Welcome to Gaia! ::

Pop Mechanics is awesome about that. 3nodding Debunked the 9/11 "Loose Change" conspiracies too.

Divine, first of all, how dare you claim that I just "shrug off" the death of civilians? That is not the way it is at all. I do not "shrug off" their deaths. Their deaths pain me. You are right, one life lost of any sort is one life too many. I truly am a pacifist at heart, and I couldn't join the military because killing isn't something I could do. However, just because they don't deserve to die doesn't mean that this war is wrong. Just because people die doesn't make the war wrong.

What happened in Iraq before the war? People. Freaking. Died. And for what? During the war, the civilians who die are collateral damage, they die because we missed a target, or were misinformed, or whatever. But the purpose of the bomb was not to kill civilians, it was to kill terrorists and bring peace. Before the war? They died because they looked at their dictator funny, or because they converted to Christianity. They died because they spoke against their government (And suspend your belief that this happens in the US too please, okay?). They died because they were born in the wrong part of the country. And it was purposeful. They weren't accidental deaths, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It sucks that people have to die. But that's the way it is.

What you are describing though, not fighting, working solely on defending ourselves, is called isolationism. You know what would happen if we isolated ourselves? Israel would be wiped out. They would have no chance at all without us. And do you really think we could defend ourselves against nuclear missiles, ICBMs? How? Star Wars? The missile shield? We don't have those yet. And even if we did, even if we could completely protect ourselves... It's still wrong to just let the rest of the world go to hell. Like I said before, Israel would be screwed without us. What would stop North Korea or Iran from launching nukes at other people? Nothing. Maybe we shouldn't be the "global cops," but we are, whether you like it or not. There's no one in the world with our military might. If we were to say, "Well, they can't get us, so screw you guys," then the rest of the world would be screwed.

Lastly, that part about the bully made no sense: Of course a school bully would do that. neutral But I would challenge you to show me where we were "picking on de poow widdew Arabs" before 9/11. I'd like you to show me where we attacked someone for no better reason then to show we could, or that we didn't like them. If you ask me, the situation is more like the football lineman friend of someone who's being bullied: One time their friend comes over with a bloody nose, and lineman goes and kicks that bully's a**.

And Saddam was a sadistic b*****d dictator, who killed people for being from the wrong part of the country. So we weren't just picking on the "poow widdew awabs," we were "picking on" a b*****d genocidal dictator.

As for Afghanistan, we armed them so that they could protect themselves from the USSR. I would have thought that you, who oppose sending our own troops in to die, would approve of us instead letting another country do our dirty work. neutral

I'm sorry, but I may get a little... Abrasive here, and I appologize before hand. And yes, I'm using this as an excuse to forego politeness.

You are so ******** naive if you really think that it would be a possibility to "pop one" between the dictators eyes, and just get away. Or if you think that would do a damned bit of good. So you killed the dictator. Congratulations! Now we are either a) A country without a leader, or b) A country led by another dictator. Good job!

I've explained to you before how stupid an idea this is. And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept conspiracy theories as evidence of why being in Iraq is hypocritical. Give me some proof. Do you know that the government did it? No. In fact, it most likely is a conspiracy, but I doubt that it is one the government was involved in. There can be two shooters, or three, or four, without the government being involved. And the idea that our government would do that kind of thing is absolutely preposterous.

...Divine...please grab a history book and read up on the French Revolution. They took your thriers (kill the dictator with out any othe rplan) and practiced them. It took them nearly two hundred years to get things right...and even today they are only barley stable.

And we DO pick sides. We pick the side that is most obviously the greater good at the time. We put trust in manyof th epeopel that are attackign us now. We put weapon in their hands so they coudl defend agianst the USSR shoudl they try and expand into the middle east. But, lets go back in time. Lets not do that. Lets let them fight for themselves, and shoudl the USSR move, become crushed with in a matter of days, thus giving the former Soviet Union a theater in which in can easly laucnh an offensive agianst europe.

You are very...heh, ther eis no word for it. Its silly to think we don't choose sides in time of war, or in what can be seen as eventual war.

We are no longer initiating the fighting. We are over there defending ourselves, and defending people who can't defend themselves. You know what would happen if we just pulled out? Those terrorists and insurgents would just reinstate the form of government they had before.

rolleyes I never said the dictator wouldn't die, but that helps -nothing.- First of all, you still haven't explained how you intend to kill the dictator; You think he's going to be completely unguarded at any point? We're talking about dictators, their lives are constantly in danger. They take fewer chances then normal people. And, again, even if you kill the dictator, nothing changes! We are leaderless for a while, but do you really think that, without the dictator there, we will instantly form into a democracy? You must be mad. That one man isn't the only thing that made the dictatorship work. There are generals, and right-hand-men, who would be willing to take over for the dictator on a moments notice.

As for the business about taking sides... I find it hard to understand your reasoning. Afghanistan was going to be invaded and assimilated by the Soviet Union. It's not like the Afghanis were fighting with the USSR over a meer border dispute. The USSR was going to take -all- of Afghanistan. The obvious "side" to choose would be the ones being taken over, rather then the rapidly expanding empire. I suppose you also think that perhaps we should have sided with the Germans in World War II? I mean, those Poles were clearly asking for it. And the French! Man. Those guys. What were we thinking, defending the people who were being invaded?

And Kuwait! Why, we should have either stayed out of it, or perhaps assisted the Iraqis in their invasion. I mean come on, we should follow Darwin's law of "Survival of the fittest;" if you aren't strong enough to defend yourself, well, that's your fault, why should we help you?

What is right is not always popular....either that or people are just plain scared of what would happen to their nations if they show a public support for us. The US is not the only country in the past 5 years to have a major terror attack on their soil. But it doesn't matter if you play nice with a country that wants you dead for being yourself. At best it only postpones your own destruction.

There has never ever been a war where there have been no accidental civilian deaths. In fact I'd go so far to say that thanks to modern technology, a lot of civilian casualties have been avoided. And as someone said before, the insurgents know that we try to be careful of civilians because they use them as human shields.

Insurgents are killing far more civilians than the troops are....and they are doing it on purpose. You can be assured that it would continue, and in greater numbers, if we leave.

none of that matters though- we should deal with our own problems, forget barging into other countries, they can handle themselves. they have in the past, they will in the future.

i guess it all really depends on whose version of history you read. remember, to iraq, we are the britian in their american revolution. we are the obnoxious superpower, they are the rouge rebels fighting for their freedom. the problem lies with our existence in their country- iraq is not anti-america, they are anti-america-in-their-faces. much like we were not anti-king-george-III, we were anti-king-george-III-in-our-faces. in fact, the revolution started when the king sent troops to occupy america in order to keep peace.


and remember that the superpower was the bad guy in that war, even though we were fighting for a few pennies tax on our tea, and they were trying to protect and keep together a small brokendown excuse for a country with insufficient weaponry.