Warriors and Wussies

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, but things have changed. They voted in favor of the war because they were told all sorts of things that turned out to be false, and I'm sure (at least I hope) that they voted in favor of the war because they believed there was some sort of a plan for the aftermath..

I agree that's an excellent point for another debate . . . . but that's actually not the point that Vulcan had brought up.

The truth is, regardless of what they were told, they are war veterans, familiar with all the horrors that go along with it, and in spite of that they did stick up their hands knowing they would be bringing those horrors down on a population and their own soldiers and knowing they would be killing thousands in doing so.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Coolsurfer79

Give me a break. None of those soilders dying and fighting in Iraq are doing so for his rights of free speech.

I wasn't trying to make that point. However there is some credance that at least there has been an election over there since the American's invaded.

[evman150]

I despise war, and despise those who support it, but I still hold in high regard those who risk their lives.

It is not their fault there are war mongering right wing ######s running the countries involved.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Coolsurfer79

Give me a break. None of those soilders dying and fighting in Iraq are doing so for his rights of free speech.

They are doing it for the Iraqis. They finally have a democratic government.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You must realize, of course, that many decorated war veterans - men who have seen the horror of war - on both the Democrats and Republicans voted in favour of going into Iraq and Afghanistan, knowing beforehand thousands would die as a result of them raising their hand.

Just like John F. Kennedy, who certainly knew the horrors of war, went to Vietnam and wanted to escalate the conflict.

Meanwhile, pacifist governments in Europe watched and did nothing while concentration camps sprang up in Europe in the 1990's, not to mention peace activists in the 1980's who marched by the millions in Europe calling for unilateral disarmament as a good will gesture towards the Soviet Union.

In other words, it could easily be argued by both sides that each are equally dangerous, one for aggression and the other for Chamberlain-like passivity.

About four or five years ago on this board I asked a theoretical question of moral ambiguity of whether we should start an action we knew would kill tens of thousands so that hundreds of thousands might be saved and millions freed OR should we save tens of thousands of lives realizing that hundreds of thousands more might be killed in the future as a result of inaction and millions remained enslaved.

Well, tens of thousands have died and thousands more have yet to die but I remain in favour of the decision to go into Iraq for the principle reason of the changes that are being wrought in a backward and dangerous part of the world, both electorally and media-wise. I even love the election of Hamas in Palestine yesterday frankly, provided they face a second ballot down the road.

Sticking a fork in that part of the world has been long overdue and I think as the century turns over to 2100 we'll look back and see it as one of the more profoundly positive turning points of the century . . . . . yet tens of thousands will have died.

The issue is whether or not you had to kill tens of thousands to achieve that momentum and the final results. Given the nature of a region stuck in a time warp that wasn't likely to change otherwise, I think you did. You think otherwise.

As to the guy writing the article, I think you can boo soldiers if they're baby killers . . . . . but I don't think you boo all soldiers if one or two are baby killers which is what happened with Vietnam and why this is such a sensitive topic.

Boo the politicians if you feel agrieved.

Cowperson

Iraq and Afghanistan are two different situations. The Afghanistan situation can be argued as self defence. Iraq not so much. I'm not arguing all out pacifism but I am arguing that it is to easy for leaders to decide life and death matters when they can sit back in their easy chairs and conduct world affairs like they are watching a video game. To many people like you say, yeah lets invade Iraq without any personal sacrifice. At least Alexander and Caesar led their troops so I might give real vets a little more slack, but not much. I too hope the situation in the Middle East leads to peace but it could be argued that most of their problems can be traced back to western interference.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

They are doing it for the Iraqis. They finally have a democratic government.

Democracy was plan E.

Plan A was aquiring an oil supply.
Plan B was making money off the war.
Plan C was getting rid of Sadam.
Plan D was striking against terrorism.

Except for the Veeps corporation, the only plan that is working is C, so they come up with lets spread democracy.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Democracy was plan E.

Plan A was aquiring an oil supply.
Plan B was making money off the war.
Plan C was getting rid of Sadam.
Plan D was striking against terrorism.

Except for the Veeps corporation, the only plan that is working is C, so they come up with lets spread democracy.

Whether it is plan A or ZZ.....they have a democratic government. The people blowing up cars and killing masses of Iraqis are against democracy and freedom and choice.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Whether it is plan A or ZZ.....they have a democratic government. The people blowing up cars and killing masses of Iraqis are against democracy and freedom and choice.

True but to suggest that their main purpose was "doing it for the Iraqis" was a little naive.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

True but to suggest that their main purpose was "doing it for the Iraqis" was a little naive.

So is your "list".
1) Alberta has more oil than Iraq. There is Oil in the Darfur region. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait all have oil as well. The war was not to "secure the oil" in Iraq.
2) Have to find the link, but I remember hearing that they are loosing money. So I will leave that for now.
3) They found materials for making WMD up until 1997. 6 years after the sanctions had been in place. It was reasonable to assume that there was the possibility that they where still in the country. Plus Saddam had never been completely up front with the UN Inspectors.
4) This is a by product.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by arsenal

So is your "list".
1) Alberta has more oil than Iraq. There is Oil in the Darfur region. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait all have oil as well. The war was not to "secure the oil" in Iraq.
2) Have to find the link, but I remember hearing that they are loosing money. So I will leave that for now.
3) They found materials for making WMD up until 1997. 6 years after the sanctions had been in place. It was reasonable to assume that there was the possibility that they where still in the country. Plus Saddam had never been completely up front with the UN Inspectors.
4) This is a by product.

1]Maybe I should have said a cheap oil supply.
2]That's my point, another failure. They are losing money because they can't secure the oil production.
3]WMD is pretty much a dead duck. You believe that Bush and his cronies believed there were WMD. Either way they are liars or incompetent. Take your pick.
4] Saddam was rewarding suicide bomber families as an act of terrorism but the scale of terrorism now in Iraq is maybe a 1,000 worse.

Lets put it this way, all the original reasons for the invasion failed and so like a cornered rat they trot out democracy.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by arsenal

It was reasonable to assume that there was the possibility that they where still in the country.

Oh come on now. "it was reasonable to assume that there was a possibility"? That's good enough for you? That's not enough to nail someone for jaywalking.

Like the other guy said -- the WMD thing is a dead duck. Even Bush and Tony don't bother trying to sell that load of crap anymore.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by evman150

I despise war, and despise those who support it, but I still hold in high regard those who risk their lives.

It is not their fault there are war mongering right wing ######s running the countries involved.

Plenty of left wing ######s have driven thier countries to war, or made up reasons to get young people kill. Sorry, but stupidity isn't simply a trade of right wingers, as much as you want to believe it is.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

About four or five years ago on this board I asked a theoretical question of moral ambiguity of whether we should start an action we knew would kill tens of thousands so that hundreds of thousands might be saved and millions freed OR should we save tens of thousands of lives realizing that hundreds of thousands more might be killed in the future as a result of inaction and millions remained enslaved.

Cowperson

Or simply, does the ends justify the means?

And that's a question that will always be asked, and will always have a different answer under each circumstance.

In this case I don't believe it does. We haven't seen any real improvements in Iraq, and now they're telling us the military is stretched too thin to get the job finished. 'Sticking a fork in' might stir up change and make things better, or it might stir up a hornets nest. I know which one my money is on.

They went in for the wrong reasons, and they oversimplified the task.

It's another Korea. And look at all the progress that took place there...

War HAS to be an absolute last resort. Like in WW1 and 2. The cost is too high if your not absolutely sure it's going to have a long lasting positive effect.

Nothing I have seen shows that to be the case in this conflict yet.

[Cowperson]

Maybe I should have said a cheap oil supply.

How would it be cheaper?

Oil sells on a global market for pretty much the same price except for different grades. Trotting out the oil argument has always been and always will be plain silly.

If you want oil, you just buy it and typically you're buying it from a region that has absolutely nothing else to sell.

The oil argument from the left has never made any sense.

Lets put it this way, all the original reasons for the invasion failed and so like a cornered rat they trot out democracy.

I agree. In fact, I said here BEFORE the invasion that concern for the Iraqi people was about fifth on the list of reasons for invading.

On the other hand, it WAS on the list, even as the other reasons faded to nothing. I always thought it was the most important reason though, hence my large indifference to the absence of WMD . . . . Saddam, through his terrible bluff with the most paranoid nation in the world, provided the easy excuse.

The left was telling us before all this that cultures like this wouldn't understand and wouldn't embrace the power of the vote. Well, obviously they understand it just fine and have taken to it in spades.

Having failed on that front, the new answer from the left is that America might see governments elected that it doesn't favour and says that giving the power of the vote in Islamic nations will be the ultimate mistake. That point of view is echoed again today in Newsweek in this column:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11026631/site/newsweek/

My answer is that giving the power to vote, provided those governments face a second, fair, ballot on their record provides the ultimate truth in identifying whom your friends are and your enemies. Its something you want to know.

'Sticking a fork in' might stir up change and make things better, or it might stir up a hornets nest. I know which one my money is on.

Absolutely. Stirring up a hornets nest is the best thing that could have happened there and that's been the intent of my argument all along, breaking through the status quo and forcing this backward and stagnant area to look in the mirror and break the mold that had held it back for centuries. I've said that consistently here for the last four or five years.

As I've noted before, even the tone at Al-Jazeera has changed remarkably in the last few years. The clash within Islam is what we are really talking about.

But, we all have a different opinion. We'll see where we are in five, ten, 20 and 100 years. I think we'll be looking back at this as a profound, altering and positive event. You don't. We'll agree to disagree.

Cowperson

[Vulcan]

Well Cow when you own or control the oil, I'd say that's cheap. I also was comparing it to Alberta oil which considering the tar sands, is not cheap. The other side to the coin is that Bush and his family are being rewarded with the current price of oil. I guess this is a win win situation for them.

Going back to the premise that leaders who declare war should also lead their troops in combat makes Bush and his supporters easy targets. How being slow to sacrifice fellow human beings makes me left wing, I don't understand. Now that the merde has hit the fan, I sincerely hope that Iraq does become a peaceful democracy.

[Daradon]

Making sure there is more oil in the world supply also lowers the price.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Making sure there is more oil in the world supply also lowers the price.

That seems to be working, eh.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well Cow when you own or control the oil, I'd say that's cheap. I also was comparing it to Alberta oil which considering the tar sands, is not cheap.

How is Iraqi oil cheaper than Alberta oil?

You're talking about the global price of oil which is fairly uniform, aside from variance of different grades where there is a modest difference.

The average American sees little difference in price between sources and Iraq could certainly sign an exclusive deal with China and India and that would probably make little difference to the global price.

Iraqi oil is certainly cheaper to produce than Tar Sands oil but that's the problem/benefit of the producer aka his profit margin. That in turn impacts the country of origin as to its royalty/tax structure.

But again, that means little to the consumer or the USA economy since the end product price is fairly uniform.

In other words, the profit margin is different for one producer over another but the consuming nation purchasing it - and America is a net importer -would find that largely irrelevant.

As far as I know, Iraq is selling oil at global prices and selling at a price into the global market at little variance, beyond the normal grade difference, from Alberta oil.

The other side to the coin is that Bush and his family are being rewarded with the current price of oil. I guess this is a win win situation for them.

Yes, they probably went to war to shut off the flow of Iraqi oil so that shortages would occur and prices would soar . . . . . oh wait, you're also telling us they went to war to take over Iraqi oil and produce as much as possible which would have eased supply concerns and driven down the price . . . . . oh wait, but you told us they went to war to drive the price higher so they could get rich by driving the price higher through conflict and uncertainty . . . . oh wait . . . . .

You know, that makes no sense. Pick one motive or another but you can't have both.

Going back to the premise that leaders who declare war should also lead their troops in combat makes Bush and his supporters easy targets.

Certainly it makes Bush and supporters easy targets . . . . . however, if they're targets, then so are the ample number of war veterans who also voted in favour of the conflict. And I don't mind being a target. Goes with the territory of sticking up your hand.

The age old saw of "I wish these guys who put us here could be in the trenches with us" is legitimate only to a point.

There are plenty of people who know the full horror of war in support of the decision - even today - or even those who supported it initially and feel duped but who feel the job must be completed even though they are well aware of the horrors of war and know full well thousands more might die.

How being slow to sacrifice fellow human beings makes me left wing, I don't understand.

My point was that pacifism - historically - can be demonstrated to be just as dangerous as war mongering in the long term picture. Pacifism is more usually identified with the left wing and I have no problem if you're a pacifist. That's your schtick and you should stick with it. Like those who stuck up their hands for war though, you're also sticking up your hand for a different direction and potentially the same or worse consequences over time.

Now that the merde has hit the fan, I sincerely hope that Iraq does become a peaceful democracy.

Critics of Vietnam, in hindsight, were correct to point out the folly of emphasizing body counts as a measure of progress versus progress on the political front.

Even as the body count rises in Iraq, clearly the political process is advancing to what appears to be a compromise, even if the USA isn't going to get the government it wanted there. Many are speculating, including the New York Times recently, that when that compromise is reached, Iraqi's themselves will take care of al-Zarqawi as USA troop presence declines.

FYI, a poll from December for Iraq, both the good and the bad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4514414.stm

I'm not going to spend days debating this. Its a good argument to revisit periodically as developments play out.

Cowperson

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

About four or five years ago on this board I asked a theoretical question of moral ambiguity of whether we should start an action we knew would kill tens of thousands so that hundreds of thousands might be saved and millions freed OR should we save tens of thousands of lives realizing that hundreds of thousands more might be killed in the future as a result of inaction and millions remained enslaved.

Well, tens of thousands have died and thousands more have yet to die but I remain in favour of the decision to go into Iraq for the principle reason of the changes that are being wrought in a backward and dangerous part of the world, both electorally and media-wise. I even love the election of Hamas in Palestine yesterday frankly, provided they face a second ballot down the road.

Sticking a fork in that part of the world has been long overdue and I think as the century turns over to 2100 we'll look back and see it as one of the more profoundly positive turning points of the century . . . . . yet tens of thousands will have died.

The issue is whether or not you had to kill tens of thousands to achieve that momentum and the final results. Given the nature of a region stuck in a time warp that wasn't likely to change otherwise, I think you did. You think otherwise.


Cowperson

Yeah, but its easy to be in favour of such an action if you're not one of the sacrificial tens of thousands of victims. Do you think some Iraqi kid who's seen his entire family killed cares about some people in 2100 looking at it as a positive turning point? Further still, maybe you've just turned that kid against you. I don't think he's gonna love the fact that it was done simply to better his backwards society in the future. Way to go, another terrorist is born. Your ideas reek of arrogance. I agree that some democratization and change is necessary in the region, but it has to come from a genuine will of their population to carry it out. Maybe cultural influence from democratic countries. But for the West to basically decide who is allowed to live and die, and how they should live or die, is not going to decrease their anger towards us. So who gets to decide who lives and dies? Who gets to play God? If you were on the other end of it,would you personally be willing to sacrifice yourself, or your family, for some distant future cause?

[Cowperson]

Yeah, but its easy to be in favour of such an action if you're not one of the sacrificial tens of thousands of victims.

Absolutely. No question about it. If you're dropping the bombs, you're a happier guy than the one receiving them.

It's 100% damned easy to be an armchair quarterback thousands of miles away and play with the lives of people as though they were nothing more than statistics, numbers and trends.

We could also say it was "easy" for President Roosevelt to join with General Eisenhower when he ordered Allied soldiers into Normandy with the expectation 25,000 would be dead or injured in the first day.

Or Harry Truman's decision to drop the atom bomb on two Japanese cities in the hopes killing tens of thousands would save hundreds of thousands of American lives.

If I'm not mistaken, I think there were some casualty projections of about 25,000 on the Allied side for the first Gulf War as well . . . . . yet George Bush Sr. and other Allied leaders unanimously elected to re-take Kuwait, armchair quarterbacks all.

Or, again, we can look at the flip side of that and include the hand-wringing decisions which pacifist governments in Europe made in deciding not to go to war, decisions which saved the lives of individuals immediately but led to concentration camps springing up on their borders and more mass deaths later.

Decisions or the lack of decisions can both have serious consequences.

War mongers and pacifists both have to be accountable for their decisions and the consequences, the good and the bad . . . . . . but somewhere, in all instances, someone is making a decision from the comfort of their armchair, decisions that may kill tens of thousands but save hundreds of thousands and free millions or decisions which save tens of thousands but kill hundreds of thousands in the future and guarantee the future enslavement of millions.

Sure, its easy to be an armchair quarterback. You're one yourself. Just like me. Everyone is.

Do you think some Iraqi kid who's seen his entire family killed cares about some people in 2100 looking at it as a positive turning point?

Nope.

And I've made that very point myself numerous times in this forum before . . . . that the loss for a victim or a fallen soldier and their families makes it 100% not worth it.

There's no question of that.

On the other hand, on the broad perspective, from the perch of those making decisions on a monumental scale, the loss of 2500 soldiers and 15,000 wounded is actually a small price to pay for the geopolitical goals of a nation of 300 million if you believe in the broad purpose of the conflict.

Just like the loss of "only" thousands was considered by Ike to be a rather amazingly low count and a collossal victory on D-Day. If you were the mother getting a telegram a few days later, it was a 100% failure.

War should be an obscene thing no matter your viewpoint.

But you've made the point as have I - it depends on your perspective.

Further still, maybe you've just turned that kid against you. I don't think he's gonna love the fact that it was done simply to better his backwards society in the future. Way to go, another terrorist is born.

Sure, every Muslim is going to become a terrorist. Nice call. Aren't you the one guilty of stereotyping?

If you did a little thinking on it you would agree #####es and Kurds, as ethnic groups, would certainly think the conflict was well worth the cost and in fact are optimistic about the future.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4514414.stm

Eighty-seven percent in a recent poll said the USA led invasion was good for their country.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1363276

Strangely, it's the people in Iraq and Afghanistan who appear least likely to take umbrage while the armchair quarterbacks, from the safety of Cairo and Damascus or Tehran, who seem to be the one's most likely to be enraged.

Your ideas reek of arrogance.
Well, get in line . . . . . I've been told that before on this topic.

We all have an opinion. You're welcome to yours. Time will tell.

As I said, the Afghani's are happy about it and the majority of Iraqi's appear to be thankful for the change of government. The Taliban and the Sunni's are the groups feeling put out . . . .

I agree that some democratization and change is necessary in the region, but it has to come from a genuine will of their population to carry it out.

As I said before in this thread, those on the left started this argument four years ago saying people in foreign cultures had no reference point to relate to the concept of democracy.

I said at the time that was an incredibly arrogant and bankrupt argument . . . . . and we have found out in the last year and half how empty it is given the "purple finger" revolution you've seen in places where people have clamoured to exercise their right to vote in the face of genuine death threats.

In truth, everyone understands the concept of democracy just fine and there would be no democratic experiment happening without that fork I've been talking about.

These days, the left, admitting the obvious, has changed its tone a bit to say that, "okay, so people understand and want the right to vote, but America may not get the governments it wants" . . . . . almost implying that America should prop up friendly dicatorships, a rather strange place for the left to be arguing from.

If people hate America, then it's better to deal with that between democracies.

But for the West to basically decide who is allowed to live and die, and how they should live or die, is not going to decrease their anger towards us. So who gets to decide who lives and dies? Who gets to play God?

Muslims believe that God decides. Pat Robertson believes God decides.

Who decided to let concentration camps exist in Europe in the 1990's? God? Or pacifists? Who decided not to intervene in Rwanda until it was too late for hundreds of thousands?

We're all guilty of deciding. Every day. All of us. Including you.

If you were on the other end of it,would you personally be willing to sacrifice yourself, or your family, for some distant future cause?

If I believed in the cause, of course. If I didn't, probably not.

I'll give you an example.

Allied forces conquered Afghanistan with literally a few thousand soldiers and a lot of air power.

The reason they were able to do that so easily is the local indigenous population not only didn't believe in the cause its government was espousing, it actively fought against it, giving the Allied forces a ready made, internal army. And the majority of Afghani's welcomed the change as per the results of elections we've seen.

In Iraq, the same thing happened, American forces rolled through the northern part of the country with a few special forces guys assisting the Kurds. People believed in the cause and the ones that didn't stayed home.

Sunni's believe in their cause as well and that's been the toughest nut to crack . . . . . but it was Sunni insurgents who were guarding polling stations from Al-Queda attacks in December as the former began to join the political process, believing there has to be another way.

If you believe in the cause, and al-Queda guys certainly believe, then you'll sacrifice for a future.

Sacrificing your family is another thing. Not many people anywhere would willingly do that.

But there have been instances in Iraq of suicide bombers driving a car with their wife and kids, the better disguise to get closer to a roadblock, and then blowing themselves up. Apparently fanatics are willing to do that for a cause. I wouldn't. But most wouldn't, including most Calgarians and most Iraqi's.

I've said here before I think the common man in Iraq has pretty much the same bottom line concerns as the common man in Des Moines, that of having a roof over his head, a job, a family that's safe, etc, etc. In the end, most people everywhere are pretty much the same.

And Iraq threads make Marc Savard threads cry.

Cowperson