timmyrotter
01-09-2007, 02:19 PM
here is a juicy one... i thought we had a thread for this, maybe we did a while back. but no matter its been a long time, too long? what do you think? i was behind the war when it started, fighting terrorism woot woot. but where is the progress? you cannot win against terrorism, its an idea, not a physical thing. it just seems more and more people are dying, and not only does it seem that way but the deaths per month have been increasing. we are now to the point where the soldiers are hardly named anymore, the are being counted as numbers, not precious lives.

now i challenge you, do not let your conservative parents speak through you and make your mind up on the issue because you like Bush. be open minded and think about it, consider the details.

i dont know what to think about this anymore.

discuss...

Spiffles
01-09-2007, 04:18 PM
here is a juicy one... i thought we had a thread for this, maybe we did a while back. but no matter its been a long time, too long? what do you think? i was behind the war when it started, fighting terrorism woot woot. but where is the progress? you cannot win against terrorism, its an idea, not a physical thing. it just seems more and more people are dying, and not only does it seem that way but the deaths per month have been increasing. we are now to the point where the soldiers are hardly named anymore, the are being counted as numbers, not precious lives.

now i challenge you, do not let your conservative parents speak through you and make your mind up on the issue because you like Bush. be open minded and think about it, consider the details.

i dont know what to think about this anymore.

discuss...


I dunno about yanky politics.
As far as Australia is concerned, I dont think we should have joined the yanks in Iraq.
We have been blindly following the United States for too long now.

DarkestRose
01-09-2007, 04:43 PM
Well, just generally speaking, I don't like the idea of wars. Saddam was a messed up guy and I'm glad he's not hurting people anymore [though I have mixed feeling about his death]. Just the same, I realize that rebirth in Christ gives me a spiritual family which means that I have brothers and sisters in the Middle East who are getting hurt because of the bombings and stuff. I have family in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in the US military. And I don't really know if violence is going to redeem our country or free Iraq.

skynes
01-10-2007, 12:01 AM
I dunno about yanky politics.
As far as Australia is concerned, I dont think we should have joined the yanks in Iraq.
We have been blindly following the United States for too long now.

Ditto for the UK.


I find it ironic that one of the Allies reasons for the War was to put democracy into Iraq and have the government rule themselves.

One of the first things they do as a Democracy is execute Saddam.

What does the West do? Whine that it wasn't done right! As if THEY were the Iraq Government!

That alone makes it look like a power trip instead of a war on terrorism.

terrasin
01-10-2007, 06:29 AM
Progress doesn't happen overnight. Countries have taken generations to become their own nations. History shows us that freedom comes with cost. This war hasn't been going on for very long compared to wars of our past, and there will always be American troops in Iraq. Heck, we still have troops in Germany, Vietnam, Russia, and all the other countries we've been at war with. Also, war doesn't come without cost, and thus far, this has been the war with the least amount of American soldier casualties of any other war in the history of our country.

In fact, just this morning, we nailed someone in Africa who was on our most wanted list for blowing up an American Embassy in the late 90s. So then, if we are not making progress, what is progress?

The problem with our society is that we've become so fast paced that we expect everything to happen now. That's just not the way that war works.

What I don't understand is all the people who want to pull everyone out simply because they don't like war. This is what these soldiers are trained for. It's what they are paid to do. And every single one of them know that they may have to use the skills they are trained for on the battle field one day. I highly doubt anyone goes into the forces and expects to relax and make an easy paycheck.

No one has to like war, but it's a reality. And I for one, would rather have the war fought on the terrorists grounds than on ours.

If you want to hear some success stories, try turning off CNN and all these other naysayers of the media, and listen to the stories of Iraqis who consider our men and women to be heroes.

CJ

skynes
01-10-2007, 11:39 AM
I highly doubt anyone goes into the forces and expects to relax and make an easy paycheck.


I'm not too sure about the validity of that. I've heard plenty of complaints from soldiers who dont want to be out there.

They obviously never read the bit of the contract that says "If needed, you will be sent to war."

DarkestRose
01-10-2007, 11:45 AM
I would like to think that we would be able to come up with a more creative solution than killing people we don't even know. I just think we could about this another way.

skynes
01-10-2007, 12:17 PM
I would like to think that we would be able to come up with a more creative solution than killing people we don't even know. I just think we could about this another way.

Got a suggestion?

DarkestRose
01-10-2007, 12:54 PM
I do think that we should have Christian peacemakers in the Middle East to be there for their hungry, their injured, their needy, etc. Fundamentalist Muslims are taught to not like Fundamentalist Christians, and they never will if all they know about Christians it that they're bombing their country. If Christians put as much effort into reaching out to brothers and sisters in the Middle East as they put into supporting the conservative ticket, Middle Easterns might not have their prejudice confirmed. It's idealistic, to be sure, but I think at least we would lessen the flow of people who decide to become willing martyrs for Allah because they would know some Christians care about them. And we would be there to support Christians in the Middle East, who probably wonder why the US church sees bombing their homes as God's will. As it is though, the US has created a high civilian casualties in the Middle East.

The problem with the "war on terrorism" is that terrorism is not a person or a country, but a tactic. It seems more like we launched into this as revenge for 9/11. Bush has stated that the war, "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" in the "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People" on 9-20-01. That would pretty much mean we would have an on-going war and terrorist groups could constantly be rising [and partly in response to the war]. And we're not even fighting against all countries that support terrorism [e.g. Pakistan]. I worry that we are actually being counterproductive because it could possibly-and probably will-create future resentment for American in the Middle East. I highly doubt that we can kill Islamic soliders without other people wanting to avenge their side and joining up to fight the US.

I'm definately trying to think of more idea for ending the war and all because I don't think that peacemakers are going to be able to end the entire war. I just think that they could be one aspect of changing things.

skynes
01-10-2007, 01:15 PM
I do think that we should have Christian peacemakers in the Middle East to be there for their hungry, their injured, their needy, etc. Fundamentalist Muslims are taught to not like Fundamentalist Christians, and they never will if all they know about Christians it that they're bombing their country. If Christians put as much effort into reaching out to brothers and sisters in the Middle East as they put into supporting the conservative ticket, Middle Easterns might not have their prejudice confirmed. It's idealistic, to be sure, but I think at least we would lessen the flow of people who decide to become willing martyrs for Allah because they would know some Christians care about them. And we would be there to support Christians in the Middle East, who probably wonder why the US church sees bombing their homes as God's will. As it is though, the US has created a high civilian casualties in the Middle East. [/quote[

Problem: Christians don't live long enough in the middle east to DO any good!

It won't make any difference either. Muslims are taught that Christians are infidels to be slaughtered. Showing them how nice you are won't change that.

As it is though, the US has created a high civilian casualties in the Middle East.

source please? The media have been exaggerating a hell of a lot especially when it comes to casaulties. A nice accurate source of this 'high body count' would be appreciated.

[quote]The problem with the "war on terrorism" is that terrorism is not a person or a country, but a tactic. It seems more like we launched into this as revenge for 9/11. Bush has stated that the war, "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" in the "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People" on 9-20-01. That would pretty much mean we would have an on-going war and terrorist groups could constantly be rising [and partly in response to the war]. And we're not even fighting against all countries that support terrorism [e.g. Pakistan]. I worry that we are actually being counterproductive because it could possibly-and probably will-create future resentment for American in the Middle East. I highly doubt that we can kill Islamic soliders without other people wanting to avenge their side and joining up to fight the US.

I'm definately trying to think of more idea for ending the war and all because I don't think that peacemakers are going to be able to end the entire war. I just think that they could be one aspect of changing things.

I don't think the War on Terror is just about Iraq. I think it's an ideal that all countries should be aiming for.

Tell me, how do you suggest American should have responded to the 9/11 attack? And how Britain should have responded to the attacks on London?

The Muslims are taught that we are the enemy, to be killed and destroyed. Killing us earns them more virgins in paradise. How can anything but a massive work of God convince them otherwise?

DarkestRose
01-10-2007, 02:17 PM
I've been basing the casuality listings off of http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Anyway, not all Muslims believe that Christians should be slaughtered. Those are groups of fundamentalist Muslims. Just like there are fringe groups of Christians, Muslims face the same thing. I think it is misguided to believe that terroists are the regular face of the Middle East.

And the point is less to say, "Hey, we're nice Christians!" and more to realize that we as Christians have a higher loyalty than patriotism. And we should be caring about Middle Eastern Christians because their cities are being bombed by their brothers and sisters and their families are being killed for God.

And I don't know if God wanted to us to respond to those who persecute us by killing them. I thought we were supposed to pray for our enemies, do good to those who persecute us, turn the other cheek, remember that he who lives by the sword dies by the world, remember that blessed are the peacemakers. I believe that God adamantly loves those Muslims, even the terrorists, and that He died for them with just as much passion as He did for Western Christians. I think He wants them to know Him. I don't know if the war is really God's calling or if we wanted to embark on a mission for redemptive violence.

skynes
01-10-2007, 03:05 PM
I've been basing the casuality listings off of http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Thanks for the link, I don't know enough about the topic to say its authentic or exaggerated though. 58K doesnt seem like a high body count. WWII deaths is a high body count!

Anyway, not all Muslims believe that Christians should be slaughtered. Those are groups of fundamentalist Muslims. Just like there are fringe groups of Christians, Muslims face the same thing. I think it is misguided to believe that terroists are the regular face of the Middle East.

That may be true, but the governments and police forces in the middle East slaughter Christians with extreme prejudice. Bibles are banned in Saudi Arabia. Pilots and Stewardesses flying there aren't even allowed them!

Do you know the Quran clearly teaches that all non-Muslims should die? It's not something an American politician made up to feed the public. It really does say that! So I don't think it's fair to say they're a fringe group of Muslims. I think a more accurate description would be "Muslims who act upon ALL their beliefs"

And the point is less to say, "Hey, we're nice Christians!" and more to realize that we as Christians have a higher loyalty than patriotism. And we should be caring about Middle Eastern Christians because their cities are being bombed by their brothers and sisters and their families are being killed for God.

I believe serving God should be a higher loyalty than anything else. Christians should be caring for our brethren there too. Organisations for helping them exist.

And I don't know if God wanted to us to respond to those who persecute us by killing them.

Flying a hijacked plane into a building is NOT persecution, it's an act of war.

Torturing someone, pulling toenails out, gutting them and leaving them into the street to die for being a Christian is persecution.

I thought we were supposed to pray for our enemies, do good to those who persecute us, turn the other cheek, remember that he who lives by the sword dies by the world, remember that blessed are the peacemakers.

A Peacemaker is not someone who avoids fights at all costs. A Peacekeeper does that (i.e. doormat). A Peacekeeper is someone who's priority is keeping the peace, and if they must use arms to do that, they will.

I've said already in the Saddam thread, Jesus' teaching there is about personal attitude. Your attitude should not be about vengeance. What He said has nothing to do with justice. People DIED at the hands of Muslim fanatics and they should be brought to justice for it.

(Before you say it, no I don't mean that justifies a whole war and bombings etc. over justice.)

I believe that God adamantly loves those Muslims, even the terrorists, and that He died for them with just as much passion as He did for Western Christians. I think He wants them to know Him.

No disagreement.

I don't know if the war is really God's calling or if we wanted to embark on a mission for redemptive violence.

I don't know what to call the war, I don't follow it enough.

But when you fly planes into buildings, bomb buses and firebomb embassies you're asking for a whupping.

DarkestRose
01-10-2007, 05:07 PM
I don't want to make light of all the stuff the terrorists did. They did some messed up, evil stuff and they should be brought to justice. However, I don't believe killing is the answer nor the only way.

as~i~lay~dying
01-10-2007, 08:26 PM
First of all I believe our President is doing a fine job, Iraq was'nt able to stand on their own two feet and I believe until they can, we should remain in Iraq. "Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States", Pres. Bush. The violence in Iraq has been crazy- and overwhelming to the progress made. I think that his new policy will prove to be effective and hopefully we'll be out of there soon ... ish. ;)

lamb_servant72
01-11-2007, 02:39 AM
Failure in Iraq could mean disaster for the world.

I just finished Prelude to War, and it amazes me how easily WWII could have been prevented had the Allies put their/our foot down and meant business. We drew alot of lines in the sand.

I have been praying for Bush this morning. The headlines were screaming for it.

skynes
01-11-2007, 04:01 AM
I don't want to make light of all the stuff the terrorists did. They did some messed up, evil stuff and they should be brought to justice. However, I don't believe killing is the answer nor the only way.

Can diplomacy and reason convince you that sinners do not go to hell?

Can logic and kind words convince you that Jesus is not the only way?

I would like to think No. It won't.

These people have been raised, being taught that all others religions and countries are the enemy. The enemy is to be subdued and converted to serve Allah, or die and face Allah in judgement.

I don't think any amount of reason or kindess is going to sway that. The only thing that can change a heart like that is a work of God.


What I'm trying to show you is that you can say 'killing is wrong, there's another way' all you want. But it's not such an easy situation as that. Finding an alternative solution is not easy. Yeah Bush can send a bunch of charity workers over there. But have you not seen the news? It was a charity worker guy that was captured, tortured and beheaded on their public news. Diplomacy and relations had no effect on them for releasing him.

So Bush had a choice here. Send innocent civilians over there to work, and more than likely be killed OR send soldiers.

DarkestRose
01-11-2007, 01:04 PM
I know it's not that easy. And you're right that it's hard to find alternatives to killing. I don't know how to solve the whole problem. I'm not a good at strategy.

Just the same, the thought of all those people dying with no hope is unbearable.

skynes
01-11-2007, 02:04 PM
I know it's not that easy. And you're right that it's hard to find alternatives to killing. I don't know how to solve the whole problem. I'm not a good at strategy.

Just the same, the thought of all those people dying with no hope is unbearable.

When it comes to dealing with people, there's never a perfect strategy. People are unpredictable and they don't always make sense. All you can do is use the best strategy available and hope it works.

Isildur9473
01-13-2007, 12:43 AM
Just another country to add to Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia etc...

Quadripedman
01-13-2007, 08:32 PM
could someone please tell me what bushs new iraq policy is please?

and i do not think that saddam should have been killed, and i do not think that we should have even removed saddam from power, just beat him around a bit, and told him that we werent gunna let him commit genocide, like just tame down his power, but make sure that he knows that if he screwes around with peoples lives, hed have the most powerful country in the world to answer to.

DarkestRose
01-14-2007, 12:52 PM
could someone please tell me what bushs new iraq policy is please?

and i do not think that saddam should have been killed, and i do not think that we should have even removed saddam from power, just beat him around a bit, and told him that we werent gunna let him commit genocide, like just tame down his power, but make sure that he knows that if he screwes around with peoples lives, hed have the most powerful country in the world to answer to.

Well, I think he should have been removed from power, even if I question his death sentence. Saddam was an amazingly sick guy who killed and tortured a ton of people. I have little hope or optimism that he would have changed unless removed from his position of power. And I think it would be too risky to find out.

TheFireBreathes
01-14-2007, 03:26 PM
Thanks for the link, I don't know enough about the topic to say its authentic or exaggerated though. 58K doesnt seem like a high body count. WWII deaths is a high body count!

I dunno, just look at the name of that site. Sounds a little forcefull and biased to me...

Gettysburg is a high body count. More people died on that day than in 15 years of Vietnam. Minusing the fact that they had no automatics, computers, bombs, etc.

Just something to think about...

lamb_servant72
01-14-2007, 03:48 PM
but make sure that he knows that if he screwes around with peoples lives, hed have the most powerful country in the world to answer to.

Uhh....Isn't that what happened?

TheFireBreathes
01-14-2007, 03:56 PM
could someone please tell me what bushs new iraq policy is please?

and i do not think that saddam should have been killed, and i do not think that we should have even removed saddam from power, just beat him around a bit, and told him that we werent gunna let him commit genocide, like just tame down his power, but make sure that he knows that if he screwes around with peoples lives, hed have the most powerful country in the world to answer to.

...or you could just kill him. Simpler, easier, cheaper...;)

and Lisa's right, this has already happend in the 90's with the WMD's and Desert Storm.

Quadripedman
01-15-2007, 01:12 PM
...or you could just kill him. Simpler, easier, cheaper...;)

and Lisa's right, this has already happend in the 90's with the WMD's and Desert Storm.


:( i dont like d3ath :(

skynes
01-15-2007, 01:58 PM
Death is a pathetic thing... nothing more than a comma on the page of the introduction to our lives.

TheFireBreathes
01-15-2007, 02:25 PM
:( i dont like d3ath :(

why not?

unshakeable15
01-18-2007, 03:11 PM
Gettysburg is a high body count. More people died on that day than in 15 years of Vietnam. Minusing the fact that they had no automatics, computers, bombs, etc.

Just something to think about...

Does the Vietnam body count take into account the deaths on Vietnam's side as well? 'Cause to be accurate, you'd need to do that. The deaths at Gettysburg (and the entire Civil War for that matter) were high for America because it was all American. Both sides were American, so the death count would be astronomical in comparison to other wars.

Yes, the Civil War had a high death count, even for us fighting ourselves, but you do have to take into consideration that we were fighting ourselves, hence a higher death toll on our side (which in this case, was both).

Quadripedman
01-19-2007, 01:15 PM
why not?


i should rephrase that; i dont like people ki(cencor)lling other people i.e. mur(cencor)der.

somasoul
01-20-2007, 09:34 AM
I don't think this war Iraq is winnable, yet I think it won.

This can get confusing because the goals of the war have changed. In the beggining the goals were simple:

A) Overthrow Saddam
B) Destroy all WMD
C) Bring Democracy & Stability to Iraq
D) Get control of the oil.

How many of those goals do we need to accomplish to "win". Technically, we could bail out and get 3 out of 4, that ain't bad. Saddam is dead, there doesn't appear to be any WMD and we can still get the oil. I call that a "win".

But this administration seems to want all four and I have no idea what we are fighting for right now. The only way to bring stability is to kill lots and lots of people. We seem, as westerners, to have forgotten that war means killing people. Occupations mean beating the populace down, having them turn on the 'rebels', and siding with the occupying force. We have done a miserable job of that and the history of warfare seems to tell us that we cannot win this war because of it.

skynes
01-20-2007, 03:55 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6273123.stm

What this doesn't mention is that this aid worker was there barely 20 mins before she was killed.

Problem: Christians don't live long enough in the middle east to DO any good!


There wasn't anything saying this women was a Christian though, she was a foreigner and that was reason enough to kill her.

unshakeable15
01-25-2007, 09:36 AM
This can get confusing because the goals of the war have changed. In the beggining the goals were simple:

A) Overthrow Saddam
B) Destroy all WMD
C) Bring Democracy & Stability to Iraq
D) Get control of the oil.

Since when was D a goal of the war? It might be thought of as a goal, but never, NEVER has the president nor anyone else in the administration claimed that getting control of oil in the Middle East was one of the aims of this war.

Did you know that the very large majority of the oil the United States imports comes not from the Middle East, but from Canada! Sure, we get some from the Middle East, but Canada is our main supplier.

somasoul
01-26-2007, 03:03 PM
Did you know that the very large majority of the oil the United States imports comes not from the Middle East, but from Canada! Sure, we get some from the Middle East, but Canada is our main supplier.

The Sudan is brimming with Islamic terrorists and we aren't there.

The Phillipines has got terrorist cells who have actively killed Americans.

Oil is a reason to be in Iraq. Before the bulk of troops even began operations in Iraq one of the first things we did was attempt to seize control of the refineries.

Agree with the war or not, oil is a big reason we are there.

Unregistered
01-26-2007, 04:16 PM
The Sudan is brimming with Islamic terrorists and we aren't there.

The Phillipines has got terrorist cells who have actively killed Americans.

Oil is a reason to be in Iraq. Before the bulk of troops even began operations in Iraq one of the first things we did was attempt to seize control of the refineries.

Agree with the war or not, oil is a big reason we are there.

I'm obligated to agree with you. Whether or not anyone agrees with the war, it's the oil "we" are after.

In my opinion, we're just shipping troops over there in bunks and shipping 'em back in caskets.

somasoul
01-27-2007, 05:05 AM
Does anyone here still think that this war can be "won".

forceflow17
01-27-2007, 11:54 AM
As far as an actuall, tangible victory, I don't know. But, it is a war that has to be fought, and not just in the middle east. The earlier post was right, terorism is not a thing, but an ideal; an ideal that has to be fought. Please note, there has not been a terorist attack on U.S. soil since we went over there. What is our armed forces for, if not to fight wars that save CIVILIAN lives. As for pulling out, if we were to pull out right now, the terorist organizations would resume as normal, and in a few more years atteck us again. It's up to you, do you want troops, who know and accept their duty to die in a war zone, or civilians (that the military is there to protect) going about their day to day lives.

unshakeable15
01-30-2007, 01:46 PM
The Sudan is brimming with Islamic terrorists and we aren't there.

The Phillipines has got terrorist cells who have actively killed Americans.

Oil is a reason to be in Iraq. Before the bulk of troops even began operations in Iraq one of the first things we did was attempt to seize control of the refineries.

Agree with the war or not, oil is a big reason we are there.
i would argue that they attempted to gain control of the refineries because of what happened in the Gulf War. Saddam ordered his troops to light all the derricks on fire. He would rather make the entire warzone (i.e. his country) a living hell.

i agree with you that this war was not one we truly needed to start. Since we started this one, why NOT go after the troubles in Sudan, the Philippines, Castro, South America? There really is no limit when you start doling out preemptive strikes.