Do you agree with this?

[Apollo45]

Ya, this is true. If you were looking at war circa 800 BC, where men fought for glory and their primary form of "glory" was to capture women from cities where all the men and children had been killed.

Nowadays? What about other family? Brothers, sons, fathers? What about the men dying? Are they not victims? Civilians that have been killed? What about the women who are in the armed forces?

In short; bullshit. That particular woman is borderline insane.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Everyone's a victim, whether they sign up to it out of a misguided sense of patriotism or they're caught in the crossfire.

UK, huh? Yeah, you guys would think all patriotism is misguided. Suck a dick. I didn't go on tour twice for no good reason.

What in the Hell is that even supposed to mean? Xneophobe much?

And I'm really sorry to break this to you. But you did.

Some wars are unavoidable. Iraq was not(assuming your tours were Iraq, Afghanistan etc.). And believe it or not, the middle East didn't start it.

Sidenote, I'm not the guy you quoted.

(In the specific case of Afghanistan) Indeed, the middle east didn't start it, Al Qaeda did. Therefore, we are fighting Al Qaeda and the people who support/shelter/train them. Besides (again, specifically Afghanistan) this stopped being just a simple matter of retribution or justice or whatever the hell you want to call it for 9/11 a long time ago. Now it's also about fighting so that in the future little girls will be safe enough to go to school in their own country, or make their own choices about their own lives without the fear of being persecuted and killed by a bunch of maniac zealots.

I'm not naive, I know all wars, no matter how just the cause is for them, are a messy business, but can you really say that the example I've just given is 'no good reason'.

(I'm not the guy you quoted either)

Al Qaeda didn't start it. There was a lot going on a long time before 9/11. I'm not condoning what Al Qaeda did. In-fact a lot of what they do sickens me. And I do not back Sharia law, at all. But it is their land. Their way of life. We really do not have the right to impose our beliefs on them, no matter how much more logical and fair they are.

But the west in general cannot claim innocence in this matter, what so ever.

Considering the sheer scale of 9/11 the stuff that happened before hand now seems pretty insignificant. Anyway, it's not like the West was making any aggressive moves before then, they definitely threw the first stone no matter how far you go back. Hell, the reason Bin Laden went underground and started adopting terrorism in the first place wasn't as some defiant gesture against US atrocities. He was just pissed off that the Saudi government actually WANTED the US and UK coalition to liberate Kuwait in the first Gulf War rather than use Arab mercenaries instead. You see, what he really hated wasn't that we were in the Arab homeland without permission, but that we DID have the permission and blessing of almost everyone except him.

And hang on! "Imposing our beliefs"? This isn't some kind of Crusade. Bringing the Western gifts of Christianity and McDonald's to the unwashed natives of Afghanistan! While I agree that not every culture suits democracy (or any kind of centralised government at all really), but what I was talking about had nothing to do with that. Everybody, and I mean everybody not matter what religion they worship or what system of government they support, is entitled to basic human rights and freedoms. If the Taliban get their way (Sidenote: In regards to The Taliban, as far as I'm concerned it stops being "their" land and culture the moment they restrict the rights and freedoms of everyone around them. So I quite frankly don't give the tiniest shit about what they want to do with "their" land.) Anyway, if they get their way a large number of innocent Afghans get denied the sort of basic rights that everyone should be entitled to, either to have or at least make the choice to reject for themselves. We're not there to impose a system of beliefs on them that they don't want, we're there to keep them safe from the very people that would do that. You can say we have no right to intervene if you want, but I for one am proud that I live in a country that doesn't just let that kind of shit happen to people because 'hurr durr, it not r place to inturfear'.

The culture of the West isn't perfect, not by a long shot. But while we still aren't torturing and killing our own countrymen in cold blood just because they don't agree with our psychopathic view of the world we get to take the moral high ground on this one.

You're kidding right? Roughly 3000 people died in the 9/11 attack.

The US directly funded the large scale genocide on the Gaza strip for years before, since 1967 if memory serves.

The west has a dirty history of forcible putting leaders that suit our needs in charge of middle eastern countries. Just look at Iran's recent history.

Or the direct 1999 bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

You really can't say that we didn't start this whole thing. The US bloody well funded and trained Osama during the damn cold war. And you certainly can't argue 9/11 was a step up. They simply brought it closer than we would have liked.

And again, what you're essentially talking about is imposing our beliefs onto them. It's our belief of universal freedom. And no matter how rational that may be and how irrational their view of gender/sex may be. We do not have the right to show up on their doorstep and tell them that they're wrong.

And if we do we then can't act surprised when they start indiscriminately attacking us.

(To clarify, I'm not actually from the US and I really don't approve of many American foreign policy practices in the past. However, I do still maintain that this time around the West is in the right and that hijacking jumbo jets full of defenseless innocents and then flying them into skyscrapers full of even more defenseless innocents, more in terms of sheer barbaric cruelty than actual body count, trumps anything the US was directly involved in beforehand, and you can't shovel the full blame onto them for things they were only indirectly involved in. For example, the fact that the Jewish percentage of the US voting population is too high for any politician there to do anything other than support Israel does not make them fully responsible for the things Israel does. There the majority of the blame has to lie with Israel.)

Like I said, we are not perfect, far from it. But the mistakes in our own past do not mean that we should just stand by and let atrocities happen in the world when we have the power to stop it because 'It's just their beliefs' or some bullshit. Let me give you a scenario. A 11 year old Afghan girl wants to go to school because she actually has aspirations about her future. Unfortunately the Taliban roll up in her town on the day she decides to do so. They beat her and stone her to death in front of her family and friends just because she broke one law from one (not even fully recognised) interpretation of one faith. You then have to have to explain to that girls father why we weren't there to stop them and the best you can come up with is "Gee, sorry sir, but it's not our place to tell The Taliban their beliefs are wrong".

Can you really argue that you would be comfortable with that? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.

You're probably right when you say we have no place to impose our values on them, but some things are more important than that. If I have to offend someone's faith to save another persons life then you'd better fucking believe that's what I'll do.

 

[kittii-chan 300]

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
- Hillary Clinton.

I Think this is a load of crap. I mean sure, it would be bad to lose a family member but it would be a whole lot worse to die in combat. I believe the true "Victims" of war are the civilians that die when they have no part in the war. What are your opinions on this quote?

i think the quote isnt true but i dont think it would be "a whole lot worse to die in combat" because if your religious "you go to better place" and if your not "nothing". I think the real victims are the civilians who die for in war, like the people who die in bombings or hostage situations.

 

[n00beffect]

Everyone is a victim of war. Men, women, citizens, soldiers, animals, the environment... Everything and everyone.

 

[danielns13]

I remember I once had a teacher(who happened to be a but of nutcase) who once went on about the same thing. She would talk about how men didn't really suffer during the fighting as much as the women did back home. In the middle of what was becoming a long rant one of my friends in the back of the room screamed, "OH F*** I GOT SHOT IN THE LEG".

 

[Dark Knifer]

Well, it's not really true, everyone suffers in war but I guess the context was to address the issue more then to say it indisputable. The wording could have been better but I can see what she means, but everyone is the victim in war, only exception really is the politicians/businessmen/dictators who conduct it really.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Yes, Hilary. The PRIMARY victims in wars are the people that never touch combat but know somebody who died in combat. That makes perfect sense. Just like how the wife of the person who gets murdered is referred to as "the victim" in police reports.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Everyone's a victim, whether they sign up to it out of a misguided sense of patriotism or they're caught in the crossfire.

UK, huh? Yeah, you guys would think all patriotism is misguided. Suck a dick. I didn't go on tour twice for no good reason.

What in the Hell is that even supposed to mean? Xneophobe much?

And I'm really sorry to break this to you. But you did.

Some wars are unavoidable. Iraq was not(assuming your tours were Iraq, Afghanistan etc.). And believe it or not, the middle East didn't start it.

Sidenote, I'm not the guy you quoted.

(In the specific case of Afghanistan) Indeed, the middle east didn't start it, Al Qaeda did. Therefore, we are fighting Al Qaeda and the people who support/shelter/train them. Besides (again, specifically Afghanistan) this stopped being just a simple matter of retribution or justice or whatever the hell you want to call it for 9/11 a long time ago. Now it's also about fighting so that in the future little girls will be safe enough to go to school in their own country, or make their own choices about their own lives without the fear of being persecuted and killed by a bunch of maniac zealots.

I'm not naive, I know all wars, no matter how just the cause is for them, are a messy business, but can you really say that the example I've just given is 'no good reason'.

(I'm not the guy you quoted either)

Al Qaeda didn't start it. There was a lot going on a long time before 9/11. I'm not condoning what Al Qaeda did. In-fact a lot of what they do sickens me. And I do not back Sharia law, at all. But it is their land. Their way of life. We really do not have the right to impose our beliefs on them, no matter how much more logical and fair they are.

But the west in general cannot claim innocence in this matter, what so ever.

Considering the sheer scale of 9/11 the stuff that happened before hand now seems pretty insignificant. Anyway, it's not like the West was making any aggressive moves before then, they definitely threw the first stone no matter how far you go back. Hell, the reason Bin Laden went underground and started adopting terrorism in the first place wasn't as some defiant gesture against US atrocities. He was just pissed off that the Saudi government actually WANTED the US and UK coalition to liberate Kuwait in the first Gulf War rather than use Arab mercenaries instead. You see, what he really hated wasn't that we were in the Arab homeland without permission, but that we DID have the permission and blessing of almost everyone except him.

And hang on! "Imposing our beliefs"? This isn't some kind of Crusade. Bringing the Western gifts of Christianity and McDonald's to the unwashed natives of Afghanistan! While I agree that not every culture suits democracy (or any kind of centralised government at all really), but what I was talking about had nothing to do with that. Everybody, and I mean everybody not matter what religion they worship or what system of government they support, is entitled to basic human rights and freedoms. If the Taliban get their way (Sidenote: In regards to The Taliban, as far as I'm concerned it stops being "their" land and culture the moment they restrict the rights and freedoms of everyone around them. So I quite frankly don't give the tiniest shit about what they want to do with "their" land.) Anyway, if they get their way a large number of innocent Afghans get denied the sort of basic rights that everyone should be entitled to, either to have or at least make the choice to reject for themselves. We're not there to impose a system of beliefs on them that they don't want, we're there to keep them safe from the very people that would do that. You can say we have no right to intervene if you want, but I for one am proud that I live in a country that doesn't just let that kind of shit happen to people because 'hurr durr, it not r place to inturfear'.

The culture of the West isn't perfect, not by a long shot. But while we still aren't torturing and killing our own countrymen in cold blood just because they don't agree with our psychopathic view of the world we get to take the moral high ground on this one.

You're kidding right? Roughly 3000 people died in the 9/11 attack.

The US directly funded the large scale genocide on the Gaza strip for years before, since 1967 if memory serves.

The west has a dirty history of forcible putting leaders that suit our needs in charge of middle eastern countries. Just look at Iran's recent history.

Or the direct 1999 bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

You really can't say that we didn't start this whole thing. The US bloody well funded and trained Osama during the damn cold war. And you certainly can't argue 9/11 was a step up. They simply brought it closer than we would have liked.

And again, what you're essentially talking about is imposing our beliefs onto them. It's our belief of universal freedom. And no matter how rational that may be and how irrational their view of gender/sex may be. We do not have the right to show up on their doorstep and tell them that they're wrong.

And if we do we then can't act surprised when they start indiscriminately attacking us.

(To clarify, I'm not actually from the US and I really don't approve of many American foreign policy practices in the past. However, I do still maintain that this time around the West is in the right and that hijacking jumbo jets full of defenseless innocents and then flying them into skyscrapers full of even more defenseless innocents, more in terms of sheer barbaric cruelty than actual body count, trumps anything the US was directly involved in beforehand, and you can't shovel the full blame onto them for things they were only indirectly involved in. For example, the fact that the Jewish percentage of the US voting population is too high for any politician there to do anything other than support Israel does not make them fully responsible for the things Israel does. There the majority of the blame has to lie with Israel.)

Like I said, we are not perfect, far from it. But the mistakes in our own past do not mean that we should just stand by and let atrocities happen in the world when we have the power to stop it because 'It's just their beliefs' or some bullshit. Let me give you a scenario. A 11 year old Afghan girl wants to go to school because she actually has aspirations about her future. Unfortunately the Taliban roll up in her town on the day she decides to do so. They beat her and stone her to death in front of her family and friends just because she broke one law from one (not even fully recognised) interpretation of one faith. You then have to have to explain to that girls father why we weren't there to stop them and the best you can come up with is "Gee, sorry sir, but it's not our place to tell The Taliban their beliefs are wrong".

Can you really argue that you would be comfortable with that? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.

You're probably right when you say we have no place to impose our values on them, but some things are more important than that. If I have to offend someone's faith to save another persons life then you'd better fucking believe that's what I'll do.

I'm just going to make this quick.

The 3,000 killed in 9/11 is a pitence compared to how many people have died because of direct western manipulation in funding and geopolitics in the middle east.

Of course Al Qaeda are nothing more than terrorists and they should all be rooted out and strung up. But you cannot say they started this. Everything they've done is a direct reaction to western pressure and intervention.

And we should not take any form of action unless someone asks us to. What we've essentially done is try to do some good (the western military's aren't evil, they just want to help.) but appeared to everyone else as the villain. Like it or not, we have gone into other people countries and told them that their lifestyle is wrong.

Like I said, I do not support Sharia law in the slightest and I want to physically harm those people who are demanding that our countries should have it because they now live here.

But that is the exact reaction that those countries are having to our presence there. And it's a lot stronger because we're actively enforcing our values.

You cannot expect to enter another mans country and tell them how to run the place without some form of reaction.

We've essentially alienated those who we wanted to help. They see us as the interfering outsiders and they don't like it. A change like that needs to be brought about by example. Not by force.

You didn't answer the question.

I know that we had no official permission to go into Afghanistan (Although at the time there was no authority to give us permission so that kind of a moot point). I do however know people who have done several tours in Helmand who will tell you that the majority of the locals, while not trusting us completely, certainly see us as tolerable in comparison to the Taliban. These aren't biased people either, I've heard them all say that Iraq, somewhere they also went, was a pointless and illegal war, but in Afghanistan they are sure they are making a difference.

But that wasn't what I was debating with you. I know full well and have already said that we have gone into the Taliban's country and told them that they are wrong. What I want ed to know was could you really be willing to sit back and watch innocents be murdered in cold blood at the hands of zealots who think that anyone who is not 100% with them deserves to die? Would you be willing to watch those people suffer when you had the power to stop it? Would you be willing to explain to their families that you could have stopped it but chose not to?

If you could, if your principles that nobody has the right to tell anyone else that their beliefs are wrong really mean more to you than those peoples lives, then fine. I guess you're entitled to that and I have no more case to argue with you. But in my eyes no faith or traditional culture that would endorse the oppression and murder of innocent people, particularly women and children, can have my respect. So I have no trouble telling them that they are wrong to believe what they believe, and if they try and hurt innocent people because of what they believe I have no problem with fighting them over it.

 

[Spartan448]

There are no such things as "victims", anymore. No, no, the USA made sure of that after they dropped the nuke on Japan TWICE, and killed hundreds of thousands of people without a second thought. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians who had no part in the war, killed without mercy. The end of World War II marked the end of the era where killing civillians was unacceptable.

No, the end of World War II marked the end of needing more than a single weapon to kill a hundred thousand. Cities had taken comparable damage from bombing before, only it required a host or aircraft armed with many, many weapons.

I don't see how it'd be preferable to kill many times that number of civilians in a ground war instead, unless lots of US and allied forces also dying makes it alright? In preparation for a ground war on Japan, the US stockpiled half a million Purple Hearts to award to wounded soldiers. After 60 years of fighting around the world and awarding them, they've still got about a quarter of them left.

Had we invaded Japan, any intentional civilian casualties would have resulted in court-martials, and dealt with the way they were meant to be. You can't exactly court-martial the President if you didn't have the courage to just invade Japan.

A ground war, yes, would have resulted in quite possibly hundreds of thousands of U.S. casualties, and many more wounded. Civ. casualties would be less of a worry because anyone who picks up a gun could be called an enemy, and boy, a lot of civies there would be rushing to grab the weapons of their fallen comrades. Not as much "Civilian casualties", as much as "Crazy people actually given a fair chance to defend their homeland". When that first bomb left the bomber, American morals went with it.

 

[The_Emperor]

War hurts everybody equally. especially when they are illegal and unjust like every war since WW2 has been.

So when my country's territory was invaded by the Argentinians 30 years ago against the will of all the citizens who lived there, we had no case at all to stop them? Especially when they started brutally oppressing said innocent civilians for not conforming to the new regime?

Would you call the invasion of your country a just war?

Wars are started unjustly not fought unjustly.

I didn't say there weren't just reasons for fighting wars just not many just reasons for starting them. I think you proved my point by talking of an oppressive regime invading your country and starting an unjust war, which your nation was certainly justified in resisting.

It also depends on whos fighting so Hitler in WW2 was not fighting a just war, the other side was.

So I am not saying your country had no case for resisting an unjust war.

get what I mean?

 

[Dapsen]

Disagree. I dont follow politics (especially not american politics, why would I, when I live in Denmark), so this is the first statement from Hillary Clinton that I hear of. And instantly she has been labeled in my mind, as too ignorant and plain stupid to be in politics.

 

[metagross111]

Everyone's a victim, whether they sign up to it out of a misguided sense of patriotism or they're caught in the crossfire.

This. So very much this.

War. What is it good for?
....Thinning out the population and brainwashing the masses....and that's pretty much it.

Deposing corrupt officials and governments, defending a country, rescuing another, combating terrorist organizations, war is sometimes the only effective resolution to any given conflict, and it is reserved for very serious situations.