Commander PK Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 Under what circumstances would you support United States military action against another nation? When would you be willing, and be HAPPY to do so, to fight, and possibly die, for your country? Under what circumstances would you accept the fact, that diplomacy could not achieve any real results against a particular enemy, and that military victory is the only real option? What would be a noble enough cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 I'm curious to see some of the answers, because I believe that Iraq fit all those criteria. Saddam Hussein was a threat to our well being, and way of life. He had used WMD in the past, and would probably have used them again (if he did have them, which we know he did at one time anyway, and even if he didn't he would have acquired them again) He raped, tortured, beat, and mutilated his own people. I just don't see much liberal support for the war in Iraq. I'm sad to say, and I'm sure somebody is gonna blast me for this, that many liberals would not stand and fight for any cause, for any reason. They would rather give in, and give up then fight. With that said, let me say that I'm not a war monger, I don't believe that force, and military action is something to be used lightly, and without all other options being exhausted. However, I do accept that sometimes situations arise, that present no alternative, but to war. After many discussions wilh liberal friends and associates I'm convinced that many would give up everything they owned, watch all their family and friends suffer and die, before they would fight to defend them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 To answer your questions in order, and for me personally, 1) When a nation or defined geographical group within a nation has attacked the USA 2) To defend me, my family, my friends, my countryfolk, and our allies against invasion or imminent, clear, present threat 3) After violence has begun or to preempt the imminent threat of violence 4) Well, prevention of genocide (WWII), defense of homeland (say we were invaded) spring immediately to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 I'm curious to see some of the answers, because I believe that Iraq fit all those criteria. What criteria? You posted this before waiting for any responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 Ancal, do you believe that Iraq fit, all or some of those criteria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 A noble enough cause? How about nothing to do with our leaders own personal agenda. His intent to invade Iraq was present before Bush even got into office. This question should not be directed at liberals. It should be posed to all. If you were an Iraqi, what would be a noble enough cause to have an alien country invade your home, and overthrow your leader? I am not a supporter of Saddam, but I am a firm believer that we, as a nation, should not be policing the world......and should not be getting involved in other nations' problems. I wouldn't want George W. Bush sending my sons to war......no matter who he wanted to overthrow. The guy is a confirmed *****, who did his best to AVOID fighting for his country. Anyone who intends to vote this clown back into office is uneducated, and extremely gullible. JMHO. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 Well Ancal, your right, I didn't list the "criteria" ver batim, but I think it's pretty obvious what I'm getting at....don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 I do not. I think an argument could be made that some of the criteria were fulfilled, but I have yet to see a very persuasive argument. Unlike some, I am not firmly against the doctrine of preemption, but I think that the standards it requires are extraordinarily high. By the way, when you titled this thread "liberal posters," I was thinking more along the lines of these posters: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 A noble enough cause? How about nothing to do with our leaders own personal agenda. His intent to invade Iraq was present before Bush even got into office. This question should not be directed at liberals. It should be posed to all. If you were an Iraqi, what would be a noble enough cause to have an alien country invade your home, and overthrow your leader? I am not a supporter of Saddam, but I am a firm believer that we, as a nation, should not be policing the world......and should not be getting involved in other nations' problems. I wouldn't want George W. Bush sending my sons to war......no matter who he wanted to overthrow. The guy is a confirmed *****, who did his best to AVOID fighting for his country. Anyone who intends to vote this clown back into office is uneducated, and extremely gullible. JMHO. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 The thing is 2456 that it wasn't JUST Iraq's problem. It was the whole worlds problem, and often we, the United States, are left to deal with problems that the rest of the world doesn't want to deal with, or have the stomach for, until it's standing right outside their door. I don't believe for a second that Bush went to war just over Saddam trying to kill his father, but I will agree he had Iraq on his mind from the moment he went into office. What were we going to do people? Enforce no fly zones, and blow up anti-aircraft artillery until Saddam, his sons, and grandkids were dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 Basically, what I'm saying is that if there is one thing 9/11 taught us, as did Hitler, Napaoleon, and countless other dictators and governments have taught us TIME AND TIME again, is that you have two options. You can deal with a relatively small problem, and do so in a manner as to avoid creating a bigger one, or you can allow the small problem to fester and grow until it becomes much more difficult to control. In my mind, this was Iraq, a relatively small problem, that if left un-checked, would no doubt have grown to a much larger one, requiring a much more costly solution. People have a problem, and justifiably so, with 600 of our servicemen dying in Iraq, but how would they feel if they were dying by the 1000's, poisoned by Saddams chemical weapons, that he no doubt would have continued to produce after the inspectors were gone. What if we had not allowed Hitler to build his war machine, it's possible we could have avoided World War II all together. Is Iraq not a similar situation? Doesn't anybody else see that Saddam could have been another Hitler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 What we do....is nothing. This is the whole problem. Somehow it is up to us to sooth the tension in the middle east? No, it is not. This is a problem that will never end. You mentioned what Bush's personal agenda may have been. I don't know, and I don't care what it was.....I do know that it was personal. Looking back, we have NO evidence that Saddam had any weapons we would consider a threat to national security. And what did we do? We stormed Iraq, and took over the country. Now we have soldiers dying every day for NO REASON. This is a joke......a joke on us. We, and our children, will pay for our leaders mistakes. GW Bush does not have the necessary equipment to be a leader......he is a little boy......(like you said).......looking for approval from his father. Realize that he is cowardly, and would not himself risk his hyde for his country. But, yet he still sends our young men to die. There is no excuse for this....no argument......we need new leadership. Make a better choice than this next time. Four more years of this will signal the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 2456, when did I mention what Bush's personal agenda may have been, before you stated that "his intent to invade Iraq was present before Bush even got into office." You also state "I do know that it was personal." How do you know this? Where is your evidence? Your posts paint a picture, that you have a disdain for Bush that goes beyond politics. Why may I ask? "What we do....is nothing?" How is that a solution? Even you must agree that even diplomatic involvment is nessesary in Iraq, and in the wider middle east. I wonder if even the U.N. would say that "doing nothing" is a solution in the middle east.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsFan2456 Four more years of this will signal the end of the world. No my friend, not dealing with our threats and problems in the world, will signal the end of the world. I'm reminded of a quote, I can't remember who stated this (churchill perhaps?) "All it takes for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing." I'm sure somebody knows who said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjinhan Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black To answer your questions in order, and for me personally, 1) When a nation or defined geographical group within a nation has attacked the USA 2) To defend me, my family, my friends, my countryfolk, and our allies against invasion or imminent, clear, present threat 3) After violence has begun or to preempt the imminent threat of violence 4) Well, prevention of genocide (WWII), defense of homeland (say we were invaded) spring immediately to mind. those i would agree to as well... i for one as a liberal support my "new" country in any war because i believe that is the role of citizens (me finally got my citizenship after living in the USA for 10 years). However our leaders need to be held accountable if they led us down the wrong road and even more so if done knowingly. i agree with you Skinsfan75 about what you said however in order to accomplished that you cant just go around knocking down everydoor looking to eliminate the enemy. Because it will be great that we catch those idiots and take them out of commision but while we are knocking down doors to find them people are getting pissed off. Hell if the FBI came to your house knocked down the door, trashed your house, accuse you of stuff, then suddenly leave saying "ok all is good here." Will you be ok with that? i woud be pissed as hell and would prolly have negative feelings toward the FBI. yeah its hard as hell to determine who is doing what and such but being the president of the "Free World" isnt suppose to be easy. Bush needs figure out while using force/bullying people is not always the right way to go about things. He needs to figure out that there are people around the world do have as strong of a national pride as Americans and if you go around just doing whatever you want is only going to make you more enemies... the world is becoming more and more of a dangerous place and hell maybe no one can stop this pattern but Bush sure aint helping it... If you held a world wide poll about how they feel about the USA, i am almost 100% sure that the negative feelings about the USA have increased in every country across the world even in friendly countries... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 9/11 happened for a reason. Other countries do not like us. It is no secret. The reason is that we americans live in complete ignorance of what our politically elected leaders are subversively trying to accomplish. We have supplied the very enemies we are trying to snuff out. It has all been a political game.....and we are the ones who look like idiots. We create this by, as a population, not knowing ANYTHING about the issues, and voting these sleazeballs into office. I see more coverstories these days about gay marriage than I do about the number of people who DIE every day occupying Iraq. You think Saddam and his cohorts didn't know it would turn out he way it did? There are enough mindless insurgents to continue this disruption for decades......but, it goes on. There is no evidence for us to show. We know nothing. That is why I laugh at arguments for this war. Now, it seems our argument is, 'he didn't seem to have anything we should be afraid of......but, he really was a ****'. WTF is this sh*t? He is playing games.....and our lives are at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 Congratulations on getting your citizenship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 1, 2004 Author Share Posted April 1, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsFan2456 9/11 happened for a reason. Other countries do not like us. It is no secret. The reason is that we americans live in complete ignorance of what our politically elected leaders are subversively trying to accomplish. We have supplied the very enemies we are trying to snuff out. It has all been a political game.....and we are the ones who look like idiots. We create this by, as a population, not knowing ANYTHING about the issues, and voting these sleazeballs into office. I see more coverstories these days about gay marriage than I do about the number of people who DIE every day occupying Iraq. You think Saddam and his cohorts didn't know it would turn out he way it did? There are enough mindless insurgents to continue this disruption for decades......but, it goes on. There is no evidence for us to show. We know nothing. That is why I laugh at arguments for this war. Now, it seems our argument is, 'he didn't seem to have anything we should be afraid of......but, he really was a ****'. WTF is this sh*t? He is playing games.....and our lives are at stake. You won't get any argument from me that most Americans are ignorant of the issues, and I would even argue that most Americans, couldn't give a sh*t what the issues are! They are to busy living in their world created by American popular culture to take time to study the issues. I do not intend to set myself out to be some sort of expert on world politics, and I don't know the name of every third world dictator and terrorist organization, and what they stand for, but I do think that politics aside, we have to protect our citizens, and I think that over the short and long term, we have done that in Iraq. Most wars are never popular when they are fought. History will be the judge of this conflict, and I feel 50 years down the road, history will look upon this war favorably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 'No my friend, not dealing with our threats and problems in the world, will signal the end of the world. I'm reminded of a quote, I can't remember who stated this (churchill perhaps?) "All it takes for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing." I'm sure somebody knows who said that.' You mean....not dealing with our perceived threats. Are you really happy to hang yourself out on the limb that GWB is hanging from? Making enemies is NO SOLUTION. We can feel righteous all we want....but, when it comes down to it.....we invaded a country for the world to see. Is there another nation in the world who feels completely comfortable with this? I mean, besides Britain....who has conquered foreign lands for centuries. We do not have the right to invade ANYONE who has not been proven to have acted against us. Is 'Saddam didn't like us' a good enough reason to kill people? War is not us vs. them. it is us & them killing each other, ourselves, and innocent people. Now, the world sees that we will not hesitate to take down ANYONE we THINK might be looking to harm our way of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 For all... We are not invincible. We are not special. Most living in this country believe the opposite of these two statements. There are threats out there that could conquer us almost as easily as we did Iraq. We are just another country. But, here we sit, deliberating over whether it was right for us to conquer a technologically inferior opponent.....because GWB had an agenda. Remember, we went into afghanistan after 9/11, to search for bin laden. Saddam is, to this day, not linked to 9/11. We went to war with Iraq because it was CONFIRMED that he had been harboring WMD. And, when we find out that this was untrue......everyone forgets about it like it never even happened. I would love for them to replay those initial presidential addresses on national TV. I wonder how we would have felt about them had we know what we know now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjinhan Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 i think there is a difference between being ignorant of world issues and being ignorant of world culture in general... if a group or country does have negative agenda against us, we need to protect ourselves but to take stance as "you are with us or against us" is not the way to go. [edit] maybe world culture is not the right way of saying it but i mean we cant be ignorant of world's reaction and consequences that other countries will face depending on our own actions... [end of edit] Being more informed of korean issues, I know for a fact this type of hardline stance that Bush Admin took toward North Korea have really stalled any unification talks between the koreas. Yes most koreans would admit that probably NK was coming to the table with some alternative agenda but at least there was dialogue and hope for change. Bush comes in and kills all hope. Why? cause north korea are not cooperating with USA demands. So was the best solution to this problem was the isolate NK and destablize the region? Bush is hoping North Korea will become desperate and fall under pressure but in reality he pushing North Korea to be more abnd more radical as time goes by. I mean i am sure most countries are developing some kind of technology secretly but now NK are to a point where they say F' it we gonna fire up all of our nuclear facilities and see where this gets us... as much as the US, the Asian countries want North korean government to disappear. However if a war breaks out then the casualty will definitly be in the 100s of thousands if not into the millions because of the close proximity of the heavily populated cities in the region. If war is to be fought it should be a choice that is made by the asian countries and not by the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 Looking back on it the Iraq war was not that bad of a choice. Even though WMD's were not found and Saddam was not directly linked to 9/11 it is important to note that the US now has a powerful presence in the Mid-East and the show of force was able to scare Libya into giving up its WMD's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black To answer your questions in order, and for me personally, 1) When a nation or defined geographical group within a nation has attacked the USA 2) To defend me, my family, my friends, my countryfolk, and our allies against invasion or imminent, clear, present threat 3) After violence has begun or to preempt the imminent threat of violence 4) Well, prevention of genocide (WWII), defense of homeland (say we were invaded) spring immediately to mind. So you don't care if one of our allies were attacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 There was a great thread on the war about a year ago more or less in which libs and cons debated the humanitarian value of the war versus the strategic value of the war. Conservatives for the most part said at that point (relying on my foggy memory) that if the war was primarily done for humane reasons (ridding the world of a monster) and there was no immediate or pending threat to the US they would not support the war. There has been a culture shift in rationalizing support for the war. I had mixed feelings then... afterall, the greatest weapon of mass destruction is human will... the will to do and see through terrible actions and I think that Saddam had that capacity. He was monstrous to the Kurds and those who disagreed with him. Now as to a direct and immediate threat to the United States, I didn't quite believe the argument then, and from what we have uncovered to date I still don't think he was on the verge of attacking us or supplying others with the weapons to attack us. If this was the case we would have been attacked again by now. As for the reasons that would legitimize going to war... I think to prevent a genocide (example WWII, Bosnia/Serbia), a response to an attack (WWII and Afghanistan) would be the primary starting point. The list outlined above by Analcon works pretty well for me. Jboomba, read number 2. It includes defending allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 Someone mentioned "invasion"..... how about the hundrends of thousands of illegal immigrants pouring accross our borders who could care less about becoming Americans and weaving themselves into the American culture. They simply want the earn wages to send back to Mexico.....while straining the infrastructure of our economy in terms of healthcare and other federal benefits. Isn't that an invasion? Why aren't we doing anything substantial about this invasion? Oh... just realized... when the invasion increases a particular parties voter base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.