This topic is to debate the correctness, or "morality" (ignore that part Gono) of a country making a preemptive strike on another nation. Is it ethical to make the first strike in a war because of assumption that the opposition is planning an attack, or that they are simply hostile?
Going by the expectation of threat, with no immediate danger present, can a country justly attack another with it being considered "a defensive move", or is it a hostile initiation of war despite what evidence is had?
While I would like to see it as being just a correct, tactical move, I don't know if I can view it in that light.
I don't think so, you can't assume that another nation is hostile, and even if they are hostile, that doesn't mean they would ever wage war.
For instance, I could threaten or express dislike with someone, that doesn't automatically mean I would go up and punch them.
Simple enough, any pre-emptive attack is a violation of the Geneva-convention, as it is a war of aggression.
I think that it depends on the scenario. Couldn't either side's strike be judged as preemptive? These days, nobody is going to sit down and decide on a time when they are both going to attack each other. War is war, and no matter how civilized a country wants to appear, if there is a threat of invasion or destruction then protective measures must be taken. You also have to remember that wars are fought differently for each type of threat. When fighting terrorists, people seem to be a lot more lenient to a first attack. When going head to head with another country's army, people are a bit more calculating.
Working in the basis a country could attack us there-fore they are a threat could apply to pretty much all countries... It's the insitement of fear within the public, if you drum into the masses that an attack could happen you get the backing of your people to wage war.
(I think people are going to say I am meaning the USA... But I am not)
It's like what's happening in most countries between two factions, each faction has their own backing by their people, as the people fear the oppersition...
The sad thing is in most cases the only things that seperate us and cause these disputes is Land, Faith and culture...
---- BUT ----Elegy QuoteI don't think so, you can't assume that another nation is hostile, and even if they are hostile, that doesn't mean they would ever wage war.
For instance, I could threaten or express dislike with someone, that doesn't automatically mean I would go up and punch them.
Using your above Quote and liken the attack on a simple fightSay if your walking in town and a person came up to shouting the odds with a raised fist, you know your going to get hit... So why not hit them first ?...
Doing so saves you, but as you hit first in the eye's of the law you was not defending your self, you intiated the attack...
It's an odd call...
(If I was a leader of a country and I had enough EVIDENCE that some thing was about to kick off and my country was a target I would at LEAST consider striking first...)
Quote from: Holkeye on March 29, 2007, 08:31:15 AM
I think that it depends on the scenario. Couldn't either side's strike be judged as preemptive? These days, nobody is going to sit down and decide on a time when they are both going to attack each other. War is war, and no matter how civilized a country wants to appear, if there is a threat of invasion or destruction then protective measures must be taken. You also have to remember that wars are fought differently for each type of threat. When fighting terrorists, people seem to be a lot more lenient to a first attack. When going head to head with another country's army, people are a bit more calculating.
Defensive measures yes, but that doesn't include invasion.
Quote from: landofshadowsSay if your walking in town and a person came up to shouting the odds with a raised fist, you know your going to get hit... So why not hit them first ?...
There are other things to do besides attack the other person, like move out of the way, or shield yourself from a possible attack.
QuoteThere are other things to do besides attack the other person, like move out of the way, or shield yourself from a possible attack.
Moving out of the way of the 1st or shielding yourself wont help with the follow up hits afterwards, once they have engaded in hitting you it's hard for ypu to return.
BEST FORM OF DEFENCE IS OFFENCE... I studied JKD for 3 years.
Quote from: landofshadows on March 29, 2007, 11:50:22 AM
BEST FORM OF DEFENCE IS OFFENCE... I studied JKD for 3 years.
Yes, yes it is, but is it the just thing to do when no information of an incoming attack can be 100% certain?
But the best form of Offence is a strong Defence. Neh, I'm a Taoist.
If you have a feeling you are going to be on the receiving end of an attack, build up the defences and construct ways out of a situation.
When I play chess, I take this into consideration. The objective of the game is to control your opponent rather than take his or her pieces, hence I don't play aggressively. Once the 1st strike is dealt you should have a back up plan for any follow up hits. That is why most Martial arts know more defending moves than attacking moves i.e. Judo, Aikido, Karate...eight extremities kung fu is the only one I know where defence is not imperative.
Aikido doesn't have any offensive moves, it's pure defense.
Everything has an attack and a defence in regard to martial arts. Even Tai Chi. (Tai Chi Chuan I mean). Aikido moves forwards doesn't it, therefore it has an attack.
I don't like the concept of pre-emptive attack, especially if you are the more powerful nation. While technically, I suppose that a nation has a duty to protect its citizens, and letting another country, even a weaker one, invade would be neglecting that duty, I don't think that it is morally correct to incite war when there is a possibility war might be evaded. I'm pretty sure about that. When a war is 100% certain, I still feel uncomfortable with it, but I can't really think of any particularly great reasons why you shouldn't logically. However, I do think, that in the long run it will aid the country if they have a reputation of not starting wars. So, if you are the stronger power (strong enough that there is no threat of losing), or war is not 100 % certain, I don't think it is morally correct to pre-emptive strike. Of course, the stronger power part gets a little nullified if the other side has nukes. I definitely think it is appropriate to stop countries aggressive to yours from developing nukes. But that doesn't have to necessarily start a war. i.e. you don't have to invade if you can get rid of the nukes without invading.
Lets be realistic though. In this latter half of the nuclear age that we live in, you can't be too careful. There are all kinds of ways for an enemy, (and keep in mind that everyone is an enemy to someone,) to do mass harm. As for dodging a blow, we can't really pack up our country and run out of the way. That would make us like France. I keed, I keed.
Quote from: Holkeye on March 29, 2007, 07:27:42 PM
Lets be realistic though. In this latter half of the nuclear age that we live in, you can't be too careful. There are all kinds of ways for an enemy, (and keep in mind that everyone is an enemy to someone,) to do mass harm. As for dodging a blow, we can't really pack up our country and run out of the way. That would make us like France. I keed, I keed.
Just on a sidenote, this is exactly what the problem in the world is.
I was speaking in universal terms. If you don't think the country you live in is yours, then get the fuck out. Nobody will miss you.
And why don't you say something productive once for fuck's sake?
"Your" government doesn't care for you, so stop caring for it, mind your own fucking business and don't defend their stupid, heinous acts.
Considering what the topic of this thread is, if thats the way you feel maybe you shouldn't even be posting here.
:-\
Quote from: Deliciously_Saucy on March 28, 2007, 07:25:08 PM
This topic is to debate the correctness, or "morality" (ignore that part Gono) of a country making a preemptive strike on another nation. Is it ethical to make the first strike in a war because of assumption that the opposition is planning an attack, or that they are simply hostile?
Why should I? It's perfectly normal to discuss the morality (that is, the moral code or whatever you'd call it) you have decided to follow of something as long as you don't look for some moral authority on it.
QuoteGoing by the expectation of threat, with no immediate danger present, can a country justly attack another with it being considered "a defensive move", or is it a hostile initiation of war despite what evidence is had?
Sure, why not? It'd be much better to weaken your enemy before he weakens you. Although preemptive strikes often create problems with other nations (note Israel in the Six-Day War). Acting defensively gives you more credibility and victimises you- thus gaining you support.
Quote from: Elegy on March 29, 2007, 07:45:52 AM
I don't think so, you can't assume that another nation is hostile, and even if they are hostile, that doesn't mean they would ever wage war.
For instance, I could threaten or express dislike with someone, that doesn't automatically mean I would go up and punch them.
Simple enough, any pre-emptive attack is a violation of the Geneva-convention, as it is a war of aggression.
This was a good thread, why'd you have to post in it?
Also the Geneva Convention is silly, it looks good on paper but in reality shit doesn't work that way.
Quote from: Ravenshade on March 29, 2007, 12:26:47 PMBut the best form of Offence is a strong Defence. Neh, I'm a Taoist.
Look at preemptive strikes as defence then.
Quote from: modern algebraI don't like the concept of pre-emptive attack, especially if you are the more powerful nation.
Yeah, because wars should be fought fairly.
Quote from: Elegy on March 29, 2007, 11:06:04 PM
"Your" government doesn't care for you, so stop caring for it, mind your own fucking business and don't defend their stupid, heinous acts.
Oh man, this is going to make me laugh for a week!
Seriously though, throw away your anarchy fanboy shit, tear down the myspace and swap your emo/goth clothes for a good wardrobe. You really need to start thinking of these things in the context of
reality.
gonorrhoea And others...
There's nothing wrong with Goth's or their look... There is no need to attack Elegy for having an opinion... Even if you think it may be wrong. Elegy does have a point, I mean right now the USA and England along side the UN may be looking at attacking Iran, what if Iran desided to strike first ?
If we all agreed this wouldn't be a debate... it's a good thing some people with different opinions like Elegy are posting here.
Elegy is fairly intelligent, just as much as the rest of us, & should be free to do as he/she likes.
To be honest I am getting piss bored of seeing people on here getting singled out and attacked for having a different opinion.
Back on Topic
I think a Preemptive strike should be considerd as a method of stopping an inerment attack... If you take the attack or avoid it, it's only going to show you as being weak... In JKD I learnt destruction blocking, block a punch with an elbow, the top of your head or a Knee, smashing the limbs of the attacker and forcing them not to attack again... I think if we are to defend our selves we need follow up with some thing so bad it Kripples them.
I have to disagree, it wasn't senseless flaming on Gono's part, it was a response. If Elegy, or any member is going to say something stupid, then it's only reasonable that a response of a certain kind will be said. I think it's great that there are people with different opinions, but it still has to be said in a proper manner. Most of what Elegy says is getting much better, it's just things like
Quote"Your" government doesn't care for you, so stop caring for it, mind your own fucking business and don't defend their stupid, heinous acts.
that doesn't really do much and incites a rude response.
Quote
I think a Preemptive strike should be considerd as a method of stopping an inerment attack...
The whole point is, it comes down to hear-say. Until the missiles have been launched, you have no real "proof" that an attack is impending.
QuoteIf you take the attack or avoid it, it's only going to show you as being weak... In JKD I learnt destruction blocking, block a punch with an elbow, the top of your head or a Knee, smashing the limbs of the attacker and forcing them not to attack again... I think if we are to defend our selves we need follow up with some thing so bad it Kripples them.
That seems to me being somewhat a god complex there, "do something wrong, no matter how small, and where going to ass rape you". It seems a little extreme and would give any superpower a bad name. Countries with large amounts of power shouldn't use it to play god by smiting their weaker enemies off the face of the planet.
I think it's fine to use information of an incoming attack to defend, but if you've attacked them first, landed the first blow, then your the one who initiated the war.
Quote from: landofshadows on March 30, 2007, 07:50:03 AM
I mean right now the USA and England along side the UN may be looking at attacking Iran, what if Iran desided to strike first ?
The important question is, what if Iran decides not to strike at all?
The president of Iran is a very intelligent person, far more intelligent than most heads of nations, I seriously doubt he would go to war, especially since Iran doesn't have the upper hand as far as weapons of mass destruction go.
Quote from: GonLook at preemptive strikes as defence then.
But it's not.
Quote from: GonSeriously though, throw away your anarchy fanboy shit, tear down the myspace and swap your emo/goth clothes for a good wardrobe. You really need to start thinking of these things in the context of reality.
Oh no, you're attacking me because of the way I look, you're the first person ever!! /sarcasm
For a personal attack to work I'd have to care what you think, and guess what.
I don't.
Seems like we are rather insecure in our masculinity aren't we, gon?
The only people who try to insult someone because of the way they dress are the people who are jealous and/or insecure in themselves.
And I am thinking of things in context of reality, just not here, this is the internet.
If I were to think of things in context of reality here, I might aswell just stop saying anything, because in reality, my opinion, aswell as the rest of the worlds, is worth nothing.
QuoteThat seems to me being somewhat a god complex there, "do something wrong, no matter how small, and where going to ass rape you". It seems a little extreme and would give any superpower a bad name. Countries with large amounts of power shouldn't use it to play god by smiting their weaker enemies off the face of the planet.
If some one or attacks some one you care for and hurts them... For example some one breaks your mothers Jaw... What would you do...?
I would Break each of their limbs... Or at least break their Jaw.
Same if a country attacked our own, we should make sure that what they get in return is matched or hightend to the point they see no point in attacking again...
I am not saying abuse the power I am saying use it when needed... Just like the USA did after the twin towers (But there is still much bad air around that time, with talk of Bush letting it happen)... But in priciple it was right to use the level of power that he used in retaliation... If the USA did nothing, it would have heppend again and again by now.
And the only reason I reffer to a fighting style like JKD is it is one of the most efficent fighting forms there is, What's War if not a fight between countries...
I don't like War or fighting... But if you can stop many people being killed by disabling a country before the attack happens then why not take the iniative ?
(I do agree all the facts need to be established first and justification and proof to back those facts after the attack need to be proven).
I think the fact no weapons of Mass destruction being found in Iraq should see Bush/Blair and the cabinet facing charges of War crimes...
So if you act on poor or ill founded information the punishment should be high.
Quote"Your" government doesn't care for you, so stop caring for it, mind your own fucking business and don't defend their stupid, heinous acts.
Englands goverment does not care about the people that took arms in the 1st / 2nd world wars... they get a shite pension and poor care should they be lucky enough to get a place in an old people's home... The Government only cares about you while your young and working and paying taxes, that's all they care about... MONEY, not people... Until it comes to people protesting that is... In a sense I feel the same way... There is always some way the Goverment is failing it's people, but I doubt that will ever change... Wrong topic for this debate though.
Quote from: landofshadows on March 30, 2007, 07:50:03 AM
There is no need to attack Elegy for having an opinion...
He's not thinking thoroughly, he's just being contradictory, and is flaming more needlessly than I've done here. I'd go on, but I have to go to work in a couple of minutes.
Quote from: Elegy on March 30, 2007, 09:44:16 AM
The important question is, what if Iran decides not to strike at all?
The president of Iran is a very intelligent person, far more intelligent than most heads of nations, I seriously doubt he would go to war, especially since Iran doesn't have the upper hand as far as weapons of mass destruction go.
I doubt we're going to get into a hot war with Iran.
Quote from: GonBut it's not.
Active defence.
QuoteOh no, you're attacking me because of the way I look, you're the first person ever!! /sarcasm
For a personal attack to work I'd have to care what you think, and guess what.
I don't.
Of course you do.
QuoteSeems like we are rather insecure in our masculinity aren't we, gon?
The only people who try to insult someone because of the way they dress are the people who are jealous and/or insecure in themselves.
Not really; and you forgot to include those people who just realise how retarded you're being.
QuoteAnd I am thinking of things in context of reality, just not here, this is the internet.
If I were to think of things in context of reality here, I might aswell just stop saying anything, because in reality, my opinion, aswell as the rest of the worlds, is worth nothing.
What the fuck did you just say?
also, I haven't read LoS last response yet, I'll read it and respond to it later.
Quote from: GonOf course you do.
You're making my point for me.
huh?
Also answer the question-
QuoteQuote
And I am thinking of things in context of reality, just not here, this is the internet.
If I were to think of things in context of reality here, I might aswell just stop saying anything, because in reality, my opinion, aswell as the rest of the worlds, is worth nothing.
What the fuck did you just say?
Anymore flames by themselves will be deleted.
If your going to fight, at least put in something that has to do with the topic your in.
Sorry Gon, I can't answer your question, Saucy doesn't allow it.
A pre-emptive strike is an attack, there is no proof of any eminent attacks by the other nation, the whole point of it is to attack before anything has happened.
I don't think it can be justified, no matter how you go at it, either someone attacks or they don't, it's pretty much black and white.
To be afraid of something doesn't justify going on the offence against it, that is the kind of reasoning that leads radical groups to genocide and persecution.
Well i hate spiders yet i dont kill them i put them in a glass and throw them outside, if most nations talked instead of go to war most could be unnecessary, unless one nation is unreasonable then most likely a war will follow, like that dead spider that ran at me
*STAMP
Quote from: gonorrhoea on March 29, 2007, 11:52:22 PM
Quote from: modern algebraI don't like the concept of pre-emptive attack, especially if you are the more powerful nation.
Yeah, because wars should be fought fairly.
It's not a matter of fairness. I just think that if there is a possibility war can be avoided, then it is less justifiable for a nation who has no chance of losing to begin the war, because it is rejecting the possibility for nobody to die when there is no major loss if they do not get the first strike. In other words, rejecting the best possible outcome when none of the negative outcomes would severely hinder the nation's ability to act or win the war. Thus, while I understand the reasoning, I do not like it.
Quote from: Elegy...
. . .
Quote from: link_999...
I wish I lived in Utopia :(
Quote from: modern algebra on April 02, 2007, 09:50:17 PMIt's not a matter of fairness. I just think that if there is a possibility war can be avoided, then it is less justifiable for a nation who has no chance of losing to begin the war, because it is rejecting the possibility for nobody to die when there is no major loss if they do not get the first strike. In other words, rejecting the best possible outcome when none of the negative outcomes would severely hinder the nation's ability to act or win the war. Thus, while I understand the reasoning, I do not like it.
Ah, I misinterpreted.
whats with the quote from me it was true what i said in context, i forgot why i put the spider part :o
My point still stands.
Elegy
You have a Cobra on your bed on top of you, do you throw it off before it bites you, or wait until it does ?
If you know for sure a threat could turn into a real attack I think you have every right to do some thing about it...
I mean if some one points a gun at you, are you going to let them shoot you before you shoot them ?
I am not saying it's right all the time, I mean North Korea is no real threat, Iraq was no real threat... But say if Russia or Iran was to make threats empty or not, it would be a threat worth considering to silence.
If Terrorist plans are found in a strong hold showing dates and times and details, they should be acted on... There's all sort of counter meassures that will be looked at by the governments, and one in the forefront would be a preempitive strike... It's the one most likely to be the one that wins the votes.
Right or wrong it's going to happen, cuz it works... and if it works so well then why is it wrong...?
It happens all the time in hostage situations...
Weird, I agree.
Why is that weird? ???
May i ask, why should wars be fought fairly?
It's weird that I agree.
Also I agree with shadowdude, it's a fucking war not a game of checkers.
lol seriously wars shouldnt be fought fairly, if they were then why would we have so many trained soldier in iraq when we could just send a bunch of dogs to go blow them to shit.
Because that would make America/UK look like egotistical butchers when it comes to attacking weaker places........
hey wait a minute ???
It is life and reality not to fight fair. If you fight fair then you have more of a chance of life and reality not existing anymore. In the Army they taught me to always take the advantage whether it be the high ground, the more superior fire power, or even flanking the enemy. We are not in the 1800's where men stood in lines while they took pop shots at each other with thier muskets. Gentleman fighting no longer exists.
What I think this whole debate boils down to, and this is something that has plagued me since I could remember...
Why do people hate each other so much that they would want to rob people of the most precious thing in the world, thier life? I am not a Christian, I am not a theorist, I am not the smartest man alive, hell, I don't even have a College Degree (yet). But I feel I am one of a handful of people in the world who actually see that killing each other really dosn't do anything.
What I do think is that if PersonA is attacked by PersonB, then PersonA has the right to use enough force to stop PersonB, even if it boils down to using lethal force.
I think I am rambling...Ill stop. lol.
Quote from: shadowdude on April 09, 2007, 05:38:22 AM
lol seriously wars shouldnt be fought fairly, if they were then why would we have so many trained soldier in iraq when we could just send a bunch of dogs to go blow them to shit.
Because that decreases our popularity and indeed, our effectiveness, even more than it already was. Raping Iraq would just worsen the situation.
QuoteWhy do people hate each other so much that they would want to rob people of the most precious thing in the world, thier life?
Some times Taking some ones life before they take your own is the only option you have... Take for example the Guns at dawn in the cowboy days... Or if some one came at you with a Knife... Kill or be killed situations call for counter-action or pre-empitive action, self presivation should be parramount...
I don't think away of life or any abount of possesions is worth a human life... Just your own life should be valued over those that wish to endanger it.
Quote from: landofshadows on April 10, 2007, 07:45:22 AM
QuoteWhy do people hate each other so much that they would want to rob people of the most precious thing in the world, thier life?
Some times Taking some ones life before they take your own is the only option you have... Take for example the Guns at dawn in the cowboy days... Or if some one came at you with a Knife... Kill or be killed situations call for counter-action or pre-empitive action, self presivation should be parramount...
I don't think away of life or any abount of possesions is worth a human life... Just your own life should be valued over those that wish to endanger it.
Yep, thats exactly what I said, I just split it up into two segments. (very bottom paragraph of mine) What I am talking about are these terrorists that are willing to die or kill for a belief. You see these idiots on TV decapitating innocent reporters, unarmed soldiers, and civilians. I'm not trying to just single them out, we have criminals here in America that would kill not to go to jail, or because someone was born 4 blocks in the wrong direction. Its rediculous.
But I feel what Bush did, going into Iraq was the best thing at the time. I'm not saying it dosn't have its consequences now and in a perfect world there would have been a better way but this isn't a perfect world and America needed someone to blame...Iraq was there and to me Saddam needed to be taken out of power for the things we KNOW he did to his people.
QuoteAmerica needed someone to blame
You could blame Bush, for not acting on intelligence given that plans would be hi-jacked, or the rate of reaction from ground control for the planes diverting off course... Iraq and saddam had no tie's to Bin Larden, apart from being Arabs...
QuoteIraq was there and to me Saddam needed to be taken out of power for the things we KNOW he did to his people.
Law is the Law in his country... he made the law's and he governed them, who are we to take the deccision to over throw him ?... There are worst atrosities going on in the world.
I think Bush made the right decission on declaring a War on Terror, and taking out Saddam sent a message that America ment business, I just think Iraq was an easy target to boost confidence amoungst the public in the USA, they wanted blood for blood Bush gave it... I think the time for Bush to have acted was before the 911 attacks on the intelligence he had on Bin Larden.
Quote from: landofshadows on April 10, 2007, 04:33:24 PM
You could blame Bush, for not acting on intelligence given that plans would be hi-jacked, or the rate of reaction from ground control for the planes diverting off course... Iraq and saddam had no tie's to Bin Larden, apart from being Arabs...
Law is the Law in his country... he made the law's and he governed them, who are we to take the deccision to over throw him ?... There are worst atrosities going on in the world.
I think Bush made the right decission on declaring a War on Terror, and taking out Saddam sent a message that America ment business, I just think Iraq was an easy target to boost confidence amoungst the public in the USA, they wanted blood for blood Bush gave it... I think the time for Bush to have acted was before the 911 attacks on the intelligence he had on Bin Larden.
Bush was not the one who decided to kill people, ground control didn't decide to turn airplanes into suicidal missiles. The people who decided to do these horrible acts are the people to blame. But thats not what I am talking about, I am talking about the goverments and tyrants who oppress thier people. I don't care who you are, I don't believe you should be able to take someones life (I don't even like the death penalty, but like I said, its not a perfect world).
Law is Law eh? So if I was Saddam and I found out that you were talking bad about me in my country, you know what I am going to do? Stick the bottom half of you in a wood chipper so you can feel the pain I felt when you said "I don't like Saddam". Then, so you don't bleed out before I have my last say, I am going to cauterize whats left of your bottom torso, laugh at your pain, and then stick you head first back into the wood chipper.
Yes, he did do that to people who tried to start an overthrow or did not show devout loyalty. Hell of a law ain't it?
QuoteLaw is Law eh? So if I was Saddam and I found out that you were talking bad about me in my country, you know what I am going to do? Stick the bottom half of you in a wood chipper so you can feel the pain I felt when you said "I don't like Saddam". Then, so you don't bleed out before I have my last say, I am going to cauterize whats left of your bottom torso, laugh at your pain, and then stick you head first back into the wood chipper.
And it's SO much better there now... May be the wood chipper is what kept order to chaos there.
(And where did you hear such crap any way... He didn't himself go down and stick people in wood chippers)Besides... The USA uses tourture even now:- http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/321015/all
But this is the wrong place to debate such things... Unless Saddam was only killing those who he deemed as wanting to kill him... If he showed he was weak he would have been over thrown, and killed him-self... Look what his country is like without him.
I don't think you realize that all of this was going on without our presence there. I am sure the insurgents still killed people without us there. The only difference between now and then are the IEDs and the gunfire in the streets, but 90% of that is aimed towards the American Soldiers and any Iraqi trying to make a difference within his country.
The worst thing to do right now would be to pull out just because we would leave the place in turmoil. I mean we have done some amazing things. This is a letter from SFC. Ray Reynolds to his family back home.
Quote
As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper is producing.)
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.
Don't believe for one-second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. So If you happen to run into John Kerry, be sure to give him my email address and send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.
Ray Reynolds, SFC Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion
PS - Landofshadows, your a good debater and one of few I have seen that can keep facts straight and argue thier side without emotions getting into the mix.
QuotePS - Landofshadows, your a good debater and one of few I have seen that can keep facts straight and argue thier side without emotions getting into the mix.
Ta...
All the above you mentioned have been gained from a Pr-emptive strike, I guess is what you are saying... But that's a matter of opinion... I don't think Saddam had any plans in attacking the USA... And there are leaders world over killing their own people and restricting them...
Quote* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
Yep thats Good... But then again how many kids has the conflict killed or put in hospital
Quote* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
And how many kids don't go to school due to gun fire in the streets...
Quote* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
And how many schools are deemed too dangerous, and how many have been blown to bits...?
Quote* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
And does it reach the people, or does it go to the insergents ?
Quote* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
And how many oild fields got burnt... and who now proffits largely from that sale ?
Quote* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
They had water before... and if you mean those in the slum like area's they only get bottled water, they hae no clean wells or pumps as yet.
I could carry on but you get the point... the stats are one sided... It's a better way of life there, there is no fear from the rule... but now there are street wars, people are too scared to leave their own homes in most parts of Bagdad... They only help they are asking for is help shifting the dead bodies from day after day of street fighting between factions...
Pre-empitive strikes I think are only good if they cause less fall out or prevent loose of life... Could Saddam have killed this many people before he died...?
I am not sure... If he could have his wood chipper would have been running 24/7...LOL
Quote from: Asmos on April 13, 2007, 03:07:54 PMThis is a letter from SFC. Ray Reynolds to his family back home.
If this wasn't written by someone in the government then it was written by someone who strongly supports them.
Most countries can fight fair it is that Iraq as a country is on our side and so are others but it is just the minor terrorist groups that decide to fight unfairly because that is the best way to do what they desire to do without using alot of money
Someone is getting fed propaganda....
Iraq wants us out...they just need the money and the support so they suffer us there. There are more terrorists than there are military forces at the moment...minor terrorist groups my ass.
Alq...*gah forgot the spelling, the one Osama Binladen is apart of* that's a major one, World wide lately.
Exactly they want us out because as soon as we leave it will not be a democracy anymore so it not the government or the majority of the people just the terrorist groups and a minority of people
Cobragamer, are any of your posts coherent? How bad is your grade in English class, eh?
Also, both of you are exaggerating for the benefit of the side you support. Stop that!
I dunno who unbanned him from ID, but he's banned again =)