Enough of this Anti-War Bull

**TheRedGoblin** · September 05, 2005, 09:00 PM

I know this is not going change any of the uneducated Bush-Hater's mind and this might have been posted before, but I feel it time that the Anti-War in Iraq members be put on the spot.

And before I start I would like to Say in regard to another topic that once I graduate I will be joining the Marine's. The fact of conservatives not fight in the war is just plain bull.

What really disgust me is that so many of these Bush-Hating members is that they use the veil of morality to support their political views. Just come out in the open and be honest and say that I don't think its worth risking my life to free people I have never know, not that the war is about Oil ( which I have got to say make quite a deal of sense since gas prices are high than ever, if this was about oil don't you think thing might have gotten better by now with prices)

The Fact is that this war Is about terror and WMD. You claim that Iraq had nothing to do with this war ( though several of the (9/11 hijackers where Iraqi, but this is in this case does not matter) and we should have stayed in Afghanistan. How ever since when has then been a "War on Afghanistan", it was a war on........ say it people Terror. Where we ever attacked by the nation of Afghanistan, or..... Al Quieda....... who are terrorist. And do you not consider what Sadam had done to his own people terror, torture and in some case genocide.

You say that there where never WMD's, despite the facts. We have found the mass graves where Sadam had used Chemical Weapons on his own people, which by the way are considered to be WMD's ( in many cases are worse than Neucular weapon ). As for neucular weapons we have found that he had the capabilities of making them and I have always wondered how hard it would be to move any neucular weapons out of his country ( it's not as if any of his neighbors (i.e, Iran) would complain about have them, and he had quite a long warning as I recall. Finally we must remember who saw and gave thier consent for this action, seeing the same information as the conservatives ( Kerry). And if we used them on his own people don't tell me you honestly think we would not have used them on us if he had the chance.

Confronted with the facts many of you would now say what about other more dangerous nations with terrorist. You Bush-Haters are already complaing about the number of losses and how long it taking in Iraq. Do have the slightest clue of how many would die if we invaded say... North Korea. I admit I would like to see Kim Jong taken out, but if we left Iraq now what do you think would happen? As soon as we left the men who are now insurgents would have free reign and would take controll of the country, and we right back where we started with Sadam would'nt we. That is why we must see it out.

If some one like your beloved Clinton had done something abot this ( or if Senior Bush had finnished off Sadam while we where there) we probably would not have had 9/11 happen or any other of these Terrorist attacks happen. But people never learn from history and history reapeats it self. We should look at so many other wars... like god forbid I would say WW2 in which most American did not wish to get involved in the worlds problems, and Hitler came to power and 60 million people died in the war. Of course if we had stopped hitler before he gained all his power thsi would not have not happened or at least not to the extent it did. Same here, we ignored terrorisim and dictartor like Saddam and now we must fight harder if we are to be free.

Any way I know none of this is going to get through to any of our liberal members head but at least I have said what I have had to say not what some reporter or writter said what was the truth. Liberals think for yourselves!

**suleo** · September 05, 2005, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by TheRedGoblin

though several of the (9/11 hijackers where Iraqi, but this is in this case does not matter

and...

Originally Posted by TheRedGoblin

Any way I know none of this is going to get through to any of our liberal members head but at least I have said what I have had to say not what some reporter or writter said what was the truth. Liberals think for yourselves!

:laughing:

**invictus** · September 05, 2005, 09:10 PM

The point of all this is........? I fail to see where you support that the war is a good thing and how so? -Leon

**Maximus I** · September 05, 2005, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by invictus

The point of all this is........? I fail to see where you support that the war is a good thing and how so? -Leon

true...this thread only shows that you can't handle criticism about the foreign politics of your country.

**suleo** · September 05, 2005, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Maximus I

true...this thread only shows that you can't handle criticism about the foreign politics of your country.

Actually, it shows more than that. Iraqi 9/11 hijakers? Riiight...

**ThiudareiksGunthigg** · September 05, 2005, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by TheRedGoblin

I know this is not going change any of the uneducated Bush-Hater's mind and this might have been posted before, but I feel it time that the Anti-War in Iraq members be put on the spot.

This should be interesting …

And before I start I would like to Say in regard to another topic that once I graduate I will be joining the Marine's. The fact of conservatives not fight in the war is just plain bull.

Good for you. Unfortunately, despite the fact the US armed forces are desperate for reinforcements, many of your fellow pro-war zealots don’t feel their ‘support’ of the troops there should extend to actually enlisting. Apparently their ‘support’ only goes so far, despite an obvious and pressing need for recruits. Perhaps you could convince some of them to join you and enlist as well.

What really disgust me is that so many of these Bush-Hating members is that they use the veil of morality to support their political views.

I don’t even live in your country, so I have little interest in its partisan politics. I’ve criticised actions taken by one Democrat US President (Clinton) and praised actions taken by one Republican one (Bush Snr). I don’t judge these people or their decisions according to any American party lines, but purely on their motives and their actions.

Just come out in the open and be honest and say that I don't think its worth risking my life to free people I have never know, not that the war is about Oil ( which I have got to say make quite a deal of sense since gas prices are high than ever, if this was about oil don't you think thing might have gotten better by now with prices)

This war was never about short term oil supply. It was (partially) about control of oil reserves and therefore a greater influence on oil prices in the long term. Go read some of Dick Cheney’s Energy Committee papers, especially the April 2002 report by the Baker Institute on the place of the strategic control of Iraqi oil reserves in the long term strategic concerns of the US and then tell me it’s all about some (belated) bleeding heart concern for the poor Iraqi people and not oil, strategy and economics. Stop being so naïve.

The Fact is that this war Is about terror and WMD. You claim that Iraq had nothing to do with this war ( though several of the (9/11 hijackers where Iraqi, but this is in this case does not matter)

None of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. Got that? None. Not one. None. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. How many times do Pro-War people need to be told this before they get it?

Where we ever attacked by the nation of Afghanistan, or..... Al Quieda....... who are terrorist.

Yes. And this has what to do with Iraq?

And do you not consider what Sadam had done to his own people terror, torture and in some case genocide.

Totally. But what has that got to do with 9/11? And why was it okay for him to do these things in the 1980s, when Rumsfeld flew to Baghdad to shake his hand and when the US Secretary of State called him ‘a force for moderation in the region’, but it suddenly became not okay when he stopped doing what the US wanted? Why did the US State Department take him off their list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1983, when his support of terrorism was at its height? Why was he given agricultural credits by the US, freeing up his resources to put into things like killing Kurds? Why did the US channel arms to him through third party nations? And while the US Government was telling the world what a great guy Saddam was, all that torture, killing and genocide was going on with its full knowledge. Doesn’t it strike you as strange that suddenly, when it was no longer convenient to support him, he became the worst thing since Ghengis Khan? Doesn’t that smell slightly fishy to you?

You say that there where never WMD's, despite the facts. We have found the mass graves where Sadam had used Chemical Weapons on his own people, which by the way are considered to be WMD's ( in many cases are worse than Neucular weapon ).

Yep. And a few weeks after that use of WMDs, one of the most senior figures in the Reagan Administration praised Saddam as a ‘moderating force in the region.’ An attempt to condemn the gassing of innocent Kurdish civilians in the UN was sunk by one nation. Which nation? You guessed it – the USA. A similar motion in the US Congress was sunk by Republicans. See why all that bleating about ‘he gassed his own people’ was treated with contempt by anyone with a memory of recent history? Yes, he gassed his own people, while the US Government happily turned a blind eye.

Then there was the use of WMDs against the Iranian Army on the Fao Peninsula, with US military intelligence assistance. Apparently his naughty WMDs weren’t so evil then.

BTW – no-one said the WMDs ‘never existed’. Of course they existed: they were found in their thousands by the original UN inspections regime and vast amounts of them were destroyed. The question was, since these weapons have a finite shelf life, whether he re-developed the capacity to make more of them. That was always highly doubtful, yet in 2002-03 the Bush Administration shrieked to high heaven that it had definite proof that he had this capacity. And they were lying.

I have always wondered how hard it would be to move any neucular weapons out of his country ( it's not as if any of his neighbors (i.e, Iran) would complain about have them, and he had quite a long warning as I recall.

You don’t move nuclear weapons to a neighbouring country without leaving evidence behind that you’ve done so. The Iraq Survey Teams had almost two years to find any such evidence. They found nothing. This is a fantasy. There were no WMDs.

You Bush-Haters are already complaing about the number of losses and how long it taking in Iraq. Do have the slightest clue of how many would die if we invaded say... North Korea.

Irrelevant. The question is why these people should die in a war sold on lies and with no viable end point in sight.

if we left Iraq now what do you think would happen?

Pretty much what is going to happen anyway – a civil war.

Liberals think for yourselves!

Get your facts straight and go learn a bit of recent history.

**Ran Taro** · September 05, 2005, 09:54 PM

It might be advisable to spell check, correct your syntax, and check your facts before making a post accusing others of being uneducated. At least if you want anyone to take your opinion seriously.

**Rex331** · September 06, 2005, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by TheRedGoblin

I know this is not going change any of the uneducated Bush-Hater's mind and this might have been posted before, but I feel it time that the Anti-War in Iraq members be put on the spot.

And before I start I would like to Say in regard to another topic that once I graduate I will be joining the Marine's. The fact of conservatives not fight in the war is just plain bull.

What really disgust me is that so many of these Bush-Hating members is that they use the veil of morality to support their political views. Just come out in the open and be honest and say that I don't think its worth risking my life to free people I have never know, not that the war is about Oil ( which I have got to say make quite a deal of sense since gas prices are high than ever, if this was about oil don't you think thing might have gotten better by now with prices)

The Fact is that this war Is about terror and WMD. You claim that Iraq had nothing to do with this war ( though several of the (9/11 hijackers where Iraqi, but this is in this case does not matter) and we should have stayed in Afghanistan. How ever since when has then been a "War on Afghanistan", it was a war on........ say it people Terror. Where we ever attacked by the nation of Afghanistan, or..... Al Quieda....... who are terrorist. And do you not consider what Sadam had done to his own people terror, torture and in some case genocide.

You say that there where never WMD's, despite the facts. We have found the mass graves where Sadam had used Chemical Weapons on his own people, which by the way are considered to be WMD's ( in many cases are worse than Neucular weapon ). As for neucular weapons we have found that he had the capabilities of making them and I have always wondered how hard it would be to move any neucular weapons out of his country ( it's not as if any of his neighbors (i.e, Iran) would complain about have them, and he had quite a long warning as I recall. Finally we must remember who saw and gave thier consent for this action, seeing the same information as the conservatives ( Kerry). And if we used them on his own people don't tell me you honestly think we would not have used them on us if he had the chance.

Confronted with the facts many of you would now say what about other more dangerous nations with terrorist. You Bush-Haters are already complaing about the number of losses and how long it taking in Iraq. Do have the slightest clue of how many would die if we invaded say... North Korea. I admit I would like to see Kim Jong taken out, but if we left Iraq now what do you think would happen? As soon as we left the men who are now insurgents would have free reign and would take controll of the country, and we right back where we started with Sadam would'nt we. That is why we must see it out.

If some one like your beloved Clinton had done something abot this ( or if Senior Bush had finnished off Sadam while we where there) we probably would not have had 9/11 happen or any other of these Terrorist attacks happen. But people never learn from history and history reapeats it self. We should look at so many other wars... like god forbid I would say WW2 in which most American did not wish to get involved in the worlds problems, and Hitler came to power and 60 million people died in the war. Of course if we had stopped hitler before he gained all his power thsi would not have not happened or at least not to the extent it did. Same here, we ignored terrorisim and dictartor like Saddam and now we must fight harder if we are to be free.

Any way I know none of this is going to get through to any of our liberal members head but at least I have said what I have had to say not what some reporter or writter said what was the truth. Liberals think for yourselves!

Well said, I’m glad I’m not the only one who can think for myself. Ignore the liberal defense action insult slinging, or respond and have fun with them at your leisure. To these people, evil government conspiracies are far more rational and better believed than what the government tells you, because to them, governments can do nothing but lie and hurt the people they govern. It seems these days that common sense is not all that common, and rationality is very rare, especially on the internet.

**~~Atheist Peace~~** · September 06, 2005, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Rex331

Well said, I’m glad I’m not the only one who can think for myself. Ignore the liberal defense action insult slinging, or respond and have fun with them at your leisure. To these people, evil government conspiracies are far more rational and better believed than what the government tells you, because to them, governments can do nothing but lie and hurt the people they govern. It seems these days that common sense is not all that common, and rationality is very rare, especially on the internet.

If a government has the privelidge of a media filled with retards and 25 year old girls who pretend to give a **** but dont and have a pretty big freedom to lie (this is not just bush but politicians in general) then do you honestly think they will tell the truth? Sometimes yes, but when its easy and beneficial, they will lie.

**Rex331** · September 06, 2005, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Atheist Peace

If a government has the privelidge of a media filled with retards and 25 year old girls who pretend to give a **** but dont...

Riiiiight... That is completely rational...

Originally Posted by Atheist Peace

...and have a pretty big freedom to lie (this is not just bush but politicians in general) then do you honestly think they will tell the truth? Sometimes yes, but when its easy and beneficial, they will lie.

So they lie simply because they can? That is some great common sense...

Why do you people believe that everyone with power will automatically turn evil, and do nothing but lie and harm people in the name of some super secret evil plan? Does that sound more plausible then that they are simply men like you or me, that are in the government working for their vision of the betterment of their nation and its people? Is that so hard for you to believe? You take that quote by Lord Acton far too literally.

**ThiudareiksGunthigg** · September 06, 2005, 02:09 AM

[QUOTE=Rex331]Well said, I’m glad I’m not the only one who can think for myself. Ignore the liberal defense action insult slinging, or respond and have fun with them at your leisure. To these people, evil government conspiracies are far more rational and better believed than what the government tells you, because to them, governments can do nothing but lie and hurt the people they govern. It seems these days that common sense is not all that common, and rationality is very rare, especially on the internet.[/QUOTE

Originally Posted by Rex331

Well said, I’m glad I’m not the only one who can think for myself.

Well said?! The guy said some of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi. He said Saddam might have had nukes, but caused them to vanish to Iran (!!) without the faintest trace.

Independent thinking?! WTF? That post was a garbled pastiche of every bit of delusional, wishful and plain false thinking that has been booming around the pro-war echo chamber for the last three years. When a pro-war person parrots their sides’ stuff, no matter how nonsensical, it’s ‘thinking for yourself’? On what planet?

‘He gassed his own people!’ Er, yes. US Government outrage at the time would have been more impressive than contrived fake outrage nearly a decade later, when it was more convenient.

‘He was a bad man.’ Indeed. As is the Bush Administration’s new buddy in Uzbekistan; the one who boils political prisoners in oil. And Saddam was a bad man back in the 1980s too, but it was convenient to ignore that then, just as it’s convenient to squark about it now.

‘He had WMDs!’ Yes, “had” being the operative word there. He sure as hell had them in early 1988 when Saddam retook the Fao Peninsula with the help of chemical weapons and nice, fresh US satellite data.

This weary collection of selective information and total nonsense, all of which has been heard and totally debunked a thousand times, is ‘independent thinking’? I’d hate to see what you’d call ‘half-understood, barely articulate parroting of half-truths, illogic and errors’.

To these people, evil government conspiracies are far more rational and better believed than what the government tells you, because to them, governments can do nothing but lie and hurt the people they govern.

Nice strawman. Yes, the ‘strategic importance’ of Iraq’s region is due to it abundance of date palms, camels and donkeys. Oil has nothing to do with it and anyone who says so is some kind of a nut. If one of these wild nutcases tries to show you clear evidence of what anyone with half a brain and a passing grasp of macro-economics could figure out anyway, put your fingers in your ears and shout ‘FREEDOMDEMOCRACYFREEDOMTERRRORISMFREEDOMEVILFREEDOM’ until they go away.

It seems these days that common sense is not all that common, and rationality is very rare, especially on the internet.

Yes. It’s very ‘rational’ to say the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis etc. Hilarious …

**~~Atheist Peace~~** · September 06, 2005, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by Rex331

Riiiiight... That is completely rational...

Ever watched the news? If you think that any of those stupid bimbos that they put on actually cares then you apparently havent watched much of it. Seriously, anyone can see that is fake.

(and calling me irrational is irrational :wink: )

So they lie simply because they can? That is some great common sense...

Why do you people believe that everyone with power will automatically turn evil, and do nothing but lie and harm people in the name of some super secret evil plan? Does that sound more plausible then that they are simply men like you or me, that are in the government working for their vision of the betterment of their nation and its people? Is that so hard for you to believe? You take that quote by Lord Acton far too literally.

Thats what humans do, we are animals just like other species and we do our best to survive and politicians survive in their world by voracity in gathering power and money. They will do what they must to get what they want, and lying is nothing. There are maybe a few prominent politicians with integrity, but not many. Its just a big game, and they are putting on a show for you.

**Rex331** · September 06, 2005, 02:22 AM

Atheist Peace, I would hate to be you, with such an outlook on life. I suppose you believe that you know the truth, while people like me are misguided and blind? I wonder, do you believe the whole world is against you, or just the government?

And ThiudareiksGunthigg, I'm sorry, but no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to rationalize the irrational. Half answering my split up quotes with more far left spew is no substitute for common sense, my friend.

**~~Atheist Peace~~** · September 06, 2005, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by Rex331

Atheist Peace, I would hate to be you, with such an outlook on life. I suppose you believe that you know the truth, while people like me are misguided and blind? I wonder, do you believe the whole world is against you, or just the government?

You overrate my cynicism, who do you think I am? Novusordo? I dont believe I know the truth, but i observe truth everyday, much of which you are blind to, or just ignorant of. Why would the whole world be against me? Again you are making me out to be much more of a cynic than I actually am, I am only cynical of what warrants it. And I do not think "the" government is out to get me, rather I question them when it is appropriate. Of course they do not only lie, but they do a hell of a lot of it, because they just dont give a ****.

And what would you be saying if Kerry was president? I would be saying the same thing, however you seem to think I am talking about Bush, when I refer to all politicians. Stop being blinded by your partisanship and think for yourself.

And please Rex, if you cant actually address what people say, then just dont post. Its a better solution than using the spin tactic of ignoring the other side's argument and just talking about them personally...or why they are "too liberal" and so on.

**ThiudareiksGunthigg** · September 06, 2005, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Rex331

And ThiudareiksGunthigg, I'm sorry, but no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to rationalize the irrational.

You're right - no matter how hard I try, I can't see how plain statements of complete nonsense like 'Some of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis' make sense in the real world. Perhaps you can help me.

Half answering my split up quotes with more far left spew is no substitute for common sense, my friend.

Then please help me, since you know more about me than I do ('far left'? WTF?) Where exactly did I go wrong in my posts on this thread? Please explain how it was okay to ignore Saddam's gassing of the Kurds at the time, but invoke it as justification for this war now. Please help me see how the US Government can condemn his use of chemical weapons when they helped him do so in 1988. Help me see how oil had nothing to do with the planning for this war, when a blind retard could see that it is obviously the reason this 'stratigically important region' is so 'strategically important'.

I clearly need the vast benefit of your 'independent thinking'.

This will be funny to watch ...

Or will he just dodge yet again, throwing out a bit more blinkered nonsense about the 'far left' being 'irrational'?

**Tom Paine** · September 06, 2005, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by TheRedGoblin

I know this is not going change any of the uneducated Bush-Hater's mind and this might have been posted before, but I feel it time that the Anti-War in Iraq members be put on the spot.

Anti-war doesn't neccessarily mean Bush-hater.

What really disgust me is that so many of these Bush-Hating members is that they use the veil of morality to support their political views. Just come out in the open and be honest and say that I don't think its worth risking my life to free people I have never know, not that the war is about Oil ( which I have got to say make quite a deal of sense since gas prices are high than ever, if this was about oil don't you think thing might have gotten better by now with prices)

Or how about I don't think its worth risking my life to free them under a lie and when the same government is helpin g others keep their people in equally bad conditions?

The Fact is that this war Is about terror and WMD. You claim that Iraq had nothing to do with this war ( though several of the (9/11 hijackers where Iraqi, but this is in this case does not matter) and we should have stayed in Afghanistan. How ever since when has then been a "War on Afghanistan", it was a war on........ say it people Terror. Where we ever attacked by the nation of Afghanistan, or..... Al Quieda....... who are terrorist. And do you not consider what Sadam had done to his own people terror, torture and in some case genocide.

Terrorism was increased by the war on Iraq, not decreased. So either that failed miserably or iot wasn't about terror, and given the terms Saddam was on with ObL (really seriously bad ones) I think it isn't even that.

You say that there where never WMD's, despite the facts. We have found the mass graves where Sadam had used Chemical Weapons on his own people, which by the way are considered to be WMD's ( in many cases are worse than Neucular weapon ). As for neucular weapons we have found that he had the capabilities of making them and I have always wondered how hard it would be to move any neucular weapons out of his country ( it's not as if any of his neighbors (i.e, Iran) would complain about have them, and he had quite a long warning as I recall. Finally we must remember who saw and gave thier consent for this action, seeing the same information as the conservatives ( Kerry). And if we used them on his own people don't tell me you honestly think we would not have used them on us if he had the chance.

Given that he had used them on his people before 1991 and we knew about it, but didn't have the capabilities to do it after then, you have a little mistake in there; he was disarmed from 1991 to about 1996,. that is that was when he decommissioned his weapons. And you know something? He wouldn't have passed weapons to surrounding allies because he hated them all; in fact he went to war with a few of them, and used WMD on... IRAN!

Confronted with the facts many of you would now say what about other more dangerous nations with terrorist. You Bush-Haters are already complaing about the number of losses and how long it taking in Iraq. Do have the slightest clue of how many would die if we invaded say... North Korea. I admit I would like to see Kim Jong taken out, but if we left Iraq now what do you think would happen? As soon as we left the men who are now insurgents would have free reign and would take controll of the country, and we right back where we started with Sadam would'nt we. That is why we must see it out.

And the situation in Iraq is so much better than that now? I agree we have to stick it out; but actually, fewer would be dead and terrorism woldn't have got the boost it did if we hadn't invaded in the first place, or if we'd gone about the post-war stuff better (disbvanding the civilian and military forces? I mean, wtf?)

If some one like your beloved Clinton had done something abot this ( or if Senior Bush had finnished off Sadam while we where there) we probably would not have had 9/11 happen or any other of these Terrorist attacks happen. But people never learn from history and history reapeats it self. We should look at so many other wars... like god forbid I would say WW2 in which most American did not wish to get involved in the worlds problems, and Hitler came to power and 60 million people died in the war. Of course if we had stopped hitler before he gained all his power thsi would not have not happened or at least not to the extent it did. Same here, we ignored terrorisim and dictartor like Saddam and now we must fight harder if we are to be free.

BS. Saddam hated Osama. The US paid Osama, as well, not just turned a bind eye to him under Reagan. 9/11 was Saudias and led by a Saudi, not Iraqis led by an Iraqi. WW2 was different from the way you portray it by the way, Hitler came to power and the other nations did nothing; however the isolationist doctrine caused a problem in that it meant the US waited to be attacked before getting involved, a la WW1.

Any way I know none of this is going to get through to any of our liberal members head but at least I have said what I have had to say not what some reporter or writter said what was the truth. Liberals think for yourselves!

It isn't going to get the truth in our heads because it isn't the truth. If the aboveis what you think, you need to go and read up on your own governments positions (eg, no WMD found; not linked to terrorism; only reason was to spread freedom).

**Ran Taro** · September 06, 2005, 03:17 AM

Maybe rather than having yet another slanging match, we could have a conversation for once? I'll put forward a point of view without trying to be provaocative, and maybe you can read it with a view to finding what might be true in it, rather than looking for any faults to pull. Then maybe I could do the same to you, and maybe we might both see an idea we didn't know seemed true before. Here goes:

Nations fight wars largely over strategic interests. Oil is the most important strategic interest in the world today. 95% of Iraq's foreign income comes from Oil. I think it is reasonable to assume that the current administration are smart enough to factor this as a very important consideration. No conspiracy theory - just that Oil is very important, so a world power that didn't have a strategy for it framed around who controls it and who doesn't wouldn't be being very smart.

I'm not saying there is no moral dimension to this, or any other, war. However it doesn't make sense to say that the war in Iraq is soley over humanitarian interests, or WMD's. Otherwise why does the US not invade the many other places in the world where one or both of these issues are of great concern?

I suspect that idiologically, the current administration of the US strongly believes that US domination of world affairs is a 'good' (and I mean a morally good) thing. To them the US absolutley exemplifies the best type of society, hence bringing US values (by force if nessesary) to the rest of the world has several 'good' effects:

- it removes idiological opposition to the US (which is nessesarily 'bad' since the US idiology is 'good')
- it therefore makes the US more secure, since it has less enemies.
- it 'improves' the lot of those dominated (since they can then share in 'good' US values - ie
It brings them many things that Americans regard as in alienably good: Democracy/ market economy/ western style individual rights)
- it brings great economic opportunity, primarily to US companies, but also potentially to the dominated country.
(This is important, since US morality is based at least partly in market economics.)

I'm not saying that they just want to take over the whole world militarily, it's just that if they have a good reason to dominate a region anyway, then they think the effects are overall likley to be good for everyone involved anyway, so it probably isn't too bad a thing if they go ahead and do it.

In Iraq, you had a combination of several factors:

1) An openly hostile, potentially powerful enemy.
2) A very valuable strategic resource held by that enemy.
3) The possibility of that enemy having, or developing weapons of mass destruction to use against you
4) A history of unresolved conflict between the two nations.
5) A history of humanitarian abuses by that enemy

All of those factors added up make a strong argument for war, in the mind of someone who thinks the war will do long term good for both sides anyway. I would say all of them were important reasons in the decision to go to war too, although the last seems the weakest.

The problem I have is that I don't know the war will achieve the 'good' the current administration thinks its will, rather it could well cause resentment of the US and place it in possibly greater danger, especially from terrorism. Secondly, I have trouble with the idea that the US imposing its values on another society as an out and out good thing. Sure, some of it is good, but I think it's dangerous to assume that your own point of view is always better than someone else's, and therefore it is OK to enforce your view on them. And even though the US is trying to make Iraq a better place for Iraqis, the Iraqis don't really seem to want you there.

**Rex331** · September 06, 2005, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by Atheist Peace

You overrate my cynicism, who do you think I am? Novusordo? I dont believe I know the truth, but i observe truth everyday, much of which you are blind to, or just ignorant of. Why would the whole world be against me? Again you are making me out to be much more of a cynic than I actually am, I am only cynical of what warrants it. And I do not think "the" government is out to get me, rather I question them when it is appropriate. Of course they do not only lie, but they do a hell of a lot of it, because they just dont give a ****.

Ah, how could I ever confuse you with a cynic? Thank you for so tactfully proving me wrong.

Originally Posted by Atheist Peace

And what would you be saying if Kerry was president? I would be saying the same thing, however you seem to think I am talking about Bush, when I refer to all politicians. Stop being blinded by your partisanship and think for yourself.

If Kerry was president I would be saying much the same thing, but pointing out areas where I do not agree with him. I agree with Bush, there is nothing blind about my views, which brings me to the next part.

Originally Posted by Atheist Peace

And please Rex, if you cant actually address what people say, then just dont post. Its a better solution than using the spin tactic of ignoring the other side's argument and just talking about them personally...or why they are "too liberal" and so on.

Weren’t you the one that just accused me of being misguided, blind, and ignorant, and you being the one who "observes the truth everyday"? Well my friend, I am sorry to disappoint you, but I see the truth as well. We have simply come to different conclusions. Funny thing, that.

And you did not say anything but what you had already said, that everyone on the news are stupid liars, and that practically all politicians lie about whatever they can simply because they can. You truly believe that is rational and deserving of a discussion?

Do you believe that only people who think like you do are the ones that can really ever care about something or tell the truth? A newsperson or politician never could? Do you believe that only people who think like you do are not misguided, blind, and ignorant? Bush supporters and Pro-Iraq War people always are? I tell you my friend, I thought you were on the level and rational in your beliefs, but these past few posts make you look more like Novusordo than I think you realize. I hope I have misunderstood you.