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

[Niome!]

In history we had thousands of wars; some over the stupidest things and some over realistic ideologies and resources or the eradication of a group of people thought inferior to the aggressors. It's all opinions but heres an example:

Some believe the United States went to Iraq to secure a Pro-American puppet government under the name and idea of "Democracy". Furthermore to secure the oil fields of Iraq to allow undisrupted flow gasoline into our tankers in this fine, super-capitalist (Had to add) country.

That hasn't really related to the question however look deeper and you'll understand. If the U.S Imperialism of Iraq was successful, would our country and Iraq be doing better or for worse?

Enough? So in a nice mannered argument over the morality of War - do you think War in its definition is correct? Human between human over a strip of fertile soil or gasoline and metals? Killing off a species of animals because they threaten towns or whether for religious or secular means kill off an population of human beings. We can bring this to new heights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/War
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=War

I believe War shouldn't be thought morally but from a broader 3rd perspective not that I ignore the gruesome atrocities and effects of it.

If an species of hostile animals wore in an region of iron metal and this to-be flourishing civilization had to kill them with wooden sticks to obtain the metal, it should be done. Does the animal species use this material? No therefore they should be emigrated to another area or be enslaved/killed off. Of course people are going to say its wrong a thousand years ago or during that time in another land because they weren't their to understand it. You have to make sacrifices even if the next thing suffers to survive. It's all about Survival and it makes as much sense as a starving child cannibalizing over another dead boy or eating something recently alive you thought was cute or it didn't have to be done.

If you saw somebody kill a Deer with a rifle, would you get upset? Probably because that was "mean", irresponsible but put yourself in that persons position. If you were hungry and had no money to purchase food and had the materials to make food out of a living thing, wouldn't you be holding that rifle and pointing it at a Deer licking your lips? Exactly.

Also War has brought Humanity boundless leaps into new places of science and understanding. I have faith in that if we didn't experience both World Wars, we would never be as advanced today. The theory of Radar would've taken longer would not if the U-Boat situation around Britain and Britain's desire to defend its island from Germany not be an reality. Think about rocket technology, without Adolf Hitler and the previous war things would be slower today. We can make up assumptions or in some peoples minds conclusions that we could've done faster or to late who knows, but history has documented the motivation of individuals in improving a certain thing or creating say the computer because X war threatened X country and X country brought television, cable and cars into the world thereafter. It is a deep stray away from the question but its still relevant.

[bttr]

In history wars were waged for lands and conquering but today over oil and some other stuff.

I say stop it fighting over oil how foolish ¬_¬!II

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Morality is subjective, ergo it depends. I don't think it matters how anyone feels about it anyway.

[lafiel]

Honestly I believe it depends on the situation that has arisen. War is never really morally right unless it's to stop some lunatic from taking over the world like Hitler. We havent been at war at all since World War 2 though. Vietnam and Iraq arent technically wars "shrugs". So yes morally it was right for the civil war/world war 2. Thats what I think.

[Lunafreya Fleuret]

Tsktsk..War. Nothing but trouble. Just because something of that sort happens, doesn't mean it needs to last a few years. Just like the Iraqi war. Now true, well said, Lafiel. It may be to stop some maniac, yet that doesn't mean several countries need to be involved. Let them take care of it on their own. Now, if it were about Civil War, fighting with neigboring countries, still, we'd not need to be involved. War is just another bit of nonsense this world Does. NOT need. All it causes is death of the innocent, and destruction of cities and economies. It is not needed, that is, in my opinion.

[Exquiro]

I can't really be bothered to read all that you posted but I skimmed over it and... Well I'm not sure how to answer your question.

Personally I don't beleive in morals, it's like right and wrong, nobody can say what's right and wrong, morals follow a similar idea.
Anyhow... If I cut it down to 'Do you think war is a bad idea or a good idea?' Bad. Always bad, but (without putting too much thought into it, so don't blame me if I'm wrong) I get a funny fealing we couldn't get by without it...

[lafiel]

Tsktsk..War. Nothing but trouble. Just because something of that sort happens, doesn't mean it needs to last a few years. Just like the Iraqi war. Now true, well said, Lafiel. It may be to stop some maniac, yet that doesn't mean several countries need to be involved. Let them take care of it on their own. Now, if it were about Civil War, fighting with neigboring countries, still, we'd not need to be involved. War is just another bit of nonsense this world Does. NOT need. All it causes is death of the innocent, and destruction of cities and economies. It is not needed, that is, in my opinion.

I'd have to agree with you on some of that stuff. Although war is bad and innocent lives are lost I do think sometimes it is needed. I dont neccessarily like it though. War is our way of survival of the fittest. If we never had any wars at all throughout the years our earth would be worse off IMO. We would be way to overpopulated and there would be much starvation in the world with all the people. It may sound harsh but we need it to sweep up some of the people so to speak.

[Eris]

I think


Morality is subjective, ergo it depends. I don't think it matters how anyone feels about it anyway.

... so, yeh.

[miniPhil]

In history wars were waged for lands and conquering but today over oil and some other stuff.

I say stop it fighting over oil how foolish ¬_¬!II

As aposed to land or the classic "My god is better than yours".

[Eris]

In history wars were waged for lands and conquering but today over oil and some other stuff.

I say stop it fighting over oil how foolish ¬_¬!II

What's foolish about trying to improve your own situation at the expense of others? Sounds like a great plan, if you ask me.

[KeokoXxXInuzuka]

I think they should stop, I mean I don't like losing love ones and I know alot of people don't. Counting I lost one of my best friends in the war and we all still miss him so yea...

[Tiamat]

Now-'n'-days...war is just-...a total waste of time.

I mean, I don't like it either, but WWII, for example. There we had a good reason.

War against Iraq: Oil.
I had two friends go to war because of the gas. o.O I'm not sure if they were joking about it, but they seemed pretty serious to me.

...There are some old cars that can be powered by other means.
I think one guy powers his with used vegetable oil.

[Maledictis Voca]

I am against war in every way, and I wish people didn't have to die just because our stupid governments can't agree on something.

[Sagat]

If people like you ruled Voca, we'd all be speaking German right now and be holding hereditary passports.

War is both good and bad. Sometimes necessary, sometimes not. Whether it be for resources, revenge, expansion, ideals, it's as was already said subjective. So while at the heart of a war it may be difficult to see whether it is right or wrong, usually the victor will determine what it is for us.


In history wars were waged for lands and conquering but today over oil and some other stuff.

I say stop it fighting over oil how foolish ¬_¬!II

To you and your narrow view perhaps. The US is addicted to oil. It needs it. When oil reserves start running dry, people like you will be the first to cry foul and slam the Government for not procuring enough oil.

Given the shortages of fossil fuels and their predicted spiral decline, perhaps the US is attempting to secure a lifeline while it adapts its populace to different fuels and means of using energy. In which case, it is basically acting for the preservation of the "American way" - so if that is the case, tell me how it is foolish to ensure people can drive their cars to and from work, heat their houses and warm their water?

[Faceless111]

I am against war in every way, and I wish people didn't have to die just because our stupid governments can't agree on something.So you would oppose US military interference with the current genocides in Africa, such as in Darfur?

But as for me, war is a vicarious thing that doesn't directly affect me as of yet. War is sad, but unavoidable.

[Lucidian Dyne]

The basis of necessity sucks. Look at the wars it's brought us.

I guess evolved psychological aspects enable us to kill people whose faces we'll only see once in our lives, or less. If it's for the good of the country or entity, we can press buttons and pull triggers to our hearts' content. Superpowers of the world can boil things down to one key component of the existence of their followers -- superiority -- say they're right, and call it a night. They've got what we need, so let's use all existing media, our use of political rhetoric and proudly declare "Mine's bigger than yours!" before we make our opponents (not so much "enemies" as they are "obstacles") bloody smears on the face of history.

Frankly, I believe what I've just described above is a complete load of crap. And I'm not even attacking anyone else's views here. Let's face it, most of us here are in an overall better state and situation than the rest of the world, that it's difficult for us to hold an objective viewpoint as it concerns the preservation of life on Earth. Glorifying the use of weapons, capitalism and self-preservation at the expense of all else... glorifying these things seems a bit counterproductive to the advocation of humanity's continued existence.

If it's truly a human trait to be this destructive, I don't think the killing will stop with our enemies. And prospects of martial rule or a utopia don't hold nearly as much promise.

[Sobriquet]

I am against war in every way, and I wish people didn't have to die just because our stupid governments can't agree on something.

I agree with this.
However, sometimes war can be seen as an advantage to some countries' economy.

[Faceless111]

I agree with this.
However, sometimes war can be seen as an advantage to some countries' economy.So you would also oppose military interaction if it were to prevent a genocide of some sort?

[Acnologia]

I think war is just stupid. Why don't they just take the oil and run for it instead of killing thousands of people.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I think war is just stupid. Why don't they just take the oil and run for it instead of killing thousands of people.

I see someone has never tired to run through the desert with a 55-gallon barrel strapped to their back.

[Acnologia]

I didnt mean literally run >_>

[bakakame]

On the issue of morality... I get so sick of civilians trying to protest, not just military action, but then complaining about the way military action is taken.

I've got some news for them: War isn't a humanitarian prospect. There aren't rules, generosity, or fair play. Stop whining and let the soldiers do what they need to do. I got so sickened when I hear of soldiers being accused of "war crimes" while trying to defend themselves.


...There are some old cars that can be powered by other means.
I think one guy powers his with used vegetable oil.

Vegetable oil works so long as only whiny (comment withheld) hippies use it. Vegetable oil is more expensive than gasoline, and your local grocer doesn't exactly have thousands of gallons handy for people to use. Not to mention crude oil doesn't exactly have many other uses, vegetables do.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I didnt mean literally run >_>

So like, walk? Because I think they'll get you if you walk.

[lafiel]

I think war is just stupid. Why don't they just take the oil and run for it instead of killing thousands of people.

Did you read what you wrote? If a country tried to go in and just take a resource from another country in this case oil. I'm pretty sure that the country thats being pillaged would probably retaliate by killing everyone trying to steal that resource. The only way to take what you need is to be buddy buddy with that country. Set up some kind of base there gets lots of troops around the area then work from there. Essentially what the United States did with Iraq. Iraq is in the middle of a lot of different countries. If we had a strong enough force there we could easily invade any surrounding country before they knew what hit them.

[akiko_kalla]

Mmm..."war" itself has no morality. It is the people choosing to go to war or refrain from it that first bring morality into the mix. It is then further complicated by those fighting, supporting, protesting, or not supporting the war.

I don't think anyone will say war is wonderful, but I don't think one can place a value judgment on war. One must place the value judgment on the reason for the war or what happened during the war or because of it. War is neither good nor evil; it simply is what it is and individuals are who give it a moral value. And that can change from war to war, person to person, and time to time. The value is not constant. Regardless of what people may think of war, I think the greatest tragedy of war is not that they happen, but that their causes and effects are so quickly forgotten.

[UrusaiSevera]

Rofl MP2000... :3

And there's nothing moralistic about waging war... It's just a Strategy Game...

[Eris]

So you would also oppose military interaction if it were to prevent a genocide of some sort?

Though two wrongs don't make a right. War to prevent a genocide is like murder to prevent murder. Or robbing a bank to raise money to fight crime.

[bug]

Wars can be for stupid reasons or for good reasons. But if I had to choose between if wars necessary or not, then yes. They are what prevent overcrowding. It's like a forest fire. People say there bad because they kill animals and plants of all sorts. However, after the fire, the ground is full of minerals, allowing life to regrow. Without that fire, all of the minerals could have been used up completely , and there wouldn't be life any plants there until the minerals came back. Without those plants, herbivores will starve and either die of or move on. Then, the carnivores would either die from starvation, kill each other of, or move on. Either way, the land will be barren for a while. Wars are the same way. They kill and let the next generation take over.

[xX_Why do i love you_Xx]

i think this war is unjust we are figthing over stupid oil if we use maybe diffrent resources instead of oil it could work and we wouldn't have lives and families ruined the death rate so far for the soilders is 3,500 thats in a few months if we keep this up the deathrate will rise. some of those soilders used to be students at my school i knew one. you know what f the oil f the industry. am sorry but thats what i think..

[Exquiro]

Wars can be for stupid reasons or for good reasons. But if I had to choose between if wars necessary or not, then yes. They are what prevent overcrowding. It's like a forest fire. People say there bad because they kill animals and plants of all sorts. However, after the fire, the ground is full of minerals, allowing life to regrow. Without that fire, all of the minerals could have been used up completely , and there wouldn't be life any plants there until the minerals came back. Without those plants, herbivores will starve and either die of or move on. Then, the carnivores would either die from starvation, kill each other of, or move on. Either way, the land will be barren for a while. Wars are the same way. They kill and let the next generation take over.

'Cept if someone goes and drops a nuclear bomb on yer head. Then you're totally fu*ked along with the minerals, plants, herbivores, carnivores, plenty of generations to come and the cute little bunny rabbits :)

[Nighthawk]

Though two wrongs don't make a right. War to prevent a genocide is like murder to prevent murder. Or robbing a bank to raise money to fight crime.


Not to forget wars seldomly were started to prevent a genocide. Wars have been mostly started either after a country later declaring war has been attacked and dragged into the conflict that way or when there were economical interests. And no, thats not meant as an insult to the US, thats why wars were led mostly in ancient Europe. Genocide was not prevented in former Yugoslavia until Kosovo conflict (theres a lawsuit against dutchie UN troops because they did not protect the civilians in Srebrenica, theres rumors some soldiers even commited crimes side by side with the Serbians, at least they witnessed war atrocities including the beheading or cutting throats of babies and kids, wish they wouldve had French foreign legion peeps there instead, those guys can fight) , nor in Africa (Ruanda, where the UN failed again, or Congo/Zaire).

[Reniti]

Seriously, I don't have an actual "opinion" about it. Sorta...

Besides, all this talk about "Is war bad and should it be stopped?" bring up the statement: "If you say that history should have never had war, look on the foundation you're standing on." *no offense to those that don't live in the US*

War is, in a way, what built history. I sometimes believe it is quite uneeded in the world, but no one gives a care of what you think about this.

[Sagat]

i think this war is unjust we are figthing over stupid oil if we use maybe diffrent resources instead of oil it could work and we wouldn't have lives and families ruined the death rate so far for the soilders is 3,500 thats in a few months if we keep this up the deathrate will rise. some of those soilders used to be students at my school i knew one. you know what f the oil f the industry. am sorry but thats what i think..

I don't know if I want to form a proper reply or run you down with my car after securing chains to my tires. Well, I'd rather do both, so for now a reply:

OH WAIT. I already mentioned a reason (which I believe is the reason) why this war is being fought over oil. And you boldly claim to "f the oil industry" well you are a mere hypocrite. I say that because you are using oil all the time. You may heat your water and house with it. You certainly have to use it to drive around with. So tell you what, if you really feel that strongly, simply boycott the oil industry. Refuse to get in ANY automobile indefinitely. Walk or bike to every destination you have to go to, hey it's healthy after all. If you find out your house is heated via oil, refuse to accept that heat or hot water. Wear sweaters all the time and learn to love cold showers.

But, I know you won't. You flap your gums and talk like you have a spark, but won't take action - because like I said, you're a hypocrite. You will condemn the very thing that makes your life convenient - as you are using it no less.

[smile1010]

War i say, is needed.
Countries/Governments are selfish. They will have no trouble with a few lives being taken.
The government also has no problems with taking away from other countries too.
People are selfish.
Fighting for land, money, oil?
Ever since the beginning of time, the highest leaders were always the one benefiting very highly off of wars.
And thats all our government wants too, is money.
This war with Iraq is pointless.
Lives get changed, and some are lost.
The government wont do anything but give a few hundred dollars here and there, maybe a thousand or two, but the government will never be able to give soilders there normal lives back.

So, I think war is needed..without war there wouldn't be peace.
but the expensive that people pay isn't worth it.

[Faceless111]

Though two wrongs don't make a right. War to prevent a genocide is like murder to prevent murder. Or robbing a bank to raise money to fight crime.Not really. I don't consider the death penality murder, so I don't consider military action to be in the wrong. It's killing killers, true, but there's nothing wrong with killing unless it's done for stupid reasons. Preventing genocide isn't a stupid reason, therefore it's justified.

[OminousCloud]

Present day war is cowardly, you have a bunch of morons and their puppeteers behind buttons and triggers. If you're going to fight for your country pick up a sword and shield and fight for it.

It's so easy now to wage war, no one ever fully thinks it through.

[Grim Scythe]

I see someone has never tired to run through the desert with a 55-gallon barrel strapped to their back.

55 gals would be ridiculously heavy

anyways I'm going to attempt to ignore many of the comments on here because i don't feel like personally addressing each
ill just say my 2 cents on war pretty much disregarding the whole morality spin on the question because you cant bring morality into killing, you might as well try to discuss religion with anyone on the xbox live

war is pretty good
and I don't mean anything like the Vietnam war because that didn't bring anything good, because we went into it thinking were so bad
no the wars throughout history when a country put everything into it, when technological improvements boomed overnight, where education and fitness were valued
and yes many were "screwed" in the military sense but there was much more good going on, it is the most basic form of "stirring the pot" without society stagnates

[Faceless111]

Present day war is cowardly, you have a bunch of morons and their puppeteers behind buttons and triggers. If you're going to fight for your country pick up a sword and shield and fight for it.

It's so easy now to wage war, no one ever fully thinks it through.I dare any country to choose swords and shields over M-16's and wage war. Let's see what wins, technology or stupidity.

[OminousCloud]

...

I don't mean swords and shields up against guns and bombs. I meant warfare with more traditional weapons, when war was a King and his army against another King and his army.

[Red Phantoms]

well wars are only brough pain and suffer. most of peopole are try to erase the war from humanity. unfortunately i though it wont be possible as long as human are walk on a surface of the earth. as you know human are gifted with emotion such as greed, envy, love, hatred, etc.

Those emotion are very hard to control. very unstable and dangerous indeed. so the only way to earn the real peace is only to erace those emotion from humanity but as the side effect humman will lost its mind and become a doll (never do anything without command). we wont need a competition to earn our ambition.

if it goes like that im sure that humanity will destroyed for sure. as you know humanity created to be destroyed for all wich had an begining are have an end.

[Grim Scythe]

...

I don't mean swords and shields up against guns and bombs. I meant warfare with more traditional weapons, when war was a King and his army against another King and his army.

just leave it youve had too much 300

[OminousCloud]

*shrugs* I prefer olden styles of fighting, it was more personal I guess.

[Red Phantoms]

sure you are right. they would prefer to kiling someone from distance then doing a duel. sometimes they even didnt care who are they kill for a weapon had no eyes and will always follows its master command. im sure when a war breaks out a singgel soldier are always causing more destruction not only to its enemy but also a civilian and even to his allied.

if i was forced to kill someone i would prefer to use a sniper rifle not because it was save but i could make sure that i didnt make a wrong decicion when i was aiming my target and i could give honor to my prey by knowing who is he

[Sagat]

Present day war is cowardly, you have a bunch of morons and their puppeteers behind buttons and triggers. If you're going to fight for your country pick up a sword and shield and fight for it.

It's so easy now to wage war, no one ever fully thinks it through.

Yes, and the feudal/shogun times where samurai would cut down anyone stupid enough to stand in front of them as they walked down the path without fear of legal reprisal was so much more honourable.

[Faceless111]

...

I don't mean swords and shields up against guns and bombs. I meant warfare with more traditional weapons, when war was a King and his army against another King and his army.Sounds a lot like a country's leader and his army and another country's leader and his army. And swords aren't traditional; they're weapons. They were the finest weapons available for the common soldier in feudal times. Technology allows for soldiers to do their job much easier.

[Eris]

Not really. I don't consider the death penality murder, so I don't consider military action to be in the wrong. It's killing killers, true, but there's nothing wrong with killing unless it's done for stupid reasons. Preventing genocide isn't a stupid reason, therefore it's justified.

But what is justification? From the genoiciders' perspective, they are probably doing themselves or humanity a great benefit. So the genocide is as much justified as the war to stop it.

Justification is subjective. As is morality, good/evil, and all that.

[Sagat]

Therefore like most things, whom is right or wrong comes down to whoever is stronger.

[Niome!]

Present day war is cowardly, you have a bunch of morons and their puppeteers behind buttons and triggers. If you're going to fight for your country pick up a sword and shield and fight for it.

It's so easy now to wage war, no one ever fully thinks it through.

People do think it through - why do we have military doctrines detailing how to proceed after we take point A, than B, what do we do when there are guerrillas in the mountains, or an tank column coming down the road, cetera.

You haven't though out your post mate, you need to take a serious look at the fighting in Iraq, World War 1, 2, Gulf War. War hasn't so much changed from whom fights it except the common soldier being involved in more insurgent and urban warfare.

The reason why we don't fight with swords and shields today is because... Englishmen toke the gunpowder from China and decided to make Muskets.

You know what happened? Muskets bullets could penetrate the thickest steel armor plating of Knights. Let's re roll that into cannons and even the most fortified and thickest castles couldn't withstand cannonballs smashing into them.

Now lets rewind this forward several hundred years now and you see why... were not fighting with swords and shields. No American plans to run towards insurgents with a claymore while he is blasting him with an AK-47.

What we need to do today is give soldiers that are fighting in Iraq, especially the ones with lost limbs do what the Roman's did. Give them acres of land in the United States or Middle East to live off of with their families. Surely they'll repay their loyalty by fighting for their lives like they did previously.

In the Cold War, the U.S and CCCP always came close to launching the nuclear holocaust but never did was because they risked total destruction of themselves. A sacrifice to great which is why Khrushchev implementing nuclear missiles on Cuban soil was a great idea. To fire at the CCCP if Cuba hit the East Coast couldn't be justified and the world would turn on the U.S.

[Cless Alvein]

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.

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.

[Niome!]

That's very interesting Cless, perhaps I can say the Geneva Convention follows your statement a hundred percent: Politicians that know only of the after effects of violence made restrictions to warfare so that every nation didn't go around flattening every city on the planet if they found hidden enemies in them, or visible ones.

I used the Moral argument since people have their respects and limitations to do things in warfare and I just don't mean governments or people who like at a map and tell where this group of soldiers/warriors are going.

When I watched the movie Downfall, (1945 Berlin, when the Soviets were invading), a Nazi General witnessed several SS hanging German citizens for trying to run away from being drafted into I forgotten they called militants in German. He was deeply shocked as another part was they were chasing this one man and shot him for trying to survive and escape, still being SS doing this and the General's adjutant (You'd say right-hand, one who drives your car if your a General but is in the General ranks as well) whipped up his MP40 in response. He simply walked back to his vehicle to proceed on.

If a soldier is ordered to behead a man because they convicted him of fighting against them in an earlier battle when they unsuccessfully besieged the town, the soldier doesn't want to because he thinks thats wrong whether its the truth or not. You cannot say that isn't Morality, what keeps you from being a monster just as everyone else.

[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_Ghraib_prisoner_torture_and_abuse
and:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68
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_Ghraib_prisoner_torture_and_abuse
and:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68
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 :ninja:

[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 :ninja:

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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence).


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 http://www.animeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.animeforum.com/showthread.php?p=1717812#post1717812)
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 :ninja:

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.

[Frau Landers]

The question itself is very open-ended, as I can see from all the really in-depth debates here. I'm just going to say that the United States should've never tried to be the "World's Police"; it would've prevented a lot of problems.

[Sagat]

On the other hand, being the world police probably prevented a lot of problems as well.

[Niome!]

On the other hand, being the world police probably prevented a lot of problems as well.

Adding upon that, had the League of Nations, members being France and Britain did what the League was supposed to do, would've stopped Hitler in 1936 in remilitarizing the Rhineland and Benito Mussolini in conquering Ethiopia. That itself warrants enough of an excuse to support World Police, but you can interpret World Place so much that one side can say they toke over countries for a greater reason or cause, like Joseph Stalin when he toke ruined countries occupied by the German's into the Iron Curtain.

I agree Frau that being the World's Police sounds unnecessary and does cause problems, but it does solve problems already present and, had we tried to police Africa of all its tribal wars, the world would be a better place.

Oh my god, I'll never keep this thread to die.

[Grim Scythe]

well i dont really care about this anymore because i made a commitment today to contribute in the killing, etc of the war, in one year