Why Do You Support the War?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BC0311

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
2,488
Thanks for the figures and correction. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Since the Chinese and North Koreans were against the UN forces, the South Koreans have lost the most in the service of the UN followed by The USA.

Close to 100% of those American losses were actually troops. Does the same hold true for the South Korean losses figure?

Man, China and North Korea lost ~ 1.5 million during the Korean War?
 

Bravo25

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
1,129
Location
Kansas, USA
[ QUOTE ]
Nitro said
How exactly should we be using our might more wisely?



[/ QUOTE ]

Pull our troops back to the borders for 700 days. One for each american life lost since the infamous "Mission Accomplished". Park them there, feed them well, supply them with the "Everything they need" that was promised, and leave the Iraq people to figure out what they want. Every time there is an attack on our troops in this relaxed posture, respond with quick, decisive, and overwhelming notification that this won't be allowed.
 

Unicorn

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 19, 2000
Messages
1,339
Location
Near Seattle, WA
[ QUOTE ]
Sub_Umbra said:
[ QUOTE ]
ikendu:
For those of you that don't think the Two Persian Gulf Wars are about oil... think about this.

What if there was NO oil in the middle east?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there was no oil in the Mid-East Saddam would have had a hard time making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

If there was no oil in the Mid-East Saddam would have had a hard time supporting terrorist groups like Abu Nidal for decades. As James_S said, he would have had to get a job.

If there was no oil in the Mid-East the Saudis would not have their own highly advanced ballistic missile program. They would have to get jobs, too.

If there was no oil in the Mid-East the Wahabis that run Saudi Arabia would not have been able to found and fund over 10,000 madrassas (Islamist religious schools) throughout the Mid-East in the last 60-80 years. These schools teach only the Koran and a deep hatred of the West. Students there are taught no trades or any way to make a living. They exist only to spread Wahabi fundimentalism. The Wahabi monster that they have nurtured is so far out of control that it is only a matter of time before it takes down the Saudis, too. Oil has payed for every bit of it.

If there was no oil in the Mid-East the Saudis would never have had the surplus funds to throw around since the 1920s. The dangers that the West faces right now can be traced right back to Saudi oil money.

If there was no oil in the Mid-East the Saudis would still be living in tents in a feudal state the way that they did hundreds of years ago.

While I keep mentioning the threat to the West it should be noted that so far the vast majority of the suffering inflicted by Islamists in this world has been born by the Muslems themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the reasons that I say that the war is about oil. Not buying oil cheaply right now, we could have done that by lifting the sanctions against Iraq, Syria, or Iran.
It's about the larger picture. As I said and some ignored, if the Middle East were to go up in flames, we'd be paying Russia to let us drill their wells for them. Venezuala doesn't have enough to support our thirst.
 

matt_j

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 28, 2004
Messages
673
Location
Brooklyn NY
WHy do I support the war?

I don't feel like running 46th floors again, getting burried in concourse area and realizing I lost 10 friends.

Matt
 

Sub_Umbra

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
4,748
Location
la bonne vie en Amérique
[ QUOTE ]
Lara said:
[ QUOTE ]
Sub_Umbra said:

I think that the UN is highly over-rated. They could not accomplish anything without their money, the vast majority of which comes from the States. They are very anti-American -- which would be OK if we didn't pay for so much of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

UN contributions:

Western Europe 37%
USA 22%
Japan 19.5%
Canada 2.8%
China 2%
Mexico 1.9%
Korea 1.8%
Australia 1.6%
Russia 1.2%
Others 10.2%

[/ QUOTE ]

Emphasis mine.

Western Europe is not a country. Not by a long shot.

While you don't identify your sources, in the years that I checked the US donation was either at 25% or just slightly below 25%. I will concede that this is not a 'majority', but with all the members that the UN has, the US still pays more than any other nation and all we get for our money is cover for our politicians and grief. Isn't Lybia on the UN human rights commision this year? Or was it Syria? Geeze. Now we find out through files found in Iraq that the reason France and Germany resisted our actions in Iraq was because these fellow UN members were not only paying off Saddam to buy Iraqi oil in defiance of UN resolutions but also that UN administrators were also taking bribes to help them do it. The bribery alone in the UN's Oil-for-Food program for Iraq exceeds $10 BILLION. That's billions -- no typo. If I want corrupt, self serving politicians I certainly don't need to go as far as the UN.

If US funds were withdrawn and the UN were kicked out of their current digs in the States, they would dry up and blow away.

IMO that would be a very good thing.
 

Sub_Umbra

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
4,748
Location
la bonne vie en Amérique
[ QUOTE ]
ikendu:
The U.S. clearly led the UN effort in Korea.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a little OT but it facinates me. Actually, in the entire history of the UN they have only voted to authorize two wars, and one was a fluke that never should have passed at all.

The Security Council voted in favor of the 100 Hour War in the Gulf in 1991. The only other one was the Korean War and that vote only passed because the UN Delegation from the USSR had left the chamber in a huff earlier in the day over a completely unrelated matter. Had they remained at the meeting they would have blocked the resolution authorizing the Korean War.
 

Unicorn

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 19, 2000
Messages
1,339
Location
Near Seattle, WA
[ QUOTE ]
Nitro said:
If you think our leaders are doing nothing more then endangering our troops for no good reason, why don't you talk personaly to some of our troops. See what they say.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right now. I also think that you are wrong.

And for your or any other who keeps ranting about how this war is illegal but that you support the troops, do you also support other murderers? If the war is illegal, then the orders sending me here are illegal, and it is my duty and responsibility (I wish more liberals would learn the meaning of those words and take them to heart) to disobey it, and of course to accept the consequences. I guess that if the war is illegal, then close to a quarter million servicemembers are criminals and murderers or accessories to murder. Bull.
 

Nitro

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Messages
1,347
A little history.

After WWII the US was the world leader. The US could have, if we wanted to, take over the world. We were the only country with the Atomic Bomb. But we choose not to. Instead we (along with other countries) decided to form the UN. (But remember we were the only world power at the time and could have done or not done anything we wanted. A-Bomb.)

The concept of the UN was to invite friendly nations into the "club" for protection. And if a non-UN country tried to invade a country that was a member of the UN, all the UN contries would defend it. Kinda like a gang.

In theory it was a great idea. We believed by forming the UN it would stop another world war. It would stop any country from talking over other countries and grow too big. It worked great for a while. It stopped N. Korea from invading S. Korea. It stopped Iraq from invading Kuwait. etc

However, there are a few major flaws in the design. One flaw is, just stopping one country from invading another country is not enough to prevent WWIII. A country can become too powerful by devoloping weapons of mass destruction and either using them or selling them to a few people. Then, what if we get attacked by a few people who happens to be spread all over the place, in a lot of different countries, including countries in the UN? Hence 9/11.

Another major flaw is, the UN is too big. What's to stop the UN from growing to contain all the countries on the earth? What would we call that E.N. (Earth Nations)? Sounds kinda stupid doesn't it, enless ofcouse we get attacked by E.T.?

Lastly, there are countries in the UN that are corrupt, France, Germany etc. Hard to believe, but it does happen. People get montivated by money, and well you know the rest. There is no internal affairs in the UN. And if they do find corruption, they don't have the stones to remove it. We shall see in this Oil For Food scam.

The long and short of it is, the UN is great if you are a tiny country with no power like Switzerland, Belgium etc. Or if you are a corrupt country stealing money like France, Germany etc. And even if you are a terrorist state violating human rights like Syria, Lybia etc.

However, if you are at the top of the list as far as money and power like the US, you get the short end of the stick. What does the UN have to offer us? What has the UN ever had to offer us? Nothing! We are the ones that do the offering. We are the ones that allowed the UN to form, (though we did think it was a good idea at the time). But if the US didn't go along with it, the UN would have never been created.

For those of you who think the US is some evil empire trying to take over the world, just remember your history.

And for those of you who think we should be more compationate to the little coutries to gain their respect. I have news for you, there is nothing we can do to gain their respect, short of giving up our freedom and power.

We can't make every country like us, but we can, and should make every country respect and accept us.
 

BC0311

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
2,488
[ QUOTE ]
Sub_Umbra said:
Isn't Lybia on the UN human rights commision this year? Or was it Syria? Geeze. Now we find out through files found in Iraq that the reason France and Germany resisted our actions in Iraq was because these fellow UN members were not only paying off Saddam to buy Iraqi oil in defiance of UN resolutions but also that UN administrators were also taking bribes to help them do it. The bribery alone in the UN's Oil-for-Food program for Iraq exceeds $10 BILLION. That's billions -- no typo. If I want corrupt, self serving politicians I certainly don't need to go as far as the UN.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you Sub_Umbra.

The UN just voted the United States of America off the Human Rights Commission. It's had a seat on the commission since its founding in 1947.

Libya and Syria were added in the last two years, Sudan was just added in place of the USA.

Kofi Annan's son was one of the big beneficiaries of the oil for food scam.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif
 

Nitro

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Messages
1,347
[ QUOTE ]
Unicorn said:
[ QUOTE ]
Nitro said:
If you think our leaders are doing nothing more then endangering our troops for no good reason, why don't you talk personaly to some of our troops. See what they say.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right now. I also think that you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you think I'm wrong about? I'm a little confused. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif

[ QUOTE ]
And for your or any other who keeps ranting about how this war is illegal but that you support the troops, do you also support other murderers? If the war is illegal, then the orders sending me here are illegal, and it is my duty and responsibility (I wish more liberals would learn the meaning of those words and take them to heart) to disobey it, and of course to accept the consequences. I guess that if the war is illegal, then close to a quarter million servicemembers are criminals and murderers or accessories to murder. Bull.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still confused. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif I don't beleive this war is illegal. Do you?
 

metalhed

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
671
Location
Washington State
BCO311...

Now you appear to be the one guilty of not reading and/or understanding a post.

Twice I have explained my criticism of your expressed position.


[ QUOTE ]
BCO311 said:
Listening to the fanatics of the anti-war movement talk about the serious stuff of warfighting would be humorous if it weren't so deadly. The aid and comfort people like you, Rene Gonzalez, and John Kerry give to Al Qaeda and its ilk is shameful.


[/ QUOTE ]


And now you are putting words in my mouth.

[ QUOTE ]
BCO311 said:
It is illogical and unreasonable to say that a person who supports the war on terror would also have supported Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that that is not what I said.

[ QUOTE ]
metalhed said:
And if what you are contending is that, "you're either with us or against us" (which is essentially what you are saying) then I'm sorry your limited view of the world matches the leaders who have endangered our troops in Iraq for no good reason.

One other thing. By your logic, a German citizen who opposed Hitler should have kept his mouth shut and cooperated with the Nazi war effort. By your logic, the American Patriots of our Revolution should have stayed quiet while the government of Britain waged economic war on the Colonies.

[/ QUOTE ]


You have attempted to argue that Americans who dissent against this war are guilty of giving "aid and comfort" (your words, not mine) to Al-Qaida. I correctly pointed out the contradiction in your position. If this is true now, in this country...during this war, then the comparisons I have made to WWII Germany and revolutionary America are correct and logical.

Your answer to my inquiries is an attempt at avoidance of the contradiction you made.

And also,

[ QUOTE ]
BCO311 said:
Rene Gonzalez and Ted Rall qualify as zealots, from my perspective. You kind of sound like a zealot, but you just might be worked up and upset.

Muzzle? I haven't suggested muzzling anybody. Do you feel like you're being muzzled? Seems to me that you are free to express your feelings here.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your earlier post, you accuse Rene Gonzalez, John Kerry, and those like them of being guilty of treasonous conduct. If this is true it is punishable by imprisonment and execution. You are attempting to muzzle our constitutionally protected freedom of speech by accusing us of being traitors.

As I said in previous posts, this is a charge which is offensive and possibly abusive. Treason is a serious charge. To accuse citizens of this is the worst sort of smear and borders on personal attack. It may even border on libel, as you have posted the charge for all to see. All as a way to diminish the standing of those who disagree with you.

BTW, if more German citizens had possessed the courage (and right) to dissent, we would not have been given the privilige of enduring the WWII.

But then again, if those, like you, who believe it is improper to criticize a government's authority or decisions during wartime had prevailed 230 years ago, we would be having this discussion as subjects of the Monarchy of England.
 

Nitro

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Messages
1,347
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, if more German citizens had possessed the courage (and right) to dissent, we would not have been given the privilige of enduring the WWII.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't the anti-war folks possess the courage to dissent? Then we would not have the privilige of enduring WWIII.
 

metalhed

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
671
Location
Washington State
I'm not sure I understand the question...but here goes.

German citizens did not possess the right of dissent. Like some seem to want here, dissent was illegal and harshly punished. My point is that if they had, then perhaps Hitler's murderous rampage would have been halted by his own citizens.

The problem I see is the same one seen by our founders. Government is inherently abusive and self-serving. All governments. Even ours. Only when government is heavily restricted (for instance, by consitutional separation of powers), transparent (public proceedings), and subject to control by the citizenry (voting, freedom of speech, right to bear arms) can the inherent dangers be minimized.

[ QUOTE ]
Nitro said:
Why don't the anti-war folks possess the courage to dissent? Then we would not have the privilige of enduring WWIII.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are. That's the whole point right now. WWII will seem to be a cakewalk compared to true religious world conflict...which is a risk involved with military action in Muslim countries.

As an atheist, my fear is that the world will adopt the polarized attitudes that exist in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. War between Judeo-Christians and the Muslim world will change the planet forever, and not for the better.

I would like to hear a reasoned response to an earlier observation of mine:
[ QUOTE ]
I have said it before and I'll say it again. IMHO, wars of aggression are always wrong...wars of defense (in response to an actual attack) are regrettable but justifiable based on the inherent right of self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
 

BC0311

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
2,488
Metalhead, maybe you ought to lay off the Marley for a little bit. Too much Marley seems to produce paranoia, from what I've heard. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

You are starting to sound like Rene Gonzalez more and more. But, if that floats your boat, have at it. No muzzling going on here. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif
 

Nitro

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Messages
1,347
[ QUOTE ]
metalhed said:
I'm not sure I understand the question...but here goes.

German citizens did not possess the right of dissent. Like some seem to want here, dissent was illegal and harshly punished. My point is that if they had, then perhaps Hitler's murderous rampage would have been halted by his own citizens.

The problem I see is the same one seen by our founders. Government is inherently abusive and self-serving. All governments. Even ours. Only when government is heavily restricted (for instance, by consitutional separation of powers), transparent (public proceedings), and subject to control by the citizenry (voting, freedom of speech, right to bear arms) can the inherent dangers be minimized.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree the right to dissent should be possested and protected. No aurgument there from me.

However you seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that our current leaders are going on a murderous rampage trying to take over the world, like Hitler. That we can debate.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nitro said:
Why don't the anti-war folks possess the courage to dissent? Then we would not have the privilige of enduring WWIII.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are. That's the whole point right now. WWII will seem to be a cakewalk compared to true religious world conflict...which is a risk involved with military action in Muslim countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you suggest we do, not defend ourselves against Muslim countries for fear of starting WWIII?

[ QUOTE ]
As an atheist, my fear is that the world will adopt the polarized attitudes that exist in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. War between Judeo-Christians and the Muslim world will change the planet forever, and not for the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have news for you, the world has already adopted polarized attitudes. That is nothing new. It has been going on for 100's of years. There is nothing the US can do to stop WWIII short of giving up our freedom. Is that what you want?

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to hear a reasoned response to an earlier observation of mine:
[ QUOTE ]
I have said it before and I'll say it again. IMHO, wars of aggression are always wrong...wars of defense (in response to an actual attack) are regrettable but justifiable based on the inherent right of self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. However, I don't believe this war is a "war of aggression". I believe WWIII already started (formally) on 9/11. The Iraq War is just one battle in a series that will last for many more years.
 

PlayboyJoeShmoe

Flashaholic
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Messages
11,041
Location
Shepherd, TX (where dat?)
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

There is no reasoning with the RABID ANTIWAR BUSH HATERS.

I don't blindly follow the man, but he IS our President, and congress DID vote to go to war (even if about half of 'em don't think so!).

We are in this until the end. If the end is Global Thermonuclear War, so be it. At least it would end the endless BICKERING! If it looks like Islam is going to win, I'll save them the trouble and shoot myself!

But I am going to do everything in my power to resist ever typing one more Political word. I doubt I can resist, but DAMN I gotta try!

I am NOT ABOUT to change my sig however!
 

Nitro

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Messages
1,347
This so called "war on terrorism" is nothing more then us (and our friends) removing people (and their friends) from the planet who hate us (and our friends) and who are trying to remove us (and our friends) from the planet.

The real question is, do you support the "war on terrorism"? And if so, which side are you on?
 

Nitro

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Messages
1,347
Playboy, I already told myself, I wouldn't post anything politcal, just like I won't buy another flashlight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top