Thread: What's your opinion on invading Iraq in the first place?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

haha, yeah say this after making your own little analogy Whatever, go on...


Nice to see you are that incompetent at debating you went straight to ad hominem. Yes, I will enjoy myself, thanks. Pathetic.


But did you fight in Iraq? If not then your comment before was bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Soldiers dont get some special permit to dictate morality just because they fight wars - quite the reverse. Most of the soldiers I've met, including you, have a distinct loyalty to the military, so they defend just about everything the military does. As far as I'm concerned, most are hindered by their military service, not empowered by it.

Don't you think it's telling that most of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who put their lives on the line and fought in Iraq support what they did over there? You sat safely behind a computer while judging the conflict. You had absolutely nothing invested in it (correct me if I'm wrong). How can you dismiss the opinions of those who actually risked it all in the conflict? I'm not saying you have to agree with soldiers or aren't entitled to an opinion, but it's silly to dismiss them altogether.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

Don't you think it's telling that most of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who put their lives on the line and fought in Iraq support what they did over there? You sat safely behind a computer while judging the conflict. You had absolutely nothing invested in it (correct me if I'm wrong). How can you dismiss the opinions of those who actually risked it all in the conflict? I'm not saying you have to agree with soldiers or aren't entitled to an opinion, but it's silly to dismiss them altogether.

People who get conned often find it easier to pretend it was all for the best.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

Don't you think it's telling that most of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who put their lives on the line and fought in Iraq support what they did over there? You sat safely behind a computer while judging the conflict. You had absolutely nothing invested in it (correct me if I'm wrong). How can you dismiss the opinions of those who actually risked it all in the conflict? I'm not saying you have to agree with soldiers or aren't entitled to an opinion, but it's silly to dismiss them altogether.

This sums it up.
Less than 1% of the U.S. population were invested in any way...oh sure maybe they knew someone, who knew someone...who went...but for the vast majority
it was a 6:00 o'clock news war. Turn off the TV and the war disappears.

They didn't live it or have anything invested...other than tax dollars I suppose.

Everyone can have an opinion of course, but take them with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

Don't you think it's telling that most of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who put their lives on the line and fought in Iraq support what they did over there?

Telling of what? How ignorant and myopic they were? Yes, of course.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

You sat safely behind a computer while judging the conflict.

And I wouldn't have it any other way, except that I wish I was old enough back then to have understood what was going on and participated in protests against it.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

You had absolutely nothing invested in it (correct me if I'm wrong).

Depends what you mean by "invested". These people are soldiers - they aren't humanitarians, they are mercenaries. They get paid to perform a service. I was "invested" in the situation as much as any person who witnesses a crime take place and is "invested" in the gross injustice they just witnessed by speaking out against it. Not only this but the person I was talking to (Mushroom) did not contribute to the military effort in Iraq.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

How can you dismiss the opinions of those who actually risked it all in the conflict?

Because they are just soldiers. It is a complete fallacy to say they "know better" simply because they participated - in fact, quite the reverse. Its a totally illogical fallacy to appeal to authority in this instance. Being a soldier does not make one right, it just makes one a soldier.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

I'm not saying you have to agree with soldiers or aren't entitled to an opinion, but it's silly to dismiss them altogether.

I didnt dismiss them altogether - I dismissed the appeal to authority that Mushroom, and now you, have made.

I was against it, the investigators said no WMD, Bush attacked anyway, he did not care what investigators said, well investigators were right, Bush was wrong, go figure

we broke up the fight between Iraq and Iran just so we could fight both of them ourselves for years and years I guess?

I think to Bush this was a religious war.... "a Crusade"...


.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Depends what you mean by "invested". These people are soldiers - they aren't humanitarians, they are mercenaries. They get paid to perform a service.

Tell that to those in Somalia. Tell that to those in Bosnia. Tell that to people after Katrina. Tell that to people in Indonesia and Japan after a tsunami swept through. Tell that to those in Alabama and other areas when they enforced segregation.

The reason why we dismiss so many of your claims is that your complete biased is so obvious, it is almost sickening. To you, the military is always the enemy.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Tell that to those in Somalia. Tell that to those in Bosnia. Tell that to people after Katrina. Tell that to people in Indonesia and Japan after a tsunami swept through. Tell that to those in Alabama and other areas when they enforced segregation.

Why? Why should I tell them what they already know? They get paid for a service. If they did in their own free time THAT would be something seriously heroic. But they get paid - they made the choice of an occupation. I dont see much amazingly humanitarian about that. They wouldn't be in any of those places without their government's sending them there. Soldiers just "follow orders".

Originally Posted by Mushroom

The reason why we dismiss so many of your claims is that your complete biased is so obvious, it is almost sickening. To you, the military is always the enemy.

Not at all. The military cna be a great institution for defending liberties and helping people out - problem is it often caters to the reverse. Furthermore you haven't dismissed ANY of my claims, which really just emphasizes my point about the myopia of military personnel and public views of the military.

I find the war-for-oil argument a bit weak in that there are too many easier targets if it is the intention of the US to secure its oil militarily. Chavez in Venezuela for example. I didn’t buy the same argument during Viet Nam either.


But there is no shortage of learned opinion that AIPAC and other Likud tentacles in the US were most instrumental in starting and furthering the Gulf wars.


Fighting for oil somehow puts an almost positive spin on a nasty and impossible war. That the wars, in fact, are to serve the narrow interests of a tiny bunch of chicken hawks is unfortunately much more accurate.

It was BI-PARTISAN treason.

Originally Posted by FreshAir

I think to Bush this was a religious war.... "a Crusade"...


.

For sure.