Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by curunir's bane, Mar 11, 2004.
Saying that they waste their lives over there is a ****ing disgrace, they don't waste their life.
They are, are they achieving anything by dying? It isn't improving the situation in Iraq.
Ok, keep thinking that.
yes, but guess what, you sign up for the military knowing that you might be called to war, and in war people die. they sign up knowing they can die, and i respect that they choose to protect our country and give us the rights that we have.
Wow. For once I'm actually agreeing with Harbringer.
How can you waste your life if you die for your country?
Would you rather a bunch of terrorist come and fly an air plane into your house?
Ah, but that's the problem, you see? They're dying for a cause, but their deaths are doing nothing to improve the situation. How does handing out free human targets for the terrorists prevent them from launching an attack on the U.S.?
I had 2 points there. My first was that they were not wasting there life fighting for a cause.
And my other point was, that we are preventing the terrorist from destroying America.
And if this war is somehow going on when I'm 18, I'll sure as hell be out there "wasting my life" as some people are putting it.
Are we? Please elaborate.
Let me make this clear: I hold great respect for the men and women fighting for our country. I do not, however, respect the way that our government is using them. Let's take the "dying for their country" thing out for a moment. If you're a world leader, then you need to think of your soldiers, not only as people, but as resources. If a ship was sinking, would you continue to load your resources--food, coins, soldiers--onto it? No. If you could, you would repair the ship. If not, you would abandon it.
Have you seen any other sucesful attacks on U.S.?
Not directly, thanks to the Brits. What I do see is that we are, in a sense, attacking ourselves by continueing to send money and troops to Iraq. But hey, that's how it works.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."--Groucho Marx
I read this on the news, it encapsulates some of the main problems a "free democratic" Iraq faces. People putting sectarian violence above the greater good.
Aside from Iraq's domestic internal and domestic problems, and our utter and complete failure to accomplish anything there that we claimed we would (except of course for for getting rid of saddam, and hey a civil war is sooooo much better), Iraq does serve one useful purpose in terms of the war on terror. Yes, our war there very probably has helped prevent further terrorist attacks on US soil, BUT not because it decreases the hatred towards America in the Middle East, not because it decreases the number of terrorists or terrorist attacks, not because it at all decreases the motivation toward terrorism against the US. Rather it has increased all these things. The war there has helped prevent attacks in the US by giving terrorists much easier and closer (to them) targets. Why take all the risk and use all the resources to plan a complex attack in America that has a much smaller chance of success, when you can just kill Americans in Iraq, and at the same time continue to embarrass them and increase discontent and dismantle their efforts, etc. Basically they can achieve most of their goals with a high chance of success and with way less effort. So the death of US soldiers does to some extent protect us. And some will say that this is a perfectly acceptable sacrifice, they signed up to risk their lives to protect us. But to me, they are not risking their lives to protect us, to me we are sending them out as sacrificial lambs to die in our place. To me this is not what the military is for and not what soldiers should be giving their lives for, not what we should be giving their lives for. To me this isn't much different than ancient civilizations throwing anointed virgins over cliffs to save themselves from the gods' wrath. Its nice to see we humans have come so far.
ok what is up with this "war on terror" is it really a war to stop terror or a clever plot to seize more oil for the U.S's falling supplies I personally think the latter is true
Please do a quick search for existing threads before creating a new one. Thanks.
sorry but back to topic bush has made a little progress in the killing of Osama Bin Ladin but now there is no reason to stay though i may not be of voting age I think everyone should vote for a candidate that is opposed to the war regardless of what party there in
When the allied forces pull out of Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over, and this is what we will get:
10 years spent, military and civilian lives lost, billions or trillions of dollars spent, and once we leave, all we're going to get is an implosion of the corrupt Afghan government, and the Taliban taking over again. The world will rightly ask why we went there, although something needed to be done, was this the right place to go and the right thing to do?
Humans aren't very clever at learning from history.
That my friend,is the truth.10 years of war,so many people died....and for what?Why are the Taliban coming back?Why is there an almost "infinite" amount of Taliban being recruited all the time?Why aren't the Western forces and the Afghan Army winning?
Was it a lost case from the beginning?Is there something the Western forces there can do to win this war?
There's one war on terror that can be won and that's in Kosovo...let the Serbs reclaim their province and send all these drug lords and terrorists back to Albania or wherever they came from...
These are not my words but a reader's post on a news article. Very well put though. The "war on terror" has probably radicalised more marginals than would have otherwise occured. However, once it started, you can't simply walk away. So it becomes a big mess that you kind of can't stop.
Separate names with a comma.