 |
The Town Hall Archives
Ahh, the nostalgia.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should the United States go to war with Iraq? |
| Yes, it's warranted and necessary. We should go with or without UN support. |
|
66% |
[ 14 ] |
| Well, only if the United Nations lends its approval. |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
| No, there's no evidence to lead me to believe that war is necessary. |
|
9% |
[ 2 ] |
| No, war is never an option -- no matter what. |
|
19% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 21 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Felicity Carden
Seasoned Veteran Member
Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Posts: 609
Location: California
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
| I voted for War is never an option! Sorry, but this is my choice and where I stand! It's called, "Being an Indian in the 21st Century"! |
|
 |
The Top Crusader
Job is to annoy Bennett Charles
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 2718
Location: Yarr.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
Well, like I just said...
"Without war, we would all be speaking German, yes?"
Now I pretend to think war is cool, because I'm a dumb macho guy, but... in reality, obviously I don't want or like war. I have friends that are in Iraq right now as I'm typing this, and of course I don't want anything to happen to them.
But without war...
Well, for starters, we'd have never gotten out from under British rule.
The Southern British American States would have ceceeded from the British States of America...
and since I'm far too lazy to cover every war...
Nazi Germany would now control the world, if we did not go to war to fight them.
Well... on second though, maybe by now we would all have ended up under the Communist Soviet Union. I dunno, beats being a Nazi, I guess.
But Saddam has VERY dangerous weapons, and it is a given that he is going to hurt many people with them someday. Maybe Americans, maybe a neighboring country. Do we wait until one of his agents detonates a nuclear device, or releases a horrible disease in a populated area, or do we act first?
"Freedom is not free", as they say. And as unfortunate, and as tragic as it is, war is often, regrettably, the only plausible solution to averting disaster, and destroying evil.
...and that was actually a semi-serious post... hmmm... must be sick tonight. |
|
|
Jared
Cute and Cuddly
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4672
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
Now, this argument could easily be characterized as a slippery-slope... but this just came to mind when The Top Crusader was saying that without war, we'd still be a part of Britain, etc...
Let's see...
Without war, we'd still be a part of Britain. But without war, Britain would still be a part of Rome. And without war, Rome would still be a part of Etrucia. Then again, without war, Etrucia would still be a part of Egypt. However, without war, Egypt would still be a part of Aria. And without war, Aria would still be a part of Babylon. And I don't mean that as in King Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon; I mean Nimrod's ancient Babylon... the Babylon that began thirteen years after the flood. When war broke out after God confused the tongues of the people because of the Tower of Babel, Aria was born.
So, in other words, without war, we'd be in pretty bad shape... living in the most ancient culture of Babylon.
Does that add much to the discussion? No, not really... just an observation.
| Felicity Carden wrote: | | I voted for War is never an option! Sorry, but this is my choice and where I stand! It's called, "Being an Indian in the 21st Century"! |
I'm afraid I don't understand... being an Indian in the 21st Century? Are you saying that you have Native American ancestors, which is why you can't support war? If so, you must know that that society wasn't exactly peaceful, either. Few societies that want to keep existing fight no battles or wars! Or maybe you mean it in a less literal sense, just referring to your beliefs, but I still refer you to the above concerning the accuracy of what you call yourself.
Or perhaps you mean an Indian as in the country of India? If so, I'm hardpressed to see what you mean... as in, you like the ideas of Mahatma Ghandi? Well, he's famous for his nonviolent revolution, but... he took part in many wars as well. |
|
|
Felicity Carden
Seasoned Veteran Member
Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Posts: 609
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
Yes, I have Native American blood in me. We were only hostile because we were being pushed towards the west and being put into reservations! Tell me, was that even remotely fair?! They killed our buffalo and made us change our culture! I don't think Custer was a hero for killing innocent women and children!
Yes, there were some dog soilders who did unncessary bloodshed, but it went both ways, Jared!
And, maybe I am stupid for thinking this war is unncessasary. I have rights and beliefs on this board as well. Not everyone is going to be sided with you!
I know what happened on September 11th was horrible, but think of the families in Iraq that have to suffer loss like ours, EVERYDAY! It's different when it's on the other side, isn't it?
So, I don't agree with the war part of this thread, but I stand by my country if they do decide to be stupid and go to war! *nods* There... besides, there's no such thing as a freedom of speech if we're always adding our 2 cents in! *snerks* |
|
|
Jared
Cute and Cuddly
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4672
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
| Felicity Carden wrote: | | Yes, I have Native American blood in me. We were only hostile because we were being pushed towards the west and being put into reservations! Tell me, was that even remotely fair?! They killed our buffalo and made us change our culture! I don't think Custer was a hero for killing innocent women and children! |
There were atrocities on both side, Felicity. I'll readily admit that and I'm not proud of some of the battles that were fought. However, to say that Indians were only hostile because they were pushed westward is crazy... do you think that there were no wars in this land between Indian tribes? Read the history... tribes constantly warred over land and other issues.
Also, if you are referring to Custer's famous "last stand," you should note that his attack was on a nomadic warrior group and was in response to a string of vicious attacks on innocent civilians by that tribe. Yes, unfortunately, innocent Indian women and children were killed. It's a terrible cost of war... but Custer was sworn to protect the United States against all enemies, and that tribe was, I am sorry, a definite enemy. It's terrible that women and children died in the battle, but don't forget about the white men, womena and children -- civilians -- who died in raids by that tribe. Custer's target wasn't the innocents but the warriors... unfortunately, those men kept their families with them while they fought.
| Quote: | | Yes, there were some dog soilders who did unncessary bloodshed, but it went both ways, Jared! |
Oh, absolutely. There were atrocities on both sides.
| Quote: | | And, maybe I am stupid for thinking this war is unncessasary. I have rights and beliefs on this board as well. Not everyone is going to be sided with you! |
First of all, no one has rights to say whatever they want on a message board... This isn't a public sidewalk, but a moderated forum with people who can make decisions of what is and isn't allowed. That said, however, I am NOT going to ban anyone or ask to be quiet someone who disagrees with me on the war. Instead, I'll simply try to show you my reasons for believing that war is necessary here.
Unfortunately, not everyone will side with President Bush over Hussein - or, in your case, what I believe to be a misguided desire for peace... I know that... But that doesn't mean that I can't try to win people over.
| Quote: | | I know what happened on September 11th was horrible, but think of the families in Iraq that have to suffer loss like ours, EVERYDAY! It's different when it's on the other side, isn't it? |
Different? No... sure, 9/11 strikes closer to home, but the plight of the Iraqis is terrible. They do suffer daily. So, LET'S LIBERATE THEM! Let's take them out from under the cruel, dangerous dictatorship of Saddam Hussein!
| Quote: | | So, I don't agree with the war part of this thread, but I stand by my country if they do decide to be stupid and go to war! *nods* There... besides, there's no such thing as a freedom of speech if we're always adding our 2 cents in! *snerks* |
I'm glad you'll stand behind your country's final decision even if it doesn't match up with what you would have liked, but I wish you would be able to do it understanding why it is necessary instead of out of a feeling of "my country, right or wrong."
Read the arguments... there are a plethora of reasons to go to war. To stop war in hopes for peace makes no sense, as it only makes the threat greater. Iraq has had 12 years to comply, but they didn't. It's time to take action. |
|
|
The Top Crusader
Job is to annoy Bennett Charles
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 2718
Location: Yarr.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
Hmmm... I'll reinerate.
Right NOW the Iraqis are suffering.
If we go to war, we will liberate them from the tyrannical powers that be.
Sounds good to me. |
|
|
Felicity Carden
Seasoned Veteran Member
Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Posts: 609
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
*sighs* Yes.
Sorry I said that stuff, but I got angry and it really touches home when people say things about war. God never wanted his own children to fight against each other. Maybe we should lock this thread and drop the subject. |
|
|
Jared
Cute and Cuddly
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4672
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
Felicity, it's an important topic... you aren't forced to look at this thread, but I'm not going to lock it, nor am I going to drop the subject.
God never meant for wars, no. They are a result of the fall. That being said, waging war isn't always wrong...
In a perfect world, Iraq wouldn't be a problem. But it is, and they've violated their signed treaties and threatened the world... So war is necessary. |
|
|
hawkeye
Linux Geek
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 2408
Location: Inventors Corner
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
| Jared Walczak wrote: | | Hawkeye wrote: | | Yes, I agree 09/11/01 was likely God's jdgement... |
No, it was the work of 19 Islamic terrorists, not of God.
Does God judge us personally? Yes. As a nation? Yes. But to ascribe something like this to God sounds dangerous. Could it have been His judgment on us? Yes, technically. He did it to Israel. But under the new covenant, things are done differently -- and when God judged a nation in the Old Testament times, He made it clear long in advance that the nation was going to be judged for its sins.
We've committed an immense amount of sins as a nation, but in the church age, the age of grace, I believe that God works differently concerning nations. The nations and each individual person will be judged in the end, but I do not believe that a terroristic attack is God's plan.
Yes, He allowed it. Since He gives man free will, He allows all sorts of sins. But that doesn't mean that it was His plan. |
Jared: It could be argued that God has been warning us. The new covenent does not change anything! The new covenent is merely Jesus being the ultimate and perfect sacrifice for our sins. Nothing more! The Old Testament still applies to us, fully and completely.
When God judges a nation, God does so in blatant and definate ways. God does so by allowing the nation's enemy to gain some foothold over the nation. God let Nebucadnezzer defeat Isreal for their wandering from God. There are many more examples in the Bible to support this.
| *pianokitty* wrote: | | I agree with all your points...but I cannot think of war as an option. Remember in the Bible when Jesus didn't want to start a war between the zealots and the Romans, he just wanted to plant the seed for eternal life. I just can't bring myself to believe that war is our only option. |
Piano kitty: Numerous times in the Old Testament, God tells His people to go to war. When Jesus went into the temple (Matthew 21), Jesus, arguably the most pacifist person in the Bible, made a whip and droive out those who defiled His temple. War is justified for Godly reasons. Can you say liberating the terrorised, the suppressed, those denied is not Godly? Jesus came to set men (and women) free. Can we not do the same in the physical?
Felicity: As I said above, in the Old Testament, war is mentioned, even order by God numerous times. Even in Revelations, war is mentioned several times. Are you going to say The Bible is wrong because it say war was and will be right? I agree. We must have good reason to go to war. But this is good, Godly reason to go to war. To set people free. |
|
|
E87M2
Senior Member
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Posts: 1106
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
| Besides, I don't think anybody I know actually likes war. Nobody does. But when it is NECESSARY people shouldn't argue. From what I understand, Iraq has violated the law and would/could be seeking to harm other "innocent" people. Terrorism isn't something that we can look-the-other-way-all-be-at-peace-no-war kind of thing. I think the US should take action to prevent the blood thirsty people from striking again. |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
Memberlist
Log in
