Supporting the Troops vs. Disagreeing with the War

[Tigam]

Originally Posted by ripperjd

So, if I continue this, I will get banned from maddenboard?

I haven't read everything yet... But I'll answer... Not if I can help it.
--------------- Madden 2007 Next Gen football ---------

Originally Posted by ripperjd

To Cash: I’m sorry to have misquoted you, but the fact still remains… the US wasn’t authorized by the UN to go into Iraq, which brings into question the legal validity of the war.

Not to me, but still a point I'll address... Again, show me where it's part of some legal structure that any country must ask for permission to go to war. Which of course wasn't a war... But still. I'll help you out, you won't find it. You could say that the US didn't live up to the charter, I'll say that it's actions were. Either way, find a court that said it was illegal within the UN. Otherwise it's just a pointless statement.

But of coarse, since we are really the physical strength of the UN, it doesn’t matter cause no one could stop us or bring us to justice. I think some have watched too many Lethal Weapon movies to think it’s ok to bring justice through unauthorized violence without repercussion. Maybe people should try watching A Few Good Men instead.

One, you're right... No one could stop us. However they could make it to where it wasn't worth our while to do quite easily. They'd be harming themselves also.... But if they felt that strongly about it.

And I think a few good men wouldn't allow Saddam to keep office. My opinion, it obviously differs from yours.

All of this is beyond the point that if you truly believe that our leaders have the right to lie, kill, and steal from our nation’s citizens to promote their own agendas, then maybe your beliefs are a bit more fascist than democratic. If you believe that allowing events like Pearl Harbor and 911 to happen, as in the MURDER of our own citizens, is something that you wish to see in your government, then I don’t see a point in continuing this conversation with you.

But I do have more to say.

I don't believe Cash was saying you'd be banned... That's all I have to say about that.

To Tigam: Well done picking out that one logistic inconsistency of my arguments. For someone who seems to have a bit of training in a philosophical method, you still seem to have very little interest in reason though. Maybe you were just on the debate team.

Actually... My school didn't have a debate team. I notice that you didn't address my points with this paragraph. That's one thing about a debate, both have to validate the others stance. You asked why one not the other, I answered. If you disagree with that fine, but throwing insults after the fact saying it's not within "reason" you might want to back that up by addressing those points.

To All: The analogy I made of the woman and the child refers to the prior situation in Iraq vs. the situation in Africa, more specifically Darfur. Maybe Saddam killed his political advisories, but the Iraqi people still had more of a fighting chance than the people of Darfur have, where actual genocide is actually happening. 400,000 is the REPORTED death toll in Darfur in nearly 3 years of conflict. 2.5 Million people have been displace due to the violence (in comparison, hurricane Katrina displaced less than half that number). My point is that this is a much more pressing issue than Iraq was. Yes, Saddam has done horrible things. So have we. The immigrants slaughtered natives by the millions. Anyway, maybe I should change that part to: A guy just beat up a woman, you then beat him up, then saw the kid…. would you again beat up the guy who beat up the woman or go help the kid?

I'd do both. Likely by getting the kid somewhere that someone else could take care of him/her.

About all the Iraqis that Saddam killed… in first two years of this occupation, the estimated Iraqi CIVILIAN casualty count is 24,865 (http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_d..._2003-2005.pdf) That count doesn’t include Iraqi solders or insurgents. So much for saving the people.

An argument that in all honesty annoys me. Due to the past actions of Saddam, I'm lead to believe that he'd do it in the future. It is after all one of the greatest predictors of future actions. The past. ( Dr. Phil is smarter than I originally thought ) I'm not going to ignore it no matter what else is also going wrong.

I will try yet another time to make my point clear. We didn’t go there for humanitarian reasons, because there are far more pressing issues on a humanitarian level.

So that means I can't support it as such?

We actually caused more of a humanitarian issue by being there.

Yeah... Women and children are starting to go to school, walk around with anything covering their faces... And yes, some deaths. Let me guess, you didn't think the US civil war shouldn't have been fought either? Because alot of people died.

We didn’t go there on national security reasons, because there are far more pressing national security issues (N. Korea, Iran) . We didn’t go there for the revenge of our country, because Iraq never attacked the United States. Maybe we felt we needed to clean up the mess we made by arming Saddam in the first place, but that wasn’t a reason given by this administration.

Ok... First off there is exactly one person that speaks for me. ME. I could give a rats *** what Bush or the administration said or didn't say as to why the "war" or "conflict" happened.

As far as I can tell went there simply because George W. Bush wanted to fallow in the footsteps of his daddy. What’s the problem with that? We CAN NOT allow our leaders to start wars, simply because they wish to. That is not a democracy.

The majority supported the war when it happened. Sounds like a democracy to me.

To start a war without the expressed approval of the UN is in fact an international crime, but you don’t see it that way because you inward perception has you believe that our crime is forgiven because we are doing a good deed. Besides… how is the UN going to enforce it?

ROFLMAO. Show me the law that says it's a crime. Do that, or your statement is opinion and nothing more.

Oh... the reference to me purchasing food instead of a knife was in reference to the billions of dollars we have spent on this war, that could have been spent on feeding the hungry we have in our own country as well as others. Sorry, that one wasn't very direct or relevant.

Agreed.

Sorry, I'm a bit out of practice with all of this. The arguments will get better, I promise.

I think you're doing alright.

In closing... You still haven't explained to me why I shouldn't do something to a man for doing things that is an affront to any decent human being, even if it's not as bad as "X"

I'll restate my stand, you do what you can do when you can do it.

[cashpath]

To Rip-

Nope.. I don't deal with this section of the board.... You just said you didn't see a point in discussing this with me anymore... So I figured that means you are done talking to me (about this) so I wouldn't want you going back on what you said and losing integrity.

[ripperjd]

Originally Posted by Tigam

If you disagree with that fine, but throwing insults after the fact saying it's not within "reason" you might want to back that up by addressing those points.

ROFLMAO. Show me the law that says it's a crime. Do that, or your statement is opinion and nothing more.

In closing... You still haven't explained to me why I shouldn't do something to a man for doing things that is an affront to any decent human being, even if it's not as bad as "X"

I'll restate my stand, you do what you can do when you can do it.

When I said you where not concerned with reason, I didn’t mean to say you were not within reason. I was referring to your notion that taking out Saddam was a good thing, so it doesn’t matter what our government did to bring us into it.

As for the law that says it’s a crime….

The only international governing body is the UN and it’s branches. Any country that is a member of the UN is required to abide by the Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html) in which the Preamble states:


WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

There’s a few more chapters, but you get the jest of with this. The UN IS the international law that governs over disputes between nations. The UN was created as a means to an end of wars, but they also realized that the use of force may be necessary in some instances, which is why the Security Counsel was adopted to deal with these issues. The United Nations has issued Security Council Resolutions that declared some wars to be legal actions under international law, most notably Resolution 678, authorizing war with Iraq in 1991.

I think part of the reason we can’t see eye to eye on this is because we are having two different arguments. I agree with you that taking out Saddam was a good thing, but I don’t believe it was the best thing and I don’t believe we went about it the best way.

My argument deals more in the realm of the legality of the war, the reasoning of why we went to war, the means by which our leaders brought our nation to war, and what better uses we have for our time, money, lives. We are speaking about two completely different subjects.
--------------- Madden 2007 Next Gen football ---------

Originally Posted by cashpath

To Rip-

Nope.. I don't deal with this section of the board.... You just said you didn't see a point in discussing this with me anymore... So I figured that means you are done talking to me (about this) so I wouldn't want you going back on what you said and losing integrity.

Well, I did say, "but, I do have more to say." pen:

Hey man... I was just trying to make a point. I do tend to get a bit to heated in these types forums, but that's what keeps me coming back!
--------------- Madden 2007 Next Gen football ---------
One last thing about the two completely diffent subjects thing... this is part of why I believe I can be supportive of the troops. No matter why or how they were sent there, I believe the troops are fighting to make Iraq a better place.

I don't agree with how our leaders brought us into the war, but I'm for damn sure not going to hold that against the men and women that are there.

[Chaos6]

Originally Posted by ripperjd

My argument deals more in the realm of the legality of the war, the reasoning of why we went to war, the means by which our leaders brought our nation to war, and what better uses we have for our time, money, lives.

It sure would have been nice to just be able to send over a few special forces units to assassinate Saddam wouldn't it?

But international "Legalities" do not allow for the assassination of political leaders. The only "Legal" way to "Kill" a countries government is through war itself.

Originally Posted by ripperjd

I don't agree with how our leaders brought us into the war, but I'm for damn sure not going to hold that against the men and women that are there.

Do you appreciate what they are doing? Do you actually take pride in men and women of our Armed Forces for what they are doing over there? I find it hard to believe you can "Support" the troops if you don't fully agree with their actions even if they were dictated by a Commanding Officer.

As a Marine, let me help you see how those troops over there view that statement.

Again, what I hear you saying when that statement is made is just the same as political BS to me. I would compare it to hearing some one say "I support the Hit men who killed my family, they were just doing what they were told to do by their Mob Boss."

I mean if I were against the war and arguing a stance against the war, then I would also place blame on the troops participating. Why? Because if all the troops in our Armed Forces refused to fight then we would not have been able to carry out the Attack and never would have gone to war.

So the troops supported their Commander-in-Chief and went to war because they thought it was right. You don't think the Commander-in-Chief is right, so how can you truly support the troops who support the war effort? It's something that is said by those people who are opposing the war because they don't want to be seen as someone like the Hippys from the Vietnam war that trashed our troops. So they spew this crap about "I am against the War, But I support our troops 100%". I am telling you the Troops don't believe you when you say that.

[ripperjd]

The difference is in that I do agree that what they are doing is a good thing. I concede the point that taking out Saddam is a good thing, and I even more so fully believe that the job the troops are doing now is essential to maintaining the safety of the Iraqi citizens.

I support the completion of the mission and those who are carrying it out. When it is all said and done, the liberation of the Iraqi people is something that cannot be taken away from those who fought to make it happen.

I do not support government acting in a lone wolf manner, even if the end result is a positive. It leaves too much room for future manipulations. Deception and playing on the publics fear with is how many dictators come to power. There is also point is that the chain of command has been broken and there have been no consequences.

I’m going to try and make a military analogy, so hang on to your shorts, as you might laugh them off…

A commander in battle is responsible for the actions of those under his command, not visa versa. If a commander wins a battle by disregarding the commands of his superiors, it doesn’t take away the fact that that battle has been fought and won. There are no yellow flags in combat. The enemy has been defeated. The commander could however face consequences for his insubordination. If nothing is done, the commander could go on commanding in the same fashion, and the outcome could be different next time.

The fact that you (Chaos) are a marine grunt weighs very heavily on my opinion of what you have to say, which is again why I wanted to talk about it in this forum. Your view made me feel very alone until I found these:

http://www.ivaw.net/
http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
http://www.mfso.org/
http://veteransagainstthewar.com/wordpress/

Although in looking through all of this, I did find this one that you might actually be interested in, I’ll be studying and might influence my thoughts here: http://www.therealiraq.org/

I do have one question to ask you though Chaos, and please don’t take this as an attack, but have you seen battle? Has anyone here?

[cashpath]

I do have one question to ask you though Chaos, and please don’t take this as an attack, but have you seen battle? Has anyone here?

Have you?

What is your definition of 'battle'? Is a small firefight a 'battle'? Is driving around in a tank blowing the hell out of crap 'battle'? Is flying in a stealth bomber and dropping bombs 'battle'? Is taking part in killing someone who never knew it was coming 'battle'? Is having hired mercenaries shoot blindly in your general direction 'battle'?

What's battle?

Just wondering....

[ripperjd]

Originally Posted by cashpath

Have you?

What is your definition of 'battle'? Is a small firefight a 'battle'? Is driving around in a tank blowing the hell out of crap 'battle'? Is flying in a stealth bomber and dropping bombs 'battle'?

Come one now... you know I haven't.

I only ask cause I don't know who has and I'm trying to find some insight to understand your point of view. I guess the question should be... has anyone here served over seas, on the ground, in an area such as Iraq in it's current state?

[cashpath]

My argument deals more in the realm of the legality of the war, the reasoning of why we went to war, the means by which our leaders brought our nation to war, and what better uses we have for our time, money, lives.

You agree with what was done, just not how it was done... I have to say that I agree with that.. I think there would have been better ways to do it. Unfortunately I think the better ways are less acceptable.. (see Chaos' post)

You also think there are bigger fish to fry... well I think we should fry all the fish... and stop wasting so much time doing it...

Another thing is that I think the long term effect of war is actually usually economic growth.. at the expense of the people who actually do the fighting... war is used as an economic tool but they don't give enough back to the veterans... that sucks..

Come one now... you know I haven't

.

I didn't know.. your definition of 'battle' may be as simple as a small gunfight... you may have been in one of those... it may be as simple as being shot at and or shooting back... that may have happened to you

As for being somewhere like Iraq is now... or was when we invaded..

No.. I've been somewhere that was like what I guess iraq might be like in a few more years.. I can't say how many years because I don't know..

Somewhere that the neighbors aren't friendly and the people like to riot...

[ripperjd]

Originally Posted by cashpath

No.. I've been somewhere that was like what I guess iraq might be like in a few more years.. I can't say how many years because I don't know..

Somewhere that the neighbors aren't friendly and the people like to riot...

Detroit during a championship? urplel:
--------------- Madden 2007 Next Gen football ---------
sorry... trying to make the thread a bit more light.