Guest guest Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 If you think that the war on Iraq is really justified, then you should be willing to fight in the war as well, if you are called upon by the government to do so. And for those of you who have never been in a real war, it is not a video game. Let me write down a few true stories from some close people in my life who have been in wars: (1)My friend's grandfather was a soldier in WW2. He spent 2 weeks in a trench that was half filled with water. By the end of this his legs were so bloated that they were hideous. Him and the other soldiers had no food with them because their food was eaten by a neighbouring village. (The village by the way died of food poisoning because the tin that the food was packaged in poisoned the food). Therefore he and the other soldiers caught frogs with their bloated fingers and ate them raw. Two weeks later when reinforcements came he and his regiment were finally able to leave the trench, but half of the people died trying to crawl out of the muddy, watery trench. (2) My husband's stepfather's father was shot twice in the throat: once during World War I and once during World War II. I've seen many many people who fought in the world wars who don't have legs or arms and are reduced to begging for a living. And I have read many stories written by soldiers which describe similar tragedies, but I'm just listing the few that I know personally. So the point here is that WAR is a step that should never be taken lightly. Those who are for war should be so convinced in the righteousnous of the war that they would be willing to fight in the war if need be and die and suffer for it...like the people in my stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxvvii Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Tell me who are You in such a fierce form? My salutations to You, O best of gods, be merciful! I wish to understand You, the primal Being, because I do not know Your mission. (11.31) The Supreme Lord said: I am death, the mighty destroyer of the world, out to destroy. Even without your participation all the warriors standing arrayed in the opposing armies shall cease to exist. (11.32) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Few are actually FOR war, but many accept their responsibility to establish and preserve freedom, not to mention their right to collective self-defence. This world is not the same as it was when it comes to dangerous weaponry. The bad guys can no longer be allowed to reach for their 'guns' before we draw ours and disarmament comes at a cost. Eating, mating, sleeping and...DEFENDING. Everyone wants to enjoy the first three, but it's the last that allows them to. Pretending otherwise could mean losing the precious freedoms too easily taken for granted by those who prefer the bliss of ignorance to the sacrifices of shared responsibility. There is truth in war, harsh to be sure, but relevant to our day to day lives as well. Are we worthy of the society in which we live? Are we here to take or give? What is our personal committment to each other? All have their roles to play, even us soldiers. In the end, all of us must face the reality of death. A real soldier therefore sees himself as already dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 theres an obvious difference in the belief of professional soldiers and civilian conscripts. the two cant be compared Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAynard Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 The pain of death or even the greater pain of living with a lost loved one is a small price to pay for the liberation of millions. You don’t want war because you’re probably not exposed to tyranny. You are not told what to do, who to vote for, who to have sex with. This war isn’t about America getting revenge, it isn’t about oil; its about a moral obligation to end tyranny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 and welcome MAynard. We don't hear much from the current residents of Baghdad. But the four million Iraqi's that have escaped that regime are all for the war effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 War is just the last resort to establish and maintain POWER, unpleasant though it obviously is. POWER is required for influence. Along with the threatening aspect of it's present leadership, Iraq remains strategically significant for many reasons, just look at it's size and position on a map of the middle east. America inherits global responsibility along with it's graduation to the position of sole remaining superPOWER. She will surely mature through experience, as others have been forced to in the past. This is an entirely new age where each citizen has personal POWER within democracies as never before, due to almost instant information access. My confidence and faith in the basic goodness and compassion of Americans remains strong, in fact it strengthens daily as I watch them respond to the many challenges presented. Iraq will be only the beginning of an all-to-needed worldwide housecleaning. Certainly we cannot depend on the United Nations anymore, just as the League of Nations could not prevent WWII. It is now that the reality of new weaponry allied with terrrorism, spawned by POWERful ruthless dictatorships, must be confronted. In fact, this might be the start of WWIII, hopefully without the nukes. Now is surely better than later, with more weapons of mass destruction in the hands of 'suicide bombers' trained, financed and supported by rogue nations. Thank God for the strong determined leadership of President Bush. Imagine for a moment his immediate predecessor fumbling with his zipper after the WTC was attacked, his intelligence focused on protecting his own immoral activity, rather than the nation's well-being. The time for useless talk has passed. America has the obligation to protect itself and establish global stability both. The two interests can no longer be separated. Time we all got serious, folks. Protest if you must, but participate and use whatever POWER you all have as responsibly as possible. Endless idealistic peace fantasies inspired by fearful procrastination is not an option, and neither is destructive mob mentality. Our best hopes lies with the United States of America and it's educated, aware, compassionate populace. Time to rally round the troops -- this is not Vietnam. God bless! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/ I read somewhere that Saddam's personal wealth amounts to $ 2 billion, when a number of people in Iraq are without food. Nothing wrong in taking him out. It is a service to the people of Iraq. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 theres an obvious difference in the belief of professional soldiers and civilian conscripts. the two cant be compared They SHOULD be compared! Last I looked, this country was about the voice of the PEOPLE, not the voice of those whose profession it is to kill, which in some circumstances is justified, but not in this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/ I read somewhere that Saddam's personal wealth amounts to $ 2 billion, when a number of people in Iraq are without food. Nothing wrong in taking him out. It is a service to the people of Iraq. Agreed. I don't think thats the problem. Sudam is a demon! But to take him out stupidly will only cost those of Iraq lives, American lives, British lives, what to speak of retaliation from cells or any individual who gets off on terrorism will do. That can go on for years or decades, as they hold grudges! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 Sudam is a demon! Correction. His name is sAdam, not Sudam. Sudam reminds me of the cowheard boy, Sudama. Gotta get this sAdam name right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 Agreed. I don't think thats the problem. Sudam is a demon! But to take him out stupidly will only cost those of Iraq lives, American lives, British lives, what to speak of retaliation from cells or any individual who gets off on terrorism will do. That can go on for years or decades, as they hold grudges! Seek shelter in God. Freedom has it's price. Life is meant for sacrifice. Realization brings responsibility. This is the material, not spiritual, world. Take courage and go on with devotional service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/ Sports Illustrated! That really says it all! Gotta love that Fox News war channel! What's next -- bubble gum cards? Go Navy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 Seek shelter in God. Freedom has it's price. Life is meant for sacrifice. Realization brings responsibility. This is the material, not spiritual, world. Take courage and go on with devotional service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxvvii Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 I don't know who are demons or angels, but at least I know that axes implies ww3 & power implies threat. So let's wait & see how they deal with ww3 & threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted April 4, 2003 Report Share Posted April 4, 2003 Understanding Demoniac Forces BY MAYESVARA DASA EDITORIAL, Apr 4 (VNN) — Understanding Demoniac Forces And The Occasional Need For War Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga! Thank you for sending this clip (Provided Below) to me. I find it very interesting. Although the writer appears to be soliciting support for Peaceful Protesting against the war, he has in fact made the very argument that George Bush has made and is attempting to implement. The author's message is contradictory. Nobody in their right mind can accuse the US of blind carpet bombing in the war that is now unfolding. This is "Not Viet Nam" to put it in the words of Donald Rumpsfield. As you know I am an employee of the War machine. I write software to keep track of all the parts for the Tomahawk Missiles, as well as the Vertical Launching Systems, RAM, NATO, MARK 86 Series, TARTAR, TERRIER and Harpoon just to name a few. I am therefore in a unique position because I see the war effort with the perspective of both sides quite clearly. I consider what the US is attempting to do, to be exactly what Robert Thurman says the Bodhisattva ethic is faced with someone who is about to kill a bunch of people: "But in the bodhisattva ethic, if you see someone about to kill a bunch of people, you have to stop him or you're an accomplice. If you don't stop him, not only are you letting others lose their lives, but you're also harming the killer because he's going to have very bad karmic effects. You try to stop him without killing, but if you have to kill, you do." This is exactly what the situation was after Krishna Approached Duryaodana before the battle of Kuruksetra. Duryaodana didn't even threaten other kingdoms, he violated the principal of dharma when he refused to give the Pandavas even a piece of land the size of a pin-head and still Krisna said he should be taken out! Krishna attempted a peaceful resolution, but Duryaodana was such an horrible self-centered megalomaniac, he persuaded Arjuna to fight the most extradaordinary battle in the history of this planet! Yes there are going to be mistakes and miscalculations in telemetry just as there will be casualties due to friendly fire... those are some of the horrible consequences of war. The Battle of Kuruksetra was far worse then all the wars that occurred since then put together, yet that was the price that Krishna was willing to demonstrate is what is sometimes necessary when subdueing the demoniac. Everyone agrees that Sadam is very, very demoniac. Nobody wants to see the innocent hurt, but we understand in Krishna Consciousness that this life is in fact just one clip in a long movie and that the soul is eternal. This does not mean we should become callous or indifferent about the expense of life, but neither should we shrivel up because there may be some casualties when standing up to a demoniac force like Sadam Hussain. To curl up and ignore the terror of a demoniac force like Sadam Hussain is not only ignorant, but irresponsible. When seen in relation to the greater picture it lacks real compassion and reeks with ill-founded sentiment that is reminesiant of the now defunct hippy tradition. Hoping this finds you nicely engaged in the service of Lord Krishna. Your Servant, mayesvara dasa AKA: william roberts 687 Villanova Road Ojai, California 93023 (805) 640-0405 Home: Work: (805) 228-0736 robertswg@phdnswc.navy.mil (Every WorkDay 7:30-3:30pm) Home: (805) 640-0405 mayesvara@jagannatha.com (About once a week.) -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2003 Report Share Posted April 4, 2003 Well, I guess I cannot be so puffed up any more. Mayaswara is also an employee of the war machine, like me. He makes smart bombs, and I was formerly employed making real smart bombs (Trident missiles). What he says is also fact. I am very against this war, as yall know, but I cannot fault the technology, nor the careful approach the military is taking to minimize the "collateral damage" of innocent kills. But, the innocent are dying, nonetheless. If we did not invade, then pregnant women would be used to carry bombs on their person. I also know the cost. Containment is more expensive than the war we now wage. The problem is not the invasion, either, it is the idealism of secular zionism that has created this unsolvable mess. This manifest destiny, this master racism, this ethnic cleansing, all brought about by the most6 serious problem described by Srila Prabhupada, if one falsely identifies the body (or mind, nation, culture, religion, etc.) as the self, they must be considered burdens to society, therfore, they are all wrong, those4 who think that their will (based on false identity) must be imposed on all. The marines are good, and compassionate, the US military are not wanton murderers, but that is not the issue. They are loyal to an agenda of false identification of the body as the self, zionism of many different synonomous terms, thus, are compelled by military (in)justice to obey orders of the great demons running the show. My tridents served their purpose, by having them, thermonuclear war was prevented between the superpowers, the MAD (mutually assured destruction) philospohy worked. But now, starting from the war in the realm of nagas (BTW, topside Bhagdad is not the arena, the RGs are waiting for the war in the caverns underneath.), destruction will follow. Chimes of freedom flashing. Smart bombs work as well, and Im glad devotees are working on them (my job was to prevent the tridents from exploding while we still had them. Also, Im being brought out of retirement, so my anti-war rhetoric may soon be curtailed. The Navy needs me, and they pay good, and the admirals may apologize for their abuses of me and mine, so we kiss and make up )plus they pay good, eh mayaswara). haribol, ys mahak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leyh Posted April 6, 2003 Report Share Posted April 6, 2003 The United States of America is a nation that I respect and admire even now despite my disagreement with its war.I am a well-wisher of the American people although I don't have much respect for their current administration. As a student of history, the most valuable lesson that I have managed to imbibe is that rarely are the events of the world black and white. Any picture which paints a "good guys versus bad guys" scenario is usually a simplistic one. A closer look at virtually any historical event will show both parties to be in the dirt. Saddam is evil. Virtually no doubts about that. But does that mean that the powers who oppose him now are doing so out of altruism? To quote Mayesvara dasa Prabhu: To curl up and ignore the terror of a demoniac force like Sadam Hussain is not only ignorant, but irresponsible. Supporting Saddam is one extreme. But to support a pre-emptive war that was launched in defiance of the United Nations is another extreme. Such a war sets an extremely bad precedence for the future. If the United Nations is simply a body that a powerful country can ignore at its convenience, then what does that say for the long term prospects of world peace? Mayesvara dasa Prabhu goes on to say: But in the bodhisattva ethic, if you see someone about to kill a bunch of people, you have to stop him or you're an accomplice. If you don't stop him, not only are you letting others lose their lives, but you're also harming the killer because he's going to have very bad karmic effects. You try to stop him without killing, but if you have to kill, you do. The "If you're not with us, you're against us" claim is much too simplistic. Look at how much hatred and anger against America the war has galvanized in the Middle East and countries all over the world. To incite hatred in huge numbers of people can't be good for the karma. Can genuine peace come about by provoking the Arabs to increasing levels of hatred and fury? Is that the Bodhisattva ethic? As the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak remarked recently, the war in Iraq will produce one hundred bin Ladens. That is probably a conservative estimate. "His purpose to save the world, his method to blow it up." Winston Churchill once observed about Lenin. It seems to me that by its unilateral display of military might, America is veering dangerously close to Churchill's description of Lenin. Violence only incites more violence and should thus be used with extreme caution. America may be a superpower now, but it is still subject to the laws of material nature. I have no doubt that the United States, with its superior firepower and technology, will win the war eventually. But at what cost? Any ideology which is based on violence and breeds hatred can never unite the world. This war has made me realize that the "we have a right to launch pre-emptive battles regardless of what the world thinks" ideology (which I used to strongly believe in) will never bring out about peace because its very motion is already inherently incompatible with genuine peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2003 Report Share Posted April 6, 2003 Unlikely. Mubarak says this because he doesn't want democracy in Egypt. He wants to suppress and remain in control. There are already more than 100 Bin Ladens out there. The former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto was giving an interview a few months back and insisted that Islam was not radical, only a minority of Islam was radical. When asked what percent was radical she said 10%. To which the reporter said "Thats 100 million insane Muslims." The fact is these terrorists already hate America, have always hated America, and will always hate America. And they hate France, and Germany, and every other country that is not their brand of Islam. They even hate each other. You don't get peace by appeasing these folks. You get it by taking away their ability to wage terror. Interestingly, the U.S. in the last few days destroyed a MAJOR terrorist center in Iraq. They killed Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, and Iranians - all on Iraqi soil training at this compound. Why was the U.S. so concerned about this terror site? Because on these grounds they had a fully functioning civilian airliner which these terrorists were practicing to take over. Don't think for a moment they don't want to do more of the same on 9-11. They do. The point is, if Iran decides to take U.S. hostages this time around we won't have Jimmy Carter fumbling around for months. We'll invade Iran, and destroy them. You want to take 50 of our people hostage. Fine. We're not negotiating. We will level their cities, and destroy them. These people respect one thing - power. The U.S. has destroyed the most powerful military force in the Mid-East in 15 days. If Syria wants to %$^& with America, or if Iran wants to *&% around, they will be slaughtered. That is real deterence. I guarantee you one thing, the people in the street might be angry, but they were already angry. But the leaders of these countries are quaking in their boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leyh Posted April 6, 2003 Report Share Posted April 6, 2003 The fact is these terrorists already hate America, have always hated America, and will always hate America. And they hate France, and Germany, and every other country that is not their brand of Islam. They even hate each other. You don't get peace by appeasing these folks. You get it by taking away their ability to wage terror. Yes. And that makes them even more pissed off. Which makes more terrorists which America strikes harder which makes them people even more resentful, which makes America strikes even harder, which...results in a never ending cycle of hate and violence. I'm not a pacifict. I believe in the use of violence for self defence. But if violence is going to be used recklessly on real and/or perceived threats, then what difference is that from the paranoia of Stalin? If violence is used in such a way that international unity is sacrificed, what is the gain? We'll invade Iran, and destroy them. You want to take 50 of our people hostage. Fine. We're not negotiating. We will level their cities, and destroy them. Yes. And after Iran, what's next? North Korea, Libya, etc. One spree of violence after another. It would be ironic if after being the good guy in the first two world wars, the USA ends up being the bad guy of the third one. These people respect one thing - power. The U.S. has destroyed the most powerful military force in the Mid-East in 15 days. If Syria wants to %$^& with America, or if Iran wants to *&% around, they will be slaughtered. That is real deterence. I guarantee you one thing, the people in the street might be angry, but they were already angry. But the leaders of these countries are quaking in their boots. Deterence? Maybe. Will it last? Probably not.A solution based on violence will not be a permanent one. History testifies to that. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the greatest threat America had ever faced. If the Americans had adopted your policy of pre-emptive invasion and slaughter, we would probably not be having this conversation by now. But the Americans tried containment instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2003 Report Share Posted April 6, 2003 The Chinese government can't even contain this new disease SARS which has spread around the world in a few days. Someone a few days back made the comment, imagine in one of these terrorist nations handed a radical Muslim some germ warfare. And that person self-contaminates and walks around during Kumbha-mela. Guess what? Bye, bye India. These folks will all return throughout the country of India, and the entire country will implode within a matter of weeks. Look how panicked people are about SARS, which came from some remote village in China. That wasn't even on purpose, nor that deadly (relative to what a terrorist could unleash). You either take out the threat, or you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leyh Posted April 7, 2003 Report Share Posted April 7, 2003 You either take out the threat, or you don't. That's right. Take out any threat (real, perceived or imaginary) with war after war after war. Blow up the world to save it. Have fun in your imaginary cow boy world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2003 Report Share Posted April 7, 2003 The success of this war will be judged by the Iraqi people. Certainly we have our national security issues that are being pursued. But when it is all said and done, either you will be right or I will be wrong. If the Iraqi people are in the streets cheering, in celebration then it doesn't matter what I say, or what you say, or what the rest of the outside Muslim world says. If the Iraqi people in freedom are cheering en masse, that will be all that is necessary to vindicate the move. It is a pretty easy standard. The other issues we can debate about, and even if they don't cheer, one could argue that for security sake these missions were necessary. But if they do cheer, then everyone who was against this war will be wrong. Its a simple test. And if they boo and are angry, then those for the war will be seen as wrong. Very simple. By the way, images from Basra and Karbala coming in today of Iraqis jumping for joy, and tearing down statues of Sadam Hussein. Oh, also, 60% of the country is Shi'ite, and they hate Saddam. You also have Kurds in the North, and they hate Saddam. Majority of Bagdad is Shi'ite and they hate Saddam. I suspect when this is all over, and the people are free to express themselves, they will be cheering, like the people in Basra, and Karbala today. We'll see. That will be definitive proof that will settle the matter one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2003 Report Share Posted April 7, 2003 I said: ******** But when it is all said and done, either you will be right or I will be wrong. ******** Actually either you will be right or wrong, or I will be right or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.