I'd like for any member here to give me a wholesome explanation of why the war in Iraq was/is a bad thing. If you think I should google, please do not respond (or do, with your own points, for hilarity's sake).

We went into Iraq because they were supposedly a thread to US security. Well, turns out they weren't. Turns out democracy may not work everywhere and may not be what every group of people wants. Turns out Islamic extremism is a much worse animal than secular totalitarianism. Turns out it was none of our business and what right do we have to try and dictate what the government of another country should be like? That makes us no better than any other empire that has tried to colonize or conquer. No better than the Communists who tried to spread communism everywhere they could by creating war. And when it all comes down to it, what would you rather have: freedom to hold protests in bomb riddled streets, or running water and electricity? Iraq is not better off than it was under Saddam. Thousands of American soldiers have died, and many many many more Iraqis have been killed as a result of actions we initiated. Saddam was a despot, but now we risk the country falling under a theocratic Muslim dictatorship that would have nothing but hate for America, and suppress the people even more.

Should've stayed the fuck out.

It depends if you believe the conspiracy theories. We've already passed peak oil so the way for America to get access to new supplies was to invade Iraq. Now depending on who you trust will dictate how you see it. If you hate the people at the top then you'll think they only did it to get money from it because they all have shares in the oil companies and contract firms.

If you like the guys at the top then they did it for the greater good of Britain and the USA because given another 20 years we'll be fighting each other for the last remaining reserves and because they thought democracy would work in Iraq.

To justify going in they lied to the American people and told them it was for national security and even made people think Iraq supported terrorism. The majority of the UK and USA popullation are pretty stupid. They read uniformed papers like the Sun (UK) or watch news channels that give biased reports so nobody knew any different.

Now was it a bad thing?... I served in Iraq a few years ago. If our way of life continues and we have a plentiful supply of energy and food when the rest of the world have none then yes it was right. If however, only the people at the top of the UK and USA benefit or we dont get the benefits of going into Iraq then it was a waste.

I'm sure I'm going to hear a lot of people complaining that we should share what we have. If the world's popullation was a llot smaller then I agree, however with the mushrooming population and dwindling resources we have to secure what we need. It's going to be survival of the fittest pretty soon. The cosy way of life that we've got used to in the west is going to come to and end.

it was a bad idea because my brother can die. one of my best friends might die.
they went to iraq based on greed, and power. and they can really give a shit on whose life they put in danger, what family they will destroy, what tears they will bring. just as long as they get their next big buck.
it was a bad idea because essentially this war has torn this country apart, and people are filled with hatred. also it is pointless to try and force a form of government on a society that DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE.
fuck the redneck in the oval office.

That's really one sided there. Look at the bigger picture in terms of the number of people killed (I think last time I looked it was in the region of 4,000ish). Every year 400,000 people die in America of coronary heart disease. 4,000 is not a lot of people to die. As for saying that your brother or friend might be killed that's true but at the same time if we dont have the resources to feed us, keep us healthy, warm our houses a hell of a lot more than 4,000 people will die. Also your brother was stupid enough to join the army (as I did) so he has to go where they say. There is no conscription!

Nobody seems to appreciate how fucked the world will be when global warming and the oil shortage hit. Just think about your every day life: You wake up using an alarm made from oil, powered by burnt oil and transported from foreign shores with oil. You eat your food, packaged in oil. You get in your car powered by oil and go to work using oil. Imagine how much life will change when the oil runs out.

On average people only need to go 3 days without food before they'll riot. Where in a city would you get food from if there was no oil to transport it in? If the oil runs out society may fall apart and i'm sure you wouldn't want to see your father get beaten to death by a mob for trying to get food, or your sister raped by a gang, or your nan freeze to death in a cold unheated home.

Now these are all ifs.... If we get the benefit of the oil when the rest of the world has run out.

true, he did join the army on his on will, and you make a solid point. but whatever happened to democracy when it came to this war. whatever happened to the truth. i mean if you are going to send my brother and sisters out to fight your war over money don't think that i should at least have a say if we go over there or not?
or i should at least know the truth about the 'real' reasons we are over there. i don't want to hear some bullshit lies or stories. i want to know that if my sister or my brother died that it was for a solid reason. a reason that makes me proud to say that my family had fought for this country.
and it is a sad reality about oil. your point was solid. but there are so many other ways we can survive. advanced as we are you are telling me that there is no way we could come up with a better solution or different way to survive without that oil.
those oil companies buy out every small business that try to find a better way to live environmentally, and economically ...
tell me there isn't a flaw in this war.

The problem with all of this is that everything I say is a big "If". If we went to war purely on the reasons we've been told by the governments then Iraq was a huge waste of life and resources. Unfortunately not being in government I cant tell you what the reasons actually are. I think we'll have to wait a few years before we can actually say if it was the right thing for the US and UK.

As for energy. There's problems with all the alternative fuels and to change the whole world would require huge lifestyle changes that people won't be prepared to make because people are naturally selfish:


Biolfuels - Takes huge areas to grow and normally results in cutting down and burning forests which actually increases CO2. Also the only country with land that can support their population would be America. With biofuels for most of the world it's a case of food or fuel
Hydrogen - It's dangerous and also needs electricity to create
Geothermal - Not easily accessible everywhere
Wind - expensive
Solar panels - expensive
Nuclear - Leaves radioactive waste
Oil - running out
Fusion reactors - not there technically. Nobody is even sure if they'll work
Gas - Limited resources
Coal - produces large amounts of pollution

I'd like for any member here to give me a wholesome explanation of why the war in Iraq was/is a bad thing. If you think I should google, please do not respond (or do, with your own points, for hilarity's sake).


Because were assholes. Were not making anything better. Were just fucking our shit up. Fuck it all.

Biolfuels - Takes huge areas to grow and normally results in cutting down and burning forests which actually increases CO2. Also the only country with land that can support their population would be America. With biofuels for most of the world it's a case of food or fuel
Hydrogen - It's dangerous and also needs electricity to create
Geothermal - Not easily accessible everywhere
Wind - expensive
Solar panels - expensive
Nuclear - Leaves radioactive waste
Oil - running out
Fusion reactors - not there technically. Nobody is even sure if they'll work
Gas - Limited resources
Coal - produces large amounts of pollution


Biofuels-Agree completely. Could be used in conjunction with CNG
Hydrogen-viable alt for large cities
Geothermal-incredibly expensive
Wind-Not really that expensive, would be great for midwest
Solar Panels- with a few more years of investment by both private and government it could use carbon tubes and be built into shingles
Fission- Fuel can be reprocessed. France has been doing it since the 80s and gets 70% of their power from fission
Oil-Bad
Fusion-I'd say its the ultimate goal
Gas- The United States has a ton and there wouldnt be a need to import
Coal-Clean coal can be used as an intermediary

If humanity is to survive, we absolutely must bring our population growth rate under control. World population is expected to increase by at least 40% in the next 40 years. Until we get that under control, everything else is a waste of time.

This is THE single most important world issue, and for some reason no one wants to talk about it.

If humanity is to survive, we absolutely must bring our population growth rate under control. World population is expected to increase by at least 40% in the next 40 years. Until we get that under control, everything else is a waste of time.

This is THE single most important world issue, and for some reason no one wants to talk about it.

impossible to do under a democratic system

impossible to do under a democratic system

Why is that?

Because the vast majoirty of people are stupid sheep who vote for what they see in the media or who looks the best.

A good example of this was the large number of people voting for Obama. A lot of people had no idea what he stood for, they just voted for him because he was black

On the subject of alternative energy that someone replied to. Nobody will use renewable fuels because of the huge amount of financial investment that would be needed. People just arn't prepared to change their lifestyles or inconvenience themselves.

Why is that?

because people arent going to like it if you legislate how many children they can have. Whites wouldnt probably care as much, but get some mexicans and muslims involved and there would be riots

Why is that?

Because people cast their vote based on which candidate will benefit them the most. You try getting the majority to vote for a candidate who is going to kill off the majority!

Because people cast their vote based on which candidate will benefit them the most.

Or the candidate that will hurt them the least.

See also: George Bush vs. John Kerry

this post pisses me off solely because people don't realize that war and hatred doesn't solve anything. to fight over a material item is utter stupidity. there are better ways to solve a problem. just because the man with the buttons want to show off his big guns and weapons. that is utterly pathetic.

We spent billions of dollars we did not have, could have used to shore up our failing economy, under the pretense of helping foreigners.

In other words, we should have helped America and Americans first.

Now tell me why that is not a good reason.

Or the candidate they believe will hurt them the least.

See also: George Bush vs. John Kerry

Fixed

We spent billions of dollars we did not have, could have used to shore up our failing economy, under the pretense of helping foreigners.

In other words, we should have helped America and Americans first.

Now tell me why that is not a good reason.

i fucking agree

this post pisses me off solely because people don't realize that war and hatred doesn't solve anything. to fight over a material item is utter stupidity. there are better ways to solve a problem. just because the man with the buttons want to show off his big guns and weapons. that is utterly pathetic.

Anastacia, I can understand your frustration and anger at the vile greed that drives international politics, but you have to understand that Int'l Politics are a rough game, and if we didn't secure oil in Iraq, our country couldn't function. We can't stop bullying for oil until we have alternatives in place.

We're like a teen drug addict in a room full of toddler drug addicts. We need to keep beating up the little kids for their "drugs' until we can successfully wean ourselves off of those hard drugs, or at least until we switch to gateway drugs.

It's not even a matter of politics. If you want to maintain our society, we have to keep consuming oil until we can readily shift to alternative sources of energy. They haven't been developed well here in the US for us to be able to do so. Until then, we can only commend your siblings for being courageous enough to uphold our society.

We're like a teen drug addict in a room full of toddler drug addicts. We need to keep beating up the little kids for their "drugs' until we can successfully wean ourselves off of those hard drugs, or at least until we switch to gateway drugs.

Correct. We are like a drug addict, who keeps telling itself "I am going to get one more fix, THEN I am going to get some treatment".

The fact is, as long as a fix is to be had (aka steam rolling another nation to get the oil we "need") we won't seek that treatment (alternative fuel).

People who support the U.S. getting that fix, for whatever reason, are enabling the junkie.

------

The three big automakers, are in a pinch. They need out help to stay afloat. I say fuck them, they broke it, they bought it. Now I am thinking that we really have them right where we want them.

You want 30 billion, okay, sign these papers indicating that in 2 years you will have 50% of your production capabilities dedicated to hydrogen fuel cell cars. In the meantime we will offer tremendous incentives to all hydrogen fuel cell related business. I mean tremendous. This will set up the supporting infrastructure needed.

^^^^From that you will see the industry take off. Suddendly a fuel cell manufacture plant will realize that it can also make things for home heating and air, industrial power, and so on and so forth, until our capitialist free market sorts the shit out.

Energy crisis averted, rest of the world begs us to trade the tech with them, America has been saved.

What do you all think?

Don't you think that "50%" is a little too.....ambitious? Seems like an awfully high number for only two years.

Don't you think that "50%" is a little too.....ambitious? Seems like an awfully high number for only two years.

Perhaps.

But 30 billion is a lot of money. Perhaps it can provide the motivatino needed to make something this ambitious a reality.

Or perhaps they would fall short, but in that case it would be a "they did the best they could" type scenario.

To all those that say that war is wrong: Morally I agree but any society that does not expand and conquer is conquered by the society that has.

The current two large parties that are after oil are America and China. America has to say that they are doing things that are morally right. China does not. Look at Darfur 500,000 dead because china wants the oil reserves there and will pay whatever organisation is in power for it.

Correct. We are like a drug addict, who keeps telling itself "I am going to get one more fix, THEN I am going to get some treatment".

The fact is, as long as a fix is to be had (aka steam rolling another nation to get the oil we "need") we won't seek that treatment (alternative fuel).

People who support the U.S. getting that fix, for whatever reason, are enabling the junkie.

------

The three big automakers, are in a pinch. They need out help to stay afloat. I say fuck them, they broke it, they bought it. Now I am thinking that we really have them right where we want them.

You want 30 billion, okay, sign these papers indicating that in 2 years you will have 50% of your production capabilities dedicated to hydrogen fuel cell cars. In the meantime we will offer tremendous incentives to all hydrogen fuel cell related business. I mean tremendous. This will set up the supporting infrastructure needed.

^^^^From that you will see the industry take off. Suddendly a fuel cell manufacture plant will realize that it can also make things for home heating and air, industrial power, and so on and so forth, until our capitialist free market sorts the shit out.

Energy crisis averted, rest of the world begs us to trade the tech with them, America has been saved.

What do you all think?

Honestly, if we were in any different scenario, I would let the Big Three go to hell in a handbarrow. The problem is, the US just lost HALF A MILLION jobs in a month. Letting that company go under would mean they would have to restructure, cease production, and lay off millions more employees.

No matter how shitty their companies have been run, we cannot afford to lose that many jobs.

Yes, they need better leadership. Yes, they need innovation, but we just can't let them go bankrupt. If your teen daughter gets pregnant, you don't kill her; you help her through whatever is necessary, whether she decides to raise the baby or abort.

If the companies agree to more efficient cars and better leadership, then you'll see the growth occur like you mentioned.

And to what you said about the junkie: We need that fix. Think of it this way, until we can wean ourselves off the heavy drugs, we need them. If we crash, we die. We have to have that fix as long as we are unable to wean.

We just can't stop. Although it goes against my ethics and ideologies, we need to be bullies to secure our fix. There's no way around it. Yet.

war will always be wrong. it has always brought this world down. it causes death, hatred, pain, and much more. and those of you support it are basically in favor of murder, crime, and greed. it is a fucking pathetic concept. whether or not we think it is needed. [honestly one war that i thought was a necessity was WWII] but still the thought of killing millions, thousands, hundreds at a time is criminal. it is what weakens us as people.
the fact that we let greed and power overcome us. I mean ANYONE. it is a depressing and pathetic concept.
and dropping bombs is just not the first thing that comes to my mind when i need to solve a problem. people are not logical when they possess extreme amounts of power. they are ILLOGICAL. this and the Vietnam war are ILLOGICAL to me.

Wow... I'm not sure what direction this thread has gone onto. As to why Iraq was a bad idea... its just bad for business to cause instability anywhere. Its especially bad for business when you start instability in the part of the world where most the world powers obtain their major fuel source from.

Its like why gangs don't just go out and try to completely eliminate each other. They may do it sparsely across a given amount of time, but they don't massacre each other. Basically because gangs rely on stuff like drugs and black market sales to fund whatever organization they may have. Each time a gang war is started, sales pretty much become stagnant out of customer fear of being caught in the cross fire and the lack of human resources to move their products who are at war. But the most important reason as to why gang wars are the worst thing a gang can do is because it draws attention to themselves from the authorities.

As it is right now, the US, the primary
country fighting this war, is pretty much hated around the world with a few previous government officials having warrants on them for arrest on sight in foreign lands.

By contrast, has anything beneficial come out of this whole ordeal that any single person reading or posting on this thread has experienced?

To all those that say that war is wrong: Morally I agree but any society that does not expand and conquer is conquered by the society that has.


But we are in the age of Monopoly. We slowly buy countries until they become miniature version of us. Conquering through force is no longer required. It may be necessary for small poor countries to send a message out that they cannot be fucked with. But not developed, wealthy nations who would make more money through sleazy one sided trade deals rather than funding an expensive war.

war will always be wrong. it has always brought this world down. it causes death, hatred, pain, and much more. and those of you support it are basically in favor of murder, crime, and greed. it is a fucking pathetic concept. whether or not we think it is needed. [honestly one war that i thought was a necessity was WWII] but still the thought of killing millions, thousands, hundreds at a time is criminal. it is what weakens us as people.
the fact that we let greed and power overcome us. I mean ANYONE. it is a depressing and pathetic concept.
and dropping bombs is just not the first thing that comes to my mind when i need to solve a problem. people are not logical when they possess extreme amounts of power. they are ILLOGICAL. this and the Vietnam war are ILLOGICAL to me.

Anastacia, darling, war is terrible, and sometimes pointless, but not this one.

We need to secure our oil supplies throughout the world until we can develop alternative sources of energy. It's not a matter of whether you're a hawk or a pacifist; It's a matter of whether you want society to keep on functioning smoothly or want the Western World to collapse into anarchy.

The war is terrible, and it is costing many innocent lives, but those lives, and those soldiers are absolutely vital to our ability to function. We can't just stop consuming petroleum; that'll take decades. Until then, we need to take all we can, so when unprepared nations collapse in the face of dwindling oil, we can continue to function normally.

It's not a matter of politics or ethics or personal convictions; it's a matter of economics and survival.

We need to secure our oil supplies throughout the world until we can develop alternative sources of energy.


Yes we should, but from how we have handled Iraq so far, what is to say the next generation in Iraq will say they don't want to sell to us anymore. They already want our soldiers out of there. Sooner or later, they will want our companies and contractors out of there also. All we would have done is replace one man who hated us with a whole country who will hate us.

Anastacia, darling, war is terrible, and sometimes pointless, but not this one.

We need to secure our oil supplies throughout the world until we can develop alternative sources of energy. It's not a matter of whether you're a hawk or a pacifist; It's a matter of whether you want society to keep on functioning smoothly or want the Western World to collapse into anarchy.

The war is terrible, and it is costing many innocent lives, but those lives, and those soldiers are absolutely vital to our ability to function. We can't just stop consuming petroleum; that'll take decades. Until then, we need to take all we can, so when unprepared nations collapse in the face of dwindling oil, we can continue to function normally.

It's not a matter of politics or ethics or personal convictions; it's a matter of economics and survival.

im sorry i just don't believe in war.
i never will and never have. you have a point though. i can at least give you that.
but regardless i am going to stick to my guns and be stubborn. i hate war.

im sorry i just don't believe in war.
i never will and never have. you have a point though. i can at least give you that.
but regardless i am going to stick to my guns and be stubborn. i hate war.

Don't come crying to me when a starving mob takes away your belongings and possibly your life for food & money.

Don't come crying to me when a starving mob takes away your belongings and possibly your family for food & money.

stop. just stop. regardless of what you say i will stay true to my convictions. maybe over time my opinions will change. but not right now. not when it already feels like a mob [the government] has robbed me of my belongings [my family members and those dearest to me]
the government has robbed me of a lot already. you have absolutely no idea what they have put me through. and so as for me crying to you it just won't happen. i have grown skin to overcome the constant burns this government places upon me.
so don't come crying to me when someone you love, like a child, a brother, a sister, a dear friend comes home, not in the clothes he left in, but in the body bag the government is so kind to provide.

Sorry; I didn't mean to delve so deeply. I'll just leave my arguments at that.

I'm going to surround this with brightly coloured text........

By contrast, has anything beneficial come out of this whole ordeal that any single person reading or posting on this thread has experienced?

.........so you side-steppers can't pretend you haven't seen it!

And no, I can't say I have.

When i was in Iraq I got a dish-dash (Iraq clothing). Great for fancy dress :)

Well in that case it's ALL been worth it!

the war in iraq is about oil plain and simple and the only people who wouldnt give up 4,000 lives for that much oil are the people who know those 4,000.

the war in iraq is about oil plain and simple and the only people who wouldnt give up 4,000 lives for that much oil are the people who know those 4,000.

I tried to wrap the gist of this in softer words, but yeah, this is basically it. We can't function without oil, and until we phase oil out, we have to do everything necessary to keep the pipes chugging.

war will always be wrong. it has always brought this world down. it causes death, hatred, pain, and much more. and those of you support it are basically in favor of murder, crime, and greed. it is a fucking pathetic concept. whether or not we think it is needed. [honestly one war that i thought was a necessity was WWII] but still the thought of killing millions, thousands, hundreds at a time is criminal. it is what weakens us as people.
the fact that we let greed and power overcome us. I mean ANYONE. it is a depressing and pathetic concept.
and dropping bombs is just not the first thing that comes to my mind when i need to solve a problem. people are not logical when they possess extreme amounts of power. they are ILLOGICAL. this and the Vietnam war are ILLOGICAL to me.

The reason the Vietnam War is illogical to you is because you are ignorant. The United States made a promise as a nation to protect Vietnam. When the Communist North Vietnamese threatened to destroy South Vietnam after a controversial election that was supposed to unify the country, the US had to step in because we promised, through Congress and Dulles, to protect Vietnam. The US failed to get the other nations involved in Vietnam's defense, and became entangled itself in the war.

The same thing happened in Korea, and the same thing would happen if Taiwan were attacked.

You confuse logic with morality.

Also, the reason war is illogical to you is because you are a pacifist. War is very logical; if someone has something I want, and I can take it from him, it would be logical to use diplomacy and ask for the object desired in order to prevent needlessly expended energy on my part. Taking the object by force if that doesn't work is logical, but not necessarily moral. Morals can make the job more difficult. If I am morally obligated to protect my friend and his family, and my friend is attacked by his sister, I go defend my friend if I define family as a patriarchal system. Now culture comes into play.

You also seem not to distinguish between killing and murder. As far back as ancient Hebrew, and I am willing to bet much farther than that, there has been a distinguishment between justified and unjustified killing. It exists to this day.

There is nothing illogical about killing. Personally, I would kill to defend myself. It is the logical solution to survival.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." — Dalai Lama XIV.

The reason the Vietnam War is illogical to you is because you are ignorant. The United States made a promise as a nation to protect Vietnam. When the Communist North Vietnamese threatened to destroy South Vietnam after a controversial election that was supposed to unify the country, the US had to step in because we promised, through Congress and Dulles, to protect Vietnam. The US failed to get the other nations involved in Vietnam's defense, and became entangled itself in the war.

- first of all it isn't fair for you to sit here and call me ignorant because my view on war is different than yours. and just because you stated some facts about the vietnam war and our involvement does not justify, at least to me, that it was a logical war. we may have had made promises and what not, but to me the vietnam war did nothing but provide the US with a bunch of dead bodies. i mean it just didn't seem all that necessary as let's say WWII



Also, the reason war is illogical to you is because you are a pacifist. War is very logical; if someone has something I want, and I can take it from him, it would be logical to use diplomacy and ask for the object desired in order to prevent needlessly expended energy on my part.

- that is not logical that is called selfishness my friend.

Morals can make the job more difficult. If I am morally obligated to protect my friend and his family, and my friend is attacked by his sister, I go defend my friend if I define family as a patriarchal system. Now culture comes into play.

- morals play a big role in this entire debate we are having. i view war and selfishness as morally wrong. but you view the vietnam war as 'helping out our friends' 'it was a promise' but that shows us a little bit about you and your morals. i am different i will keep a promise and i will defend my friends but not if i think that it is morally incorrect. but that is only because of experiences i have come across throughout my life.


You also seem not to distinguish between killing and murder. As far back as ancient Hebrew, and I am willing to bet much farther than that, there has been a distinguishment between justified and unjustified killing. It exists to this day.

-maybe i didn't explain myself thoroughly when it came to this. and i will admit you made a good point that i did not distinguish between murder and killing. but i will say this, killing is killing justified or not. you still have to make that decision. i just don't see killing as a solution to any problem. that is just not how it works for me. maybe my opinion will change but not right now.

There is nothing illogical about killing. Personally, I would kill to defend myself. It is the logical solution to survival.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." — Dalai Lama XIV.

- i would kill only to defend myself. but i would say that would be the only time it is logical.
and please mind you this is all just healthy debate.

It depends if you believe the conspiracy theories. We've already passed peak oil so the way for America to get access to new supplies was to invade Iraq. Now depending on who you trust will dictate how you see it. If you hate the people at the top then you'll think they only did it to get money from it because they all have shares in the oil companies and contract firms.

The objective was to pull the ultimate smash & grab and get the oil contracts to the Bush admin's buddies. Every member of the Bush admin has deep ties to oil. Cheney's Energy Task Force had maps of Iraq carved up like Christmas ham (http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml), deciding what companies would get what contracts for what fields 2 months into the Presidency. The stated reasons were all bullshit, as is painfully apparent today. They got what they wanted and got away clean. We're stuck with the aftermath of them using national resources to loot and profiteer.

They divvy up Iraq's oil on paper, 9/11 happens and gives them the pretext, they invade on bogus and manipulated bullshit intelligence that numerous officials have long since blown the whistle on them about, boot Saddam, and let the contractors come in and take over just as they planned from the very beginning.

Back where I come from, we call that particular type of criminal activity "premeditated".

George Parr on Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptzml1qQvZE).

Funny how we get a straight story from satire rather than the actual news.

By the way, is Chris Vickers your real name? I knew a kid with the same name when I was in high school back in Washington in '96.

- that is not logical that is called selfishness my friend.


Selflessness/caring/decency however you want to call it is a societal norm that teaches individual weakness for common strength. Communalism only goes as far as greed allows it, and you have to accept that. If one person wants something, he will try to get it. If a group of people want something from another group, they will try to take it. The only difference is the second one is on a much larger scale and is called war.

- first of all it isn't fair for you to sit here and call me ignorant because my view on war is different than yours. and just because you stated some facts about the vietnam war and our involvement does not justify, at least to me, that it was a logical war. we may have had made promises and what not, but to me the vietnam war did nothing but provide the US with a bunch of dead bodies. i mean it just didn't seem all that necessary as let's say WWII


I can call you ignorant because you claimed the war was illogical, when it was very logical. You fail to demonstrate an understanding of the distinction between the definitions of the two words "logic" and "morality."


- that is not logical that is called selfishness my friend.

Selfishness or selflessness is irrelevant. We were discussing logic. Because there is a rational thought process behind the action, it is logical. The motivation is irrelevant.


- morals play a big role in this entire debate we are having. i view war and selfishness as morally wrong. but you view the vietnam war as 'helping out our friends' 'it was a promise' but that shows us a little bit about you and your morals. i am different i will keep a promise and i will defend my friends but not if i think that it is morally incorrect. but that is only because of experiences i have come across throughout my life.



-maybe i didn't explain myself thoroughly when it came to this. and i will admit you made a good point that i did not distinguish between murder and killing. but i will say this, killing is killing justified or not. you still have to make that decision. i just don't see killing as a solution to any problem. that is just not how it works for me. maybe my opinion will change but not right now.

Morals do seem to play a big part for you, but morality does not determine if an act is logical.

Also, don't read into "my" rationalization of the Vietnam War. It was the rationalization used to go to war. It's the rationalization the US will use to go to war if Taiwan is invaded, and it is the rationalization used to insure money with the FDIC. It's credibility on a national level due to ethics, not morals. It is a rational viewpoint that if the US falls back on a promise, it will greatly damage its credibility on the diplomatic playing field. It's not necessarily my morality. I was using a hypothetical situation as an example. The fact that you did not pick up on this is the kind of thing people generally see as unsophisticated because it demonstrates an ignorance towards such as the subjunctive tense. It isn't meant as an insult.


- i would kill only to defend myself. but i would say that would be the only time it is logical.
and please mind you this is all just healthy debate.

You would not be correct unless you were operating under the assumption that you were mentally incapable of rationalizing killing for another reason. I don't go around robbing people, but if I wanted money and I saw an elderly man at the ATM and beat his head in with a brick when he rounded he corner in order to pilfer his wallet, it would be a rational action. If I estimated my chances of success as high and the risk of being caught as low, it would be a rational choice to kill/injure for personal gain. Morally, most people would tell me is abhorrent, and I personally would never resort to that kind of thuggery, but it is very rational. I want it. He has it. I can take it.

........

In relation to the circumstances of this thread, would you consider the "logical" action to be the correct action?

I think the logic you're citing is a fairly short sighted one. In terms of the present, we need oil and we have secured a supply. But at the cost of further destabilalising and polarising the world. In the long term, I wouldn't call this a "logical" course of action.

Saying that ethics played a part in the motivating the US intervention in the conflict in Indochina is a bit far fetched I think, let's just say that the US had specific geopolitical interests, which involved actively opposing communism wherever it might be taking hold of power.

The US had made a commitment to the South Vietnamese government that is true, but that doesn not mean that the US had the interests of the Vietnamese people at heart, the reason behind US support was its strategic importance as a bastion against Communism.

ana = idiot

R_L = intelligent

it wasnt a good idea in the first place.

they just ran a plane into the building to teach us a lesson and that is to not stick our noses in other peoples businesses

Selflessness/caring/decency however you want to call it is a societal norm that teaches individual weakness for common strength. Communalism only goes as far as greed allows it, and you have to accept that. If one person wants something, he will try to get it. If a group of people want something from another group, they will try to take it. The only difference is the second one is on a much larger scale and is called war.

selfishness is not a healthy trait. when you see something you want granted you will attempt to take it or figure out some way to obtain it. but when you deliberately see someone with the item you want and you take it for your own gain and to diminish that of whom you took it from that is when you have crossed the boundary in to selfishness. and it ultimately comes down to the age old saying 'you can't always get what you want'. but then again it is a trait we all carry, and eventually we cross that boundary. what i am saying is that selfishness has played a big role in this war. and although oil is a necessity the government had lie to all of us to get what they wanted. and when the truth, more or less, came out i can't help but say that disappointment has set in.

I can call you ignorant because you claimed the war was illogical, when it was very logical. You fail to demonstrate an understanding of the distinction between the definitions of the two words "logic" and "morality."
Selfishness or selflessness is irrelevant. We were discussing logic. Because there is a rational thought process behind the action, it is logical. The motivation is irrelevant.
Morals do seem to play a big part for you, but morality does not determine if an act is logical.
Also, don't read into "my" rationalization of the Vietnam War. It was the rationalization used to go to war. It's the rationalization the US will use to go to war if Taiwan is invaded, and it is the rationalization used to insure money with the FDIC. It's credibility on a national level due to ethics, not morals. It is a rational viewpoint that if the US falls back on a promise, it will greatly damage its credibility on the diplomatic playing field. It's not necessarily my morality. I was using a hypothetical situation as an example. The fact that you did not pick up on this is the kind of thing people generally see as unsophisticated because it demonstrates an ignorance towards such as the subjunctive tense. It isn't meant as an insult.

look mister, i understand that you are trying to change my views on this so called 'logical' war. i am very much open to people's opinions and thoughts. and yours have definitely left me to thinking. so 'you win' is what i will say cause you have. but i can't obviously make you see that to me war, whether or not i put the word logical in front of it, is childish. war is a subject that frightens me, it is something that puts me on edge. especially when the ones i love are out on the front line. give me that benefit of the doubt. why you must simply attack me because i view it as an ignorant act man participates in, gets us absolutely no where. you are making me angry when you insult me along with giving me your opinions without giving my reasons some sort of thought [like there must be a reason she sees it that way]. instead of shoving your words down my throat. so i don't mind continuing this discussion. just calm down.



You would not be correct unless you were operating under the assumption that you were mentally incapable of rationalizing killing for another reason. I don't go around robbing people, but if I wanted money and I saw an elderly man at the ATM and beat his head in with a brick when he rounded he corner in order to pilfer his wallet, it would be a rational action. If I estimated my chances of success as high and the risk of being caught as low, it would be a rational choice to kill/injure for personal gain. Morally, most people would tell me is abhorrent, and I personally would never resort to that kind of thuggery, but it is very rational. I want it. He has it. I can take it.

you think it rational to just go out and kill someone because he 'has it and you want it'? why would the word rationality even play a role in that scenario? that is a fucked up way to view rationality. you could of used a better example.
also killing a person fucks with your mind. a good percentage of soldiers come back with post traumatic stress disorder from what they saw and did. and personally i think rationality is a word furthest from their minds.

Technically I guess killing somebody so you can get what they have Could be considered rational...just immoral. In fact, it would be irrational to leave someone alive knowing that they could identify you and come back later for vengeance.

Luckily we live in a society that links rationality and morality - without such a link we would be living Hobbes-ian lives that would be 'nasty, brutish, and short'.

With regards to the war - I guess from a certain standpoint it was rational. If you, the President, knew that you could invade a country at the cost of only a few thousand American deaths (not caring about Iraqi deaths) and without any personal risk to you or your family - yet the benefits include 1. The possibility of cheap oil provided to your country by a puppet government once stability arrives (even if that is 20 years) and 2. The oil-families that you are so connected to down in Texas, as well as your friends at Exxon-Mobile get billions of dollars in profits - meaning more political support for you in the future! In this case, it would indeed be 'rational'.

But it was not moral. That is why it is illegal. That is why the President should be considered a War criminal, the records of his Administration should be released, and he should be denounced as a torturer, a denier of human rights, and a brutal fascist who has had no respect for the Constitution throughout his rule.

But like the slogan says: It's not fascism when we do it.

Technically I guess killing somebody so you can get what they have Could be considered rational...just immoral. In fact, it would be irrational to leave someone alive knowing that they could identify you and come back later for vengeance.

Luckily we live in a society that links rationality and morality - without such a link we would be living Hobbes-ian lives that would be 'nasty, brutish, and short'.

With regards to the war - I guess from a certain standpoint it was rational. If you, the President, knew that you could invade a country at the cost of only a few thousand American deaths (not caring about Iraqi deaths) and without any personal risk to you or your family - yet the benefits include 1. The possibility of cheap oil provided to your country by a puppet government once stability arrives (even if that is 20 years) and 2. The oil-families that you are so connected to down in Texas, as well as your friends at Exxon-Mobile get billions of dollars in profits - meaning more political support for you in the future! In this case, it would indeed be 'rational'.

But it was not moral. That is why it is illegal. That is why the President should be considered a War criminal, the records of his Administration should be released, and he should be denounced as a torturer, a denier of human rights, and a brutal fascist who has had no respect for the Constitution throughout his rule.

But like the slogan says: It's not fascism when we do it.

you fucking rock!
thank you

selfishness is not a healthy trait. when you see something you want granted you will attempt to take it or figure out some way to obtain it. but when you deliberately see someone with the item you want and you take it for your own gain and to diminish that of whom you took it from that is when you have crossed the boundary in to selfishness. and it ultimately comes down to the age old saying 'you can't always get what you want'. but then again it is a trait we all carry, and eventually we cross that boundary. what i am saying is that selfishness has played a big role in this war. and although oil is a necessity the government had lie to all of us to get what they wanted. and when the truth, more or less, came out i can't help but say that disappointment has set in.

Me > you. Or anyone else for that matter.

look mister, i understand that you are trying to change my views on this so called 'logical' war. i am very much open to people's opinions and thoughts. and yours have definitely left me to thinking. so 'you win' is what i will say cause you have. but i can't obviously make you see that to me war, whether or not i put the word logical in front of it, is childish. war is a subject that frightens me, it is something that puts me on edge. especially when the ones i love are out on the front line. give me that benefit of the doubt. why you must simply attack me because i view it as an ignorant act man participates in, gets us absolutely no where. you are making me angry when you insult me along with giving me your opinions without giving my reasons some sort of thought [like there must be a reason she sees it that way]. instead of shoving your words down my throat. so i don't mind continuing this discussion. just calm down.


I'm not the one making strawman arguments. You claim I have an inability to see your viewpoint. I see it, you just failed at expressing it adequately and made an incorrect statement. If you improve your interpersonal communications skills and vocabulary, you'd have less of these conversations. My heart rate isn't increasing any due to my typing to you, so it's obvious you're projecting as I previously claimed. You're falsely attributing emotions and mental incapabilities to me that you can't logically do. You need to understand logical fallacy.

Also, if you are frightened by war, you need to seriously reassess your coping mechanisms to fear and loss. I don't walk around afraid of the evils of the world, but I walk around prepared. If you are honestly scared of war, you must live a life controlled by fear. Does it keep you up at night?

Honestly, people die, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is established, there is sickness, pain (which serves a very real biological function for survival) and suffering (which I feel is needless). Essentially shit happens. That's life. Whether you recognize this and live with it in a healthy fashion or not has nothing to do with logic.



you think it rational to just go out and kill someone because he 'has it and you want it'? why would the word rationality even play a role in that scenario? that is a fucked up way to view rationality. you could of used a better example.
also killing a person fucks with your mind. a good percentage of soldiers come back with post traumatic stress disorder from what they saw and did. and personally i think rationality is a word furthest from their minds.
It is rational, regardless of whether I think it or not... as long as there is a reasoning process behind it. You need to stop being so emotional and look at the denotation of the word "rational." Do you know what "rationalizing" a heinous act is? It's justifying it through a relatively well-reasoned thought process.

You repeatedly are showing your failure to actually use the definition of rational. An act can be rational from an irrational person. You are confusing an act with a character. Just because someone is a liar does not mean they are incapable of being honest. This is the basis for ad hominem logical fallacies.

You're making another logical fallacy. You are assuming I don't know what it's like to kill. Most of my friends are soldiers and law enforcement. You have no reason to believe I have not taken life myself, and never have I claimed killing of any kind (justified or not) to be a healthy or good experience, though I certainly will not claim it to be unhealthy. Just because you don't seem capable of coping with it does not make it inherently mentally/psychologically damaging to others. Yet another logical fallacy.

The way I see it:
The guy HAD WMD's in the past
The guy USED WMD's in the past .
He had provoked and aggravated the Israelis.
He killed his own people.
He had numerous chances to avoid war, but he would not stand down.

Those are the hard cold facts. Okay, I concede death has occurred. This is unfortunate. But we are somewhere near securing a democratic Iraq. The terrorists and evil doers are attempting to hold this back. We can not yield to these intimidations and threats-we must stand firm.

Is that worth fighting for? I say yes.

God bless the USA and RULE BRITANNIA UK.

Okay I am an atheist, but tradition rules :P

The way I see it:
The guy HAD WMD's in the past
The guy USED WMD's in the past .
He had provoked and aggravated the Israelis.
He killed his own people.
He had numerous chances to avoid war, but he would not stand down.

Those are the hard cold facts. Okay, I concede death has occurred. This is unfortunate. But we are somewhere near securing a democratic Iraq. The terrorists and evil doers are attempting to hold this back. We can not yield to these intimidations and threats-we must stand firm.

Is that worth fighting for? I say yes.

God bless the USA and RULE BRITANNIA UK.

Okay I am an atheist, but tradition rules :P

1. So? Should we invade a country for having used WMDs? Because he used them then does not mean he has them now.
2. See above
3. ...and? You think the Israelis are innocent in their aggravation?
4. See: Africa
5. When?

I'm not the one making strawman arguments. You claim I have an inability to see your viewpoint. I see it, you just failed at expressing it adequately and made an incorrect statement. If you improve your interpersonal communications skills and vocabulary, you'd have less of these conversations. My heart rate isn't increasing any due to my typing to you, so it's obvious you're projecting as I previously claimed. You're falsely attributing emotions and mental incapabilities to me that you can't logically do. You need to understand logical fallacy.

Also, if you are frightened by war, you need to seriously reassess your coping mechanisms to fear and loss. I don't walk around afraid of the evils of the world, but I walk around prepared. If you are honestly scared of war, you must live a life controlled by fear. Does it keep you up at night?

Honestly, people die, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is established, there is sickness, pain (which serves a very real biological function for survival) and suffering (which I feel is needless). Essentially shit happens. That's life. Whether you recognize this and live with it in a healthy fashion or not has nothing to do with logic.


-first of all there is no reason for me to take in what you type seriously. every fucking five minutes you have thrown in an insult. it isn't me be over fucking emotional it is realizing the fact that your argument is based on nothing but diminishing my character, and only after so many can i sit here and take it without saying anything.
i agree with you though. i can sit here and take what you have to say and think about and admit that i was wrong. i can go off only what i have read or what i seen or heard [whether it be a little or a lot]. but as i said before i am open to others opinions and persuasions. but unfortunately i am going to stick with my initial statement in saying that you haven't plainly seen my entire viewpoint. you talk as if you know it all.
~im younger than you and i haven't been cultured as well to the subject as you have.
~although you have your views i am entitled to mine as well. [and i may have not argued them good enough to your standards, but i am just trying to fend off every sentence you spew the best i can] the only thing i go off of is what i have experienced and opinions that i have formed throughout my life. you have possibly no idea what i go through or have gone through so therefore you have no right to say you see it through my eyes. so you can stop that bullshit right there.
~that you have to admit that through this continuous bickering i could have stopped it by being an ignorant totsean, but im not. in fact i am being quite receptive to your views and have mentioned that i should have come into this argument more prepared for someone like you.

to continue i am going to say that for a long time i had lived my life in fear. i had nothing else. and no i could not sleep at night. [once again proving you have no idea about my viewpoint and why it is the way it is] [please view:http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2174659]
but i can honestly say that i have worked on it a lot. the fact that you have the audacity to come at me with such arrogance is just asinine. im just saying that it made me think....



It is rational, regardless of whether I think it or not... as long as there is a reasoning process behind it. You need to stop being so emotional and look at the denotation of the word "rational." Do you know what "rationalizing" a heinous act is? It's justifying it through a relatively well-reasoned thought process.

You repeatedly are showing your failure to actually use the definition of rational. An act can be rational from an irrational person. You are confusing an act with a character. Just because someone is a liar does not mean they are incapable of being honest. This is the basis for ad hominem logical fallacies.

You're making another logical fallacy. You are assuming I don't know what it's like to kill. Most of my friends are soldiers and law enforcement. You have no reason to believe I have not taken life myself, and never have I claimed killing of any kind (justified or not) to be a healthy or good experience, though I certainly will not claim it to be unhealthy. Just because you don't seem capable of coping with it does not make it inherently mentally/psychologically damaging to others. Yet another logical fallacy.

-killing. it made me think there for a second. and i looked at your reasoning as to why you think it is rational. but your attempt to persuade me was not strong enough. look at it like this: let's go back to the scenario of killing the old man..etc, etc. yes, it was a rational thought [a justified thought process of well-reasoning] [B]to want money [in this case]. but to claim it rational [a justified thought process of well-reasoning] that killing of being the only way said person could obtain it is wrong. [get a fucking job earn it how everyone else does]. killing somebody is not 'WELL-REASONING'
but i will say this. with your previous arguments, i will say that there are certain times that is is a justified thought [i.e. in self-defense..etc.] and then again the soldiers over in iraq killing kids and killing terrorists, and families, whether or not they think [personally] that it is rational, it was a direct order from the commander in cheif. so the thought of rationality is completely thrown out the window. thus leaving said solider in mentally disabled state afterwards. [not all though][and i think that was initially a piece of your argument that i had passed off as ridiculous or just overlooked and i apologize]

to add to this, i never once said that you had no idea what it was like kill someone. because i respect the fact that you have your viewpoints for a reason, and i also never said that just because i am unable to cope with killing as something 'well-reasoned' [which you came of quite strong in saying by the by judging your lack of knowledge of my life experiences] i never said that others weren't capable of coping. i know that others are, i was only stating the fact that many cannot as well [i.e. soliders with post traumatic stress disorder] thus saying that i must not be the only one viewing killing as irrational at times.

The kid has a point - I thought about pointing out post-traumatic stress disorder too..despite Random_Looney's (what I gathered to be) claim about being in close quarters with either firsthand killing or others who have killed, it has been scientifically proven that many cannot handle it. Hence, the huge numbers of people with 'shellshock' from WWI and II or PTSD in Vietnam and Iraq..

Come on folks - because this (obviously) younger person - I'm guessing high school? - has not taken a critical thinking course or a phil course in the fallacies doesn't mean they don't have a right to express their opinions or that they have to be attacked ad-hominem for doing so..I mean, they even admit that they aren't by any means experts in the situation and don't claim to know all the facts or details. Totse, and specifically PLRC, is here so people can lurk and see differing viewpoints about current and past events - even chiming in every once in awhile if they have something to say that they feel is worthwhile. Saying things like 'you have to improve your interpersonal communication and vocabulary' is just passive aggressive garbage...Come, on we were all young and foolish once.

The kid has a point - I thought about pointing out post-traumatic stress disorder too..despite Random_Looney's (what I gathered to be) claim about being in close quarters with either firsthand killing or others who have killed, it has been scientifically proven that many cannot handle it. Hence, the huge numbers of people with 'shellshock' from WWI and II or PTSD in Vietnam and Iraq..

Come on folks - because this (obviously) younger person - I'm guessing high school? - has not taken a critical thinking course or a phil course in the fallacies doesn't mean they don't have a right to express their opinions or that they have to be attacked ad-hominem for doing so..I mean, they even admit that they aren't by any means experts in the situation and don't claim to know all the facts or details. Totse, and specifically PLRC, is here so people can lurk and see differing viewpoints about current and past events - even chiming in every once in awhile if they have something to say that they feel is worthwhile. Saying things like 'you have to improve your interpersonal communication and vocabulary' is just passive aggressive garbage...Come, on we were all young and foolish once.


im not in high school anymore. 19 though
and thank you.

He had numerous chances to avoid war, but he would not stand down.

2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm)

2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm)

Stop being a tool; the war wasn't about WMD's, it was about oil. And yet, the war was still justified. If you wish to discuss, read my earlier posts here and reply; I don't much feel like parroting.

Stop being a tool; the war wasn't about WMD's, it was about oil. And yet, the war was still justified. If you wish to discuss, read my earlier posts here and reply; I don't much feel like parroting.

Actually, I have responded to your earlier posts saying it was not justified. Securing resources for our country is justified. But the way we go about doing it is the matter at hand. To assume the war was justified because securing resources is seems to be a weak argument, logically. We could have just bought out all of Iraq's allies, then moved onto buying out its people through its industries and propaganda. We are in the age of Monopolies. There is enough money to bleed countries dry.

It probably would have been a hell of a lot cheaper this way if we not only consider the cost of the war so far, but also factor in the economic costs that have been missed or mismanaged since the war began. Referring to my earlier posts, not just war, but simple confrontation alone is bad for business. In a capitalist society, the progress of business trumps everything else. It is the outrageous success of businesses we have seen in our lifetimes that have basically made countries into world leaders.

Everyone keeps freaking out about China. Is it because of their huge population? Not necessarily. If it ever came down to strength in numbers, the numbers would be nullified by the inequality of firepower strength and technology. But when it comes down to straight out business, they are not making a killing yet, but are on a path to doing it. There are unbalanced trade laws between them and us. It is much cheaper to operate there rather than here. They are buying up a lot of debt, a smart investment move considering their recent surge in their economy. Their allies control oil flow to our allies. See what they are doing? They are going about it like its the new millennium. We are going about it like the renaissance never happened.

It was a good idea to start the war in Iraq- because it is profititable for the Bush administration. This in turn puts money in Georgey Boys pockets and hes got his very own set of real army men to play with. Ending the war would make Georgey Boy cry. You wouldn't want that would you? You wouldn't want to make Georgey Boy sad.

Actually, I have responded to your earlier posts saying it was not justified. Securing resources for our country is justified. But the way we go about doing it is the matter at hand. To assume the war was justified because securing resources is seems to be a weak argument, logically. We could have just bought out all of Iraq's allies, then moved onto buying out its people through its industries and propaganda. We are in the age of Monopolies. There is enough money to bleed countries dry.

It probably would have been a hell of a lot cheaper this way if we not only consider the cost of the war so far, but also factor in the economic costs that have been missed or mismanaged since the war began. Referring to my earlier posts, not just war, but simple confrontation alone is bad for business. In a capitalist society, the progress of business trumps everything else. It is the outrageous success of businesses we have seen in our lifetimes that have basically made countries into world leaders.

Everyone keeps freaking out about China. Is it because of their huge population? Not necessarily. If it ever came down to strength in numbers, the numbers would be nullified by the inequality of firepower strength and technology. But when it comes down to straight out business, they are not making a killing yet, but are on a path to doing it. There are unbalanced trade laws between them and us. It is much cheaper to operate there rather than here. They are buying up a lot of debt, a smart investment move considering their recent surge in their economy. Their allies control oil flow to our allies. See what they are doing? They are going about it like its the new millennium. We are going about it like the renaissance never happened.

You raised a perspective I hadn't considered: we could have simply bought out the Iraqis. I like it, but you have to consider that Saddam had reneged on agreements before, and was a very volatile figure. It was more secure on our part to simply remove him.

Anastacia, darling, war is terrible, and sometimes pointless, but not this one.

We need to secure our oil supplies throughout the world until we can develop alternative sources of energy. It's not a matter of whether you're a hawk or a pacifist; It's a matter of whether you want society to keep on functioning smoothly or want the Western World to collapse into anarchy.

The war is terrible, and it is costing many innocent lives, but those lives, and those soldiers are absolutely vital to our ability to function. We can't just stop consuming petroleum; that'll take decades. Until then, we need to take all we can, so when unprepared nations collapse in the face of dwindling oil, we can continue to function normally.

It's not a matter of politics or ethics or personal convictions; it's a matter of economics and survival.

Your short term solution to our oil dependency is invading whatever country has the resource we so desire? That's some of the most asinine shit I've read. You'd make a good Bush cabinet member. Perhaps you're willing to sacrifice any good standing the US has in the world and any kind of moral high ground we ever had in the world, but some of us aren't.

The only nation taking leaps and bounds to start embracing alternative energy has been China, along with other reasons this is why they'll run the world in 30 years.

You raised a perspective I hadn't considered: we could have simply bought out the Iraqis. I like it, but you have to consider that Saddam had reneged on agreements before, and was a very volatile figure. It was more secure on our part to simply remove him.

Well if you look into the history of his presidency, he already would kill anyone that was close to him in fear of them doing what he did to gain his power. It could have been as simple as creating conspiracies among his ranks until he had no government structure left to even run the country. We could have just exploited his volatility.

In relation to the circumstances of this thread, would you consider the "logical" action to be the correct action?

I think the logic you're citing is a fairly short sighted one. In terms of the present, we need oil and we have secured a supply. But at the cost of further destabilalising and polarising the world. In the long term, I wouldn't call this a "logical" course of action.

You mean in relation to the war in Iraq?

You see, that is the entire point of my original posts. People need to learn to say what they mean. I never made my posts specific to the war. If you want my personal opinion, two senators who will remain unnamed should have STFU back in '91 and let the military finish the job. I think abandoning the Kurds was a mistake.

I don't necessarily think going back to war was a mistake per se, even though it was not as good of an option of taking out Saddam back in the day. I believe the emphasized reasons to going back into Iraq were not intelligent ones. We should have emphasized human rights issues, Saddam fucking around with UN weapons inspectors, how he was found to have old stockpiles of chemical weapons he didn't dispose of (and probably forgot about, but we'll tack it on there), how he violated sanctions against specific military technologies he had (Mig29's buried in the desert), etc.

Instead, the PR on the war was poorly handled here and abroad and the requests of the military for a certain number of troops (250,000 I believe) were unheeded.

-first of all there is no reason for me to take in what you type seriously. every fucking five minutes you have thrown in an insult. it isn't me be over fucking emotional it is realizing the fact that your argument is based on nothing but diminishing my character, and only after so many can i sit here and take it without saying anything.
i agree with you though. i can sit here and take what you have to say and think about and admit that i was wrong. i can go off only what i have read or what i seen or heard [whether it be a little or a lot]. but as i said before i am open to others opinions and persuasions. but unfortunately i am going to stick with my initial statement in saying that you haven't plainly seen my entire viewpoint. you talk as if you know it all.


You're making the same logical fallacy again. Just because House M.D. is an asshole doesn't mean I won't let him diagnose my cancer.

I'm correct. We both admitted it. I corrected you. There isn't any shame in that- it doesn't make me better than you, but I am and was correct, so you should take me seriously. You're mistaking my pointing out of your error as my attempting to insult you. I'm not trying to rub it in your face. I'm trying to make sure you learn from the mistake. Being ignorant of a matter is something that is easily corrected, so my pointing that out instead of calling you stupid is not something I intend to be insulting even though I don't intend it as a compliment either.

Oh, and I disagree about diminishing your character. Where have I diminished or even insulted your character? My argument is based off of semantics and logic. If my argument were based on diminishing your character, and I ended up being correct, I'd probably laugh at how awesomely cynical that was. See where I'm going there? I'm not trying to insult you, but rather emphasize how that doesn't make sense.

Also, I think we're misunderstanding out intonations on the internet. I was annoyed at how naive you came off to me because your emotion was so apparent and vibrant over something that is a complete misdirection to what it should be, in my opinion. It's like the distinction between pain and suffering. Pain serves to indicate there is a biological problem in the body, and is very helpful. Suffering serves no purpose (other than perhaps the pleasure of S&M enthusiasts).

If you decided to work for the abolition of pain, this would be a well-intentioned, but misguided application of your labors and talents. It would be wasteful and inefficient.

Oh, and I do want to apologize if I come off as an asshole. I have been under a lot of work and personal-related stress lately, and most of the time Totse is full of trolls, stupid people, and bad logic. I might not be a genius, but I'm relatively smart, and so genuine stupidity really grates on me. Plus, I'm used to the fact that most people aren't considerate in debating, especially here, so I do tend to get set in the "great, this asshole honestly..." mode. An example of ignorance and stupidity wrapped up together is a thread in Conspiracy where someone was spouting off a bunch of nonsense about AIDS and the "discoverer." I know Luc Montagnier. This guy was talking about Gallo, not by name, who discovered HIV after Montagnier, undeniably. He also had a bunch of facts incorrect and was blaming "the government" for synthesizing HIV and manufacturing the virus when he wouldn't know the difference between a lentivirus and a retrovirus (there's a trick to that one, and there is a difference). Unsubstantiated libel like that spewed all over this site tends to piss me off. Especially for people who don't understand what working for the government in general is like. Doubly so for those who generalize about the military or the NIH without having had any personal experiences with them.


~im younger than you and i haven't been cultured as well to the subject as you have.
~although you have your views i am entitled to mine as well. [and i may have not argued them good enough to your standards, but i am just trying to fend off every sentence you spew the best i can] the only thing i go off of is what i have experienced and opinions that i have formed throughout my life. you have possibly no idea what i go through or have gone through so therefore you have no right to say you see it through my eyes. so you can stop that bullshit right there.

Asking questions and continuing your own cited train of logic is not pretentious in the least. I can keep doing it as often as I please, and I did so in a manner that invited elucidation. Also, because we've now established that you have an irrational fear of war, which is unfortunate, we can compartmentalize that and discuss it productively.

One reason I probably came off as arrogant to you is because your own tone was very assured and absolute, which is equally presumptuous.


~that you have to admit that through this continuous bickering i could have stopped it by being an ignorant totsean, but im not. in fact i am being quite receptive to your views and have mentioned that i should have come into this argument more prepared for someone like you.

to continue i am going to say that for a long time i had lived my life in fear. i had nothing else. and no i could not sleep at night. [once again proving you have no idea about my viewpoint and why it is the way it is] [please view:http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2174659]
but i can honestly say that i have worked on it a lot. the fact that you have the audacity to come at me with such arrogance is just asinine. im just saying that it made me think....
I have yet to read your thread, but I will get around to it. I grew up in a violent home and lived in crime-laden areas. I don't see any audacity in trying to point out that some of what you've said is silly and you should be wary of that because if you are living in fear and losing sleep, that is hugely unhealthy. I train in martial arts, carry a firearm, and go about my day. I suffer absolutely no fear and only lose sleep due to work.

In fact, the reason I continued talking to you is because you are receptive. If you weren't, I would have shrugged it off as you're not only being wrong, but "stupid" because you were not open to discussing your views and/or correction on some issues. I'd have just told you that you have every right to be as wrong as you want.

-killing. it made me think there for a second. and i looked at your reasoning as to why you think it is rational. but your attempt to persuade me was not strong enough. look at it like this: let's go back to the scenario of killing the old man..etc, etc. yes, it was a rational thought [a justified thought process of well-reasoning] [B]to want money [in this case]. but to claim it rational [a justified thought process of well-reasoning] that killing of being the only way said person could obtain it is wrong. [get a fucking job earn it how everyone else does]. killing somebody is not 'WELL-REASONING'
but i will say this. with your previous arguments, i will say that there are certain times that is is a justified thought [i.e. in self-defense..etc.] and then again the soldiers over in iraq killing kids and killing terrorists, and families, whether or not they think [personally] that it is rational, it was a direct order from the commander in cheif. so the thought of rationality is completely thrown out the window. thus leaving said solider in mentally disabled state afterwards. [not all though][and i think that was initially a piece of your argument that i had passed off as ridiculous or just overlooked and i apologize]
The issue here is that logic and rationality are often dependent on circumstances. If I'm out of milk and want more, it would be rational for me to go the store to buy more, under normal circumstances. If the store is contaminated with an organophosphate nerve agent and I lack protective gear, it would be highly irrational for me as I do not particularly want to die.

Thus, because thought processes can be thought out to varying degrees of efficiency, and because individual circumstances can vary between people and day to day, rationality is often an issue of superlative logic. In the face of a superior logic, the less-logical choice becomes illogical because there is no reason to be less efficient or less logical about anything.

Therefor, killing someone to get their money is a logical way of thinking, though often myopic. Killing someone and taking their money because you won't get caught is more logical. Obviously, killing someone because you don't think it's immoral is even more logical under the same circumstances. Because morality is subjective, it just supports my previous statement. A better example would be that of preemptive attack. Someone is preparing to hurt me, so I attack them first. It is logical to stop someone from hurting me by hurting them first if I believe they were going to. It is less logical if I believe it is immoral to ever initiate physical conflict. Therefor, for one who believes it is immoral to ever initiate physical conflict, it is illogical solely for them to do so without going against their morals. This can be overcome if one is using the "dirty hands" argument, where someone goes against their morals for some greater good (ie I kill a "bad guy" I otherwise would not have in order to save a pacifist who was going to die had I not stepped in).

Because morality and ethics are not the same thing, and morality has little to no role in deciding to go to war, it can be taken out of the context for having a rational war. Then we find ourselves back at the "if I can't get what I want through diplomacy, and it economically efficient to do so, war would be a logical action."
to add to this, i never once said that you had no idea what it was like kill someone. because i respect the fact that you have your viewpoints for a reason, and i also never said that just because i am unable to cope with killing as something 'well-reasoned' [which you came of quite strong in saying by the by judging your lack of knowledge of my life experiences] i never said that others weren't capable of coping. i know that others are, i was only stating the fact that many cannot as well [i.e. soliders with post traumatic stress disorder] thus saying that i must not be the only one viewing killing as irrational at times.

I completely agree that war can be irrational at times, but the original issue I had with what you said is that you didn't qualify the statement, and had an absolute posted.

Also, part of the issue with soldiers finding killing as irrational is that soldiers do not often decide who to kill. They follow orders and abide by the rules of engagement, and thus very little reasoning often goes on. Instead, soldiers often find themselves relying on rationale that was pre-thought, and at times questionable.

Come on folks - because this (obviously) younger person - I'm guessing high school? - has not taken a critical thinking course or a phil course in the fallacies doesn't mean they don't have a right to express their opinions or that they have to be attacked ad-hominem for doing so..I mean, they even admit that they aren't by any means experts in the situation and don't claim to know all the facts or details. Totse, and specifically PLRC, is here so people can lurk and see differing viewpoints about current and past events - even chiming in every once in awhile if they have something to say that they feel is worthwhile. Saying things like 'you have to improve your interpersonal communication and vocabulary' is just passive aggressive garbage...Come, on we were all young and foolish once.

I never claimed she didn't have a right to express her opinions. I just pointed out she was wrong and didn't resort to any attacks on her character. I was definitely insensitive, but I don't claim to be politically-correct either. Using the House M.D. analogy, if someone admits they lose sleep over a psychological issue, and House is an asshole to them in order for them to better themselves with treatment, so what? I rudely asked a legitimate question.

Also, claiming to know what my intentions are is a logical fallacy.... An incorrect one at that. I learned a lot at school and work, but I never had any courses on higher level thinking or logic until practically past college. I only really had a firm grounding in the post-graduate environment. I first learned and was exposed to logic and higher level thinking in debate, much like goes on in this forum, and reading.

Your short term solution to our oil dependency is invading whatever country has the resource we so desire? That's some of the most asinine shit I've read. You'd make a good Bush cabinet member. Perhaps you're willing to sacrifice any good standing the US has in the world and any kind of moral high ground we ever had in the world, but some of us aren't.

The only nation taking leaps and bounds to start embracing alternative energy has been China, along with other reasons this is why they'll run the world in 30 years.

Obviously, you didn't read my other posts. I acknowledged that this strategy for securing resources is vile and short term, but it's necessary. We can't shift our energy sources in a fortnight, or even a decade. It'll require years of development and phasing out of oil.

Until then, we need to keep this country running by whatever means necessary. You don't wean a baby by stopping breast feeding, and then telling him to eat a steak. It's a gradual process we have to take.

And about what you said about China... rubbish. The Chinese have been going batshit crazy in Africa trying to secure resources at the expense of the populace (Guess who's fault Darfur is?) I will hand it to them that they've going to be very powerful, very fast.

You're making the same logical fallacy again. Just because House M.D. is an asshole doesn't mean I won't let him diagnose my cancer.

that is a good point. and now that i think about it, i don't want to deny the fact the US is in iraq for a logical reason, because after re-examination of our conversation, there is has to be a little logic behind it. but i believe that there had to be a completely better way going about things. i think this war has created emotions in me that do cause fear suddenly due to the fact that there are people over their whom i love deeply. not knowing that they are alive or not is what is scary.

I'm correct. We both admitted it. I corrected you. There isn't any shame in that- it doesn't make me better than you, but I am and was correct, so you should take me seriously. You're mistaking my pointing out of your error as my attempting to insult you. I'm not trying to rub it in your face. I'm trying to make sure you learn from the mistake. Being ignorant of a matter is something that is easily corrected, so my pointing that out instead of calling you stupid is not something I intend to be insulting even though I don't intend it as a compliment either.

Oh, and I disagree about diminishing your character. Where have I diminished or even insulted your character? My argument is based off of semantics and logic. If my argument were based on diminishing your character, and I ended up being correct, I'd probably laugh at how awesomely cynical that was. See where I'm going there? I'm not trying to insult you, but rather emphasize how that doesn't make sense.

you were correct in many things, but don't grow a big ego. Shit. ha.;)
*my character is my thought process, is my mind, is my body, and it is me all over. examples:
... to you is because you are ignorant.
that is a little diminishing don't you think?
I'm not the one making strawman arguments.
another example, and although we have discussed that i could have thought about my argument a little better it is still diminishing.

Also, if you are frightened by war, you need to seriously reassess your coping mechanisms to fear and loss.
i mean come on, everyone reacts differently to fear and loss.
you really shouldn't have gone there.
If you are honestly scared of war, you must live a life controlled by fear. Does it keep you up at night?
witty and sarcastic, making fun of how i cope with certain things.
do you know how much i have been screwed over? how much i have lost..?

and that is what i will give you for now.


Also, I think we're misunderstanding out intonations on the internet. I was annoyed at how naive you came off to me because your emotion was so apparent and vibrant over something that is a complete misdirection to what it should be, in my opinion. It's like the distinction between pain and suffering. Pain serves to indicate there is a biological problem in the body, and is very helpful. Suffering serves no purpose (other than perhaps the pleasure of S&M enthusiasts).

If you decided to work for the abolition of pain, this would be a well-intentioned, but misguided application of your labors and talents. It would be wasteful and inefficient.

i understand that i could have been annoying, but you can't always become annoyed at people's opinions and emotions when they aren't the same as yours. you try so hard to change opinions and emotions. and although it has worked in this case, it isn't going to i all cases. i think you just need to think about how you come off to some people, cause you come off very very strong. shoving opinions and 'your' logic in places that people aren't so willing to take in.
you are very logical, and you make some very good points. in no way am i diminishing that fact, i am just saying that people really do use the saying "ignorance is bliss" to their advantage. i saw in our conversation that i was doing that and i know how much i hate it so why was i doing it? but most people do not think like that.

Oh, and I do want to apologize if I come off as an asshole. I have been under a lot of work and personal-related stress lately, and most of the time Totse is full of trolls, stupid people, and bad logic. I might not be a genius, but I'm relatively smart, and so genuine stupidity really grates on me. Plus, I'm used to the fact that most people aren't considerate in debating, especially here, so I do tend to get set in the "great, this asshole honestly..." mode. An example of ignorance and stupidity wrapped up together is a thread in Conspiracy where someone was spouting off a bunch of nonsense about AIDS and the "discoverer." I know Luc Montagnier. This guy was talking about Gallo, not by name, who discovered HIV after Montagnier, undeniably. He also had a bunch of facts incorrect and was blaming "the government" for synthesizing HIV and manufacturing the virus when he wouldn't know the difference between a lentivirus and a retrovirus (there's a trick to that one, and there is a difference). Unsubstantiated libel like that spewed all over this site tends to piss me off. Especially for people who don't understand what working for the government in general is like. Doubly so for those who generalize about the military or the NIH without having had any personal experiences with them.

ah. thank you.

Asking questions and continuing your own cited train of logic is not pretentious in the least. I can keep doing it as often as I please, and I did so in a manner that invited elucidation. Also, because we've now established that you have an irrational fear of war, which is unfortunate, we can compartmentalize that and discuss it productively.

One reason I probably came off as arrogant to you is because your own tone was very assured and absolute, which is equally presumptuous.

i guess you can do as you please. just be careful in how you do that is all i ask.
i don't think my fear of war is irrational at all. death is a fear that is rational, although i am not afraid to die, i am afraid that those i love will. what emotions and anger and sadness it will bring. i think it is very rational to have some fear because there is always that lingering fact that we might be attacked again. nothing is solid. also with all the rage we have been building up over this war [we as the US or them as in the Iraqi's] it is logical to fear of what might come or what might happen. i may never happen, but it is always a possibility. you never know what will happen tomorrow.

I have yet to read your thread, but I will get around to it. I grew up in a violent home and lived in crime-laden areas. I don't see any audacity in trying to point out that some of what you've said is silly and you should be wary of that because if you are living in fear and losing sleep, that is hugely unhealthy. I train in martial arts, carry a firearm, and go about my day. I suffer absolutely no fear and only lose sleep due to work.

first off you should read it.
and i didn't grow up in a home that was kind or in a place that is considered 'healthy' so i guess we have that in common. i think we can both admit that we jumped to conclusions in this case.
i think that i lose sleep because of stress and fear combined. but i have been that way for a long time. since i was a little girl. but i have finally moved out, literally, of that stage of my life and am starting over, thus creating entirely new fears. so although it is considered unhealthy, i think it is normal for me at least.
i unfortunately i cannot afford martial arts or anything that would help me out, and i refuse to carry a firearm [but please don't get into that with me we can save that argument for a different thread...please]
so my fears are my fault they are definitely something that is being worked on.

In fact, the reason I continued talking to you is because you are receptive. If you weren't, I would have shrugged it off as you're not only being wrong, but "stupid" because you were not open to discussing your views and/or correction on some issues. I'd have just told you that you have every right to be as wrong as you want.

how very gracious. haha


The issue here is that logic and rationality are often dependent on circumstances. If I'm out of milk and want more, it would be rational for me to go the store to buy more, under normal circumstances. If the store is contaminated with an organophosphate nerve agent and I lack protective gear, it would be highly irrational for me as I do not particularly want to die.

Thus, because thought processes can be thought out to varying degrees of efficiency, and because individual circumstances can vary between people and day to day, rationality is often an issue of superlative logic. In the face of a superior logic, the less-logical choice becomes illogical because there is no reason to be less efficient or less logical about anything.

Therefor, killing someone to get their money is a logical way of thinking, though often myopic. Killing someone and taking their money because you won't get caught is more logical. Obviously, killing someone because you don't think it's immoral is even more logical under the same circumstances. Because morality is subjective, it just supports my previous statement. A better example would be that of preemptive attack. Someone is preparing to hurt me, so I attack them first. It is logical to stop someone from hurting me by hurting them first if I believe they were going to. It is less logical if I believe it is immoral to ever initiate physical conflict. Therefor, for one who believes it is immoral to ever initiate physical conflict, it is illogical solely for them to do so without going against their morals. This can be overcome if one is using the "dirty hands" argument, where someone goes against their morals for some greater good (ie I kill a "bad guy" I otherwise would not have in order to save a pacifist who was going to die had I not stepped in).

Because morality and ethics are not the same thing, and morality has little to no role in deciding to go to war, it can be taken out of the context for having a rational war. Then we find ourselves back at the "if I can't get what I want through diplomacy, and it economically efficient to do so, war would be a logical action."

I completely agree that war can be irrational at times, but the original issue I had with what you said is that you didn't qualify the statement, and had an absolute posted.

Also, part of the issue with soldiers finding killing as irrational is that soldiers do not often decide who to kill. They follow orders and abide by the rules of engagement, and thus very little reasoning often goes on. Instead, soldiers often find themselves relying on rationale that was pre-thought, and at times questionable.[/QUOTE]

taking notes. and soaking in. there isn't really much i can argue with here.

Obviously, you didn't read my other posts. I acknowledged that this strategy for securing resources is vile and short term, but it's necessary. We can't shift our energy sources in a fortnight, or even a decade. It'll require years of development and phasing out of oil.

Until then, we need to keep this country running by whatever means necessary. You don't wean a baby by stopping breast feeding, and then telling him to eat a steak. It's a gradual process we have to take.

And about what you said about China... rubbish. The Chinese have been going batshit crazy in Africa trying to secure resources at the expense of the populace (Guess who's fault Darfur is?) I will hand it to them that they've going to be very powerful, very fast.

Who says we can't shift energy sources in a decade? You? With enough money and manpower anything is possible. We don't need to "wean" off shit, we need to shift full force into alternative energy immediately. You, the government, and others like you want to take these baby steps to alternative energy and keep sucking mideast oil dick. That's not a solution. Invading countries to steal resources isn't a solution. Just because they have something we want doesn't mean it's in our rights to take it. Have you ever heard of the rule of law?

What you're telling me is that if a loved one of mine needs a medication I can't get, but that you have some in your possession, I am completely justified in breaking into your house, busting your face with an aluminum bat, and taking the medication. That's what you're telling me. I'll remember that if I ever see you on the street and you have something I want.

Let's be clear, IF the reason we went to Iraq was to secure oil, it was not to secure it for you and me, and the betterment of America.

It was to secure the financial interests of an elite few.

But the stated reason for going there was to get those WMDs.

Fail.

The new reason is supposed to be, to liberate the Iraqi people.

To which I disagree with. Our soldiers signed up to defend this country and her people. Our government should be using it's resources (our tax dollars) to enrich and better our lives and our country.

-------

So, there is not a single good reason for peasants like us, to support this war.

Who says we can't shift energy sources in a decade? You? With enough money and manpower anything is possible. We don't need to "wean" off shit, we need to shift full force into alternative energy immediately. You, the government, and others like you want to take these baby steps to alternative energy and keep sucking mideast oil dick. That's not a solution. Invading countries to steal resources isn't a solution. Just because they have something we want doesn't mean it's in our rights to take it. Have you ever heard of the rule of law?

What you're telling me is that if a loved one of mine needs a medication I can't get, but that you have some in your possession, I am completely justified in breaking into your house, busting your face with an aluminum bat, and taking the medication. That's what you're telling me. I'll remember that if I ever see you on the street and you have something I want.

You're right, it is possible to shift our energy sources in a decade, but the political will isn't there. If it was up to me I'd be taxing the shit out of big oil and giving huge subsidies to research & development firms. But that isn't happening anytime soon. It might take 2 or 3 decades, and until then, we need to suck all the figurative cock we need to sustain our sick, vile status quo.

Of course, being belligerent to secure resources is not a viable long term solution, but it's about as much as we can do given the political climate.

And about the medical/assault situation, our scenario is a bit different; it's more like this:

You're walking through a desert, with a gun, on the way to an oasis, and there's others along the way who are unarmed and carrying small jugs of water. We're dying of thirst, and there's only two things to do. We can make a long and dangerous sprint to the oasis, giving a fuck all to the consequences, or we can walk there safely, robbing others of their water along the way.

It's incredibly asinine of us to do so, but unless we can develop the political will for us to shift to more efficient energy sources, we've got to make do as we can. Of course it's not right, or even legal, but unless we can conjure political will out of our ass, we better get on our knees and start sucking, for now.

You mean in relation to the war in Iraq?

You see, that is the entire point of my original posts. People need to learn to say what they mean. I never made my posts specific to the war.

Hence why I asked the question.

If you want my personal opinion, two senators who will remain unnamed should have STFU back in '91 and let the military finish the job. I think abandoning the Kurds was a mistake.

I don't necessarily think going back to war was a mistake per se, even though it was not as good of an option of taking out Saddam back in the day. I believe the emphasized reasons to going back into Iraq were not intelligent ones. We should have emphasized human rights issues, Saddam fucking around with UN weapons inspectors, how he was found to have old stockpiles of chemical weapons he didn't dispose of (and probably forgot about, but we'll tack it on there), how he violated sanctions against specific military technologies he had (Mig29's buried in the desert), etc.

Instead, the PR on the war was poorly handled here and abroad and the requests of the military for a certain number of troops (250,000 I believe) were unheeded.

So becuase of the failure to listen to military advisors, the failure to commit to the original plan, the failure to present an adequate case for going to war and the failure to think in terms of the long term political stability of the world, in practice the war turned out to be neither moral nor logical, right?

If OPEC decides, as it has threatened to do, to drop the dollar in favour of the Euro as their chosen currency of trade, would you still refrain from calling the war in Iraq a mistake? I'm not saying that I categorically believe they have the balls to make the move (not based soley on political grounds at any rate), but speculation plays such a massive part in the financial sectors of Western economies, even the threat delivered with a straight face alone is enough to cuase the US a nasty headache. Having said that, by dropping the dollar in all Iranian oil transactions Ahmadinejad has proven he's not all hot air. Chavez has been another strong advocate of the OPEC proposition; despite the fact that I take many things Chavez say about the US with a pinch of salt, he has been and still is very keen to build economic and political ties with Iran and maintain a stance of solidarity. Even without OPEC, Venezuela and Iran make up a pretty tasty sector of the oil exporting market.

If you discard discussion concerning morals and focus of long term logic alone, the recent war in Iraq is not justifiable, at least not in my eyes. I've focused on OPEC, but the global polarisation as a result of NATO showing the willingness to use force in Iraq extends far beyond that.

Hence why I asked the question.



So becuase of the failure to listen to military advisors, the failure to commit to the original plan, the failure to present an adequate case for going to war and the failure to think in terms of the long term political stability of the world, in practice the war turned out to be neither moral nor logical, right?


Morals differ from ethics. I don't see the relevancy as we likely have different definitions of morality.

The war itself, I believe, was logical. The emphasized justifications and handling of it, as well as the improper closure of the Gulf War's Desert Storm, were not.

More later.

Iraq

Field Reports

The humanitarian and security consequences of leaving Iraqis’ needs unmet must be addressed.

Overview
Five years into the US military intervention in Iraq, the country is dealing with one of the largest humanitarian and displacement crises in the world. Millions of Iraqis have fled their homes – either for safer locations within Iraq, or to other countries in the region – and are living in increasingly desperate circumstances. Failure to address the needs of Iraqis will have dramatic impacts on security inside Iraq.

Current Humanitarian Situation
Refugees International has observed extreme vulnerabilities among the approximately 1.5 million Iraqi refugees living in Syria, Jordan and other neighbors of Iraq, as well as the 2.7 million internally displaced persons within Iraq. Most are unable to access their food rations and are often unemployed; they live in squalid conditions, have run out of resources and find it extremely difficult to access essential services.

The Government of Iraq has access to large sums of money, but it lacks both the capacity and the political will to use its resources to address humanitarian needs. Due to this failure, militias of all denominations are filling the vacuum and playing a major role in providing social services in the neighborhoods and towns they control in Iraq. Not only do these Shiite and Sunni militias now have a quasi-monopoly in the large-scale delivery of food, oil, electricity and money, but an increasing number of civilians are joining their ranks– including displaced Iraqis.

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/where-we-work/middle-east/iraq

Thank Bush for the chaos. He is proud of, and wants to be remembered for his liberation of Iraq's milloions as the people and their country is in worse shape. He hated Sadam so much for cutting off the hands of some guys so he had them brought to the WH for a photo op. I wonder how he feels about the 15 year old girls that had to flee to Syria and are forced to become prostitutes to survive because he failed so miserably at the invasion of Iraq.

He hated Sadam so much for cutting off the hands of some guys so he had them brought to the WH for a photo op. I wonder how he feels about the 15 year old girls that had to flee to Syria and are forced to become prostitutes to survive because he failed so miserably at the invasion of Iraq.

As much of a murdering prick as Bush may be, let's NOT pretend that Saddam is any better, or that Saddam's scumbaggery is the reason we went to war. If that war has any silver lining at all, it's that piece of filth no longer being in power.

As much of a murdering prick as Bush may be, let's NOT pretend that Saddam is any better, or that Saddam's scumbaggery is the reason we went to war. If that war has any silver lining at all, it's that piece of filth no longer being in power.

Too bad we cannot say the same for the torturer approving war criminal Bush, Cheney.

Those few bad apples sent to prison by that liar Rumsfeld are there and the high criminal master minds (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld) walk free. Sadam and Bush are more alike than different, I think.

Ahhhh Bush finally greeted as the liberator.

Hahaha

Iraqi journalist throws shoes at Bush
Dec 14 01:52 PM US/Eastern


An Iraqi journalist threw two shoes towards George W Bush, without hitting him, as the US president was shaking hands with the Iraqi prime minister in his office in Baghdad on Sunday, an AFP journalist said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081214175033.cnbkqgnx&show_article=1

Ahhhh Bush finally greeted as the liberator.

Hahaha

I think the guy was just mad that Bush didn't drive there in a water powered car.

I think the guy was just mad that Bush didn't drive there in a water powered car.

The Iraq are still having a water shortage. Thank Bush.

The Iraq are still having a water shortage. Thank Bush.

God damn US Government! They're always trying to keep the water car down. Makes me want to commit suicide on webcam in protest.:mad:

God damn US Government! They're always trying to keep the water car down. Makes me want to commit suicide on webcam in protest.:mad:

So a suicide bomb doesn't seem appealing?

A suicide water bomb.

Use the explosive power of water which could be used to power the vehicles you are protesting the suppression of as the fuel for the device.

Too bad we cannot say the same for the torturer approving war criminal Bush, Cheney.

Those few bad apples sent to prison by that liar Rumsfeld are there and the high criminal master minds (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld) walk free. Sadam and Bush are more alike than different, I think.

Sure, no disagreement there.

On a completely irrelevant note, I'd like to point out that I don't think Rice is a mastermind of anything. She's a glorified "Yes Man".

A suicide water bomb.

Use the explosive power of water which could be used to power the vehicles you are protesting the suppression of as the fuel for the device.

A revolutionary concept for sure,

Ask one of the 600,000 or so Iraqi Christians who was displaced as result of Bush's war.

5. When?

He was given a final ultimaton, if you remember.

I find Iraq HILARIOUS!

We basically backed this crazy mofucker Saddam because his country had oil and we hated his neighbors... who hate(d) us, because we've fucked with their country. So we back this loony, but it turns out that he's a whack job and invades another country we like. We set him straight and show the world how fucking MASSIVE our military-penis really is.

10 years go by

This former cokehead/alcoholic becomes President of the USA -- pretty badass, gives hope to me personally; if Bush can do it, anyone can. And let's be honest, if you we're Prez, wouldn't you wanna invade a country and do cool shit like that? So 9/11 happens... OH SHIT!! A great excuse!! We invade Afghanistan, that's ok, kinda risky cuz it's pretty much the hardest country on the planet to conquer. But that's not good enough, we(bush) want to invade a real country, one with some value...

IRAQ

Everyone tells us we cant and shouldnt... FUCK THEM. Pretty badass, we just go and invade another country cuz we can and no one does shit about it. It's a video game turned into RL! We then fucking hang their leader... again, hilarious... and institute democracy! Fucking A. And, if anyone has done some reading on democratization, this could be the fucking biggest bomb of them all. If democracy works in Iraq, it will change the course of history. Democracy and Islam are widely considered oil and water, but Bush has tried to make the two work together anyway -- fucking balls! Bold move! If this works -- and it's likely to work in Iraq for several reasons (oil money to prop up the government, a history of Westernization and democracy, good level of development, and then of course, there are plenty of reasons why it might not work, but whatever, liberal bitches can fill you in on that) -- IF Democracy takes hold in Iraq

FUCKING MAJOR HISTORIC EVENT!!!

Democracy would then spread to Iran, which has a democratic past WHICH IS A MAJOR SUPPORTING FACTOR IN DEMOCRATIZATION!!! and then, fucking the US of A dominates IRAN and WINS! We fucked with Iran, they pushed back (revolution), we pushed back (supported Saddam), and then we WIN if they become democratic, because that's the system we champion and spread.

And if all this happens, the Middle East could fall like dominos (again, do some reading on democratization) and become one big basket of democracy, which would be in our favor and then...

GEORGE W BUSH goes down in history as the cowboy who tamed the untamable Muslim world just to spite those who said he couldnt or shouldnt = WIN

Of course, it's all a matter of IF...




that's my rant

Their seething hatred for us won't allow it to spread if for no other reason than that alone.

Well when the USSR invaded afghanistan back in the 80's when communism was right around its peak of scary, we sent some CIA goons over there to turn those no name nomads into heartless and cunning guerilla warriors that would defeat the evil communist machine we called the USSR. We (the first Bush) funded them with a lump of $143 million US dollars (that the public knows about) to afford supplies, tac stuff, etc. (maybe even some mercs).

And of course the afghans won, in 1989 the russians left with their tail between their legs, and empty pockets from the expensive war which led to the 1991 collapse. So now we have thousands of professionally trained guerrilla warriors with a lap chock fulla soviet war goodies (everything from bio weapons to the humble AK-74M).

Those fighters had a name, Taliban, and a leader, (at the time) ayatollah, (google it). We trained and helped to equip a fighting force to the point where it was strong enough to drive Russia to a loss!!!! THEY SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON THAT WAR THEIR ECONOMY FAILED!!!! RUSSIA DEFEATED NAPOLEON, AND THE NAZIS WHEN THEY DIDNT HAVE TWO NICKELS (rubels, whatever) TO RUB TOGETHER!!!!!1!!111!

And now, we are doing the same, damn, thing.:rolleyes:

The war in Iraq may very well be a mistake, but the majority of American citizens supported the invasion. Whether they were banking on it being a repeat of the first Gulf War is unknown, but in any case it is silly to suggest they could just pull out now and leave the country.

Don't blame Bush, the majority of Americans supported the Invasion, blame yourself.

Don't blame Bush, the majority of Americans supported the Invasion...

Based on patently false bullshit WMD claims like mobile weapon labs and yellow cake and nonexistent Saddam/Al Qaeda connections.

And I doubt the majority supported it. Maybe the majority of people polled.

Based on patently false bullshit WMD claims like mobile weapon labs and yellow cake and nonexistent Saddam/Al Qaeda connections.

And I doubt the majority supported it. Maybe the majority of people polled.

yeah but remeber thinking that same exact thing yet still watching america eat that shit up an love every minute of it. we would of done anything following 9/11 and good ol' w told us to go to the mall and to try to get that guy who "tried to kill his daddy."

why was iraq a bad idea, how was it a good idea?

to try to get that guy who "tried to kill his daddy."

Why the fuck do people keep saying this?

The Gulf War was a major success, the USAF bombed the fuck out the Iraqis and chased them down as they fled back into Iraq.

Not many allied casualties at all.

Why the fuck do people keep saying this?

The Gulf War was a major success, the USAF bombed the fuck out the Iraqis and chased them down as they fled back into Iraq.

Not many allied casualties at all.

It's because George W. said it himself.