Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN by Ghoulman

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

Quote:
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.

This is one of the stupidest statements that I've seen to date (which is saying something as I've done tech support for FedEx).

What, you don't like History and Moral Philospophy 101?

Quote:

I'd like to think that we've evolved some since and that we can solve our problems diplomatically.

Everybody likes to think that. Chamberlin was a real believer and nobody had better intentions then the League of Nations. But you can't let your principals cloud your common sense. Ignoring the value of force as an influence (positive or negative) on human history is just plain irresponsible.

Quote:

You are as barbaric as those from yester-year. You are dinosaurs.

What yester-year? The '60s, the '70s. Maybe Isreal should have talked to the Arabs who were attacking without warning. Maybe the '80s. I wonder if we could have talked Libya out of its terrorist Pan-Arabic vision or the British could have talked the Argentines off the Falklands. The '90s, gee Mr. Saddam, please leave Kuwait...please.

Or Sept 11, 2001. Talk can't resolve the senseless murder of thoudsands of innocents.

Or in Russia last month, how do you compromise with those who cheerfully murder children by the dozen.

Sure, talk is fine. Diplomacy is a great achievement of civilzation. But war has been around a lot longer and has a better track record. After all wars created the world we live in today, no perfect, but better then the unmitigated tyranny, poverty, and injustice of the past.

Might does not always make right, but the right might can make right.

Quote:

EDIT: Talking to the wife revealed a little tid-bit more.

Well that explains your philosphical lack of...never mind, bad joke...

Quote:

There is a difference between solving a problem and ending it. The former is done by talking (ie by the civilized) and the latter is done by bombs and such (by the barbarians). But even then, the latter is typically an endless escalating cycle (note: no real end. That is until the former is completed by the civilized).

Your wife does not know much about war. According to her we never solved the problem of who owns the Western US, our trouble with King George, American slavery amd rebellion, the Kaiser and Hitler are not resolved, etc. And if war is an endless escalting cycle, how do you explain Appomattox Courthouse, VJ day, or any of the countless times violence has led to a sudden and definitive conclusion to conflict.

There is no distinction between solving a problem and ending it. Thats a false premise. To borrow Heinlin's example, Rome ended the problem of Carthage by raising the city and salting the ground, problem solved.

Call us dinosaurs, but I have a feeling that those who recognize the value of "naked aggression" have a better chance of avoiding extinction then those who embrace peace.

You might win this argument with words. I might win it with words. But if one of us is willing to use violence, then the words don't matter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

As long as America is terrified of being attacked we will support this madness, but as long as we support this administration's mad policies, many people in the world will want to attack us. Discuss.

This is the reason why I wasn't suprise on 9/11 when I first turned on my TV at 9:30am. My first thought was, "Huh... it finally happened."

And since then, its gotten only worse. Then only saving grace for the US may be that it is so terrified already that the terrorists won't do anything b/c there job is being done for them by the administration. Then again, your average terrorist isn't that bright and will probably attack anyway.

And even then, there will come a time when no terrorists attack for such a length of time that the administration can't hold up the charade any longer. At this point 3 things may happen:
- the terrorist will attack
- the administration will stage an attack and make it look like terrorists
- the administration will give up on these tactics

As I've mentioned before, it's your typical continual cycle of escalating violence. Since terrorism will never be defeated, it's only the cause that can be treated. And that is the forgien/domestic policies of the countries involved.

And right now the policies of the US are quite hostile. Someone might want to look to that.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

But Germany wasn't always trying to take over Europe. First, they just wanted Iran, Oh, excuse me, the Rhineland and Sudetenland, and that was all. Then just Kuwait...Oops...Czechoslovakia. Maybe if Britain and France had let them have Poland, they would have stopped.

Why do I have to keep reminding you about the topic thing? Stop trying to side track the discusion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Diplomacy works when both sides are willing to play by the rules. Diplomacy gave Hitler time to re-arm Germany, in violation of the Versilles treaty. 10 years of diplomacy with Iraq accomplished nothing but to get some of the folks running the "Oil for Food" program rich on kickbacks. Diplomacy in the Sudan has accomplished zip. In certain situations, diplomacy not backed up by the threat of force is not going to work.

Iraq wasn't re-arming. Iraq wasn't planning on attacking any other country. And you counter your own argument by mentioning that "threat of force." Please note that threat of force does _*/not/*_ mean applied force. Also the resolution never stated anything about force.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
EDIT:
Another addition to HkCavalier's list:
Ghandi

Ghandi was able to accomplish what he did because the British are basically civilized people. Try him against the Nazis, or the Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge, or current North Korea.

LOL! That's beautiful! How about Saddam trying to negotiate the days before the attack was planned to start but the US wasn't civilized/intellegent/etc enough to even lend an ear.

And by the way, to put Ghandi in a different context to attempt to make a point is a logical fallacy.

I mentioned Ghandi as an example that people can solve there problems without violence. /That/ is the context of my mentioning him.

You are taking that out of context and trying to make a point you cannot make as different cultures at different periods in time cannot be compared in this way.

Again, please stay in context, on topic and stop making OT remarks to confuse the issue.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

Quote:
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.

This is one of the stupidest statements that I've seen to date (which is saying something as I've done tech support for FedEx).

What, you don't like History and Moral Philospophy 101?

I like it, the US doesn't use it. This is clear. There is the old saying, "If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it." Recent history suggests my conjecture here is true.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

I'd like to think that we've evolved some since and that we can solve our problems diplomatically.

Everybody likes to think that. Chamberlin was a real believer and nobody had better intentions then the League of Nations. But you can't let your principals cloud your common sense. Ignoring the value of force as an influence (positive or negative) on human history is just plain irresponsible.

Violence has value, _*/but only/*_ in _*/very/*_ extreme circumstances. If you think that it is the solution to the worlds problems then you are deluding yourself.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Or Sept 11, 2001. Talk can't resolve the senseless murder of thoudsands of innocents.

Yes those people were innocent, but don't think for one second that the US didn't bring this on themselves by way of there forgein policies.

This event was a tragity, but for the sake of the rest of us, please stop bringing it up. It's been years, let it go!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Or in Russia last month, how do you compromise with those who cheerfully murder children by the dozen.

There is a logical fallacy that is an "emotional appeal." This is what you do here.

Also, these rebels have been fighting for the independance of there country for years and have only been dealt with with increasing military pressure. This is a prefect example of continual escalation of violence.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Sure, talk is fine. Diplomacy is a great achievement of civilzation. But war has been around a lot longer and has a better track record. After all wars created the world we live in today, no perfect, but better then the unmitigated tyranny, poverty, and injustice of the past.

Might does not always make right, but the right might can make right.

LOL, you slay me. War _*/is/*_ tyranny and injustic for those that are innocent that live in the combat zones. War _*/creates/*_ poverty for everyone in the country attacked. It also creates poverty for those in the attacking country after the war is done by means of a recession.

Perhaps you should talk to those who survived WWII. They can tell you what it's like to live in a decimated country. Or better yet, why not go over to Iraq and ask them. They'll tell you of the great USA, and how the USA liberated them of there water, electricity, gas, etc. Wow, the USA, what a country.

And if you think that the ways of the extremists are the ways that must be followed by the "defender" then I pitty you. An eye for an eye, makes the world blind.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Your wife does not know much about war. According to her we never solved the problem of who owns the Western US, our trouble with King George, American slavery amd rebellion, the Kaiser and Hitler are not resolved, etc. And if war is an endless escalting cycle, how do you explain Appomattox Courthouse, VJ day, or any of the countless times violence has led to a sudden and definitive conclusion to conflict.

There are still neo-nazis in Germany and the US I might add. How about the KKK. How about the using of effectively slave labour by corporations in the US in the less developed world. How about the same by businesses in the US using illegal immegrants as (basically) slaves to do labour under what would be illegal working conditions.

Your conclusions are false as all the end is is a conclusion to one specific conflict. _*/But/*_ that end is just the beginning to the same conflict in another context. You _*/cannot/*_ generalize about this.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

There is no distinction between solving a problem and ending it. Thats a false premise.

You seem to really beleive this. And that is a very sad thing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Call us dinosaurs, but I have a feeling that those who recognize the value of "naked aggression" have a better chance of avoiding extinction then those who embrace peace.

You might win this argument with words. I might win it with words. But if one of us is willing to use violence, then the words don't matter.

No the difference here is that we both are willing to use violence, but you are the one that needs to fire the first shot (and would from what I gather).

The difference here is that we both recognize the value of aggression, but I will use it as a _*/last/*_ resort. The difference is that I will live in a society of peace and respect, and you will live in a society of fear and aggression.

You make the assumption that because I will always side with peace that I am not willing (as a _*/last/*_ resort) to do violence. I will always extend an olive branch and talk *while* preparing for war.

But I will only attack if attacked first. This is the way of common sence and peace. Give peace a chance and if the opposition displays that they are not willing to cooperate (ie attacking me), then, and only then, do I unlesh my fury.

I will talk, you will bomb. I need evidence, you need conjecture. It is that kind of bloodlust that made Iraq the flaming crater that it is today. Anything solved there? Well the rising death toll says not.

What I have done here is proof by counter example. You can come up with any examples you wish where violence has "solved" the conflict, and maybe you might actually find one that did. But, this in no way makes it a general truth as I have agrued successfully above.

If you wish to follow a line of thinking that is 100's if not 1000's if not 10000's, etc years old then I'll leave you to your dinosaur complex and have only pitty for you. I have the future to look forward to, and it doesn't involve killing countless innocents.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:57 PM

PUMA

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Or Sept 11, 2001. Talk can't resolve the senseless murder of thoudsands of innocents.

Yes those people were innocent, but don't think for one second that the US didn't bring this on themselves by way of there forgein policies.

This event was a tragity, but for the sake of the rest of us, please stop bringing it up. It's been years, let it go!

Hell no, never forget. There is absolutely NO reason that those 3000, innocents should have been killed. OBL, and his people are monsters. The US has made some bad moves, but they don't excuse terrorist attacks on civilian targets! It has been years, and we should see video of those planes flying into the towers, every day. The fire should neve leave us. We are in a battle. A battle for our way of lives. You are deluding yourself completely, if you think anything less.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Or in Russia last month, how do you compromise with those who cheerfully murder children by the dozen.

There is a logical fallacy that is an "emotional appeal." This is what you do here.

Also, these rebels have been fighting for the independance of there country for years and have only been dealt with with increasing military pressure. This is a prefect example of continual escalation of violence.

No, this is a perfect example of someone that wants to appease terrorists and murderers, and make it seem ok. Until you realize that there is evil in this world, you will always be a victim of it. It is monsters that have no iota of humanity in them, that can do this to children. You can make peace with a man, you can not make peace with a monster.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Perhaps you should talk to those who survived WWII. They can tell you what it's like to live in a decimated country. Or better yet, why not go over to Iraq and ask them. They'll tell you of the great USA, and how the USA liberated them of there water, electricity, gas, etc. Wow, the USA, what a country.

I find it interesting you mention this. Since you have no grounds in reality to base it on. One of the guys I work with just came back from Iraq. He was an MP, and was in the hotzones. He says the Iraqi people, like us. Treat us as friends. The major number of combatants there, are NOT Iraqi citizens, but foriegn "freedom fighters", that want cnotrol of the country.

Another point to show the evil that we are fighting over there. He relayed a story, where they were on guard stationed in front of a base. A guy comes up, and throws a grenade at them, and then runs off. Thankfully, no one was hurt. He then runs up again, and tosses another grenade. They take him down, before he can throw the third grenade. They then did some digging, to find some information on this man. The reason that he was throwing grenades... was it that we blew up his family? No. Did we take his livelyhood away? No. It seems that his wife and children were being held hostage by some terrorist insurgents, and he was FORCED to throw grenades at our people. You talk as if negotiation has a chance in hell of working. It doesn't. These monsters are like rabid dogs. You put them down, there is no cure. We are not Islam, so they want to kill us. There is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you can say or do (short of converting to their violent religion), to change that. You have to wake up, and realize that we are coddled over here, in the Americas. The world sucks. Life is unfair.

Another point. This thread was started, with Annan saying that the war was illegal. What were we supposed to do? 17 resolutions, Saddam tried to assassinate a former president, we have complete PROOF that he has WMD. They were used on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of his people. It's not a rumor, it's not a lie... it is documented proof. Those WMDs don't just vanish. Something happened to them, and you should be worried about what happened to them. It is also disturbing that you believe a monster like Saddam deserves power, and deserves to live. He killed many, many thousands of his own people. It really scares me that there are people in this world, like you, that feel it is ok for a dictator to murder his own people like that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Ghandi was able to accomplish what he did because the British are basically civilized people.

LOL! That's beautiful!

Yeah! Tell it to the Irish! LOL!

Hey, Sigma, you notice how ol' Geezer said "the British?" His tendencies are showing. See, to someone like Geezer, the British people are basically civilized while the Iraqi people, well...not so much. It was never a war against Saddam Hussein was it? He's alive and well while tens of thousands of Iraqi people are dead. And folks like Geezer think they deserved it.

Geezer asked me what guarantees my freedom and I'd like to answer that question as an anodyne to all the bloodthirsty bluster that's cropped up on the forum of late.

What guarantees my freedom is the love and high regard which the United States of America enjoys throughout the world. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a phrase known to people everywhere and America symbolizes these values for people in every country on Earth. I know people in Tehran today that are obsessed with Thomas Jefferson. People everywhere dream of coming to America and living life as they choose. As long as so much of the world loves us, America will prosper. It's that simple. As long as we embody these "inalienable rights" we lead the world and the world follows.

The people of the world know that tyrants come and go, that the military arm of every government is a medieval throwback and not to be trusted. All governments in the world are at least 300 years behind the general population. For the most part our government has been the tool of the richest Americans, which is a distinct improvement over the previous model of government where the most violent faction governs.

Our current masters would turn back this clock and return the people to the rule of naked force. They imagine that their violence is the real power in the world and not a disease from which our people suffer. If they succeed and America ceases to be a beacon of hope around the world, our people and our way of life may truly be threatened.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 5:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I noticed no one of the habitual 'nuke 'em' persuasion answered my question:
What is the reason to pound Iraq that you will never back away from? (A single sentence, or at most a short paragraph, please.)
Hero and Geezer seem to be carrying the spears (ahem) in this thread. Aside from general discussion about war, and historical discussions about WW II, I'd like to hear YOUR specific answers about why it was vital to go into Iraq.

AnthonyT - It's funny, a friend used to say that (it seemed like a good idea, at the time), only with such a witless demeanor, you knew it was a complete dissing. Your reply brought back memories. It actually never seemed like a good idea to me, but I knew Hussein didn't have any WMD. What was your perspective that made it seem like a good idea, at the time?

Puma, yes, there are monsters in the world. But if you use it to rationalize the unthinkable (they're not people, after all), isn't it an excuse to become one yourself? Are you worried about being safe? Or out to cleanse the world once and for all?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Hey, Sigma, you notice how ol' Geezer said "the British?" His tendencies are showing. See, to someone like Geezer, the British people are basically civilized while the Iraqi people, well...not so much.

Bigotry in its various forms, eh?

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

It was never a war against Saddam Hussein was it? He's alive and well while tens of thousands of Iraqi people are dead. And folks like Geezer think they deserved it.

Or that it was a "nessassary" evil. Which the world knew it wasn't from the before the start of this whole charade.

At this point I'd like to add (along with Rue) that no-one has answered his very pointed question. Perhaps because it'd tell the tale of how weak there position really is.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

What guarantees my freedom is the love and high regard which the United States of America enjoys throughout the world. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a phrase known to people everywhere and America symbolizes these values for people in every country on Earth.

Unfortunately, this is becoming less and less of a truth. Before, Americans would just get treated poorly as they traveled around the world. Now there is actual risk. 'Tis a sad state of affairs.

I'd say fixing this would be to change the hostile policies to friendly ones. But, I guess that's too crazy an idea to work, eh?

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

The people of the world know that tyrants come and go, that the military arm of every government is a medieval throwback and not to be trusted. All governments in the world are at least 300 years behind the general population. For the most part our government has been the tool of the richest Americans, which is a distinct improvement over the previous model of government where the most violent faction governs.

An excellent point. Dictatorships are very unstable. And people who lived under a dictator must _*/themselves/*_ choose to move to a democracy. Otherwise, it'll never stick.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Our current masters would turn back this clock and return the people to the rule of naked force. They imagine that their violence is the real power in the world and not a disease from which our people suffer. If they succeed and America ceases to be a beacon of hope around the world, our people and our way of life may truly be threatened.

The US has the chance to choose what they want in only a couple of months. Choose wisely.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Or Sept 11, 2001. Talk can't resolve the senseless murder of thoudsands of innocents.

Or simply victims of war. Bin Laden make his declaration of war in 97.

Innocent, perhaps. Just as innocent as the victims in Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Hanoi, or Belgrade, or any city in Iraq. Wars have victims, most have nothing to do with the politics which led to their deaths. Before the screams of civilian targets start, economic targets have always been a mainstay of strategic attack... the effects on your economy were the proof in the pudding

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Or in Russia last month, how do you compromise with those who cheerfully murder children by the dozen.

A tragedy, mind you just a few years ago the Russian army rolled into Grozny, a city of 1.5 million or so. They used artillery and airpower to limit their exposure. To the point 8% or so of the original buildings remained.

While not condoning the response, why didn't the international community raise a fuss over that. Further if somebody leveled a US city in such a fashion how would the surviving Americans react ?

Judge them as you well, but at least be aware of both sides of the issue

Quote:

What I have done here is proof by counter example. You can come up with any examples you wish where violence has "solved" the conflict, and maybe you might actually find one that did. But, this in no way makes it a general truth as I have agrued successfully above.

I would suggest the violence employed by Sir Issac Brock, and Sir George Prevost to smack down another American war of aggression as an example, defending ones country by force of arms against an enemy marching on your border, is neccersary even to diplomatic efforts. In 1939, when Poland was attacked they had no chance of winning, but the Polish army stood and fought for two reasons. Pride, and the knowledge that they could not ask other nations to support them if they were unwilling to make a demonstration of force themselves.

Not that I agree completely with Heinleins premise in all cases, but in the examples he uses in Troopers provides in controlled directed violence. Achieving your objective, no more, no less. Unless the admission that the objective in Iraq was to secure the resources of the country for the United States is valid... the objective is very much in doubt ? The removal of Saddam could have come much earlier, even minor support of the US prevoked then abandoned Shia rebellion would have done the job. But that wouldn't have left the US in control ?

In troopers the scene where Zim demonstrated that a man with a nuclear weapon could be taken out of play with a throwing knife was the lesson that controlled and directed violence can be deployed for a desired effect. Mass violence, for questionable objectives... Zim and Rico may not have looked upon this war in quite the same way.......
----

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Puma:

Hell no, never forget. There is absolutely NO reason that those 3000, innocents should have been killed.

I never said you should forget. I said let it go. Your god Dr. Phil said this as well. The healing cannot begin unless you let it go.

I've lost a couple of friends and yes it hurt. But, then I did the grown up thing to do and moved on. Do I remember them? Do I charish those memories? A resounding *yes*!

But, do I pine on how I miss them? Do I cry daily and bother my family/friends/people around me/etc.? *No*!

Let it go.

Quote:
Originally posted by Puma:

It has been years, and we should see video of those planes flying into the towers, every day. The fire should neve leave us. We are in a battle. A battle for our way of lives. You are deluding yourself completely, if you think anything less.

You seem to believe this and that is a sad thing. All what you suggest will do is brain-wash people into thing that they are fighting a war that can be won by bombs and bullets. This is clearly not the case. It'll just make it worse. Time will prove me right and history already does. Look at the Chechen rebels and there conflict for a perfect example.

But since you nor anyone in the USA is actually fighting for there lives besides the usual daily grind. I'd think that you'd be hard pressed to find a rational human being to fall for this line of thinking.

NOTE: You say that this is a fight for your way of life, but, perhaps you should fight the downfall of democracy in your own country.

Quote:
Originally posted by Puma:

No, this is a perfect example of someone that wants to appease terrorists and murderers, and make it seem ok. Until you realize that there is evil in this world, you will always be a victim of it. It is monsters that have no iota of humanity in them, that can do this to children. You can make peace with a man, you can not make peace with a monster.

Actually no, you should get some knowledge about the history of the conflict before you start spouting off about it.

Chechnya was promised independance and they never got it. Now they are fighting for it since Vladimir Putin didn't give it to them. It's now reached the point where they feel they need to do these horrible things to get things done.

I'd say that I think we'd all be a little afraid of eachother if we actually realized what we are all capable of. So, before you call them monsters you should realize that they started off like you or I.

Or perhaps calling them monsters dehumanizes them enough for you to live in your little world where this is ok.

Quote:
Originally posted by Puma:

I find it interesting you mention this. Since you have no grounds in reality to base it on. One of the guys I work with just came back from Iraq. He was an MP, and was in the hotzones. He says the Iraqi people, like us. Treat us as friends. The major number of combatants there, are NOT Iraqi citizens, but foriegn "freedom fighters", that want cnotrol of the country.

Um, perhaps you should get some news that isn't from one of the american propaganda stations. ie BBC World, The Independant, or anthing else outside of the US. I think you'd find that I have much reality to "base it on."

Quote:
Originally posted by Puma:

Another point to show the evil that we are fighting over there.
[snip]

One story that could be made up. Perhaps a link to some evidence that this is the case would be nice.

Quote:
Originally posted by Puma:

You talk as if negotiation has a chance in hell of working. It doesn't. These monsters are like rabid dogs. You put them down, there is no cure. We are not Islam, so they want to kill us. There is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you can say or do (short of converting to their violent religion), to change that. You have to wake up, and realize that we are coddled over here, in the Americas. The world sucks. Life is unfair.

Negotiation might work. Since no-one has tried it how do you know? It's all conjecture.

You speak as though you actually know something of Islam. Let me tell you since I have studied this religion in an academic setting, since I've talked to people of this faith, since I've seen interviews with the clerics that it is most certainly _*/not/*_ a violent religion. You are just showing you bigotry, intollerance, small mindedness, etc by saying these things.

Perhaps you should open a history book. What you'll find inside is almost every religion at one point in time has been used as the justification for a major conflict. Christanity has *many* and to name a few I need only look to the crusades. I could go on.

Quote:
Originally posted by Puma:

Another point. This thread was started, with Annan saying that the war was illegal. What were we supposed to do? 17 resolutions, Saddam tried to assassinate a former president,

Obey international law.

Quote:
Originally posted by Puma:

we have complete PROOF that he has WMD.

Those WMDs don't just vanish. Something happened to them, and you should be worried about what happened to them.

No you didn't. This "fact" has been debunked over and over again. Give it up.

Quote:
Originally posted by Puma:

They were used on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of his people. It's not a rumor, it's not a lie... it is documented proof.

The last time he used them was just before the first Gulf war. But since it's documented proof, lets see it. And I'd like to see those numbers because they seem a little high to me.

Wow, he hasn't used WMD for over 10 years. Man he must be due. Let's get 'em.

Quote:
Originally posted by Puma:

It is also disturbing that you believe a monster like Saddam deserves power, and deserves to live. He killed many, many thousands of his own people. It really scares me that there are people in this world, like you, that feel it is ok for a dictator to murder his own people like that.

You scare me by saying these things. You put words in my mouth that I definetly didn't say. You are the one who is deluded.

Every human deserves to live. I never said that Saddam should be in power.

You claim facts are facts because you say they are when the rest of us know that they have been debunked for some time now (and the rest of the world didn't believe them to begin with). You read into my words things that are not there.

It is I that have the right to be scared of people like you because it is people like you that spread lies like these. It is people like you that spread these lies and actually think that they are true. It is people like you that make the world a horror and make it unfair.

And because of these reasons I believe you to be a very deluded person. Unfortunately, because of this you will also not know it and be resistant to the idea that you may be wrong. Because if it is true then your world falls apart and then what do you beleive in. It is unfortunate as it is these things that make you as extreme as people who spread the propaganda for the terrorists. Your just on the opposite side.

I pitty you.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I would suggest the violence employed by Sir Issac Brock, and Sir George Prevost to smack down another American war of aggression as an example, defending ones country by force of arms against an enemy marching on your border, is neccersary even to diplomatic efforts. In 1939, when Poland was attacked they had no chance of winning, but the Polish army stood and fought for two reasons. Pride, and the knowledge that they could not ask other nations to support them if they were unwilling to make a demonstration of force themselves.

Yes, I approve of defending. But, not attacking. Which is what the US did here.

You make a number of good points, but when it comes down to it, they aren't applicable to this specific situtation as they state minimum violence and that is exactly what didn't happen here (ie shock and awe). No pre-emptive strike.

My issue is that the typical response (pro war) is blanket statments that might work in some situations, but then people take those justifications and use them where they don't work and state that they do. ie WWII was a *very* different situation than Iraq, but some think it to be similar enough to work. Inspection reveals that it isn't as I've shown above.

I find it funny that when dealing with these people, one need not address there argument directly. But, only state how it is out of context, etc and then of course it is moot. After all is said and done they have no arguments left. Interesting, eh?

As well, I'd like to know what these people think about Israel's "security wall."

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Yes, I approve of defending. But, not attacking. Which is what the US did here.

You make a number of good points, but when it comes down to it, they aren't applicable to this specific situtation as they state minimum violence and that is exactly what didn't happen here (ie shock and awe). No pre-emptive strike.

You miss my point, I am not defending the US position, I am saying Bin Laden has used the minimum violences approach to this.

The attacks on the Khobar towers, and the USS Cole were on forces within the area he feels the US must withdraw. His Captains assisting in Somalia also attacked your military. These attacks eroded the pride and image of the Americans in the area.

The Embassy bombings also did this, plus they also damaged the yanks ability to gather intel and economically influence the area

911 was a strategic attack meant to hit the US mentally and economicly ( almost the same thing )

Attacking a football stadium, or a shopping mall would have been easier. More of these type of assults could have been organized with the chance of escape for the operatives involved. I believe this was meant as a shocking blow. To goad the Americans into direct action, which it has.

If another attack happens in the near future, with the pattern of stepping up objectives, I think the next target will be your political leadership in some fashion. Likely after the elections ( not that it matters who wins, the Democrats have been as bad as the Republicans )

The objective to isolate your enemy, alienate them from their allies, hurt their economy, cause a loss of face to attract people to your cause,...

Working nicely so far

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I noticed no one of the habitual 'nuke 'em' persuasion answered my question:
What is the reason to pound Iraq that you will never back away from? (A single sentence, or at most a short paragraph, please.)

I don't favor 'nuke em' but I do favor the war. Its hard to put it into one sentence since there seem to be so many compelling reasons, but here goes...

The invasion of Iraq was justified because it was in our national interest.

There, thats the foundation upon which every other reason needs to be built. This is also the reason many nations use to justify their opposition to the war. France, for example, sees a national interest in opposing US policy. This is part of France's ongoing efforts to become the master of the EU (or at least first among equals). This strategy is not world wide, but certainly extends to strategic areas, areas falling outside the influence of China and no longer within the defenct Soviet sphere and also to areas, like the middle east and north Africa which are traditional European areas of interest.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Zim and Rico may not have looked upon this war in quite the same way.......
----

I disagree. Sure, early on Rico might have seen things different. But war changes Rico, he learns the lessons of history and moral philospophy first hand on the battlefield and first hand as the son of a victim of a terror attack. That same terror attack changed his father, who saw no use for the military and ends up serving under the very son he disowned for joining up.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 6:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
And because of these reasons I believe you to be a very deluded person. Unfortunately, because of this you will also not know it and be resistant to the idea that you may be wrong. Because if it is true then your world falls apart and then what do you beleive in. It is unfortunate as it is these things that make you as extreme as people who spread the propaganda for the terrorists. Your just on the opposite side.

I pitty you.

I didn't want to jump into the whole argument you were doing, though I would have loved to go point by point.

Let me ask: what would you do? Its Sept 12, 2001, what is your approach to dealing with this large scale attack on the United States?

And a related question: Which would you fear more: your young daughter meeting President Bush or meeting someone from Al-Qaida? I'm just wondering...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 6:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

And a related question: Which would you fear more: your young daughter meeting President Bush or meeting someone from Al-Qaida? I'm just wondering...

HERO, the fact you even try to compare the President of the USA to international terrorists just proves our arguement.

They are both criminals. They should both be in jail.

Get it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted:

Let me ask: what would you do? Its Sept 12, 2001, what is your approach to dealing with this large scale attack on the United States?

BTW, the way to deal with terrorists is the same way we have been doing it for centuries... call the cops!

Why? Because tanks and planes can't find terrorists. Their MO is not like soldiers, but like criminals. Using a tank to catch terrorists is like using a hammer to catch a bird.

Call the CIA. Why they don't have Usama in a jail right now just proves the White House has no interest what-so-ever in getting the monsters responsible for 9/11.

The fact that the White House has no problem declaring whole nations of people "terrorists" should be clue enough about what's really going on and the insanity of it all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 7:43 AM

Quote:

Their MO is not like soldiers, but like criminals.

I disagree with that statement, how are you making that distiction ? By method of attack? by choice of target?

or because they are fighting people you identify yourselve with ?

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 7:58 AM

^^^ You are talking to an Irishman here fucko. Don't play that game with me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 8:23 AM

No really, we are talking about right and wrong here are we not ?

Here is a example,

During WW1 and the beginning of WW2 the Americans flat out condemned the manner in which Germany used her U-boats. Once into the war themselves they used identical tactics to great success against the Japenese...

We could talk of some of the actions the British took in Ireland, or India, or against the Boers in South Africa. We could even talk of some of the actions of the IRA

the point being, soldier, terrorist, freedom fighter, criminal.... the lines tend to blur if we blindly accept the mass medias interpretation , and what our leader bleat and moan is immoral one day becomes SOP of our own the next ? Where is that line drawn ? It is a personal measure to be sure, but I'll ask you... Ghoulman... where is your line?

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 9:58 AM

^^ those were during a legally declared war. Notice the USA never declared war on Iraq?

Yea. See the diff? No blurring at all.

And I love how you want to draw me into a baloney arguement about who is and isn't a terrorist. Terrorists are NOT the people in Fallujah. They just live there. Get it?

There are no terrorists in Iraq.

Never was.

There aren't any now.

And comming from an Irish background where "The Troubles" have been part of my growing up, I can tell ya that the distinctions are all legal ones.

The USA has no legal right to be in Iraq. They have no legal right to declare whole nations of people "terrorists". They have no right to hold prisoners let alone as "enemy combatants".

The only people who think this live inside the USA. NO ONE ELSE THINKS THIS.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 11:22 AM

Wait a minute Ghoulman,

I myself feel that the US has no legal status to be in Iraq. They wish everyone opposing them to play by certain rules, while they follow none.

Now what is a legal declaration of war anyway?

The main definition is " a formal and explicit warning" of the intent to open hostilities "

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_014200_declara
tiono.htm

I believe this 1997 interview with CNN's Peter Arnett to speak for its' self

http://www.ishipress.com/osamaint.htm

So this fills the requirement of a " legal definition of war " more so than Bush in Iraq, or any American Military Action excluding Kuwait and Korea going back to the second world war.

So instead of calling this a " baloney arguement " prove your case... or admit defeat

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 3:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
The invasion of Iraq was justified because it was in our national interest.

Hero,
Well, there are a lot of things in our national interest. It would be in our national interest to drop plague into China, since it is a country that will dominate us soon while we distract ourselves with other things. It would be in our national interest to develop alternative and inexhaustible energy sources and be independent from foreign oil, or any oil at all.

What in particular about our war on Iraq was in our national interest?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:25 PM

@GinoBiffaroni

Um, I didn't think you where. I was just thinking that you where talking about this from what the US did/is doing whereas from what you just said, you seem to be talking from what Osama did/is doing.

I believe we are both in error. Let's just say that we agree with eachother on many (if not all) points and leave it at that

And yes, I do think that Osama is winning at this point.

PS - Your comments in your post lead me to believe that you think I'm from the US. For the record, I'm Canadian. And please, if we are involved in a conversation again, don't call me one. I find it rather insulting. Though I do understand that this board is mainly americans and my signature can create that mis-understanding.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I didn't want to jump into the whole argument you were doing, though I would have loved to go point by point.

Let me ask: what would you do? Its Sept 12, 2001, what is your approach to dealing with this large scale attack on the United States?

Since I'm Canadian and not american, I'd read the news.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

And a related question: Which would you fear more: your young daughter meeting President Bush or meeting someone from Al-Qaida? I'm just wondering...

LOL, what kind of sick mind would create such a ridiculous question?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:37 PM

SigmaNunki

I would like to apologize, if someone called me an American I would be a little ticked off as well.

I am glad we find ourselves in argeement, on what points I am unsure but that is moot.

I find that when argueing with guys like Hero, I find myself typing faster than I really should, and things like " you Americans " just slip themselves in there.

Really enjoying this thread though, everyone here has put alot of thought into their stances.

Gino from Calgary

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Terrorists are NOT the people in Fallujah. They just live there. Get it?

I met someone the other day that told me about a T-Shirt that she saw. It had a picture of a group of stereo-typical "Indians" on it. The caption said, "Fighting terrorism since 1492."

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I would like to apologize, if someone called me an American I would be a little ticked off as well.

No worries

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Really enjoying this thread though, everyone here has put alot of thought into their stances.

Gino from Calgary

Indeed. Reid, from Winnipeg.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Because the UN works so well ironically.

Geezer, I just thought I'd point something out:
The UN inspections and sanctions did neuter Hussein.

I know Bush kept repeating the inane claim that the US just HAD to do something because no one else was. And most Americans just kind of deleted out the information that there were inspectors in Iraq, and that there was (up to the point the US attacked) no indication of any WMD. And, a wonder to behold, the US has concluded there were no weapons.

One plus one equals, in my world, two. The UN inspections and sanctions worked very well.
What is one plus one in your world?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

The invasion of Iraq was justified because it was in our national interest.

It is also in the US's national interest to secure the natural resources in Canada as you people don't know how to manage your own. But, then again, the impossibility of the task is probably what's stopping you. Yes, the "mighty US" does have its limits.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Terrorists are NOT the people in Fallujah. They just live there. Get it?

I met someone the other day that told me about a T-Shirt that she saw. It had a picture of a group of stereo-typical "Indians" on it. The caption said, "Fighting terrorism since 1492."

I have one! They've been selling them at pow-wows around the country for a while now. The picture is an obscure photo of Geronimo and three others holding rifles. You missed the best part though: across the top of the picture in big letters it says "HOMELAND SECURITY."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

The UN inspections and sanctions did neuter Hussein.

One plus one equals, in my world, two. The UN inspections and sanctions worked very well.
What is one plus one in your world?

There are the other results of the sanctions,

Due to the embargo on water purification equipment, medical supplies, and other equipment which was destroyed during the bombing campaign of the first gulf war the loss of life in Iraq as a result of the sanctions is yet another reason why the United States is dispised in the region. The use of depleted Uranium weapons has raised the occurances of several types of cancer by %600, if anything these weapons should be consider WMD due to the long term effects in the area of deployment. U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked whether the over half a million children at that point in 1996 killed by the sanctions were "worth it." Her response was: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."

Other nations worked to lift the embargo, including Russia, France, Canada, and Germany...

The US refused to even discuss it,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/35065.stm

http://www.unicef.org/emerg/iraq/

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/uranium.html

Inspections I am in favour of, but systematicly destroying a country in this fashion is something Stalin did in the Ukraine, not something that ever should have happened under the UN flag. Reforming the United Nations so that it can effectivly be a voice of reason in these troubled days and less of a puppet of the powers that be.

A security council without a veto will be a more effective security council

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 6:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I realize that, and I'm not saying they were a good thing. And, b/c of the sanctions, the UN is also pretty-well despised in Iraq (as a puppet of the US), making their ability to bring peace to the country uncertain.

BUT, there is a tendency (in the US) for people to unthinkingly parrot Bush. Nobody was doing anything. The UN didn't 'work' and so Hussein was a menace. (The sanctions didn't exist in most US'ers minds.). The inspections were a joke. Iraq's declarations a fraud. etc etc etc The only thing was for the US to go in and do the job itself BECAUSE 'nobody was doing anything'.

In fact, Bush propagandized (as usual), and most US'ers just went okely dokely, and in the process lost track of a big chunk of reality (the UN's role). And stepped even further into national delusion.

I just want to make the point that seems to get lost - Hussein was no threat specifically BECAUSE of the UN. I want to restore some of the reality that got erased.

It was not the best solution, however.

PS If it hasn't been clear to this point, I am no fan of Bush, or the US attack on Iraq. (Let's see, what do you call it when a vastly larger well-armed country attacks a smaller nearly defenseless country without provocation after drumming up a pretext? It's called, uhm, let's see, there's a word I'm looking for ... oh yes, aggression.)
I too think the veto hobbles the UN from being a truly effective organization. Though, IMHO, they have managed to accomplish quite a lot in spite of their organizational problems. I support the idea of world action in general. It is the only effective option to solving problems, and, yes, bringing miscreant rulers and governments in line.
One of the posters here seemed to think the only thing to do was to go out a get all them evil bastards. It is too easy to use fear to make hate and hate to make righteouness. Another poster fervently believes that war works better than anything else, and besides, it's human nature.
I think war, by any means, is a dead-end path.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 7:22 PM

I guess the fallacy is that many Americans felt the inspections were not working because they didn't find any weapons, but that was because there were no weapons to find...

Would be comedy if it wasn't fiction... or the Harry Harrison variety

Quote:

It is the only effective option to solving problems, and, yes, bringing miscreant rulers and governments in line.

Mind you this, I believe anyway, is the main reason why there was so much resistance to the idea of regime change from 1991 to present. Saddam gone, that was fine but nobody..... nobody wanted the US to stick in a puppet to replace him. A free UN might have a free hand against miscreant rulers which are supported by the US government, and that I can't see being allowed to happen.

The group Islamic Jihad, btw originaly started out as a want to be political party in Egypt. Sadat used his American funded security forces to jail or kill most of them and the remainder are now terrorists. They managed to get Sadat, but now thirty years later they now seem to think getting the US out of their countrys before trying to get reforms at home is neccersary...

Sad really

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

The invasion of Iraq was justified because it was in our national interest.

It is also in the US's national interest to secure the natural resources in Canada as you people don't know how to manage your own.

I disagree. Canada is a traditional US ally and valuable trading partner. Invading them would cause us to lose our other allies and trading partners around the world and hamper our efforts to find new allies and trading partners, such as those in Eastern Europe who know a thing or two about being invaded by the local superpower.

Ealier it was suggested that US interest would be served by dropping a plague on China. I note, for irony, the recent SARS outbreak. This is not correct. US interest is better served by fostering a relationship with China to encourage political reform and open Chinease markets to American goods. This creates regional stabiltiy which serves other US interests in Japan and the Korean peninsula.

Calculating US interests is a tricky thing, you might want to leave it to the professionals, especially since violence is your solution to all US interests. Bush's policy, like that of his father and President Reagan, has been one of recognizing and balancing competing interests. They applied different approach's to each circumstance and generally found success (although President Bush is still ongoing, yet I am confident of success). Dealing with terror is much different then dealing with a dispute over Canadian fishing rights. Diplomacy is not always the right answer.

I think the people who see Iraq as a quagmire have missed the real nature of the ongoing conflict there. We take out Saddam, in itself a worthy thing. Then we have all these soldiers in Iraq and what does the enemy do? They swarm from Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc, like ants or bees, falling over themselves to get at us. Call me a gamer, but looks to me like we are forcing the enemy into a fight at a time and in a place of our choosing. Maybe its not high level strategy, but the bad guys are there and now we get to shoot at them. Thats kinda the whole point of the war. So maybe Iraq is not so disconnected from the War on Terror as some people (44% of likely US voters) seem to think.

Oh, and lets consult one expert on the subject of Iraq:
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

I can't say it any better then that. That John Kerry guy can sure turn a phrase. (CNN, Crossfire, 1997)

Quote:

But, then again, the impossibility of the task is probably what's stopping you. Yes, the "mighty US" does have its limits.

Our only limits are self imposed. Lets face it, on the football (American, not soccer) field of international power, Canada is the punter. Which is odd, because Pakistan is the long snapper...wonder what that means...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:

Their MO is not like soldiers, but like criminals.

I disagree with that statement, how are you making that distiction ? By method of attack? by choice of target?

or because they are fighting people you identify yourselve with ?

How is it that the terrorist/criminal connection is so hard for people to grasp these days? They are criminals because they are outlaws in their own lands. Because they enthusiastically endanger civilians from their own lands. Soldiers are not and do not. Are we so racist that we can't see that distinction amongst brown people? Do the folks throwing around the word "islamafascist" really believe that there is a freedom and peace loving Islam somewhere that they wouldn't bomb if there was a rumor that a few terrorists were hiding in their midst?

That question makes me so angry I'm gonna ask it again: Do the folks throwing around the word "islamafascist" really believe that there is a freedom and peace loving Islam somewhere that they wouldn't bomb if there was a rumor that a few terrorists were hiding in their midst?

You don't use a tank to stop a crack dealer. You don't carpet bomb a city because somebody's running a brothel in the area. You don't turn Little Italy into a parking lot to get rid of the Mafia. You do a little investigation (investigation doesn't mean torture), maybe go under cover, find the criminals and end their careers.

I can't help thinking that the apparent unwillingness to use espionage effectively in the Middle East is racially based. How many operatives in the CIA could pass for native Iraqis? How many are willing to do that? What the

is the matter with the intelligence community these days? Real terrorists are pretty mentally unstable. Mentally unstable people are not the most observant, clear-headed folk. Also, in organizations that behead people and kill children at the drop of a hat, there are bound to be a few who might be a teensy bit ambivalent about the whole enterprise and might just inform on the organization. Seems to me it would not be so hard, as such things go, to infiltrate their organizations and bring them down. Aw, what am I saying? Nuke the lot of 'em!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
How is it that the terrorist/criminal connection is so hard for people to grasp these days? They are criminals because they are outlaws in their own lands. Because they enthusiastically endanger civilians from their own lands. Soldiers are not and do not.

Right then, using those definitions Washington and his followers in the American revolutionary war were criminals.

Quote:

Real terrorists are pretty mentally unstable. Mentally unstable people are not the most observant, clear-headed folk. Also, in organizations that behead people and kill children at the drop of a hat

Something like the US state department ?

U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked whether the over half a million children at that point in 1996 killed by the sanctions were worth it. Her response was: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."

As for beheadings, that is the traditional form of execution in the area. Would it make you more comfortable if they found some trees to hang them from ?

Quote:

There are bound to be a few who might be a teensy bit ambivalent about the whole enterprise and might just inform on the organization.

Such as the UN administors who witnessed the effects of the sanctions firsthand and resigned rather than participate in what they called " a morally wrong " action. Or perhaps those who made the torture going on in US ran prisons public.

Quote:

Seems to me it would not be so hard, as such things go, to infiltrate their organizations and bring them down. Aw, what am I saying? Nuke the lot of 'em!

This is exactly why we all need nukes, there is equal justification to " nuke " the US, the downside is countries trying to stay the hell out of your insanity will feel the effects of the radiation... mind you it may just be a small price to pay to finally have an end to this crap.

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 6:44 AM

Hey, Gino, I'm sorry if I've pissed you off. I'm having a hard time making sense of your post 'cause mostly what I hear is your anger.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
How is it that the terrorist/criminal connection is so hard for people to grasp these days? They are criminals because they are outlaws in their own lands. Because they enthusiastically endanger civilians from their own lands. Soldiers are not and do not.

Right then, using those definitions Washington and his followers in the American revolutionary war were criminals.

I got no problem with that. If they had been treated as criminals it prolly would have saved a lot of lives that were lost in the war, right? But, you know, their notion of war and ours are pretty different. Not a lot of civilians died at all back then. Nowadays the great majority of casualties are civilian.

Quote:

Quote:

Real terrorists are pretty mentally unstable. Mentally unstable people are not the most observant, clear-headed folk. Also, in organizations that behead people and kill children at the drop of a hat

Something like the US state department ?

U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was asked whether the over half a million children at that point in 1996 killed by the sanctions were worth it. Her response was: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."

As for beheadings, that is the traditional form of execution in the area. Would it make you more comfortable if they found some trees to hang them from ?

Gino, please, I'm not arguing with you. The American government has been guilty of horrible crimes. In a sane world Bush would be impeached for war crimes tomorrow. At the same time, I don't really see how ten masked men in a room filming a beheading of some american tourist is an honorable traditional form of anything.

Quote:

Quote:

There are bound to be a few who might be a teensy bit ambivalent about the whole enterprise and might just inform on the organization.

Such as the UN administors who witnessed the effects of the sanctions firsthand and resigned rather than participate in what they called " a morally wrong " action. Or perhaps those who made the torture going on in US ran prisons public..

See, this is where I seriously lose your point. I don't know what you thought I meant to say, but again, I ain't trying to justify the evil that our government has perpetrated. I'm grateful that the torture was made public. I believe that all corrupt organizations have people in the ranks who know the organization is corrupt and who are waiting for an opportunity to do something about it.

Quote:

Quote:

Seems to me it would not be so hard, as such things go, to infiltrate their organizations and bring them down. Aw, what am I saying? Nuke the lot of 'em!

This is exactly why we all need nukes, there is equal justification to " nuke " the US, the downside is countries trying to stay the hell out of your insanity will feel the effects of the radiation... mind you it may just be a small price to pay to finally have an end to this crap..

Oh, Lordy, Gino, have you read any other post I have ever written on this board? Jeez, man, I've read a lot of what you've posted and I find all of it courageous and sensible. Please, forgive my facile sarcasm about nukes. I absolutely do not endorse the use of nuclear weapons by anyone, ever. Living in the country that thinks we should have absolute supremacy over every other nation on Earth is extemely upsetting and I try to deal with it with a pretty disagreeable sense of humor sometimes.

I was really just trying to make a point that if we treated the folks responsible for 9/11 as criminals it would save a lot of lives because we wouldn't be destroying whole populations of real people who deserve to live. A wretchedly obvious point, but one which I feel is necessary to make in these thoroughly wretched times.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:09 AM

I am sorry I missed your sarcasm about nukes, I have had the same conversation with people who made the same arguement quite seriously, and I strongly feel that is one line that cannot be crossed.

As for the executions, what tourist would sanely go to Iraq ? Dispite the term " illegal combatant " brought into play by the Bush regime, the proper definiton of mercenary is an indivdual who is not a member of the military but fills a military function. If you drive a truck moving military supplies your a mercenary, if you repair miltary equipment your a mercenary, if you build bases your a mercenary, if you are a member of the biased part of the media your a mercenary.

The execution of mercenarys is allowed by international law

Quote:

their notion of war and ours are pretty different.

but is it, I would submit the are following the Western example only by different means

I have argued that Bin Laden made a reasonable declaration of war at the beginning of the conflict, clearly stating intention of action and objective

If we accept that this is a war, was 911 really that different from the Firebombing of Tokyo, or Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. If our actions were not criminal, why are theres?

Quote:

The American government has been guilty of horrible crimes. In a sane world Bush would be impeached for war crimes tomorrow.

I was pointing at actions during the Clinton regime, how far back could we go indicting Presidents.... Regan.... Eisenhower.... even farther ?

Once again I sorry I missed your nuke sarcasm, I suspect we feel the same way on the subject.

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:47 AM

It's cool.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

As for the executions, what tourist would sanely go to Iraq ? Dispite the term " illegal combatant " brought into play by the Bush regime, the proper definiton of mercenary is an indivdual who is not a member of the military but fills a military function. If you drive a truck moving military supplies your a mercenary, if you repair miltary equipment your a mercenary, if you build bases your a mercenary, if you are a member of the biased part of the media your a mercenary.

The execution of mercenarys is allowed by international law

Good point.

Quote:

Quote:

their notion of war and ours are pretty different.

but is it, I would submit the are following the Western example only by different means

I have argued that Bin Laden made a reasonable declaration of war at the beginning of the conflict, clearly stating intention of action and objective

If we accept that this is a war, was 911 really that different from the Firebombing of Tokyo, or Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. If our actions were not criminal, why are theres?"

I was talking about the founding fathers. That war back then, as I understand it, did not involve civilians on anything like the scale war does now. War as it is faught by the United States today is indistinguishable from terrorism except the price tag.

Quote:

Quote:

The American government has been guilty of horrible crimes. In a sane world Bush would be impeached for war crimes tomorrow.

I was pointing at actions during the Clinton regime, how far back could we go indicting Presidents.... Regan.... Eisenhower.... even farther ?

I'll go as far back as you like. But I gotta go now. Thanks for replying.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I disagree. Canada is a traditional US ally and valuable trading partner. Invading them would cause us to lose our other allies and trading partners around the world and hamper our efforts to find new allies and trading partners, such as those in Eastern Europe who know a thing or two about being invaded by the local superpower.

Doesn't illegally invading a country that pretty much all UN member nations have stated that they are against do the same thing? Oh wait, it does and it did.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

US interest is better served by fostering a relationship

The US has a history of only fostering relationships that suits it best. Basically, if the US doesn't get exactly what it wants it behaves like a child having a temper tantrum because mom won't buy him/her the toy they want.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Calculating US interests is a tricky thing, you might want to leave it to the professionals, especially since violence is your solution to all US interests.

Only if the professionals know what they are doing. Since every single civilized nation could see through the trickery that was the US's "evidence" to go to war, I'd say that they don't know what they are doing and as such, clearly aren't to be trusted nor would I call the professionals

And I NEVER said that violence is the the solution to all the US's interest (though I don't know what you mean by "your" as I've stated multiple times that I'm Canadian). I've stated that the US's history states that it thinks that violence is the only solution as a rule, which exceptions are rare.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Bush's policy, like that of his father and President Reagan, has been one of recognizing and balancing competing interests.

One who has an unbalanced mind cannot be trusted to have a balanced opinion. History has proven this to be true.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Dealing with terror is much different then dealing with a dispute over Canadian fishing rights. Diplomacy is not always the right answer.

Trivial. EVERY situation regardless of how similar to another must be treated on its own. But, to ignore diplomacy is to shoot yourself in the foot. Which is exactly what the US has done here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

We take out Saddam, in itself a worthy thing.

I don't think that you are aware of an old saying, "There is more that one way to skin a cat." There has been mentioned above a number of ways that the US could have been a catalyst to get Saddam out of power. Perhaps you should go back and read them as you don't seem to realize that you don't always need to drop a bomb.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Then we have all these soldiers in Iraq and what does the enemy do? They swarm from Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc, like ants or bees, falling over themselves to get at us.

Actually, with all the violence that's in Iraq right now against the US, I'd say that the majority has stayed put. That is unless you can provide me with proof to the contary.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Call me a gamer,

The mere fact that you are liken this to gaming tells of your mentality.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Maybe its not high level strategy, but the bad guys are there and now we get to shoot at them. Thats kinda the whole point of the war.

No, that's the point of an aggressor invading a country. The point of war is to defend. The US never was threatened by Iraq because Iraq never had the capability to harm the US. You are the aggressor here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

So maybe Iraq is not so disconnected from the War on Terror as some people (44% of likely US voters) seem to think.

You cannot provide some twisted logic and claim it to be true. Iraq never had any link to Osama, nor have there been any other links found. So, IMO, that very low 44% is quite sad given the actual facts and tells of how efficient the US media propaganda machine really is.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Oh, and lets consult one expert on the subject of Iraq:
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

I can't say it any better then that. That John Kerry guy can sure turn a phrase. (CNN, Crossfire, 1997)

John Kerry is no expert, he's a politition. And this man is very scary, but less so than Bush. It's a sad thing when one must pick the lesser of two great evils.

Quote:

But, then again, the impossibility of the task is probably what's stopping you. Yes, the "mighty US" does have its limits.

Our only limits are self imposed.

Perhaps you should take a look at a map and see how big Canada actually is. We are bigger than you and you guys can't even control your own country.

So, how much success would you have trying to control more than twice the land. After all, you're even having difficulty (understatement) controlling land the size of California (Iraq).

I'd be impossible for you guys to do it even if you wanted to. Not to mention that the rest of the world would rain fire down upon you for doing so. It's nice to be liked

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Lets face it, on the football (American, not soccer) field of international power, Canada is the punter. Which is odd, because Pakistan is the long snapper...wonder what that means...

What?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 8:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Is there a full moon, or what? A lot of cogent people, who basically agree, seem to have found misunderstandings.
Anyway, since there seem to be a fair number of Canadians and other non-USers, I just want to point out that I suspect most people in the US have a VERY different view of reality. I don't know if you all realize the degree of propaganda, disinformation and censoring that goes on the the US. If Bush gets up and says 'no one is doing any thing about Iraq's WMDs', 'Iraq is on the path to freedom', 'things are better and better every day in every way', or 'I have an invisible 6 foot white rabbit named Harvey' it gets bleated in headlines in every medium and in the right-wing echo chambers, over and over. The 'reason' is that if Bush says something, it's news, and so, they would be remiss if they didn't report it, in headlines. There is no media fact-checking, no retrieval of their OWN archives for background, no dissent, no perspective, no context in a larger picture. There is no other picture. That whole article about the reportage of the black White House got it, unfortunately, straight up. And I'm not saying a chunk of the general US population is just a victim of circumstance. Many, not all, really don't care to know. It is easier and more enjoyable to go along with it all, even if it's 180 from yesterday. So, the UN never did anything in Iraq. Iraq's problems are now Iraq's problems, and have nothing to do with Bush and the US. Afghanistan was won and that's that. Bin Laden is a mere footnote. Things are better and better every day in every way.

PS What this means for me and perhaps HK, SignyM and a few others is that 'our' issues may be different from yours. I can't speak for them, but I know I, at least, am still trying to re-establish some of the reality that gets erased every day. And that is where I am coming from.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 9:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
... such as those in Eastern Europe who know a thing or two about being invaded by the local superpower.
Ealier it was suggested that US interest would be served by dropping a plague on China.
Calculating US interests is a tricky thing, you might want to leave it to the professionals, especially since violence is your solution to all US interests.
Dealing with terror is much different then dealing with a dispute over Canadian fishing rights. Diplomacy is not always the right answer.
I think the people who see Iraq as a quagmire have missed the real nature of the ongoing conflict there. We take out Saddam, in itself a worthy thing. Then we have all these soldiers in Iraq and what does the enemy do? They swarm from Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc, like ants or bees, falling over themselves to get at us. Call me a gamer, but looks to me like we are forcing the enemy into a fight at a time and in a place of our choosing. Maybe its not high level strategy, but the bad guys are there and now we get to shoot at them. Thats kinda the whole point of the war. So maybe Iraq is not so disconnected from the War on Terror as some people (44% of likely US voters) seem to think.

Hero, dude, I don't know what you've been smoking, but seriously, you should quit. It's not doing your brain any good.

Anyway, after claiming that invading Iraq was in our national interest, you won't speculate, on the record, what specifically about it was in our national interest? Surely you have some idea. I'd like to hear it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 5:02 PM

Hey Rue,

Quote:

PS What this means for me and perhaps HK, SignyM and a few others is that 'our' issues may be different from yours. I can't speak for them, but I know I, at least, am still trying to re-establish some of the reality that gets erased every day. And that is where I am coming from.

Thats is the whole reason I post here and on some other boards. If someone says I'm wrong, I'll post links, but the base of it is the only people who get the full story have to go out of their way to find it. Open discussion as this is the only way to bring the truth out into the open. Sad it only reaches a limited viewership compared to the mainstream propaganda machine but compared to thirty years ago... the internet has brought hope.

Hell for that part even popular culture slides in now and then, we could speculate why Mal and Zoe chose to become Browncoats ( likely considered by the Alliance to be terrorists ) Why people like Inara, and young Simon chose to support Unification, etc

Perspective is everything, someone working their forty a week, with a nice house and nice life is more prone to believe what is handed to them because they are content. Take the same person and throw them an entirely different life, and they start to act completely different.

I don't know if you watched the Babylon 5 series, but there is one point where they are about to reach a big climatic battle, and everything slows down... the lead characters confront their adversarys directly, allies are about to step in and help and this alien who is in the know about what is going on stops them and says " No... this battle cannot be one by force, you must understand you way out of it "

Simply put, I think if the American people really understood the nature of what their government has been doing... with the exception of guys like Hero... fundamental change would be forced upon your government and may of these conflicts would simply disappear.

Mind you I think we ( as in the entire world )are due to suffer greatly before this understanding is achieved.

As you say, USers may not have knowledge of most of these events and believe their government will look out for their best interests, but what they don't know... can easily be their undoing. After all ignorance of the law, is not an excuse.

If you ever want me to elaborate or provide a source of info in a post... Please ask

Trying to find that good reality is a struggle of mine too.

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 5:18 PM

Quote:

Anyway, after claiming that invading Iraq was in our national interest, you won't speculate, on the record, what specifically about it was in our national interest? Surely you have some idea. I'd like to hear it.

My guess, and one can only guess here...

The US want to establish some amount of control over the worlds oil supply, the Iraqi oil fields in addition to the basing of US troops in Iraq gives the US the ability to strike out into Syria, and or Iran and also grab those fields. In addition the close proximity to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States plus the whole " war on terror excuse" ensures that they stay loyal to the USG.

Afganistan, particularly if the planned pipelines get build will control oil out of Southern Russia, and the former southern soviet republics in much the say fashion.

Maybe it is also why the US was providing arms to the rebels in Sudan for the last ten years. Could be why they want to step in now that their pawns are being wiped out.

This is not simply to secure access to the oil ( if my read is right ) but also to have the ability to deny the same oil to others ( the EU, China, Japan ) or who ever becomes an economic competitor to the US.

Look at how quick Bush jumped to give his blessing to a coup in Venezuela. The overthrow of a democraticly elected leader should be no obstacle to establishing control over another oil producing country.

Just my guess

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 26, 2004 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Anyway, since there seem to be a fair number of Canadians and other non-USers, I just want to point out that I suspect most people in the US have a VERY different view of reality. I don't know if you all realize the degree of propaganda, disinformation and censoring that goes on the the US.
[snip]

Actually, I know full well the degree that this is going on as I did live in the US for a good chunk of time. During that time I surveyed the "news" stations there to see what's what comparing them to the non-US ones. *shutter*

I applaud you and people like you for seeking what's actually going on instead of choosing to believe what's forced down your throat by the US "news" stations.

So, here's to bringing some reality to the situation. If we all try, maybe some success will be found.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 26, 2004 9:14 AM