Ok, so I'm making a presentation about why the west/western countries fight wars/proxy wars (after 1945) , and the consequenses of those wars, and wondered what you guys/girls believe. Are the west the "good guys" fighting for freedom, or are they merely doing it to earn cash, and are dictators and other "bad guys" the only ones to suffer?

There have been many reasons that western nations have gone to war in the past sixty years. There is one that stands out in my mind in the years after WWII and was (according to the politicians) to stop the spread of communism. If you look at the Korean and Viet Nam conflicts you will find that was the chief reason given for those engagements.

Obviously with more modern conflicts there have been a whole host of reasons thrown out there and everyone has their opinion on them. I think that the first Gulf War was for the most part justifiable as Saddam Hussein really had no right to invade Kuwait at least in my opinion. I'm sure that there are those that would disagree with me, but that is my thought.

The invasion of Afghanistan and the current situation in Iraq are obviously a bit more questionable. I believe that we entered Afghanistan for the right reasons those being that they're government was harboring,and collaborating with Usama Bin Laden and condoning his actions which given the events of Sept. 11th is tantamount to an act of war. Again, my opinion, and certainly not gospel. Iraq...well, there are days where I don't know what to think about Iraq. At one point I was sure we had done the right think, and that opinion was conceived from talking to Marines and Soldiers who had been on the ground and seen things that Saddam had done and was doing. These days as I said I'm not sure what to think as every day there seems to be some sort of new information that supports one theory or the other. You can take that for what it's worth.

So, those are my opinions, and I have no problem with those that wish to agree, disagree, or throw me out the nearest air lock. :)

Ok, so I'm making a presentation about why the west/western countries fight wars/proxy wars (after 1945) , and the consequenses of those wars, and wondered what you guys/girls believe. Are the west the "good guys" fighting for freedom, or are they merely doing it to earn cash, and are dictators and other "bad guys" the only ones to suffer?

By the West, are you also including the Soviet Union and its interference as well. I know that many people (inaccurately) lump Russia in with Western Civilization even so they are technically their own Civilization, but Russia's involvement is also needed to know more about how proxy wars are being battled.

I guess it really depends on the actual ethics of each proxy war. One proxy war might be a war in which America is a good guy and another proxy war might be a war in which the Soviet Union (or the other side) are fighting for a just cause. I know it isn't exactly what you are looking for, but I want to take each war and evaluate it on its own merits rather than sterotyping all wars waged by So-and-So Civilization in general to be good or evil.

All nations fight proxy wars, so it's not a really new phenomon. The First Punic War actually started off as a Proxy Conflict between Rome and Carthage over Silicy.

By the West, are you also including the Soviet Union

No sorry for not making that clear

I know it isn't exactly what you are looking for, but I want to take each war and evaluate it on its own merits rather than sterotyping all wars waged by So-and-So Civilization in general to be good or evil.

In a way that is what I am looking for, I want to see what causes people belive the west/western countries go to war for. So I'll look at each war/proxy war, and see if some of the causes of war are the same in several conflicts, and try to find some "general" causes, as well as some exceptions. wether the reasons are "good" or "evil", I'll have each person listening decide

Korea - Stop Communism
Vietnam - Stop Communism
Desert Storm - Keep a foothold in the middle east and try to secure oil
Afghanistan - Kill terrorists...stop future terrorists from forming there
Iraq - Secure oil, and somewhat less so, stop killing of innocents there

(Sure, I say "Secure oil" like it's bad, but I don't really think that it is...besides, we do have secondary reasons for being there anyway. America isn't evil like everyone thinks.)

All nations fight proxy wars, so it's not a really new phenomon.


It's not a new phenomenon but no nation who has little power can "fight" a proxy war. It can be the proxy, but not the hand controlling everything.


Post 45, most wars have all been a question of the West vs. the Communists, at least up to the end of the Soviet Union. During this time period, several proxy wars were fought, often between a communist group supported by either China or the Soviet Union and another supported by the Western civilizations. South Vietnam against North Vietnam is a good example. The proxy war allowed both superpowers to avoid a WWIII and in its own weird way, that's kind of good.

The problem comes with evaluating whether someone is good or bad. In reality, both superpowers (USA and USSR) only sought to promote their own ideology or interests. The people of the proxy countries have no importance. This is what lead to the United States supporting certain dictators like Augusto Pinochet of Chile or Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam (yes, he was elected, with around 95% of the voices in a mostly (60%+ at the time, much more now) Buddhist country who would never vote for a Catholic. Go figure).

In the end, I can't think of a single situation where a foreign power has fought a war out of pure kindness. The closest to that is the Kosovo war, which was a good marketing campaign after the West being accused in the Yugoslavian conflict and Rwanda conflict to let genocides happen.

So don't believe all the crap about spreading democracy and freedom. There's no such thing as a purely altruistic war. So, how's Darfur?

I support my country, the country where I live, right or wrong. As well as wars that are considered wrong, Vietnam and Iraq certainly, we should probably look at the atrocities committed in war. Abu Ghraib for certain, but some of the stories out of Vietnam, they would horrify Private England. Now certainly these acts are wrong. It's justified in war because you're doing anything you can to win, and unless you do some of this sick stuff for fun you should be seen as doing the right thing to defeat the enemy. But it's wrong to commit such acts. To throw another spanner in the works how about those who react to war? Dumping returning Vietnam vets with red paint? Passive treason during anti war protests? I'm not talking about denying the right to have a protest at all, that I fully support, I'm talking about holding one when you were told not to. The protest being used as an excuse for violence and to clash with athorities. Would this sort of behaviour be seen as wrong? Outright colloboration with who we fight against, David Hicks admitting to terrorism (arguements over wherher this was just so he could go back home and not true would make a fine topic for another thread), or maybe the human shields that went over to defend Saddam? To look at the specific wars that had been waged, as well as the big ones (Korea, which was right, Vietnam, which should have been seen as wrong in foresight, Desert Storm, which is criticised but was right, Afghanistan, ditto, and Iraq, which in hindsight was wrong) there are a couple of things we forget. One is our involvement in Somalia and our efforts to stop Aidid and his mulisha from using famine as a weapon of war (he was attacking UN convoys and hoarding the supplies they carried). Another is all the nasty little wars that had been waged in South America and around the world since who knows when. Kosovo, Rwanda, all these places where we had troops fighting. America supplying groups such as the Taliban to wage war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we kept at arms length from the conflict but were involved. We could probably add the conflict with Israel and neighbouring countries as a modern view. Which leads nicely into the war, the one no one had thought to bring up even though it lasted nearly half a century. I'm talking about of course the Cold War. Now this wasn't war in the traditional sense with tanks and planes, though these were still very much part of it, as well as nukes and the threat of nuclear annihilation. But this war was diffirent to most, any conflict between the two countries were usually low scale, maybe a force deployed to a region to deter the Soviets from invading for example, or real world James Bond\Snake exploits, spying. Perhaps the largest confrontation, with the exception of Soviet fears being whipped up which I'll discuss in a moment, was when Russia had nuclear weapons on Cuba and the tense standoff that almost erupted into World War Three. Now, below I'll discuss each war in some detail and the merits, if any, for them.

Cold War: How McCarthy was able to whip the West into a communist fear frenzy is beyond me. It could be argued that had we not believed the Soviets would ally with the martians and eat our brains some of the spies, defecting, assasinations ect that had occured when the two countries were trying to undermine each other would not have taken place. However what the Soviets did were monsterous, look at things such as the Kossacks, the gulags, ect, and at least in this case we were able to use military might as deterrence, not as a weapon.
Korea: The conflict between North and South Korea is still going on today, with North Korea embracing communism, totalarism, the things we should be fighting against. An ally of ours was under attack, we should have gone to war I feel.
South America: The war on drug runners and facists in South America, no question that's the right thing to do. While using the communism claim may have sounded good at the time, there's a lot of questions over the death squads and who exactly was targeted.
Vietnam: We should never have stuck our nose into the business of a war that had nothing to do with us. However, saying that I'm too young to remember all the things about the war so people may have felt much the same as we do when we went into Iraq. All that had been achieved in the conflict was resentment to America.
Afghanistan: We weren't there directly, but we provided arms to the Taliban to fight off the Soviets. The effects of our far reaching efforts in waging war could probably be best seen with what we face today.
Desert Storm: For most of us this is a great victory in which we drove out a dictator from the land he invaded. Some however lay claim this was our way of achieving a foothold in the Middle East so we could steal the oil, and some see it as something graver, Islamists (in this case Kuwaitis) going over to the enemy, the West. Such a view (seeing people go over to 'the enemy') is held by those who seek conflict.
Somalia: If the first Gulf War didn't convince people that we try and act in the best interests maybe this will. We sent forces into Somalia to safeguard the UN supplies being attacked by Aidid and the Hbre Gidre. It's best remembered when two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down on a mission to capture Aidid's Lieutenants. No question we should have gone in to stop this man. Should we have stayed? There was resentment even from the Somalis we were there to save, and while it would have been good to help them perhaps the best thing we could have done was leave them alone.
Kosovo: See Somalia.
Afghanistan: The war in Afghanistan was in direct retalliation for the terrorist attacks on September 11, and the purpose was to free the country from the ruling Taliban and it's leader, Osama Bin Laden, who spoke of the Jihad victory against the Evil Empire. People can criticise the war all they like. I look at it this way. Given the terrorist attacks either commited by Al Qaeda or with their involvement it's clear they had a number of attacks planned. By striking against them how many were we able to prevent? My biggest criticism is why we haven't been able to capture the target.
Iraq: Everyone knows the background. Saddam refused to allow UN weapons inspectors in, America sought to use force and Saddam buckled, America went to the UN to get permission to wage war which was denied, so they went in anyway. What had been achieved? Giving creditbility to those who scream 'ZOMG WTF BUSH IS HITLER LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11 BUSH IS PALPATINE LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11 IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11', as well as fuel anti American sentiment, destabalise the region and to some extent the world. Maybe removing Saddam was a good thing, but nothing good has come from the method used to do so.
Israel: Israel has a right to exist. If you dispute this maybe you should give your land back to the Indians. And Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorism. What it doesn't have the right to do however is bomb Lebanon, bomb countries where Isayret could have ferretted out the terrorists in covert raids.
Future war: North Korea? Iran? Should we be seeking to bomb these despots back to the stone age? I don't think so. The worst they can do at the moment is fuel anti West sentiment, by going to war against them we only serve to prove them right. Kim Jong building up nuclear arms? Have Navy ships deployed to the region to shoot down any missiles. Until he launches an attack or threatens an attack there's not much that can be done.

Overall, I support my country right or wrong. Unquestionably there are things it had done wrong but I support it, right or wrong.

Cold War: How McCarthy was able to whip the West into a communist fear frenzy is beyond me

According to my history books, McCarthy arose soon after China fell to the Communists. The fall of such a big country and ally of the West help to fuel the Second Red Scare (the first Red Scare was in the 1920's and started up by the rise of the Soviet Union) and paved the way for McCarthy.

For the record Desert Storm i.e. the first Gulf War the US got involved to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.

As has been pointed out, I'd say the reasons are as varied as the wars in question. European nations attempted to preserve their declining empires after the second world war and maintain some spheres of influence. America fought wars to both defend other countries and also to preserve spheres of economic influence. Remember, even WW2 wasn't fought for humanitarian reasons. I'm not sure you can really say that there were cliched examples of "good guy" vs "bad guy" of the white/black hat type, b/c how you see good and bad will depend upon your own idealogy.

Frankly, everyone suffers when war is ultimately resorted to, regardless of whether they are on the winning or losing side. Wars cost blood and treasure for all who engage in them, regardless of the necessity.

But at the same time there have been times where war has been a nessecary evil, perhaps no more so than when nearly all of Europe had been taken over, war had spread to Africa and Asia and America was attacked. We should not wage war, certainly not go out looking for war (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) but the choice between fighting and dieing is no choice at all.

With McCarthyism, I think what I was getting at was how he was able to take his attitude of 'you disagree with me, you must be a communist' and use it to create such divides. Nonetheless the prospect of the type of government Stalin ran was bad enough without it being magnified under McCarthy's microscope.

Looking back I'm not sure if I answered the question sufficiently in regard to how I feel about war. It's easy to look at a lot of the people who we fight against (Stalin, Saddam, Bin Laden ect) and every time we get one of them, if not cheer then think 'that's another monster gone'. If you were to look at the full impact of war, what it does to people, it's almost too much to bear. War is hell, don't let anybody fool you into thinking otherwise. If you think Abu Ghraib is bad or Agent Orange, skinned Vietcong, you've seen nothing. Vietnamese civillians, women, children, gathered and shot. Booby trapping bodies and weapons. One time a group of VC were left outside their hootches, cross legged, their heads in their laps, in their eye sockets a smoking joss stick. Believe the facts, war is hell. We should not have to resort to war but sometimes we have to, and we should never go looking for war. I am however not opposed to military intervention, which is completely diffirent to warfare in that in the frenzied chaos discipline is not lost, professionalism is not cast away and men and women don't at times have to become animals in order to survive. And even for those who do go to war and come through the other end of it alright, of which there is an overwhelming majority, I have nothing but the utmost respect for them for risking their lives, to some extent sacrificing their lives or their humanity and those who had to make the ultimate sacrifice regardless of whether the mission was the right thing to do or some dumb **** political idea.

And just on that, any politician who seeks war should spend a week in Fallujah or Kandahar to see what it's like first hand.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for them for risking their lives, to some extent sacrificing their lives or their humanity and those who had to make the ultimate sacrifice regardless of whether the mission was the right thing to do or some dumb **** political idea.

Er. You do realize this statement will back all forms of militancy. Not only have you just cheered on the American troops, but you also just cheered on the Viet Minh. Still, quoted for truth. I do have the greatest admiration for those who are willing to die and in some cases, kill for their cause. Wheter I agree with their cause...that's up for debate.

Of course. They are still soldiers however, disciplined, risking their lives and their humanity for their cause even if it is the wrong one, or opposed to the cause you and I might support. When the fight is taken to civillians however, from Vietnamese massecred by American forces to terrorist bombings (itself against Islam, the religion forbids killing yourself) then these people are soldiers no more, they're killers. Completely diffirent.

Of course. They are still soldiers however, disciplined, risking their lives and their humanity for their cause even if it is the wrong one, or opposed to the cause you and I might support. When the fight is taken to civillians however, from Vietnamese massecred by American forces to terrorist bombings (itself against Islam, the religion forbids killing yourself) then these people are soldiers no more, they're killers. Completely diffirent.

Oh so what about the insurgents in Iraq that are abducting, torturing, and murdering people in Iraq?

Furthermore, the fight being brought into civilian areas isn't as cut and dry as you seem to be making it. The Viet-Kong apparently dressed as civilians and attacked American Forces from civilian villages, to be blunt it is really hard to avoid hitting civilians in situations like that. There were American forces that committed crimes in Vietnam and those individuals should be prosecuted. However, when the enemy deliberately uses civilians as human shields, the responsibility of the civilian casualties is the enemy and not the American forces.

The Iraqi Insurgents arn't soldiers, they're killers. They place car bombs where they know civillians will be killed and odds are they were never soldiers in the first place, but civillians who have taken up arms against the invading forces.

As for Vietnam, there is much blood on the hands of all involved. The Vietcong didn't just use their own soldiers, they used children, little girls, as scouts, and they would be armed with AK 47s that would, and did, turn a squad of soldiers into hamburger. You ever fired on a little girl? You ever want to? Exactly, by doing such a dirty tactic it made things that much harder.

Eric, you're over-generalizing.

For example many Kuwaitis consider the US soldiers whom died while kicking Saddam out of their country as martyrs and while they disagree with our support of Israel, they are against the US being attacked. Then there is Turkey whom is an ally of the United States (their military especially). The people of Iran are generally not lunatics, just the people in power in Iran are extremist lunatics.

Not all muslims are lunatics, we just happen to be fighting muslim extremists a good portion of whom happen to also be clerics that preach their messages of hate to the young generations to gain new suicide bombers.

Of course. They are still soldiers however, disciplined, risking their lives and their humanity for their cause even if it is the wrong one, or opposed to the cause you and I might support. When the fight is taken to civillians however, from Vietnamese massecred by American forces to terrorist bombings (itself against Islam, the religion forbids killing yourself) then these people are soldiers no more, they're killers. Completely diffirent.

Actually, wouldn't civilians be helping out one side or another? They are not exactly netural. A civilian who waves a flag saying "Long live USA, death to Saddam!", who goes and provides moral support for the troops, and who actually fund the troops via tax dollars...well, they too are helping to fight in the war as well, right? What about a Vietnmesse civilian who provided food and slether for the Viet Minh, they too are fighting in the war as well? If the goal of war is to win, and the way to win is to kill off all those helping out the enemy, wouldn't civilians be a legit target? Why else was Dreseden bombed during World War II? It was done to decrease the morale of the enemy, and to go and get rid of production faclities that would help military troops? You served in those factories, you helped out Germany, hence you are a part of the war effort.

Prehaps you could go and condemn people for killing those who do not support one side or another. I just think however that you have to look at different prespectives, of those who do attack civilians, understand what they believe. Very, very few people are netrual, and you can be guilty of implicty aiding the "bad guys", whomever they are according to your belief system...

Actually, wouldn't civilians be helping out one side or another? They are not exactly netural. A civilian who waves a flag saying "Long live USA, death to Saddam!", who goes and provides moral support for the troops, and who actually fund the troops via tax dollars...well, they too are helping to fight in the war as well, right? What about a Vietnmesse civilian who provided food and slether for the Viet Minh, they too are fighting in the war as well? If the goal of war is to win, and the way to win is to kill off all those helping out the enemy, wouldn't civilians be a legit target? Why else was Dreseden bombed during World War II? It was done to decrease the morale of the enemy, and to go and get rid of production faclities that would help military troops? You served in those factories, you helped out Germany, hence you are a part of the war effort.


Do they have a choice? You forget that all of those regimes have coercion methods in order to make the civilian population help them. The Vietnamese peasant who has an AK-47 put to his head by a Viet Cong soldier asking him for help has a choice in the matter? It's a much more difficult and case by case evaluation. You'll never really know who supports who.


Exactly, by doing such a dirty tactic it made things that much harder.

Which is the sad reality of guerrilla warfare. The Viet Cong would never have won the propaganda war if they didn't use dirty tactics. Hey, they might have never lasted that long if they didn't do it. Ultimately, it served them quite well.

Vietnam: We should never have stuck our nose into the business of a war that had nothing to do with us. However, saying that I'm too young to remember all the things about the war so people may have felt much the same as we do when we went into Iraq. All that had been achieved in the conflict was resentment to America.
And if anyone knew the difference between Nationalism, Socialism and Communism then they would have seen that Ho Chi Minh was doing exactly what the US did in 1776 and that was fight for independence from its colonial power which was none other than our European frind: France. Heck even look at Castro before Cuban Missle crisis. He was a Nationalist, not a Communist. He just went with the Russians because it was cheaper to buy from them.

With McCarthyism, I think what I was getting at was how he was able to take his attitude of 'you disagree with me, you must be a communist' and use it to create such divides. Nonetheless the prospect of the type of government Stalin ran was bad enough without it being magnified under McCarthy's microscope.
McCarthy was a paranoid individual who even attacked and blacklisted Hollywood because some people blatantly stated that he was infringing upon the first Ammendment like the freedom of speech clause. It was even used an excuse to fire homosexuals from their job s because they were gay but they were labeled as communists.

Which is the sad reality of guerrilla warfare. The Viet Cong would never have won the propaganda war if they didn't use dirty tactics. Hey, they might have never lasted that long if they didn't do it. Ultimately, it served them quite well.
Unfortunately too, this led to some incidents like Mai Lai and other things that people prefer not to talk about.

Personally I do not note the good guys vs bad guys stuff when it comes to wars. I am too much of an anthropologist to think of it that because I would be wasting my time trying to show why each side thinks that way. I have observed the us versus them bit and the damnation of another group because they are heathens. I cannot make a distinction and categorize as good guys and bad guys. That is usually in the terms of international politics and wars. Local things like gang wars is a different matter but that is not relevant to the discussion. I see no distinction only the lesson I learned that where is one finger pointing, three are usually pointing right back at you.

McCarthy was a , JM, a real . I'm glad history condemns him as such.

With civillians being legitimate targets, think about the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11 and get back to me on whether or not they were legitimate targets in the war against the West.

McCarthy was a good guy, in my opinion. Very good military leader.

McCarthy was a good guy, in my opinion. Very good military leader.

Really? Perhaps you are thinking about MacArthur.

General Douglas MacArthur served his country during WW I, WW II and the Korean War.

Senator Joseph McCarthy was a Republican Senator from Wisconsin. He used his office to discredit American as communist in order to strike fear into the nation and increase his own lust for power.

Senator Joseph McCarthy was a Republican Senator from Wisconsin. He used his office to discredit American as communist in order to strike fear into the nation and increase his own lust for power.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Personally I laughed at his arguments that I actually had to read for my history class last quarter. i laugh at anybody who is as amusing as Paul Broca and his craniometry.

With civillians being legitimate targets, think about the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11 and get back to me on whether or not they were legitimate targets in the war against the West.
They were legit targets ion the eyes of the extremists. After all according to their interpretation of the Koran, any who do not embrace the faith must be exterminated. They condemn democracy as the devil's invention. They think Americans have no morals and in a sense we don't with all this sex before marriage and treating marriage itself like a business contract though historically it has been used as such so that is a moot point.

With civillians being legitimate targets, think about the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11 and get back to me on whether or not they were legitimate targets in the war against the West.

I'm not the one who decides what are legitimate targets in the war against the West and what are not. It's the people who are actually fighting the war who decide that. And, since that building is a "World Trade Center", damaging the economy of America is something that needs to be done, and all those civilians do pay taxes to help the USA out, and would easily give moral supports to the troops if prompted. Therefore, it is okay to do such a thing...to them at least.

To your credit however, many radical imams who are in support of fundmenatlist elements of Islam do share your belief, Nancy. These imams state in public that civilians should not be harmed (due to it violating the rules of Jihad), and that only American/Israeli/[western] Troops should be killed. It is unknown however, exactly how many people listen to these imams.

Do we see innocent Muslims as legitimate targets in war? Have Christians sought to kill anyone who wasn't one? Well maybe back when they were stupid, the Crusades. But certainly things such as September 11, suicide bombings, they are against the Quran, it speaks out against killing yourself and certainly people do not listen to the whole picture. They take one quote and use it to justify their actions while ignoring the entire passage, quoting out of context.

Do we see innocent Muslims as legitimate targets in war? Have Christians sought to kill anyone who wasn't one? Well maybe back when they were stupid, the Crusades. But certainly things such as September 11, suicide bombings, they are against the Quran, it speaks out against killing yourself and certainly people do not listen to the whole picture. They take one quote and use it to justify their actions while ignoring the entire passage, quoting out of context.
I see that in christianity all the time, and in America as a whole on the news almost every day as reasons to justify a new law or bill trying to be passed. People interpret passages out of the holy books and create their own idiology out of it, justifying any act of political or physicial violence upon other people.

And as far as I am concerned, our bombing of Iraq in the first few weeks of the war (Which killed a few thousand civilians and put many towns into distress or plain rubble) is a good example of us attacking civilians to prove a political/religious/military or whatever reason for being in the war in the first place. Civilians die in conflicts and neither side is ever more to blame for it. I would still say to this day that our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inhuman and crimes against humanity even though we did them right after finding out about the Holocaust.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. They are willing to die for their cause just as much as are troops are. Does that make them possibily more patriotic than our troops? Does that make them that much more loyal to their beliefs because they are willing to kill themselves for their idea of what right is? Looking at these people simply as killers and murderers is not the way this should go. Everybody is a still human, and thus follows what they believe to be the right and wrong. Right and wrong is different for every single person, even though society likes to think it has the right way to run things. This applies to everybody from a Nazi to a child learning right and wrong. Yes, I said Nazi. Gonna hit me now?

Freedom. Freedom to believe what you want, freedom to say what you want. I do not support terrorists in any shape or form, from the muslim extremists to our own American Military. If we want to spread freedom around the world, I think the first step to take is try and understand why people think differently from us and how that can be used to help bring humanity together as a whole.

Do not be so quick to judge and say that just because you are on one side that it is instantly more right and justified than the other.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

But certainly things such as September 11, suicide bombings, they are against the Quran, it speaks out against killing yourself and certainly people do not listen to the whole picture. They take one quote and use it to justify their actions while ignoring the entire passage, quoting out of context.


To be perfectly blunt that isn't entirely true, there is something called a Jihad where it is stated in the Quran (Koran or however you want to spell it) that if you die in Jihad (doesn't matter if it is suicide bombing), kill infidels (includes butchering children) you go to paradise with 50 beautiful virgins to serve your every want. At least that's how it can and is interpretted by Muslim extremists. Also this isn't just taking one passage, it is actually clearly stated that in the Quran in a manner that it can be construed that this is the correct interpretation.

To make matters worse the extremists also brainwash children at an early age to want to be suicide bombers when they grow up, to them life is cheap.

Muslim extremist groups like Al-Qaeda are terrified that the United States will succeed in Iraq. Cause if the United States manages to get a stable republic in Iraq it will deal them a serious blow when it comes to recruitment to say the least, furthermore it may cause internal problems in Iran and Syria whose governments support terrorism.

...you go to paradise with 50 beautiful virgins to serve your every want.

I'd always heard 72. Frankly, 2-3 women are bad enough (sorry gals), but 50 or 72 may be more than they can handle. Would make for some interesting cat fights :naughty: :blast9: :blaze6: :lsduel: :uzi2: :blueblas1 :hatchrun: :p

On a more serious note, the atomic bombings of Japan were less of a crime than the alternative of mass starvation. Conditional surrender was about as likely as if the Nazi's had floated the idea they'dve surrendered as long as Hitler et al went unpunished. Unclear about the link between the Holocaust and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, as the Japanese didn't commit those atrocities.

And as far as I am concerned, our bombing of Iraq in the first few weeks of the war (Which killed a few thousand civilians and put many towns into distress or plain rubble) is a good example of us attacking civilians to prove a political/religious/military or whatever reason for being in the war in the first place.

Jup, Iraq was bad, but I haven't heard an instance of something along the lines of "The target is the town of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be gunned down. They are unarmed". I think they were striking at military targets in civillian areas, like your local National Guard or reserve forces depot, as opposed to something with absolutely no military value.

I would still say to this day that our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inhuman and crimes against humanity even though we did them right after finding out about the Holocaust.

I'll put this again as it cannot be given enough emphesis: war is hell. The evidence is right before you. With Hiroshima, certainly scaring the Japanese into surrendering, as opposed to a repeat of Normandy or leaving it be, was a monsterous thing to do, I'm not sure if I would say monsterous in terms of scale or in terms of it being a horrendous act, there arn't easy answers to what was done. War is hell.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. They are willing to die for their cause just as much as are troops are. Does that make them possibily more patriotic than our troops? Does that make them that much more loyal to their beliefs because they are willing to kill themselves for their idea of what right is?

When you want to look at what people who have not gone through any formal military training do, I think you only have to look as far as whether or not they take the fight to those who cannot defend themselves against such an attack. The Iraqi Insurgents for example, their main focus is driving out the invading forces and their attacks would be centred on American military. They commit acts on civillians and where civillians would be harmed as well, and that is wrong. September 11 on the other hand, unlike the USS Cole or the Beirut barracks this was simple murder of civillians in peace time. The Pentagon, depending on which target was planned for Flight 93, military targets. What military value did the World Trade Centre have?

Looking at these people simply as killers and murderers is not the way this should go. Everybody is a still human, and thus follows what they believe to be the right and wrong. Right and wrong is different for every single person, even though society likes to think it has the right way to run things.

Society by and large live by and follow the rules that govern it. Most people don't go postal over things they disagree with and those who do should be dealt with so that people, including your friends and family, will not be harmed and they do not have to have that fear.

This applies to everybody from a Nazi to a child learning right and wrong. Yes, I said Nazi. Gonna hit me now?

Well there goes me trying to avert Godwin's Law. I think a few people would do more than that for such a comment, but for me, we look at the typical Nazi soldier and they really arn't that diffirent to the Allied forces. The evil lay with people such as the SS Gestapo, who were really not soldiers but thugs given guns and athority under Hitler. The people who desecrated historical places and archealogical digs to promote Nazi propoganda. The people who brought Hitler to power through tactics similar to Alphonse Capone, and of course Hitler himself.

If we want to spread freedom around the world, I think the first step to take is try and understand why people think differently from us and how that can be used to help bring humanity together as a whole.

Well said. I'd take it a step further and in terms of the conflict make the reason for it out of the equation, make the source of it all irrelevent. Example? Okay, Israel, the conflict over the land. To use a specific example the Goland Heights, a patch of land that war had been waged over for years. What if Israel were to make the Goland Heights irrelevent, by say bombing the place? That way the Syrians would no longer want it and Israel gets to keep it, making them very happy. How would they get away with it? Israel's policy of first strike against threats to their country, such as bioloigical weapons, that had been 'detected' in the Goland Heights. It's convuluted but you get the idea.

To be perfectly blunt that isn't entirely true, there is something called a Jihad where it is stated in the Quran (Koran or however you want to spell it) that if you die in Jihad (doesn't matter if it is suicide bombing), kill infidels (includes butchering children) you go to paradise with 50 beautiful virgins to serve your every want.

That's one interpretation of Jihad. Another is total submission, commitment to a cause. Similar to Christians completely surrendering to God.

I think a large part of the problem, for any religion, is whether to interpret what is written as stories of religion and the lessons we should take away from them, or these stories telling us this is how it should be. The lessons themselves would come under scrutiny for the possibility of them being the wrong one. 'Those who do not follow this religion shall surely be put to death' as opposed to 'do not steal'. Even then, are we talking about not getting into heaven, paradise, or going out to kill anyone who doesn't follow that religion?

Muslim extremist groups like Al-Qaeda are terrified that the United States will succeed in Iraq.

Ditto for Israel, as it shows that Democracy works in the Middle East and as well as the points you made, if America succeeds in Iraq that's further evidence.

I'd always heard 72. Frankly, 2-3 women are bad enough (sorry gals), but 50 or 72 may be more than they can handle.

You called it down, so...men should just get one woman. A Bastila or a Handmaiden or a Mira, or a Mara or a Padme, who could break their kneecap with just the right amount of thumb pressure.

Yeah, 72. Sounds like hell to me, after two or three they'd want a woman who knew what she was doing.

The Japanese did commit attrocities during WW II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre)

Jup, Iraq was bad, but I haven't heard an instance of something along the lines of "The target is the town of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be gunned down. They are unarmed". I think they were striking at military targets in civillian areas, like your local National Guard or reserve forces depot, as opposed to something with absolutely no military value.
True, and I meant it more in the way they will always be in the crossfire in our wars and battles opposed to us gunning them down. We arn't choosing them specifically, but large amounts of civilians still die even when we honestly try to avoid them.

I'll put this again as it cannot be given enough emphesis: war is hell. The evidence is right before you. With Hiroshima, certainly scaring the Japanese into surrendering, as opposed to a repeat of Normandy or leaving it be, was a monsterous thing to do, I'm not sure if I would say monsterous in terms of scale or in terms of it being a horrendous act, there arn't easy answers to what was done. War is hell.
Agreed.

When you want to look at what people who have not gone through any formal military training do, I think you only have to look as far as whether or not they take the fight to those who cannot defend themselves against such an attack. The Iraqi Insurgents for example, their main focus is driving out the invading forces and their attacks would be centred on American military. They commit acts on civillians and where civillians would be harmed as well, and that is wrong. September 11 on the other hand, unlike the USS Cole or the Beirut barracks this was simple murder of civillians in peace time. The Pentagon, depending on which target was planned for Flight 93, military targets. What military value did the World Trade Centre have?
I agree with you. But we also attacked Iraq back with bombs and explosives the first few days of battle. I would think, from their perspective, the civilians saw us as a huge threat and terrorists coming in and attacking their country. Now, I understand that around this day most of them see us as being there to help, even though they do not like us there. The insurgents and fighters throughout Iraq who are targeting Americans either do it for the fun of it, or do it to get us out of their country as we were the terrorists to their lives first. The plan to take down the towers was probably planned by a select group of people and at first we were searching for them, but then is suddenly turned into all out battle with Iraq out of nowhere. Seems a little odd from both perspectives to me.

Well there goes me trying to avert Godwin's Law. I think a few people would do more than that for such a comment, but for me, we look at the typical Nazi soldier and they really arn't that diffirent to the Allied forces. The evil lay with people such as the SS Gestapo, who were really not soldiers but thugs given guns and athority under Hitler. The people who desecrated historical places and archealogical digs to promote Nazi propoganda. The people who brought Hitler to power through tactics similar to Alphonse Capone, and of course Hitler himself.
I'm glad I am not the only one that can see it like that. By the way, what are Godwin's laws? I know one of them is a Nazi one, but from others I know about it simply looks like a set of stuff to win or lose a debate... to which it is impossible to win a debate because if you could it would be a competition.

Ditto for Israel, as it shows that Democracy works in the Middle East and as well as the points you made, if America succeeds in Iraq that's further evidence.
But what if it doesn't, as a simply hypothetical question? If we cannot manage to get democracy going in the places we go to liberate, should we continue to try and liberate at the cost of more civilian and american lives? It's a hard question to me. People should have the option of freedom, but a vendetta to get democracy to all corners of the world sounds similar to the Soviet Union trying to spread communism as far as it could go.

You called it down, so...men should just get one woman. A Bastila or a Handmaiden or a Mira, or a Mara or a Padme, who could break their kneecap with just the right amount of thumb pressure.

Yeah, 72. Sounds like hell to me, after two or three they'd want a woman who knew what she was doing.
Haha, yeah. I'd think that would get dull after the first few.

Do we see innocent Muslims as legitimate targets in war? Have Christians sought to kill anyone who wasn't one? Well maybe back when they were stupid, the Crusades. But certainly things such as September 11, suicide bombings, they are against the Quran, it speaks out against killing yourself and certainly people do not listen to the whole picture. They take one quote and use it to justify their actions while ignoring the entire passage, quoting out of context.Ah but we have something that the insurgents and terrorists do not recognize at all: Geneva convention. It is rather an unspoken rule that to target civilians in a manner like that of Sept 11 is abhorrent.
However we have to look at other incidents that we claimed were acts of butchery and yet we argue over the legitimacy of it. Such an example is the slaughter at Mai Lai where US soldiers killed civilians. Now the reasoning behind it was the fact that in Vietnam, you didn't know who was your friend or the enemy. Of course I have not had to serve so maybe I don't understand the circumstances since I see it right now at a moral standpoint that it is wrong. If you want to be bold, it could be considered an act of revenge since we have the stories about POWs in Vietnam and what the Vietcong used in terms of tactics.

But we also attacked Iraq back with bombs and explosives the first few days of battle. I would think, from their perspective, the civilians saw us as a huge threat and terrorists coming in and attacking their country. Now, I understand that around this day most of them see us as being there to help, even though they do not like us there.
Yes and did you know that the people who were dancing in the streets of Baghdad were not people who lived there? They were actually Kurds from the north recruited by the Amer. soldiers. The people of Baghdad were too terrified to come out of their homes.

I agree with you. But we also attacked Iraq back with bombs and explosives the first few days of battle. I would think, from their perspective, the civilians saw us as a huge threat and terrorists coming in and attacking their country. Now, I understand that around this day most of them see us as being there to help, even though they do not like us there. The insurgents and fighters throughout Iraq who are targeting Americans either do it for the fun of it, or do it to get us out of their country as we were the terrorists to their lives first. The plan to take down the towers was probably planned by a select group of people and at first we were searching for them, but then is suddenly turned into all out battle with Iraq out of nowhere. Seems a little odd from both perspectives to me.


That explains the people pulling down statues of Saddam and cheering in the street. Seriously, Iraqis are more afraid of the insurgents than they are of US troops. Even when we invaded most Iraqis were glad that we took down Saddam.

The plan to take down the towers was probably planned by a select group of people and at first we were searching for them, but then is suddenly turned into all out battle with Iraq out of nowhere. Seems a little odd from both perspectives to me.

I think it was because of the failure in finding Bin Laden, part of the reason was to take our minds off that and instead have us concentrate on Iraq. In that sense, maybe a little bit of Phantom Menace there, maybe Bush is a bit of a Star Wars fan, I'm not going to draw the comparison, someone else can.

By the way, what are Godwin's laws? I know one of them is a Nazi one, but from others I know about it simply looks like a set of stuff to win or lose a debate... to which it is impossible to win a debate because if you could it would be a competition.

"As a thread goes on, the possibility of a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis approaches one". It's something that is used, and abused, where the debate is over whenever it was mentioned and whoever brought it up had lost the debate. For example, making a comparison to Bush and Hitler, well the perspective of such a comparison ranges from a loss of perspective to a lack of grasp on history to a flame against Bush or someone who supports Bush, in this example. A couple of forums even block the use of Nazi and Hitler, not allowing you to post if you use those words.

But what if it doesn't, as a simply hypothetical question? If we cannot manage to get democracy going in the places we go to liberate, should we continue to try and liberate at the cost of more civilian and american lives?

That's part of the reason the Insurgents and Al Qaeda forces who have rocked up to Iraq to kill Americans are fighting, in the hopes to defeat America and make them fail in their bid to end the bloodshed. It would be a huge political victory if America had caused the problem and then cannot fix it.

People should have the option of freedom, but a vendetta to get democracy to all corners of the world sounds similar to the Soviet Union trying to spread communism as far as it could go.

I wouldn't call it a vendetta. Saddam was a monster, no question, but by the same token America could be seen as imposing their views on the Iraqis.

I think it was because of the failure in finding Bin Laden, part of the reason was to take our minds off that and instead have us concentrate on Iraq. In that sense, maybe a little bit of Phantom Menace there, maybe Bush is a bit of a Star Wars fan, I'm not going to draw the comparison, someone else can.
Hmm, interesting.

"As a thread goes on, the possibility of a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis approaches one". It's something that is used, and abused, where the debate is over whenever it was mentioned and whoever brought it up had lost the debate. For example, making a comparison to Bush and Hitler, well the perspective of such a comparison ranges from a loss of perspective to a lack of grasp on history to a flame against Bush or someone who supports Bush, in this example. A couple of forums even block the use of Nazi and Hitler, not allowing you to post if you use those words.
That seems a little silly, and in my opinion a little immature. We need to accept what happened in the past as fact, and fact can be used as compairisons to other facts or beliefs to prove a point. Nazi Germany was indeed a terrible force with taking over Europe and the Holocaust, but one of the only reasons we really care so much about the Holocaust is that is it the largest documented genocide on record. Now, I could use what the Japanese did to China as an example, what al-Bashir is currently doing to Sudan, what Stalin did to Russia, and so on and so forth.
Now, I would not in any way compair Bush to Hitler. That is just crazy and I would agree that people who would go that far need to be watched. But banning the mere idea of Nazism from a forum is just ignorant I think. You should not ban people who mention Nazi's if the point is good, but instead be at least praised a little for daring to mention them in the first place.
Mentioning Nazi's makes you lose a debate... that is wrong in so many ways. For 1#, a debate cannot be won. It is a debate, not a competition and anybody who views it as such is simply being an internet troll. Like I said, there are so many other examples of people just as bad as the Nazis and banning the use of them in a debate is silly imo. I compaired a baby to a nazi to express that they are both human beings, not that the Nazi is Bush or any other strange and unfounded claim.

That's part of the reason the Insurgents and Al Qaeda forces who have rocked up to Iraq to kill Americans are fighting, in the hopes to defeat America and make them fail in their bid to end the bloodshed. It would be a huge political victory if America had caused the problem and then cannot fix it.
Good point.

That explains the people pulling down statues of Saddam and cheering in the street. Seriously, Iraqis are more afraid of the insurgents than they are of US troops. Even when we invaded most Iraqis were glad that we took down Saddam.
We Americans love to assume that Iraq was basically another holocaust before we arived to save the day. I will not deny that conflict was raging through out the country with Saddam helping it along, but the bloodshed was never as far and wide and intense as it is now after the Americans invaded. The insurgents, or at least the majority of them, are Iraqi people that took up arms to fight against the terrorists attacking their county and killing their people. To them the terrorists are us, the Americans. To us, the terrorists are them. It is a vicious circle that does nothing but cause bloodshed and loss. We both assume eachother to be freedom fighters, both our news spreading propaganda into the people to hate eachother more and more and fuel this "war" effort until one side gives up.
Believe it or not, but many places in Iraq (like Baghdad) were actually calm and peaceful. I will not say the country was at peace because it that would be a lie, but it was a lot safer. I will try and find the article with the quote saying close to "When Saddam was in power, I could walk down the street, talk to friends, and buy food. After the Americans attacked, I can no longer walk outside my house without hearing gunfire and fearing that I am next."
Sure, we got rid of Saddam. We are still there, people are still dieing, and it seems irrelevant at this point as the killing keeps going on despite him being in power or not.

Yes and did you know that the people who were dancing in the streets of Baghdad were not people who lived there? They were actually Kurds from the north recruited by the Amer. soldiers. The people of Baghdad were too terrified to come out of their homes.
I wouldn't doubt it. I would be terrified out of my wits if a group of people from overseas bombed my next door neighbor and city, then came in with tanks and guns telling us "Hey, we bombed you... but we are here to save you from your bad leader and give you a brand new government system."

The plan to take down the towers was probably planned by a select group of people and at first we were searching for them, but then is suddenly turned into all out battle with Iraq out of nowhere. Seems a little odd from both perspectives to me.
But why Afghanistan? From what I know, the people that hijacked those planes were Saudis. Why not go after the faction in Saudi Arabia? The answer is that Bush was in tight with the Saudis. I mean on a business level.

People should have the option of freedom, but a vendetta to get democracy to all corners of the world sounds similar to the Soviet Union trying to spread communism as far as it could go.
Do you remember Woodrow Wilson? Well he was the one who started this idea of making the world safe for democracy. His ideas are still prevalent today but people see America as arrogant. It is like the Communists saying that communism is the best way well aren't we trying to say that democracy is the best way?

But why Afghanistan? From what I know, the people that hijacked those planes were Saudis. Why not go after the faction in Saudi Arabia?

Osama Bin Laden, leader of the ruling Taliban and boasting about the attacks, was in Afghanistan. I wonder if it's less a case of an arguement between the terrorists being Afghani or Saudi and more a case of the patchwork of Islamist terrorists, people who have joined the Taliban and Al Qaeda, such a large number of the terrorists and the training camps were in Afghanistan and rather than bomb the country most of the hijackers came from (whether or not Saudi Arabia supplied the terrorists or not) and instead liberate Afghanistan and deal a crippling blow to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Osama Bin Laden, leader of the ruling Taliban and boasting about the attacks, was in Afghanistan. I wonder if it's less a case of an arguement between the terrorists being Afghani or Saudi and more a case of the patchwork of Islamist terrorists, people who have joined the Taliban and Al Qaeda, such a large number of the terrorists and the training camps were in Afghanistan and rather than bomb the country most of the hijackers came from (whether or not Saudi Arabia supplied the terrorists or not) and instead liberate Afghanistan and deal a crippling blow to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Osama Bin Laden was not the leader of the Taliban, he's the leader of Al Qaeda. He was friends with the leader of the Taliban whom refused to hand him over to the US after 9/11.

The rest of what you said, I agree with.