Why is Everyone so Against the War?

[frozenguy]

There is always congressional "support" for a popular war but they want room to be able to back out of their confusingly worded "authorizations"
Where/Who are we to declare war on anyways?
Edit: There has been NO declaration. Just authorization to use military force. They still control the budget

 

[sepulatian]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Excuse me but Congress voted to allow military action in Iraq. What other authorization do you think he needed?
Sorry, I was responding to a member of this board that actualy needed fish help, which is why I am here. Bush ordered the military to attack right after 9/11, he began without congressional support. You can look at all you would like on "record" but the action was taken before the permission was there.

 

[sepulatian]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Not true. This resolution was passed in Oct. 2002. Troops attacked Iraq in March of 2003.
The troops did not first attack in March of "03, where were you at this time? You do not recall them attacking in baghdad?

 

[sepulatian]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
We're confusing adversaries.
Al Qaeda is attacking us because they are Al Qaeda.
Now, you can argue that the Iraq people are trying to drive us out, but I would disagree. We are fighting militias and tribal warlords who are trying to gain power. This is evident with the recent successes we've had in bringing several tribes into an alliance with ourselves.
The average Iraqi is not trying to drive us out.
Who is "The average Iraqi"? The citizens? The same that are living here? The same that put up a good front? The same people that act as though they like us yet hate us?

 

[sepulatian]

Sorry, but I have to go. I have to get up early tommorow to drive three hours upstate to see my 44 year old brother who is leaving his wife and three children to go to Iraq on Saturday. It is his second trip there. God Bless.

 

[reefraff]

Well the cold hard fact is we are there and nothing is going to change that. Our so-called leaders need to put the politics aside and figure out what if anything we can do to make this work. If it can't work then the country will have to be split up. If that is the case some kind of permanent international peace keeping force will have to be brough in. That's going to be a little slice of heaven too.
Someone posted the numbers of hurt and killed US soldiers. I hope they and their families sacrifices are going to mean something. Unfortunatly as long as their is such a divide in this country the terrorists and insurgents are not going to give up. They just figure they can just wait until the politicians cave like they did during Viet Nam and they are probably right.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
Sorry, but I have to go. I have to get up early tommorow to drive three hours upstate to see my 44 year old brother who is leaving his wife and three children to go to Iraq on Saturday. It is his second trip there. God Bless.
Good wishes for your bro.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
The troops did not first attack in March of "03, where were you at this time? You do not recall them attacking in baghdad?
Sep, unless I'm out of my mind combat began in March, 2003. The Resolution was passed the previous October. If you have dates contrary to that let me know.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by frozenguy
I just think this whole thing has way too many factors that arn't even ON POINT and everyone is argueing about each one and it starts a new arguement because something else is controversial..
Looks like common mis-direction to me. I think there are other things we should be paying attention to.
Oil..
all the scandelous white house crap..
Its all so dirty now..
We could use a little more attention to our own country too.
Scandalist white house crap? Such as?

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by Ozmar
Wow. That is soooo totally wrong. There is a huge, wide, vast gulf of a difference between them (al Qaeda) and us (America). We do not target innocents as policy. It is an unfortunate fact that innocent civilians do get killed, but we make every effort to minimize this. Al Qaeda and their ilk actively target innocent civilians in their terrorist plots. They literally behead prisoners, including young children, women and girls! How can you even compare the two?
I'm sorry, but if you can't see the difference, then you don't have a developed sense of morality. Did you get too much college education? That can be an impairment to clear moral thinking, I've heard.
Ozmar the Educated
We may not do these things in this day and age but we are certainly guilty of conducting mass genocide against the Native Americans. Look at history, Removal Act of 1830, Trail of Tears, Homestead Act and blankets infected with small pox (look up the name Jeffrey Amherst).
Also our English friends are no better. Take Ireland for example. They are in part to blame for the Irish Famine/Genocide. At the time the blight occured there was enough wheat being produced in Ireland to have fed the people and instead, it was exported to England for profit. Keep in mind, by this time the majority of the irish catholics had been robbed of their land in Northern Ireland and replaced by Protestant landlords who were much more interested in profit then helping their fellow man (who they deemed far inferior). Also, there was little or no food sent from England to Ireland and the vast majority of the relief was sent from America.
Finally, while it may not be not be on par with beheadings what exactly happen at Abu Ghraib? Oh wait, sodomizing prisoners, ----, forced ---, urainating on detainees, dragging detainees by their genitals and there were unexplained deaths...sounds pleasant?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Finally, while it may not be not be on par with beheadings what exactly happen at Abu Ghraib? Oh wait, sodomizing prisoners, ----, forced ---, urainating on detainees, dragging detainees by their genitals and there were unexplained deaths...sounds pleasant?
Even the dems leading the witch hunt shut up after they took them down there for a tour.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Even the dems leading the witch hunt shut up after they took them down there for a tour.
Lol, you don't think they cleaned the place up after the story became news?

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
Do you know anything about checks and ballance? The president is NOT the sovereign authority of this country. He has to answer to congress. He acted without authorization.
I'm not sure where you get your facts, but:
Authorization to use Force Against Iraq Bill passed in October of 2002:
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq"
And yes, of course the president is not the soveriegn authority. I was merely saying that the "sovereign" to which Aquinas refers is the nominal leader of a country. In some countries, esp. in Aquinas' time, that might be a king with real sovereign authority. In our country, of course we have an executive, who is checked and balanced by the legislature and the judiciary, and who ultimately answers to we the people.
Ozmar the Political Scholar

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
Perhaps that is because we are in their country, telling them what they can and cannot do. Think about this practicaly. This is their life and their religion. We are telling them that their way is not good. OUR way is "better". They HATED us to begin with. They are not bombing our country. They are trying to get us out of their land. If they wanted to attack our country again, it would not be hard being that there are so many here right now.
If by "they", you mean islamic jihadis, then you're correct: they did hate us, and still do.
But if you mean the Iraqi people, then I think you fail to recognize that this is a nation of 50+ million people, some of whom absolutely love us for what we've done and continue to do over there.
And as for "if they wanted to attack our country again", the terrorists do want to, and only haven't because they've been prevented. Whether that has more to do with luck than with our strategy, well, I can't say. Maybe we've just been very fortunate. But I don't think we should fool ourselves into thinking its just because they (i.e., the terrorists) no longer have interest in slaughtering innocent Americans.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
Congress did not declare war until after Bush already did. Gosh, I so hate arguing with you, but this just seems appropriate

Please reference when and how Bush "declared" war before Congress authorized use of force.
If you refer to Bush's recognition (on 9/11/01, I believe) that this is war after the World Trade Center was destroyed, then one might also point out that Al Qaeda and their islamist sympathizes "declared war" on us first. In fact, I think Osama bin Laden issued a statement to that effect in the mid-90s.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Ozmar
Wow. That is soooo totally wrong. There is a huge, wide, vast gulf of a difference between them (al Qaeda) and us (America). We do not target innocents as policy. It is an unfortunate fact that innocent civilians do get killed, but we make every effort to minimize this. Al Qaeda and their ilk actively target innocent civilians in their terrorist plots. They literally behead prisoners, including young children, women and girls! How can you even compare the two?
I'm sorry, but if you can't see the difference, then you don't have a developed sense of morality. Did you get too much college education? That can be an impairment to clear moral thinking, I've heard.
Ozmar the Educated
Again, convincing yourself that you are with the "good guys" allows you to justify the death, r-ape, torture of people including women and children. There is no morality in war. The winner of a war is going to be the most immoral, the most brutal, the most devastating party. Does it really matter if a person is beheaded or blown up? Which would you rather suffer? I would argue that Al Queda, by attacking the World Trade Center on a September morning was targeting adults, and probably more men than women. We drop bombs in residential areas of Iraq. This is where the war is being fought. Our enemy hides amongst civilians and we have no problem going in and dessimating the area. Our soldiers have been convicted of crimes while being there, including r-ape, murder and torture. There is no morality in this chaos. Let's not pull the moral wool over our eyes.... but maybe your thinking gives you the comfort of "righteousness". Step out of your comfort zone and try to see things objectively.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by Jmick
We may not do these things in this day and age but...
Then will you stipulate that, in this day and age, the vast majority of our servicemen and women are categorically better people than the islamic jihadist who supports and engages in the directed murder of innocent civilians?
I'll certainly grant that we haven't ever been perfect as a nation. Abu Ghraib was only the most recent blot on our national honor, but it remains an aberration, not the norm, and the perpetrators were duly and rightfully prosecuted.
Let us not lose sight of the key difference: we condemn and punish those among us who engage in atrocities. The terrorists praise and celebrate them.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Again, convincing yourself that you are with the "good guys" allows you to justify the death, r-ape, torture of people including women and children. There is no morality in war. The winner of a war is going to be the most immoral, the most brutal, the most devastating party. Does it really matter if a person is beheaded or blown up? Which would you rather suffer? I would argue that Al Queda, by attacking the World Trade Center on a September morning was targeting adults, and probably more men than women. We drop bombs in residential areas of Iraq. This is where the war is being fought. Our enemy hides amongst civilians and we have no problem going in and dessimating the area. Our soldiers have been convicted of crimes while being there, including r-ape, murder and torture. There is no morality in this chaos. Let's not pull the moral wool over our eyes.... but maybe your thinking gives you the comfort of "righteousness". Step out of your comfort zone and try to see things objectively.
I think I am pretty objective. I certainly won't put moral considerations aside, though. If we did, then why not use nuclear weapons and irradiate large segments of the population in order to completely demoralize and devastate our enemies? Well, that's what Saddam did. He kept the trains running on time in Iraq rather effectively.
But we are a moral people. There are important considerations besides quelling a populace in order to obtain peace and stability. Freedom may be messy, but its a deeply moral goal. We have no right, as many on your side of the argument frequently remind us, to impose our will on other people. The only moral authority one man has over another is that which a free man gives him. That's what the essence of freedom and democracy is all about. We've created a society where the rules rule with the consent of the governed. And that's what we're trying to help Iraqis achieve.
We are the good guys. I don't justify atrocities commited in this war - they are not justified. Those who commit them must be punished. But saying that I justify atrocities because I support the war is like saying I justify murders in America because I support the free society in which murders can take place.
There is morality in war, as there is in all human activities. War is not a free license for a moral people to wantonly kill, r-ape and steal. War is a messy business, it is true, but at times, it is just and necessary. That we recognize that, and that we actively try to minimize atrocities and punish wrong-doers, is what makes us the "good guys".
I'm not making this up just to assuage my conscience. This is the truth as I see it.
Ozmar the Objective

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Ozmar
Freedom may be messy, but its a deeply moral goal. We have no right, as many on your side of the argument frequently remind us, to impose our will on other people. The only moral authority one man has over another is that which a free man gives him. That's what the essence of freedom and democracy is all about. We've created a society where the rules rule with the consent of the governed. And that's what we're trying to help Iraqis achieve.
Your above statement is an oxymoron, an inherent contradiction. You are advocating FORCED FREEDOM. This is not about helping the Iraqis create a democracy, we are forcing them into democracy. You claim that one man has moral authority only to the extent that it is given by another man. So your argument here seems to be that by dropping bomb after bomb, we are "giving them freedom". Take off the rose colored glasses. We are not building a democracy, we are destroying a nation... and we are losing thousands of our own people in the process.
Anytime freedom has to be forced, by definition it is no longer free. "Be free or I will kill you." Sounds perfectly logical to me.

 

[msgmac47]

Good morning all. I'm getting ready to deploy for the third time with the 101st Airborne Division. As much as I hate to leave my family I realize that I am not only fighting for the feedom of my family and yours, but I am also fighting for the freedom of Iraq and Afghan. I am ready and I am willing.
If you have ever been there you could see smiles on faces when we visit villages. It’s a great feeling watching kids play and hearing them laugh trying to get you to play soccer with them. Mothers thanking you a thousand times for something as small as fresh water and food. Fathers hugging you for giving them the opportunity to provide for their family by giving them work. Teachers crying because we supply their schools with much needed school supplies. But you will never see that on the news. Just blood shed. Guess it makes better news for the reporters.
I won't deny that there are those that hate Americans, but the love for Americans out weighs the hate no matter what TV or the poles say. Sometimes I wonder how information is gathered for stats. If you are not there how can you possibly know? If you don't show the good how can the people back at home know?
I respect everyone's opinion. I serve to make sure all of you have the right to voice it, good or bad. I just wanted to say that I am willing to go each time I am told to do so. Its funny how everyone was so patriotic before and when the war started to turn around and shout that it’s wrong now. It’s war. Lives are lost. To say they were lost for nothing is a slap in our (soldiers) face. But for us, we make sure you have that right to say it. Thank you goes to those who support us. For those that don’t, you are welcome for the right not to. Take care.