Discussion in 'Washington, DC' started by Darth_Stalker, Jan 27, 2003.
So if there are anti-war people is there a group known as the "pro-war" people?
Yeah, I always wonder about that. Like when someone asks a person why he/she is against it, the response is 'because I hate war'. Well, does anyone really LIKE war?
There are very few people who actually "like" war and there is no "pro-war" just like there no "pro abortion" you are either "pro-life" or "pro-choice". I don't even know what the technical term for people like me is but I believe in the fighting not only for our freedom from other nations but also in keeping us safe from other dangers. Some of us feel compelled to stop things before they happen..to act rather than react. Though my views clearly put me in the minority according to the poll, I stand by them for they will remain my views until something significant changes them.
Let me give you all a good example.
On the show "Major Dad" the first episode a reporter came to talk with the Major. She asks why do we use force if we don't want war. He explained this way. He stood up and towered over her, a very frightening sight. He told her to attack him, and she said no. He asked why. she said it would be useless, because he was too strong. Thta is a show of force, which prevented an attack.
We have shown Iraq force. they didn't back down. the next step is to act. we have acted. He won't back down. The only step left is to take him down.
I don't like war. Many people die in War. But I will gladly go to war to keep the people of Amarica safe. It is my duty. It is what i volunteered for. I will gladly lay down my life so you don't have to.
The problem is that when people protest. They often single out service members. We don't make the desion. We go were we need too. the newxt time you want to protest. leave the servicemen alone. don't throw red paint on them or call them baby killers
OK I'm done now
We don't make the decisions, we enforce them. Would I go to a foriegn country and die to keep my son safe in America? Absolutely, I'll take the next flight over. Thinking that Saddam will just decide to give in is naive. He wants to take over the entire middle east for the purpose of controlling the majority of the world's oil and therefore the world economy. He hates America and will supply weapons to ANY terrorist that shares his views just to keep us too busy to stop him. When we say "No, nothing is worth going to war for," are we really thinking this through?
Now since it is a Star Wars forum we'll put it in yet another comparison that we are all familiar with. WHAT IF, the rebels had said:
Rebel 1: Gee that really sucks that the empire has built this weapon that can take out an entire planet and kill a bunch of innocent and unsuspecting people.
Rebel 2: Yeah, but what are you going to do.
Rebel 1: well, we could always attack them.
Rebel 2: But war is wrong people would die
Rebel 1: Hey look at this they just killed a few billion people and destroyed Alderan. I wonder if they are going to attack us next?
Rebel 2: I hope not, cause that would really suck.
Rebel 1: Maybe if we just give them time they will change their minds. Afterall, nobody else is rushing in to stop them why should we go bossing them around and telling them who they can and cannot destroy, they might kill us then.
Rebel 2: They might kill us anyway though...oh well, what are you going to do *shoulder shrug*
"Major Dad" ?
Ahh, but that's my point, too. In your example, you said "they just killed a few billion people and destroyed Alderan..." They DID something. What did Iraq do? As far as I know, nothing but build up a defence force. Have we seen anything that has made them an offensive threat, yet? No. That's what Stormin' Norman says in his interview - that he hasn't seen any evidence to support war, yet. There's also a Post article today saying that the Bush Administration is going to release some evidence. All I can say is, "Thank goodness!" We've only been asking for it for four months now.
I don't have a problem attacking a force that has shown that they are an agressor. I don't have a problem with showing force when it is warranted. I have a problem with being a bully - pushing nations around just because we're bigger and richer. Being a bully is just wrong.
Before I agree to any agressive action against Iraq, I want to see evidence that supports it. That evidence can't just be someone's word that Iraq isn't being cooperative. That wouldn't be evidence, that would be an excuse.
Comparing apples to apples, Iraq to Iraq, the big difference between the last time we did something and now is (a) that Kuwait was invaded and (b) they asked for our help. Neither of those things have happened this time. Currently all we have is the Bush administration shaking its collective fist in the air and Englands PM following along like a puppy.
BTW, war is politics. It has been since ancient Roman times.
OkI have always lived by the idea that as "heroes" we don't hit first. Being covert and persuasive yes but hitting first is scary. I want our country to be absolutely justified in striking. I never liked bullies i have been the victim of them many times I will be unhappy if we are just being a bully.
all this talk of fighting/not fighting makes my head spin. If we do go to war I pray that Tim and Roger are not deployed, that they are kept safe. I am a military brat and I remember how scary Desert Storm was, always wondering if my father or classmates would be sent over there. As a military brat, I was brought up to believe in supporting my country, and I am very grateful to the Servicemen like Tim and Roger for protecting our country. And it sucks that some protestors are harrassing the Armed Forces because they are doing their duty. It isn't right.
War is politics...hmmm, though wars have been fought in many names my conclusion has been that there are two common ingredients to every hostile conflict since Cain slew Able: greed and fear. Fear is almost always the reason the defenders are fighting...this time is an exception. We fear that these weapons will be used against us and so we are taking the fist strike. I suppose it would seem more heroic to let the others have the first strike, afterall we let the terrorist have the first strike 9-11-01. But I can't help but wonder how many will die with this first strike we let them have.
For now let's all agree to disagree and wait to see how much information can be revealed at this point. I understand that not all information can be given out as it might jeopardize our intelligence officers abroad and I hope the rest of you keep this in mind also. Well now I need to watch in State of the Union adress to see what comes out of this.
Edit: Thank you for your support Elizabeth.
I just want everyoneto know if war is what happens i am behind our guys 100% they are not the ones who make policy and I will support my country.I just like the facts man just the facts.
I wholeheartedly agree. If a war takes place, I will support the fighting men and women in the armed forces. I just want the war to be warranted. If it's not warranted, that won't undermine my support for the forces, it will just cement my harsh feelings for W and his policies.
Edit: due to several requests the contents of this post were removed.
I am sorry if any of my last reply had offended any body. I still agrre that we should go to war. And the President is doing great job.
It has come to my attention that there seems to be a larger than average liberal population among Star Wars fans. Three polls taken yesterday on the street showed that 63% - 66% of adult Americans support a war with Iraq at this time. Support for war has apparently increased dramatically lately and this poll did not represent the public opinion as well as I once thought it did.
With all due respect, tell that to the 750,000 people that marched past my hotel in London this past week. Granted, those are Londoners and, also granted, there were only 200,000 in New York, but both those things aside, pollsters can make numbers say anything they want.
I truly know this from experience. In college I was taking a marketing course. During the course we were supposed to write a report with statistics to back it up. I found there was no shortage of research to back up my argument. I also found there was a bit of research to dispute my argument. I conveniently left out the portions that didn't agree with my argument. This ain't no court of law, this is marketing. By the same token, it's not a court of law, that's a newspaper.
And don't try telling me that newspapers are supposed to be unbiased. Just pick up the Washington Times and the Washington Post on the same day some time and compare their reporting on the same issues. The times is staunchly Republican and the Post is very much a Dem. They do the same thing as everyone else: report on what their readers want to see.
What can we learn from this? Don't believe everything you read or hear. Listen to it, certainly, but assume that what you're hearing is biased - no matter the source. Assume that what they are saying is from a certain point of view (OB1 is cheering me on right now...) and that the "truth" lies somewhere closer to that gray area that is the middle-ground. The only way you can boil this down is to talk to everyone, especially the people you disagree with. Listen to them. Discuss with them. When you're done hearing and processing, you're closer to the truth.
Yes.....Just look at my signature.
Yes. But we should never have had to face this now. We should have taken Saddam out 12 years ago.