☆ENGLISH ONLY☆コミュのwho should be blamed?

I don't really know who should be blamed but I
think you can't win a "war on terror". How can
you defeat a method?
That's half the problem. When this whole thing
started it was all open ended. If you ask who
we are fighting everyone says something
different. The answer is Al Qaeda, the Taliban,
the Mujahadeen, Iraq, Iran or Syria. Then some
people say we should be fighting Saudi Arabia,
after all, that's where half the terrorists come
from. Then others say, no we really need to
fight North Korea as if they had anything to
do with September 11.
Maybe the person to be blamed is the bright
spark who came up with the term "war on terror".

thank you for both 1 and 2 comments.
i don't like to conclude this kind of problem as a gorvernment or society should be blamed.

i myself used to being this type and could feel secure because nobody blame me and i never have something to do with problems.

but is it sure?
i asked myself.

all of the people, we are are perhaps related to every problem and have to think about them as if it has something to do with us.
we should never throw away the responsibilities.

however, in fact,
i am very bunboozled with this problem of the topic.

I really hate to criticize my commander in chief but, this doesn't seem like a war on terror. It seems like a drive to shape the world into an image that will provide peace, stability, and national security to the United States.

I agree with you, no 4, classified.
All of them were conducted for itself, the U.S.
I don't know why such conflict happen regardless majority of the people oppose to this war.
we don't have any way to solve it?

Blame Bush, his cronies and supporters.

Bush is only a puppet. Its the Neo-cons, the Zionists.... and the list goes on.

Another group to blame, is the United Nations. They are completely useless. Why do they even call themselves the UN, when only the five permanent members call the shots? The UN seems to only serve the purpose/interest of those five permanent members, and what a coincidence...they all have a huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. I guess that's what you need to wrap the world around your fingers, nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, and Israel should me joining the mix real soon.

I think,It's not just only BUSH. His all around people,too!

I dn't believe it is the soldiers, they are just doing their job and sadly losing their lives because of it.

It is the corrupt and selfish governments who are to blame, this is 2007 there is no need for the world to be fighting and killing eachother.

The world needs to work towards peace, not destroying life.

I'd have to agree.. It has to do with Bush and his group.. whatever they are...

I feel sorry for the soldiers that have to give their lives for a fight they most likely don't want a part of.

They aren't fighting to protect the U.S... Just U.S. foreign interests...

I soon to shall be joining them.. But i won't be fighting to win some "war" if that's what you can call it. I'll be fighting for the man standing next to me.

i am not an American, but Japanese.
so i can only criticize with the U.S.
i can't feel sorry for them, the mercy in my heart is just from the result as a war.
i realized that i had been apt just to criticize with them. now i think we should take account into these problems as our problem and as the cause of the war was took place by ourselves.

i would like to ask everyone, all of you...
what can we do in our daily life to make this world peaceful?

blame white mang's burden mentality

It's the petty differences that bring nations to war.

Hello ★390★

>"if the war hadn't been taken place, nobody would have be sacrificed and been in trouble"

Hmm. I'm not sure the Kurds would be with you on that one, but I know what you are trying to say.

"what can we do in our daily life to make this world peaceful?"

I'm not sure....but I sometimes even wonder if life was supposed to be peaceful. Look at how nature works, you couldn't say any of Nature's creations have a peaceful life. They live a continual fight for survival from birth to death.
I don't think humans have the capacity to be peaceful.
And perhaps that's how nature wants it?

Although the Kurds were doing pretty well with
the no-fly zone and sanctions prior to the
invasion of Iraq. They were pretty much an
autonimous region in everything but name.

It was anounced today that Australia is sending
300 soldiers to Afghanistan. Pretty much made up
entirely of the SAS and 4RAR (the commandoes).
It annoys me that every time John Howard gets a
bad poll he has his photo taken in front of a
tank or sends soldiers somewhere or other...but
that aside I think Afghanistan has always been
the issue and Iraq was just a distraction.

17> hello Rajio,

"Although the Kurds were doing pretty well with
the no-fly zone and sanctions prior to the
invasion of Iraq"

Absolutely. And they are going great guns now. Look at the current Iraqi government, and the officials who are getting anything good done over there are largely Kurd.
I find these people amazing....they have more reason than anyone to want Iraq split up, and they seem to be the only voices of reason and conciliation over there now.
Definitely our best and most trustworthy allies in Iraq.
In my opinion of-course.

However. Prior to Gulf War I, I think we are all pretty clear on what the Kurds endured from both Saddam and the Turks on the Northern border.
My comment was referring to those years.

I kind of disagree with ★360★'s idea that ;

"if the war hadn't been taken place, nobody would have be sacrificed and been in trouble"

Sure no allied forces would have been in trouble, but I don't like the idea that we should only be worried about predominantly Western loss of life in Iraq. Or anywhere....

This is how things like Darfur are allowed to happen.

After Gulf I, sure the Kurds had a *better* situation than before due thanks the no-fly zones - making Saddam the mayor of Bagdhad basically. But nowhere near as good as now...did you know you can have a holiday in the Kurdish North of Iraq?
The Kurds have actually started a tourism industry. There are Hotels, a choice of newspapers, running water, and assurance of security. (Before everyone jumps on that security part, think about other slightly alternative Holiday desitnations : Cairo, Israel, Lahore. Not "safe" safe but people go there nonetheless)
It's not Monte Carlo or anything, but possible to holiday there. Couldn't have happened before Gulf I - the area was just a huge slaughter house then. Couldn't have happened after Gulf I. But it is possible for the Kurds now.

Re : Afghanistan and John Howard

"It annoys me that every time John Howard gets a
bad poll he has his photo taken in front of a
tank or sends soldiers somewhere or other"

Funny you mention this as American Generals have recently made the same point about Bush. Using soldiers as political props - the number of times Bush has made a speech to a backdrop of soldiers would put Kim Jong Il to shame.

But I think the decision to send Australian soldiers to Afghanistan is good. We need all the troops we can get there to stop once and for all the recent resurgence of bloodshed in tribal regions, and loss of our servicemen's life due to poor reinforcements too. Also to stamp the Taliban out for good - anyone see they have taken to hanging villagers who "gave intel to the enemy" now?
It can't be tolerated.

And perhaps...just maybe....more troops might CATCH THE GUY WHO STARTED THIS WHOLE THING...I know it's almost meaningless to get Bin Laden now, but still....it'd make a lot of people involved in this feel better.

I'm glad the UK is redirecting it's forces to the real fight.
I'm glad Australia is coming in too.
And I wish the Americans would put some people in office who know how the fuck to win this thing...
1) Get out of Iraq
2) Get into Afghanistan
3) Get in more closely with the Iranian diaspora
5) Talk to Syria (not necessarily in a friendly way)
6) Help Lebanon
7) Help the Palestinians for once (that doesn't mean money)
8) Get in stronger with India
9) Lets have a democratic Pakistan
10) Make better, fairer, relationships with West Africa (they have fuck loads of oil)

and that's just the opinion of someone who only has a mild interest, and nominal knowledge of the matter.
Bush (who for whatever we say does have the final word on how this will all pan out) can only come up with one strategy;

Toss the dice and hope

to all you people that slag off the soldiers, just remember this!!!



IT IS THE SOLDIER
It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
But who allows the protester to burn the flag.


atleast we're willing to die for our country and not sit in our fucking chairs at home complaining about what we're doing. It's not our fucking choice where we go, we just go and do our job!!!
I'm in the British army, I'm going to Afganistan this year and it's people like you (not all of you) that piss me of!!! it's fucking easy to complain whilst drinking your starbucks coffee but i don't see you doing anything for your fucking country

have a bit of respect for those that our serving your country and for those that have died!!!

SHAME ON YOU!!!

George. it was your choice to join the military.

19> George,

I'm not really sure who you are talking to.
Are you talking to me?
If you were...

First,

"have a bit of respect for those that our serving your country and for those that have died!!! "

My Grandfather served aboard the Ark Royal, as Cheif Engine Room officer, in WWII. That's the ship that sunk the Bizmark - and you should be aware of that battle if you are in the forces.
My father served in the Grenadier Guards.
My Mother's side of the family all served from the Paras to the Fusiliers...

So I have the utmost respect for Servicemen, and what families feel like when a relative comes home in a body-bag, as they have surrounded me my whole life...
But I don't think that qualifies me or anyone in anyway to claim they have more right to have an opinion about War, conflict, or how the forces are used.

Frankly I respect my Grandfather and his generation the most as they had no real choice in going to War or joining the forces. And they all knew the were basically signing their own death certificates. These were civilians.

"atleast we're willing to die for our country"

That's unfair and you should know it.
If you want to talk like that, you should also include the phrase ;

"atleast we're willing to kill anyone on command innocent or not"

Also

"it's fucking easy to complain whilst drinking your starbucks coffee but i don't see you doing anything for your fucking country"

Again I don't know if you are talking to me but, whoever you are talking to....you should consider what you say.
If you've never served you don't have the right to complain, have an opinion, or a say in any form?

Is that the country you are fighting for George?

Is fighting in a War the only way to do something for your country?

Did Martin Luther King do nothing for his country?
Did Ghandi do nothing for his?
Queen Elizabeth never fought in a front line but she made Britain the power and prosperity of Europe...was she useless?

A pacifist stock-broker making buys and sells that contribute to the UK's economy getting bigger and stronger is useless?
How can you pay for an army without civilians drinking Starbucks coffee (no matter their personal views)?

Perhaps the people who fuck you off are the ones who have made your Army possible?

"It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
But who allows the protester to burn the flag."

I disagree with every one of those.
Was Oliver Cromwell fighting for the Kings Army?

The only soldiers who "gave" us those things were following orders from superiors who take their orders from civilians.
Civilians who, in history, fought *against* soldiers to gain those rights.

If you don't like armchair Generals you have the total right to bash them - as a civilian.
As a soldier, civilians are technically your Boss.
---
I hope most other civilians, as myself, are hoping for our forces to do what they have to do in Afghanistan etc, and come home in one piece.

George,

Soldiers fight on both sides of many conflicts. Soldiers were members of the Axis powers and Soldiers were members of U.S. allied forces. Nazis and Japanese soldiers were sometimes virtuous: fighting for the wrong cause, but for the right reasons, they were capable of performing acts of humanity and of courage. Should these men have been the ones to determine the appropriateness of debate on foreign policy (assuming it could have taken place)?

I only use soldiers fighting for the axis powers as examples as it's pretty well agreed that they were fighting for the wrong cause, not to equate U.S. and British troops to them.

It's so hard to argue either way on this topic for me. I feel for the arguments both for and against going to war in other countries. I'd like to see peace and freedom become the norm in all countries. Yet there seem to be countries that achieve peace (at least to a relative degree) without democracy.

I know there are crucial times when there exists a need to fight wars. Many wars cause incoherent deaths of innocents. The men who fight wars and lay their most cherished possession, their lives, on the line do not deserve to be blasphemed for fighting a war that their fellow citizens have passively or actively assented to fighting.

Too much conflicting argument to wade through though.. Like someone I know once commented.. "War is complicated"

Placing blame does nothing for the present. To dwell on past actions does naught for the future. It goes back to the simple fact that people are different. This includes beliefs, needs, wants, etc. It's only logical that because of this, people will eventually clash. We are, as a whole, insecure with ourselves.

And personally, I'm tired of playing the "blame game."

I'm more concerned with the difficult task of finding a resolution. Because starting something is easy. It's finishing that takes the most sacrafice.

I also agree that it's sad that we have these conflicts, at all. I really don't want my dad to be one of those soldiers. But that's the life in which we now live. However, Death needs not war.

But on a more optimistic note, I do believe that everyone hopes for a peace of some kind. It may not be obtainable now, but maybe someday.

I think I can understand George's reaction.
A few weeks ago on another forum...a Buddhist
one as it happens, someone was talking about
how much better things were before we meddled
in Afghanistan.

It annoyed me a little. He obviously had never
seen the Talib marching a bunch of women into a
soccer stadium and machine gunning the lot of
them. George W. Bush is a peanut and I think he
invites criticism but don't make the mistake of
thinking that because George W. Bush (or John
Howard or Tony Blair) are idiots that the
Taliban are somehow magically transformed into
angels.
It's the same mistake we made once before.
When the Mujahadeen were fighting the Russians
everyone was painting them as these noble
freedom fighters. Then when the Russians
pulled out, the Mujahadeen started settling
old scores. I've heard of some of the things
that were done and it's pretty nasty stuff.

Regardless of whether Western powers such as the US interfere or not in some countries rife with civil war or internal violence, innocents will die. Many would say it's a "damned if you do and a damned if you don't" situation.

If they turn a blind eye, they are called callous, if there is any attempt at physically enforcing peace, they are called arrogant and overbearing. Of course, economic benefit is also a seriously considered factor. War isn't cheap. So that adds another very sore point of criticism.

I tend to think that standing by and not trying to do anything is the greater of the two evils in many cases. Perhaps it doesn't warrant a military presence in some situations, but it's pretty difficult and naive to walk into a situation where people are dying without arming oneself.

haha, so i just realised that many people had something to say about my comment. I was a bit drunk when i wrote that and i guess i had some subconscious anger inside. Anyway, i'm hungover now (again) and so i can't really be arsed to read everyones replies, maybe i'll get round to it sometime in the future. i read a bit of the first long reply and just so you know, it was directed at anyone, in specific.
Anyway, take it easy all
G