Rich man's war, poor man's fight? (evolution, America, conservative)

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by EEWRED

Haha. Trying to set me up, huh? It is what I have noticed through my own experience and from listening to experts in the field of politics. Not purely emotional; or based on just a whimsical feeling.

Who are these "experts"?

[michel]

I would like to think that the war was about removing a tyrant from his Country, where he was busy abusing all and sundry (That is what I thought at the start of the Iraqui war). Now it seems to be generally accepted that the whole war was a sham, and all about oil; however, no one but the President can really know his motives (and the same can be said about Blair), I still believe Blair was honest, and I hope I could call all those who put Bush down cynics.


I guess we will never know for sure.

[Ardent Listener]

In my opinion, it is good for us to challange each others statements and ask for facts to back them up. I have had some of you paint me in a corner with my own words. Good for you. Of course some subjects such as religion are subjective and our "feelings" on the subject are an inportant factor in our own personal beliefs.

Also we can't prove a negative. How do you prove that there was not wepons of mass distruction in Iraq if there never were any? If I accuse you of having a gun in your bedroom and you never did, and seach your bedroom and can't find it, all I have to do is accuse you of moving it to your basement. And it goes on and on, over and over. It would be impossible for you to prove to me you never had one. On the other hand, if you did have a gun in your bedroom and moved it some place else, that can be very difficult, but not impossible, for me to prove.

Searching for the truth is difficult, but we need to keep an open mind to facts when they are presented and challange those facts if we can.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Ardent Listener

In my opinion, it is good for us to challange each others statements and ask for facts to back them up. I have had some of you paint me in a corner with my own words. Good for you. Of course some subjects such as religion are subjective and our "feelings" on the subject are an inportant factor in our own personal beliefs.

Also we can't prove a negative. How do you prove that there was not wepons of mass distruction in Iraq if there never were any? If I accuse you of having a gun in your bedroom and you never did, and seach your bedroom and can't find it, all I have to do is accuse you of moving it to your basement. And it goes on and on, over and over. It would be impossible for you to prove to me you never had one. On the other hand, if you did have a gun in your bedroom and moved it some place else, that can be very difficult, but not impossible, for me to prove.

Searching for the truth is difficult, but we need to keep an open mind to facts when they are presented and challange those facts if we can.

How do you prove that there were no weapons of mass distruction in Iraq if there never were any?

That is a very good point. How do we actually know that they are not still there ?

I remember seeing a programme on Television here where some guy very accidentally found an opening to something, while rock climbing (can't remember where, or when, but that is immaterial).

What he had happened on, by accident, was a mass Weapons armory, so well hidden in the countryside, that not even the people living nearby knew it was there.

I defy anyone who can have totally unrestricted access to the whole of Iraq, to find every single hidey hole. For all we know, If there were weapons of mass destruction hidden anywhere, Saddam, on being attack, could have had everyone who knew of the existance of it executed.

Feasible ? I think so.

[MidnightBlue]

"Rich man's war, poor man's fight" describes this and pretty much every other war.

[Ardent Listener]

Originally Posted by michel

That is a very good point. How do we actually know that they are not still there ?

I remember seeing a programme on Television here where some guy very accidentally found an opening to something, while rock climbing (can't remember where, or when, but that is immaterial).

What he had happened on, by accident, was a mass Weapons armory, so well hidden in the countryside, that not even the people living nearby knew it was there.

I defy anyone who can have totally unrestricted access to the whole of Iraq, to find every single hidey hole. For all we know, If there were weapons of mass destruction hidden anywhere, Saddam, on being attack, could have had everyone who knew of the existance of it executed.

Feasible ? I think so.

They could still be there, (or someplace else) but if they are, it is then not impossible to prove so by finding them. Very very difficut, but not impossible. But if they never were there, it would be impossible to prove that they never were there if one want to continue to believe that they were there, but moved.

[Ardent Listener]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

"Rich man's war, poor man's fight" describes this and pretty much every other war.

Just your opinion or do you have facts to share with us to back it up?

[Fluffy]

Whilst the emotional impact that this concept can have on some people, including myself, is massive (summed up best in System Of A Down's B.Y.O.B "Why don't president's fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?", if you haven't heard it you are missing out), I don't think that such a such a statement is applicable any longer.

Nobody is forced to go to war (everybody has a choice to join the army with the knowledge they might be called to war) and under conscription, the discrimination is age, not wealth.