight thenm for power over THEIR country. If these people will remember when we wanted independence from Great Britain, we said they had no authority over us and we should be free. It seems as though we are now "Great Britain" and they are "America".
That is just half of my opinion. About protesting, what in the world do protestors of the war really think that Bush will all of a sudden call a cease fire and pull out because of protestors over here?!?! We have too much freedom in America cuz if this was Nigeria there would be no talk of protesting in the streets, your behind would be shot before you stepped onto the street

Okay, so let's leave their government in complete chaos and let another dictator arise, just so we can come back later, right? That's smart. Another thing - you can't compare Great Britain and America with America and Iraq. They're too different of cases. America wasn't in complete chaos, nor were there people such as Saddam (or his followers in this case) that wanted complete power, and were corruptive. The only time there was conflict between America and Great Britain was because they didn't allow them to practice whatever religion they wanted and because they were taxing them far too much. We're not taxing Iraqis, are we? I didn't think so. We're not imposing a tax on them, are we? Nothing I've heard of.

[onenonly101]

I think that's a matter of opinion. It's hard to work underpressure you know? If any President wants to be reelected, he must win the favor of the people. Well, how do you suppose he'd win, if everyone is protesting what he's doing?

The thing is, the same people protesting him are the same people who in November are going to vote for him. Plus alot of people are not registered to vote and that could be half or most of the percentage of the protestors so they couldn't vote anyways

There will always be terrorist. They don't care if America is going after some terrorist places, these people are insane they will die for what they believe in and absolutely nothing will stop them.

[*Kathleen*]

The thing is, the same people protesting him are the same people who in November are going to vote for him. Plus alot of people are not registered to vote and that could be half or most of the percentage of the protestors so they couldn't vote anyways

There will always be terrorist. They don't care if America is going after some terrorist places, these people are insane they will die for what they believe in and absolutely nothing will stop them.

So we should just give up? Is that what you're implying?

[onenonly101]

Okay, so let's leave their government in complete chaos and let another dictator arise, just so we can come back later, right? That's smart. Another thing - you can't compare Great Britain and America with America and Iraq. They're too different of cases. America wasn't in complete chaos, nor were there people such as Saddam (or his followers in this case) that wanted complete power, and were corruptive. The only time there was conflict between America and Great Britain was because they didn't allow them to practice whatever religion they wanted and because they were taxing them far too much. We're not taxing Iraqis, are we? I didn't think so. We're not imposing a tax on them, are we? Nothing I've heard of.

Their country was already in complete chaos. I'm saying WE don't have the authority to tell them how to run their country because we are going to impose or views of how they should run their country and those views are not what they want. I was using the case of Great Britain and America because that is what it will become if we continue to stay in their country and impose our views onto them

[Spirited Away]

So we should just give up? Is that what you're implying? 

I hope that's not the case...

The thing is, the same people protesting him are the same people who in November are going to vote for him.

It's agreed that not many people are registered to vote, but that doesn't mean they "couldn't" like you have said, but rather, they chose not to. But I don't understand what you mean, because if I don't like a current President, I wouldn't vote for him at the booth, I'd vote for the other guy who's running.

There will always be terrorist. They don't care if America is going after some terrorist places, these people are insane they will die for what they believe in and absolutely nothing will stop them.

That sounds a bit depressing. I wouldn't want to live that kind of life, so that why I'm for fighting them and making the world a safer place.

[onenonly101]

So we should just give up? Is that what you're implying?

Why try and risk lives if the outcome will be the same? I know you are going to say then they will come and launch more attacks on us. We need to focus on beefing up our security inside the country, not go start other problems.

[Spirited Away]

I was using the case of Great Britain and America because that is what it will become if we continue to stay in their country and impose our views onto them

Uh, not in this day and age. There's a thing called NATO, and even if America wants to turn Iraq into a mini-America, NATO wouldn't allow it.

[onenonly101]

It's agreed that not many people are registered to vote, but that doesn't mean they "couldn't" like you have said, but rather, they chose not to. But I don't understand what you mean, because if I don't like a current President, I wouldn't vote for him at the booth, I'd vote for the other guy who's running.

When voting in politics you chose the lesser of the two evils. For example in this election Kerry changes his mind as the wind blows and contradicts every thing he says, he is also a liar. Bush in some eyes made the wrong decision of going to war. In my eyes Bush is the lesser of the two evils and i would vote for him rather than having someone who can't make up his mind.

[Spirited Away]

Why try and risk lives if the outcome will be the same?

How do you know what the outcome would be the same? What is "the same"?

We need to focus on beefing up our security inside the country, not go start other problems.

*Sigh*, I agree there. But Defense isn't always the best game play. Without Offense, we're kind of sitting ducks waitng to be shot... again.

[onenonly101]

True, it isn't but if we are secure enough nothing would be able break thorugh.

The same outcome is millions of casualities

There are always ways around obstacles like NATO, when you want to get things done your way

[Spirited Away]

If America decides to turn Iraq into mini-America by way of imposing unfair tax/religion/way of life, then I'd change my mind. But since I doubt that will ever happen because America is dependent on trade with nations belonging in NATO. I rather think US wants to be friendly with other countries...

That's where I don't like Bush much, he's not into playing nice with others. But like you, I'd still vote for him instead of Kerry.

[*Kathleen*]

If America decides to turn Iraq into mini-America by way of imposing unfair tax/religion/way of life, then I'd change my mind. But since I doubt that will ever happen because America is dependent on trade with nations belonging in NATO. I rather think US wants to be friendly with other countries...

That's where I don't like Bush much, he's not into playing nice with others. But like you, I'd still vote for him instead of Kerry.

Haha you took the words right out of my mouth.

Another thing, as much as we don't want millions of lives lost for what seems to not have purpose, war is the only way things are solved at times. Look at all the big wars - they were all about freedom. Freedom, unfortunately, comes at that cost.

[likeachild]

exactly. nothing in the world is free (except forgiveness)

just pray for the soldiers

Attached File(s)

 030620fallen.jpg ( 14.78K ) Number of downloads: 0

 

[Spirited Away]

Freedom, unfortunately, comes at that cost.

and that basically sums up what I believe in while arguing for this war.

[onenonly101]

yeah i understand what everyone is saying, and yeah freedom isn't free even though there isn't a thing as actual freedom, but there is always a limit to everything.

[tkproduce]

ok, this war against "terrorism" - wouldn't getting rid of some just cause the uprise of others, not making this world any safer than it is today? Say the Allies capture a dozen Alqaeda (damn it, can't spell) suspects. What are their children going to do? They'll probably join a terrorist organisation too so they can take revenge on the Americans who took their fathers. So unless you can get rid of all of them, they'll keep on appearing. It's more likely that the American troops being there has just aroused their anger. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was another major attack in a city in the States soon.

[*kryogenix*]

ok, this war against "terrorism" - wouldn't getting rid of some just cause the uprise of others, not making this world any safer than it is today? Say the Allies capture a dozen Alqaeda (damn it, can't spell) suspects. What are their children going to do? They'll probably join a terrorist organisation too so they can take revenge on the Americans who took their fathers. So unless you can get rid of all of them, they'll keep on appearing. It's more likely that the American troops being there has just aroused their anger. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was another major attack in a city in the States soon.

usually when a senior member of an organization is killed or captured, it's a blow to the moral of that organization. if the important members are killed, the group would have a harder time functioning. there would be some small suicide bombings and stuff, but no real well planned attacks like 9/11.

I'm not expecting an attack on American soil anytime soon.