Question for the war supporters

[BC_chick]

Why is it that you continually make the suggestion that cowardice and denial are the reason why some western nations choose to not partake in wars (ie Chirac's France, Shroeder's Germany, Chretien's Canada etc), yet the Middle-Eastern nations who prefer the non-confrontational approach are "peaceful?"

Similarly, why is it that the anti-war crowd is always referred to in as effeminate and cowardly, yet their Middle-Eastern counterparts are called "moderates?"

Do you not see that you are, in our society, the equivalent of that which you hate? Like you, the "terrorists" believe that countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are the poodle lapdogs of the west, while countries that supposedly "stand up" to the west are to be admired. Again, like you, they also see the pro-westerners as an internal threat.

What is extremism if not the belief that your views pure and righteous, your enemy is pure evil, and your own countrymen who don't share your views are automatically siding in the enemy?

[geoffrey]

Very well put...

I do caution though that there are select times when intervention is neccessary... I think essientially all of the free world's intervention in Afghanistan was required, for our own safety even. Iraq was a ridiculous idea from day one, but now that they are there, we have to take a long look at the consequences of leaving.

These have been the only real conflicts of my time that the West has been involved in, so that's all I can comment on. 1999 in Kosovo was a long time ago to me.

BC Chick, do you think we should have intervened in Rwanda? Or should we in Darfur? Or do you propose a completely isolationist view on violent force?

[noahbody]

Chretien's Canada did support war in Afganistan.

Categorizing people as either part of the war crowd or anti-war crowd is a simplistic way of looking at the situation. War isn't black and white. The merits of war depend on the situation.

Did you support Desert Storm?

[jester]

Chretien's Canada did support war in Afganistan.

Categorizing people as either part of the war crowd or anti-war crowd is a simplistic way of looking at the situation. War isn't black and white. The merits of war depend on the situation.

Did you support Dessert Storm?

Only the topping not the mushy bit at the bottom.........

[kuzadd]

Why is it that you continually make the suggestion that cowardice and denial are the reason why some western nations choose to not partake in wars (ie Chirac's France, Shroeder's Germany, Chretien's Canada etc), yet the Middle-Eastern nations who prefer the non-confrontational approach are "peaceful?"

Similarly, why is it that the anti-war crowd is always referred to in as effeminate and cowardly, yet their Middle-Eastern counterparts are called "moderates?"

Do you not see that you are, in our society, the equivalent of that which you hate? Like you, the "terrorists" believe that countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are the poodle lapdogs of the west, while countries that supposedly "stand up" to the west are to be admired. Again, like you, they also see the pro-westerners as an internal threat.

What is extremism if not the belief that your views pure and righteous, your enemy is pure evil, and your own countrymen who don't share your views are automatically siding in the enemy?

What is extremism if not the belief that your views pure and righteous, your enemy is pure evil, and your own countrymen who don't share your views are automatically siding in the enemy?

You hit the nail on the head, in a very succinct fashion.

These people who hold these views are extremists, yet fail to see in themselves, they are the sameas any other extremists, inc, the ME ones.

They are extremists, because the espouse such EXTREME views.

Then when you point this out a volley of name calling is sure to follow.

I guess though what can one expect from that mindset?

[margrace]

When you are brain washed from your earliest childhood to believe that you country is the best one in the world and that any criticism of it is paramount to treason then it is easy to fire up people to go to war as in Iraq.

Canadians were inspired to support the war in Afghanistan because of the brutal treatment of women there, not because we were filled with patriotic pride.

It seems to me that there are two distinctly different ideas here.

[Posit]

The problem with having the largest and most powerful armed forces in the world is that they must be exercised constantly and only real armed conflict can determine them to be the best.

The US uses its military to advance corporatism in the world. The corporations require newer undeveloped markets for the overproduction of goods and must colonize weaker nations.

[White Doors]

Why is it that you continually make the suggestion that cowardice and denial are the reason why some western nations choose to not partake in wars (ie Chirac's France, Shroeder's Germany, Chretien's Canada etc), yet the Middle-Eastern nations who prefer the non-confrontational approach are "peaceful?"

Similarly, why is it that the anti-war crowd is always referred to in as effeminate and cowardly, yet their Middle-Eastern counterparts are called "moderates?"

Do you not see that you are, in our society, the equivalent of that which you hate? Like you, the "terrorists" believe that countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are the poodle lapdogs of the west, while countries that supposedly "stand up" to the west are to be admired. Again, like you, they also see the pro-westerners as an internal threat.

What is extremism if not the belief that your views pure and righteous, your enemy is pure evil, and your own countrymen who don't share your views are automatically siding in the enemy?

So to you an American soldier in Iraq = morally to the pilots on 9/11?

Wow, the world is so easily understood in your narrow little world isn't it? How neat!

[noahbody]

Only the topping not the mushy bit at the bottom.........

Thanks, I correct that. I shouldn't write when Paris comes over and wants to play in a bath full of ice cream.

[BC_chick]

People, quit nitpicking about Iraq or Afghanistan, I'm talking about the "war on terror" or the "clash of the civilizations" and I'm talking about a mindset, one where war and military force is the answer without regard for the collateral damage vs. one where the human element plays a role and emphasis is place on diplomacy.

In this context, again I ask, why does loving peace carry a positive connotation for you in the Middle-East but such a negative one in the West?

[M.Dancer]

People, quit nitpicking about Iraq or Afghanistan, I'm talking about the "war on terror" or the "clash of the civilizations" and I'm talking about a mindset, one where war and military force is the answer without regard for the collateral damage vs. one where the human element plays a role and emphasis is place on diplomacy.

In this context, again I ask, why does loving peace carry a positive connotation for you in the Middle-East but such a negative one in the West?

If you think human elements don't play a major role in warfare, then you should back away from the Nintendo.....

Rarely is warfare engaged without a good supply of diplomacy

[BC_chick]

BC Chick, do you think we should have intervened in Rwanda? Or should we in Darfur? Or do you propose a completely isolationist view on violent force?

I mentioned when I feel a war is justified on another board...

1) If there is a direct threat to your own country.

2) If there is a direct existential threat to a people.

Rwanda, Darfur, and even Bosnia do qualify under category 2.

[BC_chick]

Rarely is warfare engaged without a good supply of diplomacy

Again, I'm speaking about a mindset.... armchair warriors who sit in a warm house and declare that war is the answer and allow others to die for their beliefs.

I don't know how much more clearer I can explain it.

PS, I notice nobody answers a simple question either:

Why does loving peace carry a positive connotation for you in the Middle-East but such a negative one in the West?

[noahbody]

[Again, I'm speaking about a mindset.... armchair warriors who sit in a warm house and declare that war is the answer and allow others to die for their beliefs.

What you're doing is stereotyping in order to sell your viewpoint.

PS, I notice nobody answers a simple question either:

Why does loving peace carry a positive connotation for you in the Middle-East but such a negative one in the West?

I don't think anyone debates peace is positive. No one debates war is hell, either. War and the threat of war have achieved peace throuhout history. Apathy has also cost millions of lives.

[BC_chick]

What you're doing is stereotyping in order to sell your viewpoint.

Stereotype? Arm-chair warrior is not a stereotype, it means a non-combattant who fully supports war without question. Except for a few soldiers on this board, that makes the rest of you armchair warriors.

I don't think anyone debates peace is positive.

So you admire me for my peaceful beliefs?

[betsy]

If you think human elements don't play a major role in warfare, then you should back away from the Nintendo.....

Rarely is warfare engaged without a good supply of diplomacy

Well said M. Dancer. More truth than fiction in that!!

[betsy]

So to you an American soldier in Iraq = morally to the pilots on 9/11?

Wow, the world is so easily understood in your narrow little world isn't it? How neat!

Unbelievable but true. Remember to these people George Bush is the terrorist. We even had a moronic MP in the Canadian Parliament stomping on an effigy of the US President. You remember her, Carolyn Parrish (?).

[betsy]

You hit the nail on the head, in a very succinct fashion.

Here,comes the name calling!

It sounds to me more like she hit herself on the head, in a very distinct fashion. lol

[betsy]

When you are brain washed from your earliest childhood to believe that you country is the best one in the world and that any criticism of it is paramount to treason then it is easy to fire up people to go to war ...

Silly me. I assumed you were referring to the lunatics in the Muddled East until I got to the bit about going to Iraq.

[betsy]

The problem with having the largest and most powerful armed forces in the world is that they must be exercised constantly and only real armed conflict can determine them to be the best.

Instead maybe we can get them to use their formidable forces to remove the ne'er-do-wells sitting on train tracks in Canada. It appears that our own government doesn't have the resolve to do anything useful in that respect.

[Catchme]

Why is it that you continually make the suggestion that cowardice and denial are the reason why some western nations choose to not partake in wars ...why is it that the anti-war crowd is always referred to in as effeminate and cowardly, yet their Middle-Eastern counterparts are called "moderates?"

Do you not see that you are, in our society, the equivalent of that which you hate?

What is extremism if not the belief that your views pure and righteous, your enemy is pure evil, and your own countrymen who don't share your views are automatically siding in the enemy?

You hit the nail on the head, in a very succinct fashion.

These people who hold these views are extremists, yet fail to see in themselves, they are the same as any other extremists, inc, the ME ones.

They are extremists, because the espouse such EXTREME views.

Good points both of you.

It is the inability of those types of people to see the inconsistencies, and thereby fallacies of their indoctinated belief structures, and the insular nature of their incomplete existence.

They also wanted to build an army for the "blood thirsty" Jesus image, they have erroneously indoctrinated themselves with.

[betsy]

I mentioned when I feel a war is justified on another board...

1) If there is a direct threat to your own country.

2) If there is a direct existential threat to a people.

Rwanda, Darfur, and even Bosnia do qualify under category 2.

And contrary to what you believe, we qualify under category 1. I do hope that somehow we can get you to authorise our war against terrorism.

[betsy]

People, quit nitpicking about Iraq or Afghanistan, I'm talking about the "war on terror" or the "clash of the civilizations" and I'm talking about a mindset, one where war and military force is the answer without regard for the collateral damage vs. one where the human element plays a role and emphasis is place on diplomacy.

In this context, again I ask, why does loving peace carry a positive connotation for you in the Middle-East but such a negative one in the West?

I must admit that this makes absolutely no sense.

[sharkman]

I'll tell you why the war supporters can view France as they did, and the Middle east as they did. Because each conflict is unique and must be approached with analysis, not with a one definition fits all wars mindset which is similar to the mindset you have when approaching the Iraq war supporters.

Also, in your bias you fail to notice that those who don't support this particular war do support the violent actions being taken against Israel in the ME. Why do you not question this apparent hypocrisy?

[Liam]

Maybe the glass of wine has caused this thread to become a muddled mess or maybe it's allowed me to see with clarity, but I think just about everyone who has posted to this thread is responding is such an extremist way.

There's no doubt that war is hell. It should never be entered into lightly, easily, or without exhausting every other option that would result in less carnage, demolition and displacement (note: I did not include national pride).

Regretably, there is also a time for war: when all options are exhausted, when doing nothing will cause greater damage, more grave consequences, greater human suffering.

I think that supporters of war (in today's terms, they're also Bush supporters) like to gloss over the tragedy of war and the loss of war, and the failure it represents. They think of it like some John Wayne or Chuck Norris film where good guys and bad guys wear black and white. Likewise, the peaceniks (in today's terms, they're also likely to be Bush opponents) fail to realize that war sometimes IS justified. Intervening in Darfur or Kosovo would be two perfect exmaples where military intervention and, yes, cracking skulls, would probably save thousands of lives and foster stability.

I am in no way excusing this president or this war. It is a fiasco. It is beyond the point of ever being winnable. Honestly, we should consider ourselves blessed if it resulted in what we could categorize as a "draw". It's now obvious that even before the flimsiness of the cassus belli was laid before us, the administration was pathetically incompetent at post-war planning.

None of us should defend this war simply for flag and country. Doing so only condemns us to make the same mistake in the future. We should string up the man and his cohorts who humiliated us all with their incompetence and who have boxed us in to a no-win situation. And then we should turn to the people of Iraq and help them. We can still win the peace if we work with whatever government arises there to better the lives of its people. Peace and democracy will ultimately prevail, but it can't in Iraq at the point of a gun barrel now or at any time in the future given the mess Bush is leaving for us all.