Is it good to be drenched in the blood of war?

Perhaps, but also maybe it is taken for granted. That which can not be found within, must be sought outwardly. We would not seek companionship (as humans do), we would not need affermation from others, we would not be self concious or vain, etc.

The fact that we can not love ourselves is what causes us to look for love from outside ourselves. But since we can not love ourselves, we can not love another unconditionally, and there in lies the problem. We seek what we can not give.

The only one who could love us unconditionally is God, and being that no one can prove he is there, there is always a kernal of doubt within us.

We are creatures who seek satisfaction, but that is not possible.

Yes, the great proponants of love know that greater love means greater peace, harmony, and all other things good. We are weak creatures, and are flawed.

This is evident in Shakespear, for instance. His plays are still popular because they deal with ideas timeless in the nature of man. Jealousy, hate, disire, lust, to name a few.

Never will man be different, and he is unable to become "enlightened" because of it. To be truely enlightened, would be to transend our situation and be able to step outside of it.

Someone truely wise would know of the impossibility of that, and inherent nature of man. This is the prime motivator behind my saying that more can be done to further your cause be addressing the root of it (love) rather than using the effects of it's lack (distain, anger, and the like).

Originally posted by 27jd

It is very sad that you are so blinded by patriotism and brainwashed by the media that you do not acknowledge the point here. Children are being mangled, even if by accident. Is that really the answer to the world's problems? If it were your children it would be different, right? Children are children, innocents are innocents, no matter what nationality. Imagine, your child (if you have one) mutilated, scared, confused and bleeding to death, this is the reality for many innocents in Iraq, it makes me sick how many of my fellow Americans discount life just because they are not American. You should be ashamed, there is NO good in war, even if it is war made by this "great country" the USA. Arkaleus I believe is wrong on many issues, but not this one, perhaps you should consider medications if you think killing children is OK, as long as they're in another country.

[edit on 13-9-2004 by 27jd]

Ah, i see...so when the UN put sanctions in Iraq and over 500,000 children under the age of 5 died where were your cries for those children?

If there hadn't been a war, the UN would have made more sanctions, and 500,000 or more children under the age of 5 would have died in Iraq because of these sanctions.

Lets see what would have happened if we hadn't gone to war, don't just take my word, i always back up my information.

Iraqi Sanctions: Were They Worth It?
by Sheldon Richman, January 2004 [POSTED FEBRUARY 9, 2004]

In May 1996 Madeleine Albright, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the UN, was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq,

We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

To which Ambassador Albright responded,

I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.

That remark caused no great public outcry, although, according to journalist Matt Welch, some students protested when Albright spoke at college campuses. The following January Albright was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as President Clinton�s secretary of state. In her opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was considering her appointment, she said,

We will insist on maintaining tough U.N. sanctions against Iraq unless and until that regime complies with relevant Security Council resolutions.

Excerpted from.
www.fff.org...

Now, if you ask me what i think, i say the death of any child is not alright, not at all, but what would have been the consequences of not going to war?

Do you know how many children died because of Saddam's regime? hundreds of thousands, together with their parents.

You can see in the above how many died because of another more peaceful mean was adopted to try to get Saddam to comply with the mandates of the world.

What were the mandates of the world? that he had to stop trying to build more wmd, and destroys everything that was banned, including any wmd that were in his possession. Why did the world ask that? because he had shown to the world that he would invade other countries, and use whatever he had in his power against others and even his own people.


[edit on 23-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Do you know how many children died because of Saddam's regime? hundreds of thousands, together with their parents.

Wow, Maude. That's a great performance right there. Anyone reading your post would truly get it: We went to war to save the Iraqi children! What a noble and worthy cause!

What of the children of North Korea? China? The United States? I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of children will die over here because our gigantic Bushy deficit will cause us to cut their access to health care, food, and education? Why don't we stop messing around and INVADE OURSELVES!

REGIME CHANGE IN AMERICA: IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN.

Ah, but Muaddib (although I'd sure like to see you ride a worm :lol did the children die because of the sanctions?

I don't think so. In the words of Tony Blair "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (March 27, 2003).

The oil-for-food program, a UN program which sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine. This did not happen though. A reasonable counter to the sanctions affects, but Saddam "blocked access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies." (1)

"Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces." (1)

Site

There are more accounts than these, but time is short for me to post right now.

But I think that two arguements are silly.

1) Why aren't the Bush girls fighting in Iraq?

2) Why save the children or people there, there are others suffering elsewhere?

But more about that later.

Yeha the Bush girls can party all night, get AIDS from all the men they sleep with and then get free medication to help treat it.



[edit on 24-9-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
Whoa!

CazMedia, the conservative and 27jd, the liberal are tag-teaming Arkaleus, the religious fundamentalist...

This arguement should be in the hall of fame!

Where are our resident socialists and Communists? Once they've thrown their hats into the ring, this debate will be like a WWE Cage Death Match...

It just goes to show Caz and I can unite against the one force that would like to put an end to our rights to bicker amongst ourselves, and force us to conform under religious oppression. Caz and I enjoy arguing, right Caz?


And it looks like RedOctober has arrived, our resident socialist, let the death match begin!



[edit on 24-9-2004 by 27jd]

Originally posted by Arkaleus
27jd doesn't really debate, he eats the dead corpses of argument and vomits up opposition to whoever he believes challenges his "right to exist" as he wills. You do not have a right to your lifestyle. You succeed in it only for a short time. Pursuing fools and their words is like chasing the devil.

Can I get some ketchup with that? Arkaleus, although you are very amusing, it's hard to believe you are serious. If you are all I can say is, shoot for the stars:







[edit on 24-9-2004 by 27jd]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Ah, i see...so when the UN put sanctions in Iraq and over 500,000 children under the age of 5 died where were your cries for those children?

I am sorrowful for any suffering of children, but the fact is there never should have been sanctions, the US should have assisted the Shiite uprising after the Gulf War and finished Saddam off then. Now the situation in Iraq has deteriorated even more. How are the Iraqi children benefiting from this war (the ones that aren't caught up in the crossfire of the insurgents and the USA)? Not to mention the countless children in Sudan being raped and killed right now as we type, why are we not liberating them? And the many other nations whose governments oppress and allow the people to starve to death while they live in the lap of luxury? It seems our government is very selective about who deserves to be liberated.

If there hadn't been a war, the UN would have made more sanctions, and 500,000 or more children under the age of 5 would have died in Iraq because of these sanctions.

We (USA with UN backing) imposed those sanctions as part of the ceasefire agreement in Desert Storm, instead of taking Saddam out of power then, those childrens' deaths, unfortunately, were by our hands. Again, those sanctions should never have been imposed, the Iraqi people should have been assisted by us to overthrow Saddam back then and we truly would've been seen as liberators, instead we turned our back on them, and allowed Saddam to massacre the opposition, and did NOTHING about it, except impose sanctions, that was our fault entirely.