Opinion on war?

[oracle]

You can't blame Iraqis for using GPS jammers to block missiles. Think of it the other way - If Russia (for example) fired a nuke at the US, and the US tried to jam it to stop it hitting the pentagon, and the missile went haywire and nuked a residential suburb, there is nothing that can be done about it. However the Iraqi soldiers hiding amongst civilians is wrong - and these deaths should be placed on Saddam's head only. We can't stop the fact that the war has begun and argue about it being "legal" (see my earlier posts) so stop complaining about "just wars" and civilians dying. I'm sure the US wouldn't deliberately attack civilians, and everyone here knows this.

[pr0gger]

Ya know what? I've learned something from this thread.

War stinks. Sometimes it has to be done, sometimes not. For some, it's hard to tell until afterwards.

And even worse, Days of Conquest is a game about war.

[oracle]

Humans are naturally aggressive, but also naturally God-fearing. If we were all athiest then many of the wars of the past just wouldn't have happened.

Unfortunately this war is about removing a despot who is abusing human rights. It's also about oil etc. Where abouts along the line did GB turn the anti-terror thing into a anti-despot thing? Why did the world let him?

A point of note: If the US removed all of their 4WDs, they would have enough oil to support themselves. See these articles:
http://www.carfree.com/cft/i030.html[/img]
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1991/12/12cen.htm

for just a couple of opinions against a US war based on wanting oil for 4WDs.

Lets all develop hydrogen power!

[wizardlife]

Ya know what? I've learned something from this thread.

War stinks. Sometimes it has to be done, sometimes not. For some, it's hard to tell until afterwards.

And even worse, Days of Conquest is a game about war.

While games and movies (almost) always whitewash war, it's still to some extent a form of entertainment that informs.

[Agamemnus]

No rabbits were hurt in the creation of this rant

I still think that some people here in the world, that is don't get it.

Because of their lies in the pas, Iraq cannot claim to say the truth and it does not say the truth.

Al Jazeera does not criticize Saddam's gov't comments about Iraq when they lie. (like when they show Tariq Aziz saying that the US has not made any progress in Iraq..)

Al Jazeera does NOT report Iraqi war crimes. Al Jazeera does NOT interview US officials but only lying Iraqi officials. They interviewed a Kurd once, hoping that he would be against the US. Well, he said that war against Saddam is right and that the US is right. (they didn't expect it.. I saw this w/my own eyes)

If you are reading this post, chances are more than 50% that YOUR local nation's TV channels are not admitting that the US is morally right and putting Iraqi lies and US confirmations on the same level of doubt.

The USA is a great country because in the USA, we have the right to choose those who would tell us the truth WITHOUT having us believe it with no basis. "In God We Trust" Trust means that we believe someone without proof. In the USA (a democracy), you cannot automatically trust someone without proof. Only God (a representation of justice IMHO) "says" the truth.

Then why should we trust the tapes you say? Why couldn't they have been fabricated? Well, in such a democracy where there are no criminal reprecussions for standing out against the government, we can say whatever we want. And the more of the same thing that we see, the more we can believe it. from different reporters

Is it an accident that there are hundreds of embedded reporters on the front lines with coalition troops? No. It is for the world to see that the US does not lie and that Saddam Hussein's regime is brutal, murderous, and oppressive.

The US reported that they did not hit any cruise missiles, but did say that there were artillery sites nearby. Now tell me, those witnesses saw 2 cruise missiles, eh? The projecticle going VERY VERY fast, they could see NOTHING but an EXPLOSION. I am 99% convinced that the Iraqis fired on themselves. delibaretly

Also, why do you think the US didn't win in the first week? They didn't want to kill any innocent civilians.

[oracle]

Would Saddam waste any of his valuable weapons on his own people when he could shoot at Americans?

This is a possibility, but not a very sensible one. But Saddam is not a very sensible man.

[na_th_an]

Also, why do you think the US didn't win in the first week? They didn't want to kill any innocent civilians.

Yeah, yeah, if would have been better acting like in Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Bush and Blair's promises about a short war have faded in the air. It is fun to see how politicians change the meaning of the words they say in the past. It just like in "1984".

[oracle]

Here is exactly what the tinpot caesar (GB) said in his address to the nation: "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours"

Translation: threats, bribes and other forms of duress have failed to secure a vote for war, so the world can kiss our ass. Perhaps the most egregious syllogism in Bush's rhetorical armoury has been that those Security Council nations that threatened to use their veto "share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it" and are therefore the cause of the UN's problems. This from the leader of a state that has used its veto power exponentially more often than any other council member, often to thwart much milder resolutions to do with peace and stability in the Middle East.

Perhaps it is time that the smaller countries of the UN stood up and were counted. Invading another country, however detested its leader might be, is unlawful under international law and if enough smaller nations vote for action GB will be indicted and convicted for war crimes under Resolution 377: "Uniting for peace"

Note: The 1946 Nuremburg Tribunal identified starting a war as the worst state crime.

[Agamemnus]

:o :o :o

*falls unconscious by recent comments*

[wizardlife]

Translation: threats, bribes and other forms of duress have failed to secure a vote for war...

Has the UN ever acted on any other basis? The security council was a joke. It was all about buying out the votes of those third worl countries that would sell to the highest bidder. The US simply decided they weren't going to pander to that system and would save the bribe money for the war effort.

I would have regarded a decision to either effect the same way: meaningless.

Andrew Coyne raised an excellent point recently in an 'at issue' cbc panel. (it was actually on the topic of Canada's inaction in the war, but relevant here also) He suggested that following this war the UN will either be disbanded completely or greatly reduced, since other nations will realise that in wartime it is nothing but an extra layer of bureauocracy that ties the hands of nations who oppose its ridiculous rulings. Coyne suggested that in all likelyhood, smaller treaties (read: NATO, I imagine) of like-minded nations will form in its place. And those who have scorned the US for this effort (like France, Canada, Mexico, and Germany) will be excluded from whatever union the US forms.