Are you willing to fight and/or die for your country?

[Sgt. Boomer]

\"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.\" - John Stuart Mill

isoFlux Wrote:anyways, in a nutshell, the causes we seem to be fighting for since WWII have not been worthy of my, or anybody else\'s, death or suffering.

So you think the Vietnamese didn’t suffer under Communism? Or the Iraqis under Sadam? There were lots of Germans who were perfectly content under Hitler. The Nazi’s never invaded America and were willing to make peace with Britain in 1940. Have you ever given any thought to what made that war worth fighting under your criteria? Didn\'t fighting Nazism cause a lot of suffering and destruction?

isoFlux Wrote:if i get drafted i will do one of two things: extend my studies in Germany, or move to new zealand (the Canadian border is gonna look like the Iron Curtain). i refuse to fight and die for something as petty as oil and fake WMDs.

So I guess you wouldn’t call the police if somebody stole your computer or your car or anything else right? Colonial wars are not about oil or trade. They’re about rule of law, ownership of property- physical and intellectual- and fair return on investment and every other economic principle that has created the wealth we enjoy today. Not that Vietnam or Iraq were colonial wars (not entirely), they were about defeating ideologies that enslaved and/or killed millions and threatened the U.S.

And before any Marxist hypocrites post that all property is theft, make sure you’ve given away your computer, internet connection, etc, and are living(starving actually) in a mud hut in a third-world country somewhere.

If you honestly don’t believe terrorism is an imminent threat, fine, I hope your right. But few people believed Germany was a threat in 1937.

Freedom is something you may not be able to fully understand when you have it, but if you ever loose it you’ll know. And if you’re not willing to fight and perhaps die for freedom, you could find yourself one day with no choice but to fight for a tyrant. (Germany or Russia ring a bell?)

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” - Leon Trotsky

[isoFlux]

people suffer. people suffer more under corrupt and inefficient forms of government. nice point. but does that mean that it is America\'s job to invade them and induce culture shock at gunpoint? just because a country implements a shitty form of government doesnt mean that those people want, need, or are ready for democratic elections and Burger King.

Iraq isn\'t about \"freeing the Iraqi people\". its an imperialist venture to help secure the most needed natural resource. period. Iraq didn\'t threaten the U.S. More people have died during the US/Coalition invasion and occupation than in Saddam\'s rule. If you think this war is about all that ideological nonsense about \"freeing all those poor Iraqi slaves\", then open a history book. the US has had a very specific and focused interest in the Middle East since the end of WWII. excluding our support of Zionism, none of our policies, actions, and whatnot have ever supported \"freedom in the Middle East\". the Middle East is the breadbasket for industrialized countries. it\'s no coincidence that rencent the political amd military actions in Iraq were set forth by oil jockies tightly involved in the Middle East have decided to sacrifice thousands of lives to obtain political, social, and economic control over a cache of resources.

Nazi Germany invaded 9 countries in 1939 (including North Africa). they formed and implemented the most gruesome form of mass genocide known to man, and kept a tight and unwanted grip on all of it\'s territories.

our military actions since WW2 have not been defending and liberating millions of people from a corrupt, destructive, and unjust form of totalitarianism. all they have done is disrupt, polarize, and destory cultures and people for petty political reasons. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. i dont think all the lives lost for those wars were worth their outcomes. Korea so far is the only pseudo-success story, and even then there are some catches.

how does the theft of my personal property have anything to do with corrupt, paid-off politicians who crack the whip and send soldiers off to die and kill, all of whom have absolutly NO concept of what that invasion will do to those people? no american can fully understand and conceptualize the effect of total war on a country. we just have our big-wigs sign a piece of paper, a few of us see some of our loved-ones off, and then we know that a bunch of people in a far-off land where most of us can\'t even point out on a map will be \"FREE \". because thats what its all about, right? telling other people how to do things. at gunpoint. whether they want it or not.

right. fuck that. i\'m not going to fight and die so Bush and his cronies\' stock will go up a few points.

Freedom is good. Democratic Socialism + Capitalism is good. but cultures dont change on a dime. and wars don\'t make the process any easier. Europeans learned what war can do to peoples\' cultures, lives, families, homes, and futures over and over and over again. it\'s no wonder they are the ones who are generally opposed to a country who has never learned about war invading countries just because they feel like it.

[Yellowbelly]

BS. Iraq was not about a much needed natural resource. If we were that desperate, we would have drilled in Alaska.

If this was an imperialistic war so America could take over and control a nation, then why is it having elections to vote for its OWN PRESIDENT.

This war wasn\'t all about WMD\'s. The War was about ending a dictatorship that was a thread to the US and Israel because the dicatator was harboring and aiding terrorists.

Some say that Iraq wasn\'t a threat. But the WHOLE CLINTON administration said it was. John Kerry said it was, Hilary, Colin Powel, a bunch of cabinent members, and Bill himself.

Saddam broke tons of UN sanctions. We shouldn\'t have had to fight this war, but we had to because the UN wouldn\'t. They were making too much money off of Iraq\'s oil.

[Yellowbelly]

\"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad\'s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.\" -Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

\"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.\" -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

\"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it.\"
—Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector; Jan. 27, 2003


\"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.\"
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

\"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq\'s weapons of mass destruction program.\"
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

\"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.\"
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

\"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.\"
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

\"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq\'s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.\"
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

\"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.\"
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

\"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.\"
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

\"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.\"
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

\"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.\"
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

\"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.\"
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

\"Iraq\'s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.\"
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

\"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.\"
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

\"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...\"
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

\"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.\"
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

\"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.\"
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

\"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do\"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

\"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.\"
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

\"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.\"
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

\"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America\'s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...\"
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Now, all of the sudden, these people will deny what they said about Iraq and completely trash it so Bush will get fewer votes.

[=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD]

SoulSurfer Wrote:all these people saying no, are you saying that in a WWIII scale of war where you were fighting for the freedom of yourself and your country and if you failed you faced opression and mistreatment, you would sit back and do nothing?

You obviously have to read the thread from the start to get the full picture. For example the posts where several of our fine, fine members stated that they would not fight a war UNLESS it was a good/evil choice like WW2. I suggest u do just that.

[=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD]

The_Punisher Wrote:I dissagree. The UN is a good idea, it\'s just filled full of stereotypical wussie europeans.

The new UN needs to realize that it is *THE* world power and will smash anyone into the ground who does something they shouldn\'t.

Yeah, yeah, wave your bright red flag, have a laugh, be a complete dick.

Lets see how that wussie, liberal-darling way of politics worked for you the last time the USA flirted with actual governing. (from the White House chonicles):

\"During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country\'s history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.\"

And how do you find the situation to be now, tough guy?

Oh, and the UN were founded to ensure that we never would see a war like WW2 again, through diplomacy, communication and understanding. It was not founded to be a world police man.

BTW have you ever considred a career in the police force? I think you might fit right in!

[Smithcraft]

Turbs, I think your source is mildly confused. Otherwise, fight the good fight!

Truman was elected for a second term, as was Johnson. Although both of their first terms were a bit special, they were still re-elected to continue what they were doing.

And Pun, before you go flaunting the word \"stereotypical\" around, you should look at the what the stereotypical American is.

SC

[=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD]

My source is the white house homepage.

I would imagine they had their facts straight! But anyhoo, I was flaunting the unprecendented economical statistics of 8 years of largely minding own bidniss.

Otherwise, i?d like to refrase my last bit about the UN. Sure, they are supposed to be a policeman of sorts, a peacekeeper and protector. But I don?t think being a fascist bully-boy is on the top of its to-do list!

[isoFlux]

wow great. politicians? try gathering some real facts before quoting those corrupt, lobbied liars. i dont trust Bush, i didnt trust Clinton, i dont trust Kerry, and i sure as hell don\'t trust anybody who was on the Board or the payroll of some of the biggest oil and arms corporations in the world. if you choose your facts by looking at what politicians say, then you are doing exactly what they want you to do: listen to them without proof. do your scientific duty and don\'t assume something to be true on what somebody else says. thats called faith. go to your local University Library and crack open a peer-edited, unbiased, history book written by somebody of merit. read about US postwar political and military actions in the Middle East, and stop quoting that rhetorical trash. politicians are lying scumbags, no matter what affiliation they say they are.

you call those puppets in office in Iraq their \"OWN PRESIDENT\"? again, read your history. the US has a knack for inserting a puppet into a public, powerful office of a foreign subsidiary, and then assasinating, capturing or invading them later. this is no different. that \"president\" will be in power so long as he wears an American suit and praises Western values. when he doesnt, or decides to go maverick on our ass, he\'ll dissapear from the radar.

where are they? where are all these weapons? do they have them up their ass? what were they (the mass media) screaming before the war started \"THEY HAVE WMDs AND WILL USE THEM ON US UNLESS WE ACT NOW NOW NOW!\" then we get there, and we find, what, 2-3 barrels of industrial waste? lol... sorry, the gap between what politicians say and actual truth is quite large.

the more you listen to our \"leaders\" blindly and without scientific investigation, the more you deny yourself the biggest catch-phrase of 21st century America: freedom. you are free to disagree (or agree) with your leaders. thats the beauty of it. just because you can doesnt mean you should, however, but my point is: dont believe everything you hear/read from these lying scumfucks. they are paid to say what they say, and dont give two shits about logical, analytical presentation of facts.

here, ill jump into the quoting-club. only this time i\'ll quote something that makes you think, not something that tells you what to think.

\"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.\"
-Soren Kierkegaard

[=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD]

And who/what is this rant in response to? if it is my post you surely are quite mad and/or drunk.