PhillyKev 0 #26 March 25, 2003 QuoteQuotePeace in this world is only bought with blood. Ironic but true In 1992 white South Africans (myself included) voted by a two thirds majority to get rid of apartheid. Peace was achieved (with both Mandela and De Klerk being awarded the Nobel peace prize). South Africa might have its problems with crime and HIV today but it does have a working democracy. Now imagine if the international community had decided that the only way to end 44 years of apartheid was by military force rather than sanctions... Well...to be honest, were those 44 bloodless years? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #27 March 25, 2003 The work that was done to end apartheid wasn't done be people sitting in chairs making arguements for each side and then one side saying "you know what you have a good point there. I guess I was wrong. Lets all have a vote and see what the majority of the people want." People did die to end apartheid. They need to be remembered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,574 #28 March 25, 2003 QuoteThe work that was done to end apartheid wasn't done be people sitting in chairs making arguements for each side and then one side saying "you know what you have a good point there. I guess I was wrong. Lets all have a vote and see what the majority of the people want." People did die to end apartheid. They need to be remembered. Yes, they did. But their dying wasn't what caused it to end. It's an effect of the process; causing it to happen does not necessarily speed the process (whatever it is) along. More people would have died, and apartheid would have ended eventually, if there had been an invasion, or if there had been massive violence such as happened in Rwanda. I think it's dangerous to say that deaths are a necessary part of progress, because it makes it easier to accept them, rather than to inconvenience yourself to avoid them. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #29 March 25, 2003 Quote I think it's dangerous to say that deaths are a necessary part of progress, because it makes it easier to accept them, rather than to inconvenience yourself to avoid them. Thank you Wendy, that sums it up nicely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #30 March 25, 2003 Getting back to the original question: I think the main motivation for the war is that the Bush administration is worried about what Iraq might do in the future, either to us or to Israel. It is pretty well known that Saddam's fantasy is to conquer Jerusalem. Very likely he would initiate this by providing arms to Palestinian terrorist groups. So the sanctions serve to hobble him & deny him the funds to really build up arms more quickly, but he's using the money from the Oil-for-Food program to buy & develop more weaponry. So the Bush administration sees Saddam's regime as a crisis waiting to happen. They feel that it's only a matter of time, even with the sanctions. Hence the idea that Saddam inevitably MUST be taken out at some point. The problem is, this is NOT a very defensible position, because you are asking the USA &UK to fight a war to stop something that hasn't even happened yet, but might happen in the future. We've never done this before, and it doesn't sit easy with most of us. And given all the other dictators etc. in the world, one wonders where is the moral basis for such a policy if we start attacking countries for what they might do in the future. Bush tried to make it sound less "pre-emptive" by throwing out some flimsy "evidence" that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks, but most of us aren't buying it. But anyway, I think this is the main motivation for this attack. Some lefties are prancing around & agreeing with each other, saying "It's all about oil money, and it's as simple as that!" but I think this is much more about preventing a military attack than it is about oil money (especially when you consider the vast sum we're paying for this adventure). Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #31 March 25, 2003 Quote Forgive me for spelling it right out, did he mean Pol Pot? that nasty man from cambodia? yea i figure everyone knew who I was talking about. My bad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #32 March 25, 2003 QuoteBush tried to make it sound less "pre-emptive" by throwing out some flimsy "evidence" that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks, but most of us aren't buying it. Some people claimed Bush knew in advance that 9-11 might be in the plans. The likes of Ms Clinton and others were most vocal. Now the left doesn't like pre-emptive strikes. (the very same ppl) Containment doesn't work we see that in N Korea. You can't have it both ways. I would expect all would agree Saddam is a very bad man. Most of the US (75%) agree with Bush in the war effort. The cost of waiting is far more than acting now, both in lives and tax $'s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #33 March 25, 2003 QuoteI'd recommend Kenneth Pollack's book "the threatening storm - the case for war with Iraq I have heard a lot of good reviews on this book as well Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #34 March 25, 2003 QuoteI think it's dangerous to say that deaths are a necessary part of progress, because it makes it easier to accept them, rather than to inconvenience yourself to avoid them. I agree with the premise of what you're saying, yet history records exactly that. The progress of the second half of the 20th century was a direct result of WWII. The progress of France and its society was a direct result of its revolution. The growth of the US economy in the 1990s was a result, in part, of the Gulf War. On a macro or micro scale (or anything in between), most progress in society was the end result from some kind of conflict with decisive endings. Knowing this does not make the process of conflict any easier for anyone to accept, I hope. It doesn't for me. It is, in effect, human nature. It is when things are at their worst, when mankind seems to be at its best.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #35 March 25, 2003 QuoteThen why are there farmers in the fields shooting down Apaches? Why do the troops continue to fight? Surely they have family members who want to be "liberated" maybe you have not heard about the popular uprising on cnn.com ..................................................................... British troops say popular uprising against Iraqi troops in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, ITV reporter says • Reporter says Brits firing on Iraqi troops attempting to suppress revolt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
