what do you really think about war what do you feel about

quote:

---

There were plenty of other options. Saddam wanted to discuss and debate it with Bush

---

Just like Saddam debated the hundreds of thousands of people he killed, right?

quote:

---

Bush could have waited for the approval of the UN

---

He did wait. For six months. Six months too long, in fact. Who knows how many people Saddam killed in that time.

'War!*uuh* What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again!'
except for killing people, that is

"""war makes people argue"""
___Silly me, I thought it made people do things much worse than arguing. What was I thinking? That is brilliant.

I thought about this for a very long time and read every single little word on this board and have finally come to the brilliant conclusion that: war makes people argue.

quote:

---

YEP NWH MUST WEAR A HELMET!!! MY GOD

---

ummm....why should that matter if I do when I ride my bike? I don't wear one all the time, but why does it really matter? are you against people who wear helmets or something? whats the big deal with helmets?

YEP NWH MUST WEAR A HELMET!!! MY GOD

quote:

---

I saw the places being bombed, I saw places like malls and radio towers collapse, alsong with the Iraqi people inside.

---

Radio towers and malls were also being used by Saddam. Radio towers, the use is obvious. But don't you remember Saddam placing the SAM and AA sites on top of civilian buildings? What I am saying is that we did not indescriminantly bomb civilian buildings for no reason. And yes there were misses. But this war was a resounding sucess. The majority of the Iraqi people are in our favor anyway, and I'd like to let them decide whether they were "terrorized" by us or not.

quote:

---

Yes, they were happy when Saddam was caught, but I don't beleive that they were too happy when they could watch the "fireworks" of bombs and missiles in their town.

---

The point is that they are MUCH happier and safe now. Not during the war.

quote:

---

As for the "helping the econimy" who the hell cares about some rich guys being able to buy another limo

---

Those "rich guys" (oh and the MIDDLE CLASS?!?! Remeber them?) provide jobs, and generally increase the quality of life for everyone. When the economy is good, all the bad things you brought up tend to go down.

quote:

---

starving, homeless children,

---

Plenty of charity to go around here. We have food stamp programs, soup kitchens, and the general benevolence of the population. If your starving it's most likely because you screwed up and are refusing help. It's not the governments job to take care of everyone.

quote:

---

the animals who suffer in factory farms

---

You know that I don't care about them. And in any case, the industry standards are being enforced. What you think the suffering is is actually a few extreme cases blown out of proportion by certain groups.

quote:

---

the pollution

---

Legitimate concern. He does need to work on some of these things. But the way to change things isn't by whining about EVERY environmental issue. Focus on something so you don't sound like some, for lack of a better word, hippie who doesn't know about the subject they're ranting about.

quote:

---

child/spousal abuse

---

What exactly can the president do about this?

quote:

---

abductions

---

See above

quote:

---

murders, rapes

---

The violent crime rate has been going down for the last few years. And why the hell do you think it's the president's duty to deal with this if it's not epidemic? It's a local issue. Why should you have a federal murder policy if the problem is different city by city? That's just wasteful and creates another sprawling arm of federal government

quote:

---

intollerence

---

This is a cultural issue which we have been trying to combat as a society for decades. He's not doing anything drastic to attack tolerance. You could make a case for his position on marriage for gays, but that's another issue.

quote:

---

the environment

---

See response to pollution. And again, we're not that bad reletive to other nations.

quote:

---

endangered species

---

Again, NOT THE PRESIDENT'S JOB. And that aside, we have so many different organizations already working on it and making progress. We've already got working federal regulation on this. Why do we need more?

quote:

---

War is not the answer to our problems, peace is

---

And how do we get peace if there are still people trying to kill us?

quote:

---

Peace=no war. You can't call a war to get peace "peace", instead it would be considered liberation, not peace

---

We're not calling war peace. We're saying that peace can be achieved through a combination of war and agressive but sensible diplomacy.

All in all, you seem to have a very skewed idea about what the federal government and it's branches are supposed to do. It's not the governments job to make sure everybody is happy and comfortable. That's YOUR job, as a citizen.

quote:

---

I do not see a way peace can be had without war

---

the definition of Peace at dictionary.com :
The absence of war or other hostilities.

Peace=no war. You can't call a war to get peace "peace", instead it would be considered liberation, not peace

quote:

---

As for the "helping the econimy" who the hell cares about some rich guys being able to buy another limo when there are other problems like the starving, homeless children, the animals who suffer in factory farms, the pollution, child/spousal abuse, abductions, murders, rapes, intollerence, the environment, endangered species, ect.? Before Bush thinks he has the right to take over and liberate another country, look at all of the problems he can't even solve within his own.

---

1) Who do you think helps the poor and starving? The people who have enough money to give (not all of them, but still.) Anyway, if the economy is weak, and the middle class doesn't have any money to give away, the biggest chunk of charitable donors is gone. So the economy effects everyone not just the upper rich classes.

2) While Bush could probably do more to help the US he is not the only person living here. Until citizens take responsibility and try to help their fellow Americans personally hardly anything will ever be accomplished.

quote:

---

War is not the answer to our problems, peace is.

---

While I agree with that, I do not see a way peace can be had without war. The world has never been 100% peaceful. Someone is always trying to gain power and therefore starting a war or genocide.

DrStrangelove, where do you get your facts? www.bushsupporters.com? It was not just millitary establisments that were bombed, and even still, not everyone inside those were neccicarily bad. I saw the places being bombed, I saw places like malls and radio towers collapse, alsong with the Iraqi people inside. Even if a missile of a peice of debris didn't hit the homes of the people, they were still affected and terrorized by Bush. Yes, they were happy when Saddam was caught, but I don't beleive that they were too happy when they could watch the "fireworks" of bombs and missiles in their town.

As for the "helping the econimy" who the hell cares about some rich guys being able to buy another limo when there are other problems like the starving, homeless children, the animals who suffer in factory farms, the pollution, child/spousal abuse, abductions, murders, rapes, intollerence, the environment, endangered species, ect.? Before Bush thinks he has the right to take over and liberate another country, look at all of the problems he can't even solve within his own.

War is not the answer to our problems, peace is.

quote:

---

DrStrangelove, why don't you open your eyes to the facts instead of what Bush is feeding you?

---

Right back at you. Stop believing in propaganda. I don't. I'm just rational about things.

quote:

---

It was not only saddams home that was involved in the missiles, the homes and other towns buildings containing innocent people, and NOT saddam were involed as well. Did you even watch the news coverage of the war when it was on?

---

Yes I did. And the VAST MAJORITY of the bombs were on target and only destroyed military areas. You need to look at your perspective. Look at previous wars and see how precise we were. It's not propaganda, it's truth. Simple truth. I saw the footage of seven bombs sriking in a single line destroying obvious targets. What I did not see was the random bombing of civilain homes. Why didn't I see this? BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. We did not target civilian areas except in the cases where Saddam had posted his forces or equipment there.

quote:

---

Innocent people were killed in the fallout of the missiles, and what did that do to catch Saddam? They found him hiding in a hole in the ground, none of their bombs and missiles killed him.

---

So were lots and lots of bad guys. And what did it do to catch Saddam? It got him into a hole in the ground, by himself. Rather than in a bunker several hundred feet under the ground, with hundreds of thousands of troops, elite guards, death squads, torture rooms, and propaganda machines between him and us.

quote:

---

Saddam wanted to discuss and debate it with Bush

---

Bull---t, If Saddam wanted to talk, then why did he constantly try to hinder the efforts of both the UN and US reporters, inspectors, and diplomats? It was all diversion. And if your talking about that "debate" Saddam challenged Bush with, I hope you didn't take that seriously.

quote:

---

Bush could have waited for the approval of the UN

---

Why the hell do we need the approval of the UN? What difference would have that made? It would have made the whole thing a lot more buerocratic and inefficient. And we weren't going to get that anyway, France and Russia promised vetos.

quote:

---

Bush could have focused his energy solving the problems in his own country before he thinks he can handel another

---

He is. Tax cuts, education reform, the economy has increased for the last few quarters, campaigne finance reform (which is actually questionable whether it was a fix or a detriment), decreased crime rates. Things aren't that bad here. We just have to get rid of the Patriot Act and we're good. In fact, if Bush calls for a renewed space program involving a permanent base on the moon or a mission to Mars, then he's golden.

quote:

---

He could have not sent missiles in to bomb randome buildings in hope that *maybe* he would find Saddam,

---

This didn't happen. I don't know who told you this, but this didn't happen. We wouldn't waste the resources or risk bombing randome buildings. They were all military compounds, bunkers, palaces, and instalations that would otherwise be used by the opposing forces. Do you have any knowladge of military strategy?

quote:

---

He could have used secrate agents or other means to deal with Saddam without involving the death and terrorization of the people of Iraq, ect.

---

First, "secret agents" don't really work like that. Two, It's highly likely to fail. Three, if it did suceed, you'd have a increadibly bloody civil war, or the Ba'ath party just installing someone else. Four, the people of Iraq were already being killed and terrorized by thier own government.

quote:

---

I wish people would stop focusing thier energy and money on making new weopons, and instead use thier time and effort to do something that accually helps people

---

Then someone who DOES focus thier engergy and funds on weapons will take over. Simple. Humanity is not a nice thing.

I've been paying attention to world events, domestic policies, military strategies, and whatnot for nearly a decade. It's not like I just got swept up in a wave of propaganda. At least I can back my stuff up with logic and facts that comply with eachother.

DrStrangelove, why don't you open your eyes to the facts instead of what Bush is feeding you?

It was not only saddams home that was involved in the missiles, the homes and other towns buildings containing innocent people, and NOT saddam were involed as well. Did you even watch the news coverage of the war when it was on? Innocent people were killed in the fallout of the missiles, and what did that do to catch Saddam? They found him hiding in a hole in the ground, none of their bombs and missiles killed him.

quote:

---

GIVE ME ONE FEASIBLE OPTION TO REMOVING SADDAM FROM POWER THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED LESS TOURMOIL AND DEATH.

---

There were plenty of other options. Saddam wanted to discuss and debate it with Bush, Bush could have waited for the approval of the UN, Bush could have focused his energy solving the problems in his own country before he thinks he can handel another, He could have not sent missiles in to bomb randome buildings in hope that *maybe* he would find Saddam, He could have used secrate agents or other means to deal with Saddam without involving the death and terrorization of the people of Iraq, ect.

War is good for nothing, all it does is cause the death of many innocent people because the leaders of two countries can't agree. I wish people would stop focusing thier energy and money on making new weopons, and instead use thier time and effort to do something that accually helps people (and animals), like find a cure for things like Cancer or AIDS, help the poor/homeless, save the environment, save the animals, end animal cruelty, stop child/spousal abuse, ect.

Peace!

quote:

---

War is still the wrong way to go, there are ways that don't involve masses of Iraqi people and US soldiers getting killed.

---

I'm going to write this all in caps because it has yet to be answered by anyone who I've asked it to, and I want to make sure it gets though:

GIVE ME ONE FEASIBLE OPTION TO REMOVING SADDAM FROM POWER THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED LESS TOURMOIL AND DEATH.

You couldn't just assasinate him, we couldn't just fly into town and pluck him out, we couldn't talk nice with him. Ultimately we're saving lives by preventing the deaths of millions.

quote:

---

I don't really see how, if someone airms a missile at my house or town, and kills my friends and family, that they can be trying to save me.

---

They didn't aim missiles at random houses. Do you beleive that? Give me some logical reason why they would? Please.
Lets say the mayor of your town just raped your daughters and tortured your husband. Now, a missile destroys his house, and the good guys roll into town and end his rule. Your house is still fine. Everything is better. THAT'S why aiming a missile at your town saves you. If you can't grasp that...

quote:

---

If they realy did care about the people, they would have carried out the capture of Saddam more seacretive, without sending missiles into the town of Bagdahd (or however its spelt) and killing/injuring many innocent people.

---

Like what, assasination? So some other person takes power, most likely one of his (more psychotic) sons. Or, you somehow disable the Ba'ath party istelf, now you have a civil war. A civil war in Iraq would kill many fold the amount that died in our invasion. Look at the options. We did care about the people because we spent billions of dollars on high tech weapons to avoid carpet bombing the whole damned place.

If we didn't care about them, we'd simply do that. We've got lots of bombs left around that aren't guided. We'd simply load them into B-52's fly them over town, and have a party. You;'d have tens of thousands killed in that case. What's the civilian causualty number at? The highest number is somewhere around 7 thousand. Which is REDICULOUSLY LOW.
Don't give me the "nobody would have died if there was no war" deal. That's completely untrue. Since 1990, Saddam has probably killed 2 MILLION (theres that word again) iraqi civilians. Work the numbers and you'll see we did a good thing.

quote:

---

How about the Rape of Nanking, or any number of other incidents. The Iraq war was one of if not the cleanest war of the 20th century. Look at your perspective NWH. The soviets alone had over 20 MILLION killed in World War II. Those "US missils" aren't killing families, thier saving them.

---

Sure they are saving them, the ones that are still alive after he has bombed and shot everyone. War is still the wrong way to go, there are ways that don't involve masses of Iraqi people and US soldiers getting killed. If they realy did care about the people, they would have carried out the capture of Saddam more seacretive, without sending missiles into the town of Bagdahd (or however its spelt) and killing/injuring many innocent people.

I don't really see how, if someone airms a missile at my house or town, and kills my friends and family, that they can be trying to save me.

I'm not going to comment on this one...

quote:

---

hey NWH.... do you wear a helmet? just wondering...

---

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but I wear one when i ride my bike.

hey NWH.... do you wear a helmet? just wondering...

quote:

---

How about the Rape of Nanking, or any number of other incidents. The Iraq war was one of if not the cleanest war of the 20th century. Look at your perspective NWH. The soviets alone had over 20 MILLION killed in World War II. Those "US missils" aren't killing families, thier saving them.

---

True enough. In terms of casualties this was actually a resounding success, contrary to what some people would have you believe.

quote:

---

Civilians have always gotten killed in wars. Ever hear of a little thing called Dresden, or the Mai Lai massacre? While this is tragic, you can also say that overthrowing a thug like Saddam, Hitler, etc. justifies war.

---

How about the Rape of Nanking, or any number of other incidents. The Iraq war was one of if not the cleanest war of the 20th century. Look at your perspective NWH. The soviets alone had over 20 MILLION killed in World War II. Those "US missils" aren't killing families, thier saving them.