|
Has war had any honor since WWII?
No, its been political the point is how can you suport the life choice and the death of people |
[QUOTE=chaibill;599383]Has war had any honor since WWII?
No, its been political the point is how can you suport the life choice and the death of people[/QUOTE MEDIA, like The National Public Radio, has made the Iraq war POLITICAL! |
[QUOTE=paws the great;599385]
Quote:
|
Quote:
Children who die as a result of war are NOT targetted and killed purposely (unborn babies are)...Killing children is NOT the goal of ANY war, But killing babies IS the goal of EVERY abortion Children in Iraq are taught at the age of 5 how to use a gun and a rocket launcher...They are trained their entire lives to kill US... Children in Iraq are killed EVERY DAY by their own governments (and the leading religious clerics) for 'misbehaving'...They have their hands chopped off for stealing a piece of food because they're starving...Teenaged girls have acid thrown in their faces if their hair is peeking out from under their hoods...If a girl is raped, her father is ordered to chop her head off because she is 'impure', he does...and everyone has to come to the local soccer arena to WATCH...ESPECIALLY the children, in order to 'teach them a lesson' Their way of life is very different from ours...I'm not saying that being different is wrong, I'm just saying that THEIR differences are DANGEROUS to US and their surrounding countries...Their kids don't have a chance as it is...SOOO In order for us to be SAFE, they have to STOP trying to kill us (and themselves, and each other, and everyone around them) and stop training their children to do that, too...However, they do not WANT to stop, and until they can be either persuaded or FORCED to stop, how will this ever end? People are being killed in Iraq because they are a VERY serious threat to us, and just about the entire world (the children are killed on accident)...Babies are being killed here, because they're an inconvenience (the babies are killed on purpose) That being said...I don't get the comparison in the first place, and I could ask the opposite of you..."Why are so many who don't care if our babies are killed by abortion...So concerned that Iraqi babies are killed by war?"....Kinda stupid, huh?...It makes just about as much sense as the reciprocated question Oh...As for the 'political' thing...War doesn't exactly make people POPULAR...Sometimes, it's a necessary evil...And in case no one informed you...War is dangerous...People die in a war |
"they" implies all. that is just ignorant that is why i wrote "most of" in my posts
there are some people in the mideast that want rights for women and all the freedoms of the west but the area is just so tanted with all the backwards thinking of the majority just saying that it is silly to say there should be no abortion allowed it will never happen weather you support it or not. like the USA going neutral BR can we closethis post say it got too political or something |
Quote:
And...I never said "there should be no abortion", doesn't matter to me if other people want to kill their babies or not (I mean it's sad, it's disgusting, and the babies don't deserve it...But, I'm not going to anyone's house and telling them to stop it), MINE are healthy and happy, and that's what matters to ME...But, if I DID say that, it's my opinion and I have every right to say it...Incidentally, the participants of Roe VS Wade who fought to make abortion legal, are CONSTANTLY saying that there should be no abortion...It is deeply regretted now, and the main figure in that case has attempted suicide many times because she feels guilty about it As for a topic being 'too political'...Many forums do not allow Politics, Religion, or other 'Touchy Subjects' to be discussed...This isn't one of those forums...We're allowed to speak our minds here, as long as we can do that without attacking each other...I believe we can... |
Quote:
I wonder who'll celebrate America's defeat in Iraq more...........Al-Qaeda or the pro-choice groups? |
Quote:
I'm pro-choice and I would NOT celebrate America's defeat in Iraq. It is a very dangerous area over there, and it very dangerous for our troops to be there. And I don't think we will actually "win" over there. The people in that area of the world, don't care who they kill, they'll kill Americans, each other and themselves. They think it's honorable. Very difficult to win against people with that mindset. But to just up and pull out, oh and annouce that date of when it's supposed to start happening, would be a very foolish thing to do. It's sadly a bit of a no-win situation, but I think we need to be over there for at least a little while longer to hopefully help to get SOME type of order established for them. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
None of the countries surrounding them 'invaded their country' but they are constantly killing THEM, too We need weapons to protect ourselves...They want weapons to kill everyone...Hussein killed over 6,000 of his OWN people with chemical weapons |
but it wasn't our fight was it. It was happening in their country, so going in there, taking it over and letting innocent people die doesn't seem like a good idea to me. And let's not forget the countless friendly fires on our side.
|
Quote:
As for friendly-fire, that happens in war, too (No, that doesn't make it suck any less)...Every enlisted person CHOSE to enlist, and upon enlisting vowed to die protecting their country...No one forced anyone to join the military...England agreed to help us out...I'd say Al-Qaeda is probably a bigger threat to you guys, because they're much closer to you...Who wants to take that chance? |
Quote:
I am not getting this thread. How can anyone compare the war in Iraq to the abortion debate..?? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/...ectid=10438017 how the fuck can you justify this..?? Whose the one supplying Iraq with the weapons to fight back with.. Double standards don't you think.?? war is money..and this is why America and will always make sure there will always be a war. Bush doesn't want to admit that his real purpose for the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with Suddam..its all about controlling the oil. Lets admit it..if a war broke out in America today..or anywhere in the other parts of the western world TODAY.. do you think our head of states stand side by side with the soldiers to defend its ppl..?? NO FUCKEN WAY!!!They would be whisked away to a safe hiding place and we would be left to fight off bullets with a tennis racket. |
Quote:
Since around 80% of Iraqis view the continuing American liberation mission as occupation, the continued presence there must be because the public do not know what is good for them. A similar number of the US military serving in Iraq think they should be gone by now. Other 'unfixed' continents have a far worse child-soldier policy, and don't forget your recently resigned Defence Secretary was a keen supplier of weapons and tactics to Iraq and the Saddam Hussein regime. The child-soldier strategy was introduced into Iraqi conflicts during American support for the invasion of Iran. Clearly things are not quite as black and white, including Iraq already being the enemy of the United States with nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and unconfirmed harbouring of Al-Qaeda, and including your statement that most Iraqis want most Americans dead - what is your source of information? |
I don't have the smallest thought that the July 7th bombings would have happened if the war hadn't. And no, England didn't agree, the guys incharge did. Do you know why, because they lick george bush's arse and if he's doing it they want to. And isn't a bit of a coincidence that the country we chose to invade has masses and masses of oil? Those iraqis were just living their lives, how often did they strike us? How many people did it from that entire country? The numbers are few. They were taught in defense because their idiotic leader thought war was good. I consider blaming the an country for what the leader thinks is wrong. Especially considering many of Hitlers germany didn't agree with the war, but what happens if you run? You get shot. do you know how low the numbers for army enrollment have got? Why do you think that is? These people sign up and do what they're told. It all comes down to the stupid fucking leaders. That's all I have to say on the matter.
|
When did Iraq become are enemy? when we didn't have a good war in some time and needed a place to spend some weapons, so the people that make the weapons in theUSA didn't loose their jobs. remamber when we use to sell weapons to Iraq and shake hands and stuff oh those were the days.
so next will be North Korea and Iran |
Quote:
He never complied! "We make war that we may live in peace" - Aristotle |
Quote:
When Iraq invaded Kuwait. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for Al-Qaeda...They're STILL there Quote:
The accuracy of just about anything can be disputed...Especially when even history books have been doctored (we know this to be true, too...But, I don't have a specific source for THAT either...)...Guess I just have to say, this is what I believe to be true |
It is difficult to swallow the American U-turn on chemical weapons usage, since we know it was not only quite happy to stand by and see them used on Iranian soldiers, but also to continue supplying weapons and tactics in the knowledge that the Saddam Hussein regime had started gassing its own civilians. This is from the senior DIA officer at the time.
In a 1994 report, pathogenic and toxigenic materials were stated as been exported from the US to Iraq. There were 70 shipments, including of Anthrax, to Iraqi government agencies - the same chemicals recovered by UN weapons inspectors from their biological warfare programme. There are more examples of US supplies of money and chemical agents from recognised and reliable sources I can provide, but I don't think that is the issue here. In helping Saddam Hussein fight back with dirty bombs in a war he started in the first place, the USA had, out of fear of Iran's strengthening and specifically their oil politics, created quite a monster. The 'Axis of Evil', the 'War on Terror' rings like tin. It is perhaps understandable that these phrases not only give terrorism more significance, but also breed homegrown opinions like most Iraqis want most Americans dead. Do they? The Program on International Policy Attitudes conducted a poll last year, which suggested most Iraqis now want US forces out very soon, most Iraqis now support attacks on US troops because they fear the US wants permant bases there (this support would halve if there was a withdrawal), but in spite of these increased figures there is no reflection of growing support for Al-Qaeda, which is rejected by almost all Shias and Kurds and most Sunnis. Only such extremists will - hence the term - want to interpret The Qur'an as an excuse for violence upon people in countries like America and other perceived apostates. The manager of news channel Al-Arabya says not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslims - which sounds reasonable enough. But surveys have shown that most muslims denounce actions such as the September 11th attacks, more recognising defensive jihad on their muslim neighbours. Iraq isn't really an enemy of America - the small percentage of religious extremists yes, but most of the Iraqi people want to live and let live. Likewise most Iraqis do not want to kill Americans - just the individuals they see as becoming occupiers forever trying to clean up after what their forebears helped flourish in the first place. You can reflect on the polled statistics and statements of fact, or you can of course draw conclusions from government propaganda and media angling. |
Quote:
I'm sorry bloodrayne but I jus can't understand how you can have this point of view. War is never an answer and the fact that it was for a stupid reason is even worse. You're entitled to your opinion but seriously, i thought you were better. |
Life is so very precious.
If we only had a glimmer as to what that really meant, there would be no need for abortion, war, murder, hate.... A woman who chooses abortion has an extremely tough choice and I really do not think she goes into this decision lightly nor forgets... she ultimately has to live with her choice and if you think that's easy, think again. I believe a woman or MAN has to choose this for themselves though. That being said, I do personally get a little pissed when I hear someone is willingly getting rid of their baby and here's why: All the women that can't have children or can't afford expensive procedures to have them...how heartbreaking that must be. I know there's adoption and thank god for that but the loss is still profound. And women, me included, that have lost babies to miscarriages...you have no idea how painful it is...not only is it your body completely betraying you but the excitement of finding out your pregnant when you REALLY wanted that baby!!... and then...bam... baby gone... dreams gone... the excitment of that new little precious life gone...omg. Watch 'Life in the Womb' when it comes on again. (I think that's the title, I could be wrong.) |
I'm pro choice because I do believe there are situations where it is better for all of those involved. But I personally do not believe I would ever choose to have an abortion.
I can forgive one mistake, and I can understand where there are situations where the mother is too young or where a woman has been raped. And incest, for example, think about a girl who has been molested and raped by an uncle for years having to carry his child to term, that's just cruel. BUT I believe there are women that abuse it, and DO take it rather lightly. I have known three women in my life that had several abortions each. What is so damn hard about taking the proper precautions or *gasp* NOT having sex until you are in stable, loving relationship or have a stable, loving home? I actually had a woman one time ask me why I was choosing to abstain from sex during that time (I went several years, and yes I survived). I explained that was one of my several reasons, I didn't want to have an accident, and bring a child into the world when I just wasn't ready. She actually said these words to me......"you could JUST have an abortion".....and went on to explain that she had had two herself. It just didn't seem like it was a big deal to her. And it made me very angry. Like Nova pointed out, there are so many women that would love the chance to have their own children, and can't. And women that have several abortions, who use abortion as birth control essentially, have no respect for themselves, their bodies, or all of those many women out there. There seems to be so little personal responsibility anymore. So what the responsibility is unequal between men and women? Yes, the women go through the physical part, and it is easier for the men to duck out.....and that isn't fair, but VERY little in life in fair. Personally, I say you just deal with it. You made the choice to have sex, you knew the chance you were taking, so deal with it and don't take a life just because it just isn't fair. I will end with this, my mom had two friends. Both of these friends didn't want children, decided at a young age they weren't cut out to be mothers. Both were married. One had several abortions, one has never gotten pregnant once. Now, what makes more sense, that one was just lucky, or that she actually just took the proper precautions and lived her life responsibly? Like I said, one mistake I can forgive, and I do believe it is an individual choice, and I have no right to make that choice for anyone. But I also think that is time for people to take some responsibility for their actions. And I know choosing to have an abortion would be against my OWN moral standards. I don't expect everyone else to feel about it the same way I do however. |
Geez, I skip from page 1 to the end of the thread and suddenly it goes from talking about abortions to talking about war.
Anywho, personally, if I were in the position, I wouldn't get an abortion. Doesn't mean someone else should. I'm not saying "Oops, damn, I didn't pull out in time. Hang on, smoochy-poo, lemme get the coat hanger" is okay, because it's not. I do not condone anybody using "smoochy-poo" as a pet name in the non-ironic sense. But if someone uses every precaution, uses a condom or a diaphragm or the pill or even gets a vasectomy, and the decision is made to get an abortion, and they're prepaired to deal with the moral issues during and after the act, then I don't see why other people should tell them they can't. Yeah, you can't get pregnant if you don't have sex, and I'll ignore the rape/incest hypotheticals for now, but if someone doesn't want to ever have kids, they should, what, never have sex ever? Just hire prostitutes? Saying "You know you could get pregnant by having sex, you should've kept it in your pants" when they made an effort to not have kids isn't fair. People who skydive know the risks, but they're not jumping out of the plan without a parachute. And yes, the fetus has no say. But that's only because it has no say. It's a fetus. For the first while it doesn't have lungs or a spinal cord. Now, I don't remember much from biology class, but I remember that humans are mammalian, and mammals are defined by, among other things, lungs and spinal cords. No, you don't have a fish in your womb. Nobody said you did, that's a stupid argument. You have a fetus in there. It's not a self-sustaining life form, it's closer biologically to a parasitic life form. If you don't want to get rid of it, bully for you, don't. I wouldn't either. But that's no reason to make a law about it. I think as far as the abortion/death penalty thing, I'm the exact opposite of Rayne. Well, I'm for the death penalty in principle. What they did to their victems should be done to them. But the judicial system is not flawless, innocent people are put in jail more often than I'm comfortable with, and I don't have enough faith in the legal system to support it putting people to death. |
I am definetely pro choice but I think whether it's right or not is down to the circumsances. Two years ago my mum was pregnant and then had a miscarriage at 6 weeks. It affected us all and yes, it is painful, so the thought that people can just give up a baby is a bit annoying. But for abou the millionth time it depends on the circumstances.
|
I agree that the option should be there. But there are plenty of people that do NOT take the proper precautions and then get pregnant....and what, they are shocked? Despite what some people would say, most people with any sense are educated enough to know what causes pregnancy and how to prevent it. And yes, I do believe if you can't have sex responsibly then you simply shouldn't have sex. Not just because of pregnancy, but also because of STD's. I have known very few women to get pregnant while they were using a reliable form of birth control. Well, I have known none to tell me, hey I was on the pill and we were using a condom and I still got pregnant. Its usually.....shit, we forgot to the condom....and I don't like the pill.....and we were in the moment....:rolleyes: If an accident does happen, and yes, accidents do, I would never tell a woman she HAS to have that child, or feel that I have that right to make that decision for her. But it isn't something someone should just do in place of showing some sense, and living a responsible life. As Nova said, life is precious. And to me, having multiple abortions is cold and totally irresponsible. Hell, depending on the situation and the woman, having ONE can be.
And I agree with STE about the death penalty, I used to support it for practical reasons, I admit. But I have seen too many Cold Case Files, the judicial system is too unbalanced and unreliable, as are eyewitness accounts, and if even one innocent person is put to death, it isn't worth it. But then there are those like Ted Bundy, where there is absolute no doubt and they are particularly heinous crimes well.....I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep about that. I'm just all over the place......;) |
Quote:
12 YEARS TO COMPLY WITH U.N RESOLUTIONS. 1st excuse for invading Iraq... oh they have stocks of weapons of mass destruction 2nd excuse for the invasion... Saddam mistreated his ppl so we are going in to oust him out. and now this.. what next..??the children of Iraq won't eat spaghetti and meatballs..?? As for the Aristotle quote: puhlease!! how the hell can anyone justify the loss of many innocent lives..or come up with the lame excuse such as..'there will always be casualties of war.. These so called casualties who were one day enjoying a typical family life..to have some fuck send in his big boys to test his new toy..and in less than 20 minutes ..wipe away these casualties dreams of someday being a writer or an actor or maybe prime minister. And how the fuck can any of you sit back and say ..oh its ok...cos our govt says so..blame another countries leader who has been executed already.. all because he wouldnt comply with the UN resolutions. If the UN were actually involved with this war...do you think ..there answer would be to wipe out a whole civilization..??NO. America wants control of the oil cos thier supply is nearly dried up!!! Australia is there because they are promised trade sanctions. Britains there because of the same deal with Australia. |
Quote:
In (1996) Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda declare holy war on the U.S. The U.S.A. had it's military in the middle east becouse of Saddam Hussein!As long as Saddam and his Ba'th party had control of Iraq.......the U.S. would have to stay in the middle east to protect the region! "It is the duty of every tribe in the Arabian Peninsula to fight JIHAD and cleanse the LAND from these crusader occupiers"- Osama Bin Laden (1996) |
Quote:
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,hoping it will eat him last" |
War will never end,It's in our nature to destroy ourselves.
|
Quote:
where was USA intervention Idi Amin..??or Mugabe..??..Pinochette..??..huh..?? I.R.A..?? Need i bring up the Oklahoma bomber..?? Where was Americas 'gonna stamp out this kinda behaviour then..'? Nowhere..and you know why..??they have nothing USA want. i agree..these ppl must be stopped..they go against everything Islam stands for..however...why was Jihad initiated in the 1st place..? Because of foreign disrespect for thier religion..because of foreigners who think nothing of walking into a holy place like a mosque with thier shoes on..or a foreign woman refusing to cover her hair because its apparently her right as a USA citizen to do as she pleases...maybe in America yes..but not on somebody elses soil. Has it ever occured to you all ..that the longer USA forces are there..the longer all this is going to carry on. and finally..who asked them to intervene in the 1st place.? oh and one last final detail ..Afghanistan is not Iraq Bin Laden hails from Afghanistan. Saddam hails from Iraq but hes dead now..so why are the forces still there..?? Those radicals know USA are after the oil..why do you think they are targeting the wells to mainly destroy.? |
Quote:
If "Saddam" was still in power,we would be there until he died of old age.We were asked to intervene by Saudi Arabia,Kuwait and the United Nations! We help our friends!:) |
Quote:
you were not asked to help.. it was highly publicised..that American President asked for permission to go ahead and attack on the suspicion that Iraq was processing weapons of mass destruction.. Permission was not granted unless proof was provided..none was forthcoming. How they managed to bomb the civillian homes on thier 1st night of the invasion is beyond me and the rest of the world.. How they figured all these mass destructive weapons were hoarded in civillian homes..then came up with the lamest excuse..'oh...we believe saddam was hiding out there' 'hands on hips'. I was asked a question just recently..'last night' to be exact from a member who saw my replies in this thread..sarcastic as it seemed. If a war broke out in NZ today..they bet we would scream for American aid. I want to say this and i say it with pride. Our country is only small..in fact one good tsunami and NZ is gone..however .. our country may have govts..but its the people who have the final say in matters. We are not in favour with America because we will not allow them to carry nuclear arms through our waters. The only reason our 2 main parties stay in power is because of this..we have spoken. ..National almost won the election except for one minor detail..they stated..if they came to power..they would lift the nuclear ban and allow them to pass through our waters...3 days later..they were voted out. Because of our stance..we do not get american trade sanctions..we do not get many things America has offered to the rest of the world.. We were told.and i quote'..unless we lift the ban..NZ will always be our friend but will not the reap the rewards'..enquote. If a war broke out in NZ..we will be anhilated..however ..we will be crushed with our pride and dignity still inact. In other words..we didnt kiss ass' to save ourselves. |
Quote:
Why are we still there? When the government of Iraq ask us to leave... we will.:)If we leave right now....I don't think it would be very good for the government or the people of Iraq! If Al-Qaeda would stop killing non-combatants...I might have a different opinion about this war. |
what about them Blues then huh..??
Ok..em over this subject now. We will always differ on opinion ..however...i salute you paws. Your a worthy debating partner. Back to topic again..Abortion. all i know from a personal point of view that i would never do it..no matter what the circumstnaces ..but then..thats my personal choice. |
sorry to continue but you seem to be one of the few here with any sense at all stubborn. Considering the amount of countries with stupid leaders, isn't it odd that Bush, a texas oil supporting megalomaniac chose to invade that one. The war was pitiful, as for your comment on winston churchill paws, he didn't declare the war. And world war II was a big mistake. But so would letting hitler carry on invading countries be. In that situation, war was inevitable. Wrong completely but inevitable. It was that or let him become ruler of earth. but Hussein wasn't invading half of his continent, he wasn't threatening every country. He was just a stupid leader. As is George bush but nobody invades him do they? I wonder why. Could it be because of all those weapons of mass destruction he has?
|
Quote:
Invaded Iran (1980) Invaded Kuwait (1990) Poor Saddam Hussein,he would never hurt Israel,Saudi Arabia or the Kurds!:rolleyes: |
Quote:
The first country Germany attacked was Poland ........in (1939) BRITAIN declared war on Germany one month later!Hitler invades one nation and BRITAIN declares WAR! Why? Did BRITAIN choose war...before giving peace a chance?Warmongers? |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=chaibill;60021 if your country has something of value the us will take it. Diplomacy can solve problems not ignoring north korea until they test a nukebomb.[/QUOTE]
What do we take from other countries? Diplomacy with North Korea failed in the 90's.... can we trust them now?I don't think so. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:00 AM. |