Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

LRB · 09-14-2005, 01:09 PM

Reeds you are the one who doesn't get it. In almost every war, including the revolutionary war, there are people who after losing loved ones or even before feel that it is not worth the loss of life. Not every one in the colonies thought that freedom from England was worth the war, and certainly not everyone who lost a loved one. All you're doing is exploiting those who have been killed. If your political position is a strong one, then you should easibly be able to make it without exploiting the dead and suffering. If your political point isn't that strong, then perhaps you should consider rethinking your positions.

I don't think anyone has claimed that Iraq and 9/11 were directly linked, and I'm certainly not making that claim. But the war on terrorism is on all groups of terrorists who opperate on an international basis. It is certainly a difference of oppinion as how supportive a regime that Saddam Hussein ran in support of international terrorism, but we did find terrorist camps inside his borders when we invaded and we are clashing now with international terrorist groups in Iraq. Certainly an argument can be made that if terrorists are opposing us, then we must be attempting to do something that they don't want us to do and quite probably fear. Reeds you never have to go to war, you always choose to go to war. At the very least even if attacked by an enemy set on the total anniliation of your country and it's populance, you have the choice to lay down your arms and be slaughtered. So you go to war when you choose to go to war, generally that is when the alternative of going to war is less appealing than the alternative of going to war. One thing that history has taught us is that delaying going to war does not mean that lives will be saved. World War II was a prime example of that. That's not carte blanche to go off and start wars left and right, however it is a strong defense that there are possiblilities where lives would be saved by going to war earlier rather than later.

BTW we did not "have to" go to war in the revolutionary war. We had the choice to remain loyal subjects of King George. Canda did for quite some time afterwards. Sure there would have been a cost in freedoms, but we certainly were not left without choices that would not have had us going to war.

09-14-2005, 01:09 PM	#5
LRB Guru Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 17,057	RE:12 Explosions in Iraq Kill at Least 152 Reeds you are the one who doesn't get it. In almost every war, including the revolutionary war, there are people who after losing loved ones or even before feel that it is not worth the loss of life. Not every one in the colonies thought that freedom from England was worth the war, and certainly not everyone who lost a loved one. All you're doing is exploiting those who have been killed. If your political position is a strong one, then you should easibly be able to make it without exploiting the dead and suffering. If your political point isn't that strong, then perhaps you should consider rethinking your positions. I don't think anyone has claimed that Iraq and 9/11 were directly linked, and I'm certainly not making that claim. But the war on terrorism is on all groups of terrorists who opperate on an international basis. It is certainly a difference of oppinion as how supportive a regime that Saddam Hussein ran in support of international terrorism, but we did find terrorist camps inside his borders when we invaded and we are clashing now with international terrorist groups in Iraq. Certainly an argument can be made that if terrorists are opposing us, then we must be attempting to do something that they don't want us to do and quite probably fear. Reeds you never have to go to war, you always choose to go to war. At the very least even if attacked by an enemy set on the total anniliation of your country and it's populance, you have the choice to lay down your arms and be slaughtered. So you go to war when you choose to go to war, generally that is when the alternative of going to war is less appealing than the alternative of going to war. One thing that history has taught us is that delaying going to war does not mean that lives will be saved. World War II was a prime example of that. That's not carte blanche to go off and start wars left and right, however it is a strong defense that there are possiblilities where lives would be saved by going to war earlier rather than later. BTW we did not "have to" go to war in the revolutionary war. We had the choice to remain loyal subjects of King George. Canda did for quite some time afterwards. Sure there would have been a cost in freedoms, but we certainly were not left without choices that would not have had us going to war. __________________ Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.