I'll admit my post was a little brain wishy washy patriotic worship the flag, so perhaps I should redirect a bit. Many take up arms just because they see the reality of the world. Or maybe they join out of idealistic ideas, but their motives change once they're in.

Like it or not, war... conflicts, are a part of our nature. I would be shocked if the human population ever weeded out that urge to destroy what opposes their specific groups or beliefs. Granted, throughout the ages we've become more civil... we're more a world of treaties and sly tongues now then ever before. But the fact, as sad as it may be, is that dramatic changes, real changes, most often occur through conflict.

Hell, even our games reflect that. Lusternia thrives on conflict, just like every other game. There's always the "dark" or "evil" or "selfish" side, then there's the polar opposite, the "good", the "just", the "self sacrificing". The HAVE to oppose each other almost always. They were designed to oppose each other. I'll admit that I've seen mudder's over the years work out some interesting rp alliances, where peace, for a time, stands between two morally opposite organizations, mirroring real life. We ally with people who serve our interests, and when they stop, the bullets come again.

I'm not defending our policies by any means. I also know I'm not any smarter then anyone there (Well, I could probably give a more eloquent speech than Mr. Bush). So, the reality is that policy makers sometimes do well, and there is relative peace. Sometimes they do bad, or sometimes the situation turns out to be something other than what was expected, and there is battle. That's the reality. The youth, while full of promise and hopefully will be able to contribute in a peaceful way at some point in their lives, stands guard, protecting the country that their generation will one day rule.

Like I said, it's not for everyone. And I respect that. I never thought I would do it. But I'd rather volunteer my time, and possibly my life - give it willingly, then to have another, maybe my best friend who has dreams of being a lawyer, businessman, or even something as simple as a father, get drafted, against his wishes, and lose his chance at fulfulling his dreams.

As far as aggression and occupation... well, like I said, we don't give the orders. I know with some certainty that most soldiers don't want to be living in the desert of a country that seems totally backwards from their own. And when you're given the order to shoot when shot at... well, I'm not going to argue. While we have the right to disobey unlawful orders, questioning your commanders reasonable orders during a firefight is what gets people killed.

But hey, I respect everyone's opinion on the matter, American or not. Not ever soldier fighting there is American. Like I said, my opinion is be angry with the politicians if you want, but leave the soldiers out. I've yet to meet one that loves being in Iraq.

I'm writing this without reading any of the rest of the thread because I'd rather just say how I feel and why, and not worry about how other people feel about it right now. Its a very controversial topic, and I don't want to be getting in a huff over somethin.

First off, I agree with the war. I don't agree with the reasons our government have given us for the war, but I think fighting for the Iraqi's is the right thing to do from our perspective. Whether or not its acctually being fought for them... Is debatable, but I think fighting for a people to be able to live their own lives is something worth fighting for, and should be fought for. I think it would be much better if they were able to fight for themselves, and from the sounds of things, they're acctually starting to, but I seriously doubt, if they end up a truely free people that they're going to be completely in line with American ideals and whatnot.

I think that everyone in the world should be capable of being responsible for their own well being, freedom, and beliefs. In Iraq and other parts of that world, people don't have that ability because their brainwashed from birth how to act, what to believe and that anything better is wrong and should be fought against. In my oppinion, that form of life is just a more subtle form of slavery. Personally though, I don't think the war in Iraq is being fought for the people, but rather to try to keep Iraqs oil moving to our country un-interupted and masking it with good intentioned lies. Its politics 101, say one thing, mean something completely different, but be convincing enough so people don't notice, or don't care.

I have friends and family fighting over there right now... Just like most people probably do. I don't like having to worry about them, and I'd be sad if they were lost over there. But they are responsible for their own actions, and more than that, they are fighting for something they believe in. I don't think its right of us to question that. I support my friends and family over there in what their doing. If there was another way we could be sure Iraq didn't just fall apart again, then I'd be all for it, but I don't know of another way right now.

As for conflict in general. Conflict is needed in the world or else it will just stagnate, conflict though doesn't need to be in the form of war. War is just the ultimate form of conflict, and I think humanity could, if it tried, live without physically fighting one another. But there are far too many differing beliefs, cultures, and peoples for that to be possible right now. Maybe in another few centuries if we haven't blown ourselves up, we'll be able to get along better.

Such a vague poll. I support certain aspects of the war and dislike others - so many people seem to have forgotten that, yes, there can be a middle ground.

Of course the poll is black and white, it encourages people to elaborate their position. I'm not going to try list every nuance of possibilities in the poll, I'd miss something.

neither my position, which is public knowledge, nor the information I revealed are restricted as they are restricted for other things contained in the files, so there was no breach of security. You would of been right if I revealed information on 'secret' level.

I agree with that. My ex's brother was 19 in a branch of the Spanish Military's special forces... He was gung ho when he had to go to Bosnia to clean up things there. He had a crappy knife they made him pay for before he left. He showed it to me... I gave him a push dagger (t handled fighting knife) and another decent knife for the trip... 6 months later when he came back to Madrid... he was ready to leave the military... He wasn't too happy with me and the US at that point since his job was to try and get guns from Kurds and Serbs and give them food. Which normally doesnt go well. But you could see such a difference in his eyes... almost traumatized... I felt horrible he had to see that at such a young age

It is a terrible gift to bestow on the youth

Except for the fact that the only way you could've got this information was either the EU (which didn't exist in 1968) to work alongside America, or by espionage.

Thus, are you admitting, that the EU has spies in the Pentagon in America?

source: www.eu.int

And how old is Germany, how old is the UK? Do you really think Europe isn't capable of centralising information.

This is a recent quote by Rice which I thought was interesting considering the recent "arguments" on this thread..

Rice said that "the United States recognizes ... that there are questions about American foreign policy." But, she said, Muslims should give the Bush administration credit for ending a six-decade policy of backing dictators in the Middle East and promoting democracy instead.

Apparently, its damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Just to clarify, Irak was not a religious regimen under Saddam Dictatorship, and in fact was seen by some other arab neighbour countries as the enemy.

So, the fact that islam forbids women from studying doesn't apply there. Religious shows including friday prayers were forbidden. The chiis(sp) were submited and couldn't follow their religion.

Now, with the change of regimen, is when Irak might become yet another ultra-religious arab country.

The issue isn't if its a relgious country or not, the issue is if its a democratic country (not democratically elected) and isn't an oppressive single party dictatorship. Willing to allow its neighbors to exist as independant countries as well.

When there's comments on women not allowed to study due to Islam mixing in the thread, is never bad to point out that we were talking about a non religious regimen (and thus, Islam had nothing to do) wich in fact opressed religion.

I always find this democracy issue particularly entertaining. Who the hell says that democracy is necessarily better for everyone? It's quite clear that democracy isn't working in Iraq, just as it doesn't work in many countries in Africa. It amuses me the way that the West arrogantly ponces about attempting to institute democracy, as though it were a kind of 'one size fits all' situation. You simply can't impose a workable democracy over night, and anyone who thinks you can is a fool.

Furthermore, let's just take a look at ourselves. Do we live in a democracies? I'm bloody sure I don't.. whatever we in Britain may choose to call it. Do we approve of the way in which our countries are run? I'm bloody sure I don't. In which case.. who the hell are we to impose the same failing political set up on others.

/rant

Good point aiakon, and you cant really call america a true democracy when they have and still do ban certain political parties from forming.

Problem with democracy is that you need a minimun level among the population for it to work, culturally and just economically.
I just cannot imagine a poor farmer in africa walking 20km to go vote when he doesn't ever know how to read, and I wouldn't trust that person not to be mislead by the political party who gives him two sacks of bread and tells him to vote for them.
Too easily abusable.

Even though, democracy is the lesser of all evils. At least they have to give the farmer the bread to buy him, and hopefully, with time, people will vote with more knowledge of the situation.

I don't regard that as being so much the problem (though undoubtedly you have a point).. rather I would say more generally that Africa is simply culturally unsuited to democracy. The old values die hard.. Age is still greatly respected, the tribal structure remains very powerful outside the cities, and corruption is institutionalised. It took Europe centuries to move into a position from which democracy was viable. You can't expect countries which aren't used to it to just change.

boy, I would have thought the use of the word democracy was its coloqual usage and not litteral. The U.S.A for example is not a democracy, it is a republic.

So far, no "democracy" has declared war on another "democracy" (We will see what happens with the Hammas run P.A.)

You do not have the case of "democracies" declaring that country X should no longer have its borders and we should be in thier place. This is what happened when Iraq declared war on Kuwait, this is the statements Iran makes, this is what Russia said.

Currently there are no true democracies existing in the world, however the issue of Dictatorships and one state governments vs "democracies" is not an "east vs west" issue, unless your saying that South America is not the west.

It's interesting to make those kinds of comparisons and see which actually match up and which 'x factors' make Africa, for example, react differently to democracy. Is it their religious structures? Their tribal systems? The intitutionalised racism?

It's hard to say for sure, and I'm not a big fan of comparitive sociology to be honest. But we'll see how it goes.

(On a side note, who says a change to democracy is a good thing? It's not like Western democratic nations have reached material stability where the basic needs of all people's are met. It's as if we change and progress just for the sake of it, and we assume that is somehow inherantly a good thing.)

It would appear that the only people who are proposing instant change are those who are against the conflict in Iraq. Also, it doesn't really matter how many people in the country are educated enough or care enough to vote. I think America has the worst voter turnout in the world.

So what your saying daganev, is that the reason to go to war had nothing to do with promoting democracy then?