Change of opinion?

[GSLeloo]

When the war with Iraq first began I was truly 100% against it. I believed it was a useless war fueled by an agenda of Bush and that we had no place there.

Now after over a year my opinion has changed slightly. I still hate war and the reasons Bush used to go to this one but I'm beginning to believe that someone needed to step in and help there.

My question to everyone is from the beginning to now, has your opinion changed, stayed the same, completely altered or what?

[Bobmuhthol]

I still hate everything about it. I wouldn't call it a war, more like a pussy contest (like pissing contest but for pussies!!!). Though Americans killing Nick Berg was funny.

[Hulkein]

And 14 year olds believing Americans killed Berg because of another 14 year olds pseudo-Sherlock Holmes website is funny.

[Edited on 7-17-2004 by Hulkein]

[i remember halloween]

my opinion hasn't changed as i still think it was a good idea.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And 14 year olds believing Americans killed Berg because of another 14 year olds pseudo-Sherlock Holmes website is funny.>>

Right. And you certainly disproved it because you were there.

CONCRETE PROOF. (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Terrorists+Killed+Nick+Berg&q2=Ameri cans+Killed+Nick+Berg&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1 &langue=us)

[Edited on 7-17-2004 by Bobmuhthol]

[Meos]

I went from uncertin to certin that I apposed this war. It was a war of greed. Oil, black gold, Texas tea. Not a war of liberation for a group of people from some tyrant. Or a war to remove a threat to America. Though it was a good cover story for the whole thing. People believed it, and still do.

I still have hope that somehow Iraq can be a peaceful nation in the end of all this. Then, I think all those men and women that died can have some real value to their sacrifice othen then to line the pockets of Bush and his circle jerk buddies.

[imported_Kranar]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<And 14 year olds believing Americans killed Berg because of another 14 year olds pseudo-Sherlock Holmes website is funny.>>

Right. And you certainly disproved it because you were there.

CONCRETE PROOF. (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Terrorists+Killed+Nick+Berg&q2=Ameri cans+Killed+Nick+Berg&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1 &langue=us)

[Edited on 7-17-2004 by Bobmuhthol]

Not that it matters, but just for future reference, the reason why you get more search results for A) Americans Kill Nick Berg as opposed to B) Terrorists Kill Nick Berg is because the search results for A will include all the search results from B, whereas the search results from B do not include all the search results from A.

You have to remember that when using a search engine, unless you put the search criteria in quotes, then the engine only searches for websites with the search criteria included, but not necessarily in the order you specified. Every single website mentioning Nick Berg will also mention that he was an American who was killed.

When you do your battle using C) "Americans kill Nick Berg" and D) "Terrorists kill Nick Berg", D wins over C

[Edited on 7-17-2004 by Kranar]

[Numbers]

Yep.

Google can always be used for concrete proof when it comes to anything.

:rolleyes:

[Scott]

Wow, you're "Concrete proof" is the same as Edine's......

You're both dumb as fuck.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Wow, you're "Concrete proof" is the same as Edine's>>

Except Edine was serious.

<<You're both dumb as fuck.>>

And you're a fucking idiot for insulting me over a joke that was made only at a dead man's expense.

[Nieninque]

Before: The war was wrong

After: The war was wrong

We need to stop fucking it up any more

[Latrinsorm]

No change.

(do people seriously take what Bob [or hell, anyone] puts in all caps seriously?)

[Atlanteax]

I'm still very much for the War.

My regret is that Rumsfield f-ed up what should had been a clean and complete US victory and occupation with 400k troops (as the Pentagon originally wanted).

[Caiylania]

Was never positive on Bush's intent, but believed going there was right and still do.

America helped those people, and even if people think the war was bad, at least some good came of it. It was done, there is no taking it back. Now Iraq has a chance.

[Back]

Against the war in Iraq from the beginning and even moreso now. I had hoped America would be vindicated. I put some amount of trust into it hoping my fears werent valid. Now? Its just worse.

Afganistan I was totally for. And they might be having elections now if someone didn't have a hard on for Saddam.

[Artha]

I think what we did was great, and don't really care what the administration said. Ends justify the means, and all that.

Edit: And I still think most of the people who think it was a 'war for oil' are stupid, as most of these companies are losing money and good will.

[Edited on 7-17-2004 by Artha]

[Ilvane]

I don't see that we've really helped the people of Iraq much, although it's good that Saddam is captured.

Of course, now they have terrorist bombings nearly every day, the government members keep getting assasinated, and they still don't have much of a stable country..

How exactly the United States is going to extract our troops from Iraq is really hard to see too.

I would have been much more impressed if Bush had gone full guns like he did in Iraq in Afghanistan.

-A

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha
Edit: And I still think most of the people who think it was a 'war for oil' are stupid, as most of these companies are losing money and good will.

[Edited on 7-17-2004 by Artha]

Didn't realize we were going to slam people for their beliefs. Being way above that sort of petty bullshit I'll voice a concern.

Is it possible that people who are for the war are so far removed from it that they are really just being apathetic?

[Artha]

Didn't realize we were going to slam people for their beliefs.

There are few ways to describe people who completely ignore facts and reason. I chose the most direct.


Is it possible that people who are for the war are so far removed from it that they are really just being apathetic?

I'm the apathy king.

[Ilvane]

Artha, you don't really think the oil companies are going to lose money in all this, do you?

I am sure that once everything is all up and running, they'll be making plenty.

-A

[Artha]

Perhaps. Or terrorists will keep blowing things up.

[Kriztian]

I am categorically opposed to this war. I have not changed. Hate to say it, but I predict that 'you aint seen nothing yet.' Let's get Dubya out of there and elect someone who studies history and learns from its mistakes and out and out folly. Walking backward instead of forward at the expense of our men and women of uniform feels me with rage and makes me thankful for the ballot box.

I'm glad you asked:grin:

[Artha]

If you're basing your vote on the war, you should probably vote for Bush. They're both going to stick around, but Bush's goal is democracy, whereas Kerry's is stability. Unless you'd like to be whining about Iraq War III, voting for Bush is probably the better choice.

[Kriztian]

Originally posted by Artha
If you're basing your vote on the war, you should probably vote for Bush. They're both going to stick around, but Bush's goal is democracy, whereas Kerry's is stability. Unless you'd like to be whining about Iraq War III, voting for Bush is probably the better choice.

No thanks. When you've kicked the hornets nest, you call in the exterminator. As for Bush having a goal of democracy, I'd say history will judge otherwise. Kerry for this voter.

[Hulkein]

Kerry was and is pro-war.

You're just anti-Bush.

[Weedmage Princess]

I was all for the war, now I'm against it.

I can't get past the whole "IRAQ HAS WMDs, WE HAVE CONFIRMATION IRAQ HAS WMDs, WE MUST GO IN THERE" only to be told "Ooops."

I also find it *very, very, very* hard to believe that the CIA with all their resources and capabilities...goofed.

[Kriztian]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Kerry was and is pro-war.

You're just anti-Bush.

I didn't state anything about pro or anti-war. Kerry is far more experienced when it comes to it. THIS war should not have happened. I'll put my chips with a seasoned soldier thanks.

[Artha]

I also find it *very, very, very* hard to believe that the CIA with all their resources and capabilities...goofed.

This is the same CIA that tried to kill Castro by giving him an exploding cigar.

[CrystalTears]

And the bastard still lives. :grr:

[CrystalTears]

All I'm going to say is that Bush/America is not the only one who felt that Iraq had WMDs.

[Weedmage Princess]

Yeah CT wasn't it also Great Britain?

And I guess there's something wrong with me but I have the image of Fidel puffing a cigar and it exploding stuck in my head...heh.

[Artha]

Yeah CT wasn't it also Great Britain?

It was pretty much everyone, including France and Germany.

[GSLeloo]

Kind of reminds me of something that happened here... right next to our high school and like six houses down from my house there was an "incident". I have no idea what the police thought but they called in a swat team and evacuated the school because they thought the guy inside was holding his family hostage. When they finally got in they found him asleep in his attic with one of those bb guns.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<with one of those bb guns.>>

Rifle or pistol?

[GSLeloo]

No idea actually. I just know he had a bb gun and that was it, he was alone in the house.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Artha
Ends justify the means, and all that.


The 'ends justify the means' is a convenient excuse that's been used to justify major atrocities. It's never been true for any society that pretends to call itself civilized.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

Pistols are teh badass. Rifles, that I've seen, are much less cool.

[Artha]

The 'ends justify the means' is a convenient excuse that's been used to justify major atrocities. It's never been true for any society that pretends to call itself civilized.


I'm hardly a civilization. I don't care what the administration said, because they did the right thing in the end. Hopefully, Bush will be reelected, so that we don't have to run through this all again in 20 years.

[Kefka]

Then: Wrong
Now: Wrong

WMD was the case Bush sold to us. It's the reason he pushed the war saying we were in 'imminent danger.' None were found, his reason died. Regime change is not a good enough reason. Saddam is only one of many regimes in this world. Many are practically waving wmd's in front of our face.

The war was not about oil?

The first contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq have been awarded, and Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer, Halliburton Co., is one of the early winners. A no bid contract.

So far under the contract, Halliburton, one of the world's largest oil field services companies, has been paid about $1.4 billion of a possible $7 billion total, Reuters reported Thursday.

Halliburton also has generated about $1.6 billion in revenue from a separate contract for logistical support, Reuters said.

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has doubled the value of a contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry, to $2 billion, sharply driving up the projected cost of restoring the country's prewar capacity.

LONDON (AP) - Billions of dollars belonging to Iraq is not accounted for by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was given responsibility by the United Nations for the country's finances, British lawmakers and aid activists said Monday.

But the Iraqi people are happier, right?

Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.

In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Artha

The 'ends justify the means' is a convenient excuse that's been used to justify major atrocities. It's never been true for any society that pretends to call itself civilized.


I'm hardly a civilization. I don't care what the administration said, because they did the right thing in the end. Hopefully, Bush will be reelected, so that we don't have to run through this all again in 20 years.

Excerpt:

Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran — just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Might be sooner than you think.

[Artha]

The first contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq have been awarded, and Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer, Halliburton Co., is one of the early winners. A no bid contract.

Well holy crap, imagine the government giving a contract to someone who has proven that they're good at doing what needs to be done! Stop the presses!


Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.

Really? I remember reading not too long ago that only about 4% say their life is worse now than it was during Saddam.

[Kriztian]

>>Then: Wrong
Now: Wrong

WMD was the case Bush sold to us. It's the reason he pushed the war saying we were in 'imminent danger.' None were found, his reason died. Regime change is not a good enough reason. Saddam is only one of many regimes in this world. Many are practically waving wmd's in front of our face.

The war was not about oil?

ETC.<<

He has also told at least one news agency God told him to do it. Theocrats unite!

[Kefka]

Yeah. Complete coincidence that Cheney - Haliburton connection.

<<Really? I remember reading not too long ago that only about 4% say their life is worse now than it was during Saddam.>>

Not sure what your point is. Bottom line: They don't want us there. We can't say we're doing this for them if they want us to go.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Kefka
Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.Negative view as compared to what? I doubt very much it's being compared to living under the thumb of murderous lunatic.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Kefka
Then: Wrong
Now: Wrong

WMD was the case Bush sold to us. It's the reason he pushed the war saying we were in 'imminent danger.' None were found, his reason died.



background: I have maintained with my friends that once no WMD's were found that Bush should have said "I was wrong and will not run for re-election" this would be a principled response to the facts that have unfolded.

Bush said in the state of the union-

'some say we should wait untl the threat is imminent'

he was vilified for proposing a doctrine of using war as a pre-emptive measure against terrorism. As in - don't wait until there is an immeninent threat, strike before the enemy has WMD's.

of course, others in his administration indicated, in the clever-by-half language of politicians, that Iraq had WMD's, but the fact remains that Bush himself made the argument I outlined above.

before the war - uncertain
after the war - uncertain

C/Valth

[Tsa`ah]

So I can shoot someone because they may have a gun?

No, they don't have the gun on their person, and no they don't have a gun in their home .... but they may have a gun somewhere and they may use it on me.

That's very very very poor logic. Bush lied, Iraq has nothing nor did they have anything.

I'm sorry, but if there was ANYTHING, we would have found something by now.

Bush knew there probably wasn't anything when he ordered the invasion.

[Boobstastegreat]

Originally posted by Meos
I went from uncertin to certin that I apposed this war. It was a war of greed. Oil, black gold, Texas tea. Not a war of liberation for a group of people from some tyrant. Or a war to remove a threat to America. Though it was a good cover story for the whole thing. People believed it, and still do.

I still have hope that somehow Iraq can be a peaceful nation in the end of all this. Then, I think all those men and women that died can have some real value to their sacrifice othen then to line the pockets of Bush and his circle jerk buddies.

bullshit...if it was about oil I wouldn't be paying 2.50 a gallon.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Boobstastegreat

bullshit...if it was about oil I wouldn't be paying 2.50 a gallon.

LOL. It certainly isn't about making oil cheap for consumers.

-P

[Delirium]

Then=For it
Now=For it

I think in about 5 years most people will think of this as a good thing. Its a long hard road making a country into a democracy but im glad for the Iraqis that we are doing so. As for the polls someone said ive also seen polls and i think i posted it somewhere where a good portion of Iraqis thought in 5 years their country would be better off than it was. When you're making huge changes its always painful early on. I bet Germany in WW2 wasnt too happy about being occupied but would they go back to what they had now? I doubt it.

[imported_Kranar]

<< The 'ends justify the means' is a convenient excuse that's been used to justify major atrocities. >>

The holocaust comes to mind.

[Hulkein]

What was the ends there? The eradication of a supposed 'evil' race? This is just a removal of a brutal despot, not the attempted genocide of a race...

Please don't use that comparison.

[imported_Kranar]

<< What was the ends there? >>

Read Mein Kampf and you'll see why the so called "ends justifying the means" is an incredibly dangerous premise for any civilized society.

Or heck, just read Heart of Darkness or Macbeth. You are what you do, and when you act barbarically in order to acheive some sort of goal, you end up becoming a monster along the way and whatever righteous goal you thought you had gets lost amidst the corruption you brought upon yourself.

Integrity matters, and the only thing that establishes integrity is ones actions. When those actions are corrupt, you become corrupt with it.

[Scott]

I HATED Macbeth...

[Delirium]

So by that standard wouldnt all wars be unjust and wrong as you have to act barbarrically?

[Hulkein]

I don't need to read anything to realize the ends in each scenario is monumentally different.

Edited to add - Though I do see your point.

[Edited on 7-18-2004 by Hulkein]

[Bobmuhthol]

I fail to see how you can classify every war with crudeness. Killing (in this case, killing for your nation) is not barbaric. Destruction without purpose is.

[Delirium]

Killing is a pretty barbaric thing to do no matter what ends you try to justify it with not?

[Bobmuhthol]

Damn those barbaric soldiers. They lose at life.


Also no.

[Delirium]

I dont really believe all wars are unjust. Im just curious how people can see any war as anything but barbaric. People dying and civilians will also die as its a war. The ends justify the means though as how else do you get rid of the bad guys.

[imported_Kranar]

<< So by that standard wouldnt all wars be unjust and wrong as you have to act barbarrically? >>

No, to state that the ends justify the means is to state that the means are irrelevent in acheiving some sort of goal. The logic is that all that matters in the long run is the final result, so if to get to the final result one must temporarily do something brutal, it's alright because that brutal act will wash away over the course of time and all that will be left is the final result. That's how the ends justify the means.

History teaches quite a different lesson, that infact in the long run it's the end result that washes away over time and what remains is the brutality of the means. Because when you act barbarically to acheive some sort of goal once, what is there to stop you from acting barbarically to acheive a different goal? And if everytime you wish to acheive a goal, you act barbarically, then you have by all reasonable standards, become a monster.

The ends justifying the means is not the same as comparing the ends to the means. To fight a war in self defense will definitely call for acts of brutality, the point is that you ought to take into consideration the means and only use the most brutal means when absolutely nessecary in order to avoid becoming perpetually brutal.

[Delirium]

History teaches quite a different lesson, that infact in the long run it's the end result that washes away over time and what remains is the brutality of the means.

Is there an example in history that even someone ignorant of it like me has heard of where the ends wernt evil(Like Hitler) and that the good they tried to do was overshadowed by the barbarism in the way to that goal?

[imported_Kranar]

The most classical example taught is the French Revolution. It started off so inocently and with the greatest of intentions in mind; freedom, democracy, and to put an end to the tyranny of the French monarchy so as to ensure that the French constitution would be the law of the land and protect the rights of all citizens.

It ended up being so brutal, that by the end no one even knew what the heck they were killing everyone for. Infact, the French Revolution is when terrorism was born.

[Ravenstorm]

How about the Crusades?

Raven

Why didn't Bush just use the rooseveldt corrolary of the monroe doctrine instead of inventing these patriot acts and getting liberals even more whiney?

[imported_Kranar]

<< How about the Crusades? >>

I was going to say the Crusades, because with that too the means ended up corrupting everyone to the point where Christians were killing one another, but that can easily be argued to have been wrong even from the getgo.

Trying to convert people to your religion isn't exactly seen as a noble cause. Trying to ensure your rights and freedoms are protected is seen a much more noble ends. I mean, who would ever try and condemn someone for doing whatever it takes to protect their rights? But history has taught that if you corrupt yourself in the process, then in the long run it's the corruption of your actions that will remain with you, and that the ends you faught for will quickly get lost amidst the monster that you've become to aquire them.

[Ravenstorm]

There's also how the US spread across North America. That can't really be called evil in intent but the methods used against the Amerindians were certainly shocking, brutal and barbaric. And a lot closer to genocide than Hitler ever came when you look at the percentages of the populations killed.

Raven

[Delirium]

Nice examples and i can agree with both of them. My next question would be do you think the US/Iraq situation falls into one of the ends justify the means things? Just because many disagree with the war does that make it barbaric to the point that any good done there will be overshadowed?

Its an easy mathimatically forumla If Means <ends then the ends justifies the means and vice versa. OBVIOUSLY, if you intend to save lives and you kill more than you set up to save then its a wash. However, there are many many good things in this world that wouldn't have came about except for rash and brutal actions. (Easy, shameless example: The American revolution)

[pennywise]

Or heck, just read Heart of Darkness


Just as a by the way, how is this relevant? My memory may mis-serve me, but wasn’t this book against the Leopoldian (I think I made this word up, but it suffices) Congo, whilst pro British colonialism?

And on topic, I was for the war before hand because Saddam fought tooth and nail against the weapons inspectors (breaking the treaty multiple times), and the esteemed dictator has proved his willingness to decimate the masses with WMD in prior affairs. My only fear was that, in losing this war and seeing troops entering the central portion of his country, he would resort to the chemical tactics that he employed in the Iranian conflict. I was for the war because Saddam encouraged the terrible suicide attacks by providing what was essentially a life insurance policy for the bombers family. And I was for the war because Saddam took a most terrible toll on his own people, sure the Kurds, but also any, real or imaginary, dissident voice in his country.

As of now, I will reserve judgment until the war is over. No war is truly over until the devastated battlefields are re-plowed and the people attempt to go back to work. Ill not say it is a screwed up operation until I see the first elections tried. Of course, I think historically, so the more time between the event and the present, the better I like it

BTW, Kefka, I was wondering if you could post where you pulled those two news stories.

[DeV]

Then, against.
Now, against.

It's good Saddam was captured as he had severe, severe mental problems among other things.

[GSLeloo]

Originally posted by Hulkein
What was the ends there? The eradication of a supposed 'evil' race? This is just a removal of a brutal despot, not the attempted genocide of a race...

Please don't use that comparison.


The Holocaust wasn't really about eradicating the Jews or destroying an evil race. It was about creating the Master Race and then giving them "living space" and to do that they had to clear out the undesireables, such as the retarded, the alcoholics, the gays, the Jews, the Gypsies, and so on.

[Artha]

The Holocaust wasn't really about eradicating the Jews or destroying an evil race. It was about creating the Master Race and then giving them "living space" and to do that they had to clear out the undesireables, such as the retarded, the alcoholics, the gays, the Jews, the Gypsies, and so on.

Which, of course, makes the analogy perfect.

[Kefka]

<<BTW, Kefka, I was wondering if you could post where you pulled those two news stories.>>

Wasn't sure the exact articles you were referring to, so I'll just post them all.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/30/projected_iraq_oil_costs_up_sharply/

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1248753,00.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001927572_iraqpoll13.html

[pennywise]

Ah, thanks much Kefka. I always love more information.