Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
asmer said:
Just about every war POWs are abused. Just happens the US is getting called on it this time.
Supersize me
- Thread starter Sparnage
- Start date
Just about every war POWs are abused. Just happens the US is getting called on it this time.
Does not change that it is wrong... I personaly wouldn't call a jet pilot bombing enemy infantry a bad behavior. Abusing prisoners, even if "everybody" does it, is still wrong...Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Are you saying that they were protecting is regime, but not him? That's right...Nomad said:
Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
asmer said:
I didn't say it wasn't wrong. I just said it happens everywhere.
Oltobaz
Cancer no Deathmask
Asmer, war is war. If you're against the war, then you're against whatever kind of violence or abuse that goes along with it, of course, but if you go about saying that you weren't against this one war but that you think some of what the US did in this one is wrong, then you're not making any sense.
Oltobaz said:
Yes, basically I have to agree to your point. However, I must say that I see that way of thinking as a bit "naive"... In an utopian world, yeah, you can be against any kind of violence, poverty and so on. But for me, I see no problem with saying that I was glad the Coalition took Saddam Hussein down, by force, but that I disagree with a man sodomizing a prisoner with a broom... And to me I think it makes sense.
But since it's a matter of perspective, I'm not trying to argue here, but wouldn't you say that by being against a war aimed at getting rid of a bloody dictator, you are in a way supporting this same dictator? And indirectly supporting the violence made to his people? :-\
Some say that people in George W. Bush's government were wanting to get rid of him, by any means, and that even before September 11 events... Anyway, in the facts you are right, but my point wasn't about the purpose of the war, but more to express my point-of-view that saying "supporting war means supporting war atrocities also" is, IMHO, a bit too easy... :-\Mage said:
Yes. I know that.Mage said:
"Griffith No More!" said:
I've actually been lurking around Speculation Nation in here for about a year. I'm mad for speculation, but I try to keep myself under control. It just so happens I'm also a mad political junkie who wastes like 2 hours a day reading about politics too. And if I don't shut up I'll waste another one writing posts about politics on a comic book fansight, heh.
Yeah, I really do like smart people like you, who think trying to ridiculize someone makes them look more intelligent. Never did I say that I was supporting a war without violence... You, on the other end, were stating that supporting war, the use of violence to get rid of a dictator for example, was automatically implying supporting war abuses, the rape of prisoners, or killing innocent civilians for no reason... Well, I think you are wrong. Sometime, naiveness is very close to stupidity... ;)Oltobaz said:
Well, I already said you are right on that point, but if you think about it, the only way to be sure their agreement with Iraq would be safe, was to keep Saddam Hussein in power... Which in the end looks like protecting him... :-\Nomad said:
Oltobaz
Cancer no Deathmask
Dear friend I'm not trying to ridiculize anybody. Cool down. Of course, you weren't supportive of war abuses!
There, I said it. You probably didn't even imagine they would take place!! Or then you did, but you chose not to care. And now, they're out in the open, and you act like you're offended!! But it's a good thing: next time some kind of conflict erupts, you'll know what to expect!
With my best regards,
Oltobaz
There, I said it. You probably didn't even imagine they would take place!! Or then you did, but you chose not to care. And now, they're out in the open, and you act like you're offended!! But it's a good thing: next time some kind of conflict erupts, you'll know what to expect!
With my best regards,
Oltobaz
I'm pretty calm right now, don't worry. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, I thought that by stating I was "not supporting a soccer team, [but] supporting an army", you were making fun at me. Guess I was wrong... ;)Oltobaz said:
Anyway, let me just explain you what I mean with examples, that may be easier to understand. In Srebrenica, there was once a french general (don't remember his name) that said it was now a zone under the protection of the UN, but when serbian militians attacked the town, the UN withdrew, leading to the death of 7-8000 Muslim men (the exact number being unknown, since most of the bodies are still to be discovered...). I say: UN should have shot the attackers, and kill them all if needed. And this entire Bosnian War, which made more than 250.000 deads... As soon as NATO began bombing the serbian Army, the war stopped. Well, as you were sitting in front of your TV, watching people in Sarajevo being shot by snipers, mortar bombs being dropped on markets, ethnic cleansing, etc., and thinking about a world without war and violence, I was thinking: bomb the serbian Army! And if western countries had started this war a few years sooner, 250.000 lives had been spared. Call me naive if you want, but the serbian Army had no chance at all against NATO weapons, and that's the truth, "my friend". :-\
So, continue trying to make me look like a silly, naive, "clean war" supporter if you want. As far as I'm concerned, I'll let you live in your nice utopian world were violence is bad, war is bad, were we are all brothers, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité,... But that's definitely not the world I do live in. :)
Oltobaz
Cancer no Deathmask
All I'm saying is you can't support war on one hand, and then criticize war abuses on the other. You need to accept responsability if not for what you did at the very least for what you said.
It is true I don't like wars, but I never actually said or wrote I was against this one. I'll admit getting rid of Saddam was necessary, and I suppose there was no other way. What right do I have now to criticize the "abuses", when it was clear from day one there were
gonna be abuses? And on both sides. That's what war is all about...
It is true I don't like wars, but I never actually said or wrote I was against this one. I'll admit getting rid of Saddam was necessary, and I suppose there was no other way. What right do I have now to criticize the "abuses", when it was clear from day one there were
gonna be abuses? And on both sides. That's what war is all about...
Oltobaz said:
I already admitted that in a way you are right, war goes along with war abuses, there have always been abuses, and there will always be. But I can't accept that being supportive to a war means being supportive to every abuse occuring, may it be on the battlefield or against innocent civilians. That's just too much naive for me, sorry. :-\
I have the right to say that I agree with bombing iraqi soldiers, but that I don't agree with, once again, a soldier sodomizing an handcuffed prisoner with a broom... To me it makes sense! I really can't admit that way of thinking. Yes, war goes along with abuses, but not every winning soldier is gonna act that way! I read that one of the convicted US soldiers for the Abu Ghraïb jail case, had in "civil life" been convicted for abuses on prisoners, when he worked in an US jail, before the war. Some men are bad, it's not only the war that makes people act bad, imho... :-\
Faust said:
No, the specific and stated excuse for invading Iraq was solely to get rid of WMDs. It was the only reason presented to the UN and to our country. Besides, many countries in the world have dictatorial regimes (and no WMDs), some of which are much harsher and cruel than Saddam's, so your speculative argument is moot.
Mage said:
Well it's a combination of things. It's a silly argument that we're having, because it isn't really possible to separate the dictator from his actions. If I had to pick the main reason for the war, I'd say it was that it was to remove Saddam. (pretty much the root of all the problems) The WMD's were the straw that broke the camel’s back. If WMD's were the sole reason for invading Iraq, then we'd be buisy trying to put Iraq back the way we found it.
Mage said:
The only thing vague here is the term "weapons of mass destruction" which can apply to just about everything. "So Saddam gassed some Kurds?" that sounds like WMD's. "Saddam may or may not be trying to develop some sort of nuclear program?" - WMD's. "Is that anthrax in that vile? That could kill some people" that looks like we've got a case of the WMD's. Chemical and biological weapons are extremely unsophisticated.
I'm not arguing about what the case that the U.S. was making to the U.N. but the actual reasons for going to war. Inevitably there are certain pollitical, financial, and humanitarian issues that factor into making that decision. Whatever reasons the U.S. had for going to war, everything (including WMD's) ties into the fact that Saddam is a very, very mean person and needs to be removed.
Edit:
Allow me to clarify my point.
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE! PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
Look, your entire argument is based on -speculated- motives. I clarified what was -actually said- to be the reason for war. What you're speculating may very well have been the case, but that's not what they -claimed- was the reason. Also, I find it revolting that people find Saddam to be a "mean person" now, but have no qualms that we supported him all throughout the 80s and earlier. And yes, we knew he was a bad person then because he and his party had rampantly assassinated his opponents throughout the 60s and 70s, until he himself finally came to power. Perhaps better foreign policy would be to never support dictatorial regimes at all, even if providing support would secure national interests at the time?