Do you think "War" is moralisticly: A bad idea or good idea?

[Eris]

Having said that, everyone who used the current conflict in Iraq to make a point by refering to it as a War for Oil needs to:

1. Shut up.

2. Stop talking about things you don't know about.

3. Learn what you're talking about before speaking again.

And by the way, we do follow rules. We follow the hell out of them, even when it's not in our best interest or to our immediate benefit.

1. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.
2. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, ad hominem.
3. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, I really suggest you argue against the arguments, not the people making the arguments. This sort of behavior only makes you seem ignorant of rhetorics.


It isn't a war for oil? Then why is it still on? Let's go through all the arguments we've been fed for the war in Iraq:

War on Terror: Even if Iraq housed Bin Laden himself, the very moment the first bullet was fired, he'd be out of there before it hit something. Additionally, also if anything, the war has -strengthened- the terrorists' recruitment grounds by killing a lot of family members. Additionally, any money coming from the Iraqi government will have stopped now, so this can't be the reason for staying in Iraq.

The WMD's: Why the war was started, remember. Funny how nobody seems to have found as much as a trace of those. ... obviously not why the US remains in Iraq.

To "Liberate" Iraq: I highly doubt the war was started to "liberate" the Iraqis, since it wouldn't only be a trend break for America to do so, there are other places in more dire need of "liberation." In any case, the tyrant is slain, so the US has no reason for remaining. Not to mention, the humanitarian angle for staying is also broken, since there simultaneously are genocides going on in other places of the world, so that would be a priority if the US truly wanted to save lives.

If we add another agenda, to ensure oil flow from Iraq; that is actually a valid reason for staying in Iraq. If the US leaves Iraq, civil unrest will ensue, and there will be no oil... so obviously it would be in the US' interest to remain.

[Sagat]

Then I guess they can bring up points about Iraq depegging it's currency from the dollar and moving to the euro, causing a tremendous loss in resource/revenue for the US, and set about fundamental shifts in OPEC countries possibly doing the same hence a war being fought not so much over oil but to protect a currency not enforced by a true gold standard.

[Niome!]

Then I guess they can bring up points about Iraq depegging it's currency from the dollar and moving to the euro, causing a tremendous loss in resource/revenue for the US, and set about fundamental shifts in OPEC countries possibly doing the same hence a war being fought not so much over oil but to protect a currency not enforced by a true gold standard.

Holy!

Since when could an Middle Eastern country, so deep in that sub-continent remind you be allowed access to that?

Any articles on it? I wanna read about it in Wikipedia. If OPEC was to switch to the Euro, Europe and the Middle East would be economically aligned meaning North America bending over and resolving its so I read 200 trillion dollar debt the Democrats and Republican's seemingly forgotten about. I want a Socialist Democracy...

[Sagat]

It was more so Iraq moving to the Euro and the possiblity of other main oil producing/exporting countries doing the same. I watched this two hour special about it on tv, I think it was on CBC. It wasn't a documentary but a pretty logical look at the whole picture. I checked around the net and I saw a few sites about it, some were the conspiracy types and some were good reads. Hell just typing "war in Iraq over euro" gets a lot of hits ... so I don't feel like sorting through the crazy pages with the logical ones out there.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

There is meaning in battle, and people will assign whatever meaning suits them best and blissfully ignore all other arguments. Need a reference? See every post before mine (and probably after). There's no right or wrong on the battle field, no good or bad. Just the ones who live and the ones who don't. "Moral value" is a secondary concern that people who usually weren't involved assign later after the results have been tallied - not at the beginning.

Having said that, everyone who used the current conflict in Iraq to make a point by refering to it as a War for Oil needs to:

1. Shut up.

2. Stop talking about things you don't know about.

3. Learn what you're talking about before speaking again.

Thinking they were after Oil is as valid as any other position. The possible reasons for the Bush administration to attack Iraq at this point are basically economic (oil), political (reverse domino effect), or a mild dose of the crazies. You pay your money and you take for chances.

And by the way, we do follow rules. We follow the hell out of them, even when it's not in our best interest or to our immediate benefit.

Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghr...ture_and_abuse
and:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004a9e68
Articles 3, 17, 87, and 130 in particular.

And you know very well I can find dozens of case of this sort of thing, even more if I extend it before we signed the convention.

[Red Phantoms]

It was more so Iraq moving to the Euro and the possiblity of other main oil producing/exporting countries doing the same. I watched this two hour special about it on tv, I think it was on CBC. It wasn't a documentary but a pretty logical look at the whole picture. I checked around the net and I saw a few sites about it, some were the conspiracy types and some were good reads. Hell just typing "war in Iraq over euro" gets a lot of hits ... so I don't feel like sorting through the crazy pages with the logical ones out there.

well im sure about this well ive herd that the oil supply are gone.

but even the american is a main player im sure there is an pupet master who make this work as their scheme. if you see the chain of actual movement of their pupet though. for americans are only one of their pupet. everything will work as their schene if no one has an awareness to their existance. well i suposed not to tell too much

[dreamStar]

People hating and killing other people has no morality. Under any circumstances. War is just... people hating and killing. And at the end of the day, it does no good, because humanity is the stupidest species on the planet in terms of how they never seem to learn from their mistakes. All the wars we learnt about in history class? How many people actually paid attention? And from those who did, how many actually understood the reason behind the war?
History is supposed to be about learning from our mistakes. All the wars of the past didn't stop us from making the same mistakes again and again. The wat things are going, that won't change until humanity destroys itself.
So basically, yeah. 'War' is a 'bad' idea.

[lafiel]

well im sure about this well ive herd that the oil supply are gone.

but even the american is a main player im sure there is an pupet master who make this work as their scheme. if you see the chain of actual movement of their pupet though. for americans are only one of their pupet. everything will work as their schene if no one has an awareness to their existance. well i suposed not to tell too much

Look up these if your not already aware of them.

New World Order/Illuminati
Planet X
Grey's
Annunuki

Although since your talking about puppets i'm pretty sure your already aware at this point

Wars help clear the path for a One World Govt.

Although if your into a one world govt. and your old enough to vote put your vote into Hillary Clinton and her "sharing" plan *coughsocialismcough*

[Grim Scythe]

no war opens the world up to whatever the victor wants, though that may be limited by their peoples wants
its not always a one world govt
and why bring socialism into this? politics , economics, crap

[Cless Alvein]

1. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.
2. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, ad hominem.
3. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, I really suggest you argue against the arguments, not the people making the arguments. This sort of behavior only makes you seem ignorant of rhetorics.

Displaying my annoyance at the rampant tendency for people who have, at best, a tiny sliver of information and acting like it's their third term as Expert of Everything was, in fact, completely seperate from my actual comments on the discussion at hand. And if you had bothered to read the top part of my post, I'm sure you could make the logical connection with my decision not to bother "arguing the arguments" and my having full knowledge that everyone here is too set in their beliefs to accept an alternative explanation even if I presented it.

It isn't a war for oil? Then why is it still on? Let's go through all the arguments we've been fed for the war in Iraq:

It is a War for Oil? Where's all the damn oil then? America sure doesn't have it, or they wouldn't be paying more than twice the price for gas they were four years ago.

War on Terror: Even if Iraq housed Bin Laden himself, the very moment the first bullet was fired, he'd be out of there before it hit something. Additionally, also if anything, the war has -strengthened- the terrorists' recruitment grounds by killing a lot of family members. Additionally, any money coming from the Iraqi government will have stopped now, so this can't be the reason for staying in Iraq.

True, it had nothing to do with why the war was started. But it is a pretty major factor of why we're still there. Al-Qaeda and like-minded people took advantage of the power void and instability and took it upon themselves to become the hand turning the wheel. Now we're stuck because we can't just leave them to have their way with the people caught in the middle.

The WMD's: Why the war was started, remember. Funny how nobody seems to have found as much as a trace of those. ... obviously not why the US remains in Iraq.

Yeah, I'm not about to even start trying to defend this one. However, I do have a few thoughts to leave you on it. 1. It may seem like a weak excuse to jump into something without proof, but if the mere thought was both plausible and alarming, that kind of lends itself to a situation that someone needed to do something about. The time for that should have been the first Gulf War. Giving Saddamn another 12 years was the REAL mistake. 2. Saddam had Chemical Weapons, and used them. There was also every indication he WANTED WMD's, whether he had managed to get them or not. 3. If there were no WMD's, why was Saddam so reluctant to cooperate in proving it? 4. The final conclusion made in the search and investigation is that we can't prove they weren't simply moved to Syria - right along with the billions of dollars sent to Syrian banks that are now funding the insurgency.

To "Liberate" Iraq: I highly doubt the war was started to "liberate" the Iraqis, since it wouldn't only be a trend break for America to do so, there are other places in more dire need of "liberation." In any case, the tyrant is slain, so the US has no reason for remaining. Not to mention, the humanitarian angle for staying is also broken, since there simultaneously are genocides going on in other places of the world, so that would be a priority if the US truly wanted to save lives.

This is admittedly something of an attempt to paint the picture a nicer color. Saddam was a threat to the US, Israel and his own people. It's a little disproportionate to only play up the Iraqi side, but you can't deny that part was there. Also, international genocide is supposed to be the job of the UN to handle. Last time I checked they get a little pissy when America acts on its own, so maybe they ought to try being something other than corrupt and ineffective themselves and show us up. I'd welcome that, honestly.

If we add another agenda, to ensure oil flow from Iraq; that is actually a valid reason for staying in Iraq. If the US leaves Iraq, civil unrest will ensue, and there will be no oil... so obviously it would be in the US' interest to remain.

The immediate oil revenue is needed to help rebuild Iraq. OPEC isn't going to give us a "good guy" discount and I doubt anyone is expecting it. Suggesting America will benefit directly pretty much implies that we're going to steal it somehow.

Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghr...ture_and_abuse
and:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004a9e68
Articles 3, 17, 87, and 130 in particular.
And you know very well I can find dozens of case of this sort of thing, even more if I extend it before we signed the convention.

where four Soldiers from the 320th MP Battalion had been formally charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with detainee abuse.

So, the most glaring example to shock the world ultimately comes down to four soldiers. Let's see... four out of the... hm... over 500,000 soldiers who have been through Iraq in the last four years. What percentage is that again? Oh yeah, .0008%. Now, try comparing that with the violent crime rate of any country on Earth. We are human, not flawless, but our rate of screwing up is closer to a statistical anomaly than a damning trend. Better yet, compare all of our "indiscretions" to the atrocities commited by our enemies on a daily basis.

I rest my case, sir.

[Grim Scythe]

many good points, alot id discuss if i were better informed but i dont care enough to become more informed, and in 2 years i might be over there so i really dont care why we are there, just that there is a threat

[Guza]

eh war is usually when two or more people/parties have....disagreements and they just wanna go fu@# each other up the bet possable way

[Red Phantoms]

Look up these if your not already aware of them.

New World Order/Illuminati
Planet X
Grey's
Annunuki

Although since your talking about puppets i'm pretty sure your already aware at this point

Wars help clear the path for a One World Govt.

Although if your into a one world govt. and your old enough to vote put your vote into Hillary Clinton and her "sharing" plan *coughsocialismcough*

First off all im not an american

Second Im only an observer i see and predict but i try to avoid too much contact though. but if the time come i shal play my role

Third you got the point by revealing some of his puppet for puppet master identity is suposed to be hidden for now. well i belive everyone know them but still not aware. and surely their plan is suposed to be sucseed as a triger for my next movement becaus noone will oposed them before knowing them though

[Sagat]

First off all im not an american

Second Im only an observer i see and predict but i try to avoid too much contact though. but if the time come i shal play my role

Third you got the point by revealing some of his puppet for puppet master identity is suposed to be hidden for now. well i belive everyone know them but still not aware. and surely their plan is suposed to be sucseed as a triger for my next movement becaus noone will oposed them before knowing them though

Oh, how mysterious of you to say such things, oh all powerful 17 year old. Think you've been reading too much Dan Brown, maybe reading a little bit too much on wikipedia about the Illuminati.

You're not supposed to tell so much huh? Oh dear! We have a real Illuminati member here , oh wait, a real illuminati member - if they exist - wouldn't be so stupid as to suggest such things. Freemasons wouldn't go around blathering such nonsense either, not that you are one cause you're too young, though I found it amusing you omitted them from your list.

What you are however is just a messed up kid trying to garner some shred of importance or mysticism by your "vague" sayings. And it's annoying and stupid to read because this is a pretty interesting topic (and I love this Iraq debate going on, it highlights this topic so well) and you going on about the NWO or whatever is side railing it. Give it a break already .. Don't know what fools you take us for but it's pathetic.

[Eris]

It is a War for Oil? Where's all the damn oil then? America sure doesn't have it, or they wouldn't be paying more than twice the price for gas they were four years ago.

But the war isn't going so well either, so that's really not proof of anything.

Yeah, I'm not about to even start trying to defend this one. However, I do have a few thoughts to leave you on it. 1. It may seem like a weak excuse to jump into something without proof, but if the mere thought was both plausible and alarming, that kind of lends itself to a situation that someone needed to do something about. The time for that should have been the first Gulf War. Giving Saddamn another 12 years was the REAL mistake. 2. Saddam had Chemical Weapons, and used them. There was also every indication he WANTED WMD's, whether he had managed to get them or not. 3. If there were no WMD's, why was Saddam so reluctant to cooperate in proving it? 4. The final conclusion made in the search and investigation is that we can't prove they weren't simply moved to Syria - right along with the billions of dollars sent to Syrian banks that are now funding the insurgency.[

1. Other, sovereign nation's politics is nothing of the US' damn business. The UN yes, the US no, even if the US disagrees with the UN.

2. He had them on a previous occasion, and he wanted them. That is not the same as having them at the point of the war's beginning. Besides, there was no indicators that he wanted to use them against the US, or even had the capacity to. Even if he was to threaten Israel, the US would still not be able to act without the UN's blessing.

3. Why should he? The burden of proof is always on the accuser's shoulders, never on the defendant. I'd have thought the US, if any nation were to have learned that from McCarthy's communist witch-hunt.

4. Argumentum a silentio..

This is admittedly something of an attempt to paint the picture a nicer color. Saddam was a threat to the US, Israel and his own people. [...]

But being a mere threat is not enough reason for war. In fact, that sort of warfare is a war crime. Generals were executed in the trials following WWII for that very reason.

The immediate oil revenue is needed to help rebuild Iraq. OPEC isn't going to give us a "good guy" discount and I doubt anyone is expecting it. Suggesting America will benefit directly pretty much implies that we're going to steal it somehow.

But the US has a direct hand in molding the Iraqi government, and therefore can shape it to be very US-friendly, allowing American corporations access to the whole Iraqi oil operation.

[genericusername2]

eh war is usually when two or more people/parties have....disagreements and they just wanna go fu@# each other up the bet possable way

No... Just no.

[Jdmk]

From what i seen on tv, newspaper, and what not, ill say its wrong to start or have wars in the first place, too many people dying most of them being the innocents, but at the same time theres evil out there trying to make this world worst than it is, so thats why theres wars to stop evil from growing, thats why some times i do support it in some ways, yeah i do go NUTS just thinking about it....

[Niome!]

what i seen on tv, newspaper, and what not, ill say its wrong to start or have wars in the first place, too many people dying most of them being the innocents, but at the same time theres evil out there trying to make this world worst than it is, so thats why theres wars to stop evil from growing, thats why some times i do support it in some ways, yeah i do go NUTS just thinking about it....

You must understand that the "terrorists" and "insurgents" in Iraq think of us as evil American's whom want power and crude oil. The idea of Good and Evil is flawed, that belongs in fantasy but even then its flawed, what you think might be good like oil might be "evil" to Environmentalists that want to keep the environment of Earth clean and kept, mostly relating to the atmosphere anyway.

You go nuts over this? Your head should of exploded about learning of Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust in Global.

War is always nasty, even the idea of a human being fighting against his own species over what? A black liquid we call oil, why should these human beings in an area called the Middle-East and America war against each other when together we could be aligned improving the world? However War is instrumental in discovering things, surviving and propelling technology that we have today. Whats Iraq without being the perfect place to justify the U.S's military want to test new weaponry and improve upon them.

About this Iraq debate, my opinion is we when we captured Saddam Hussein and targeted his family members the country was better off with reinstalling in them in a democratically-lead government. At least Iraq was doing far better it was in his dictatorial regime than it is now, this democracy is weak even with our troops their. I am surprised I haven't heard anything about Iraqi's wanting to protest the govt or stand against the terrorists and purging the damn country of them, building-to-building, cave-to-cave. Perhaps the people wouldn't of wanted him back again, but he had a lot of supporters and certainly an excuse could of been made...

Taking those Iraqi's that fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and the former officers and soldiers of Saddam Hussein in power positions to repel these terrorists would be perfect, with us policing them so not to perform any military coup.

What I am trying to say is Iraq under Saddam was 100% better off; we'll never get him back (Of course) and the country was very disgruntled in his oppressive regime and international politics would've never allowed it to continue if we occupied Iraq, but the situation is far worse than that yesterday. At the greatest degree promising his sons and relatives military power to keep what never defied the country than having foreign occupiers try to deal with alien citizens and alien opponents in an alien citizen environment is what we should've done.

What can we do now but flush hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq inflating our currency to what I've been informed by my trust-worthy Global teacher, 40 cents compared to the Euro? We're obnoxiously **** in the bum as if we leave Iraq, it'll stumble over into it self with these groups and its fresh military.

Originally Posted by Guza
eh war is usually when two or more people/parties have....disagreements and they just wanna go fu@# each other up the bet possable way.

I agree with you half-way, everyone in their minds wants to eliminate or damage somebody else in an conflict however an extension that would be wise is when "Two or more peoples/parties (Parties essentially the same thing) cannot continue peaceful conversation to settle the matter resolve to warfare to forcibly meet their wants." As they say, War is an extension of Politics.

No... Just no.

How about laying out reasons and facts instead of looking like a know-it-all troll. If you disagree with something state why. Another 17 year-old can't defend his reasons? I can't wait to turn seventeen and redeem the grave number...

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

So, the most glaring example to shock the world ultimately comes down to four soldiers. Let's see... four out of the... hm... over 500,000 soldiers who have been through Iraq in the last four years. What percentage is that again? Oh yeah, .0008%. Now, try comparing that with the violent crime rate of any country on Earth. We are human, not flawless, but our rate of screwing up is closer to a statistical anomaly than a damning trend. Better yet, compare all of our "indiscretions" to the atrocities commited by our enemies on a daily basis.

I rest my case, sir.

Wow. You read all the way to the second paragraph so you could give me the results of the very first investigation in 2004, huh? Truly an amazing fact-finding mission on your part. Too bad you didn't read the whole thing... think of the case you could make then!!!

More over, your point is moot.

One, it assumes that the ones that got in trouble were the only ones that tortured.

Two, the only way the 500,000 would be statistically significant would be if they all had a significant chance to torture but didn't. Only MP's stationed in prisons do, really.

Three, the Prez and friends have been very Pro-their-right-to-torture-anyone-they-want-during-wartime which leads me to believe that things incidents like these may be at least condoned, possibly even ordered by him. I mean, you don’t argue for the right to do things you don’t want to do.

[kaasuten]

simple fact is nothing good comes out of war only death

[Sagat]

Niome! if it's any consolation, I was utterly surprised to see you are 16, so I guess there is hope after all. I thought you were in your early 20's based on how you talk and the level in which you seem to put thought into things.

[Grim Scythe]

Niome! if it's any consolation, I was utterly surprised to see you are 16, so I guess there is hope after all. I thought you were in your early 20's based on how you talk and the level in which you seem to put thought into things.

you connect thought and age too much in my opinion
also your complementing someone with whom you agree with
what about the people who disagree with you but their arguments are put together very well

[Red Phantoms]

Oh, how mysterious of you to say such things, oh all powerful 17 year old. Think you've been reading too much Dan Brown, maybe reading a little bit too much on wikipedia about the Illuminati.

You're not supposed to tell so much huh? Oh dear! We have a real Illuminati member here , oh wait, a real illuminati member - if they exist - wouldn't be so stupid as to suggest such things. Freemasons wouldn't go around blathering such nonsense either, not that you are one cause you're too young, though I found it amusing you omitted them from your list.

What you are however is just a messed up kid trying to garner some shred of importance or mysticism by your "vague" sayings. And it's annoying and stupid to read because this is a pretty interesting topic (and I love this Iraq debate going on, it highlights this topic so well) and you going on about the NWO or whatever is side railing it. Give it a break already .. Don't know what fools you take us for but it's pathetic.

Good line...
unfortunately i never read a Dan Brown Novel
well i didnt say some of their existance is neded but if there is they will served as puppet...
well if you ARE smart enough you will aware that every movement wich happen is just like a bait of one movements. One condition is neded to make the puppet master scheme become reality. And im sure there not even an organitation but for kin....
As you know thhere is a lot of Islamic movement againts american but do you really thing that their true enemy is american. or did they even really exist....
AND if you read enough history that their utopia is already spread by the support of the powerfull coutry such as America and England. And now the puppet already rulled an ecconomic politic even military (for the one inside american military powerfull position is earned by them.) you know it yourself that to become a puppet you didnt even need to know that you are in their scheme though.

[Niome!]

Good line...
unfortunately i never read a Dan Brown Novel
well i didnt say some of their existance is neded but if there is they will served as puppet...
well if you ARE smart enough you will aware that every movement wich happen is just like a bait of one movements. One condition is neded to make the puppet master scheme become reality. And im sure there not even an organitation but for kin....
As you know thhere is a lot of Islamic movement againts american but do you really thing that their true enemy is american. or did they even really exist....
AND if you read enough history that their utopia is already spread by the support of the powerfull coutry such as America and England. And now the puppet already rulled an ecconomic politic even military (for the one inside american military powerfull position is earned by them.) you know it yourself that to become a puppet you didnt even need to know that you are in their scheme though.

Wha?

Third you got the point by revealing some of his puppet for puppet master identity is suposed to be hidden for now. well i belive everyone know them but still not aware. and surely their plan is suposed to be sucseed as a triger for my next movement becaus noone will oposed them before knowing them though

I am well aware of the whole New World War, has secret underground bases across America and the world with 66,000 black helicopters and the Green and Black Berets, 66 died versus several Grey's underground, secret Greeks in the mountains in Death Valley, cetera.

Though it doesn't serve much for argument and alot for assumptions.

So genius what scheme is this again and do you have any proof for these claims? Last I remembered what was the 2nd Amendment; "A regulated millita" that is to take up arms when an dictator comes into the government and furthermore we have the Legislature, Executive and Judicial branches. We haven't had a Rome reenactment since Watergate just bad presidents, assassinated presidents, wife-cheating presidents, how about some Indian or Black presidents, like Oprah Winfrey.

Like hell there has been Anti-American movements since the dawn of time, though this "unknown" enemy makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. If anything keeping the Illuminati out of discussion is best served with a silver platter.

[RockStar]

morally i don't think randomly going in and killing anyone is ok for personal gain.

i'm a hippie in the sense that i don't like war at all. i don't think it's justified to tell people that the other side is evil so we can go in and kill them.

both sides are told that the other guy is the bad guy what if we only think we're the good guy? what if the good guy never wins and we've been the bad guy for centuries?

yeah i know there were times where war may have been necessary (ex. WW2). i understand that hitler would have tried to take over the world and we needed to stop him and all that junk... but now-a-days we just invade people and tell ourselves that we're trying to help them when in reality we have more motives to gain from their suffering.