|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted September 19, 2002 06:53 PM |
|
|
|
Presumably he's referring to the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam War. I think it's supposed to be such a profound statement that we are all shamed by our pettiness and stupidity. However, as an incredibly petty and stupid person, I'm not sure I get the point. Are you saying that the US has done some bad things in the past and continues to do some bad things today? Agreed. I don't think anyone denies that. Are you trying to say that the US is the most evil nation ever? I really don't think the My Lai massacre shows that. Are you saying that anybody who has ever done anything wrong can't oppose other people who do things that are wrong? That would certainly make for an interesting world. Please elaborate, because I, personally, am too stupid and petty to access the nuanced sublety of your eloquent post.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 19, 2002 10:52 PM |
|
|
LOL @ BORT!
Flamin8Ball can I suggest if you are going to make such a bold statement you at least say what you mean by it? Like Bort says one massacre some time ago gives no-one the right to criticise the country today. Pick a country, any country and I defy you to claim they have never been involved in some sort of massacre or otherwise terrible incident
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 12:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Like Bort says one massacre some time ago gives no-one the right to criticise the country today.
Um..........yes it does
Isnt that exactly what we are doing to Iraq because he gassed his own people "some time ago"?
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 01:00 AM |
|
|
|
Arachnid's actually right on this one, I wasn't saying that the US cannot be criticized for the My Lai massacre - it can, although Hudson is right that you'd be hard pressed to find a group of people that has never commited any sort of atrocity. (well, any group of people that is still around. The peaceful bunch tends to get wiped out by the more violent buggers) I was just asking what point 8ball was trying to make by bringing it up.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 01:08 AM |
|
|
No arachnid perhaps I should clarify
There is a difference between what a small group of americans did in Vietnam and the government sanctioned systematic murder of thousands of people. I geuss I also worded that wrong as I meant you can criticise them, but you have to look at whether the country's government supported and ordered the action and if not then it is not fair to hold it over them. At the same time if they did such as stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or Hussain then it is fair to attack the person and the regime.
Also it would be logical to actually determine if this event is likely to happen again. In the case of the Vietnam incident, I doubt many people would claim America would intend to sanction war crimes, or allow them again. In hussain's case though it seems more than likely if he thought he could get away with it.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 04:25 AM |
|
|
ALERT ALERT ALERT
From a recent news article the US government has warned Israel not to retaliate if the attack on Iraq went through because Saddam would then vent his anger on nearby Israel instead, possibly using a biological or chemical attack on Israel.
It seems as if Saddam is playing the jihad card here, not only against Christians, but Jews as well. It seems that the Americans have known that Israel is an easy target for Islamic Extremist attacks. Look no further than the bombardment of suicide bombers that have killed dozens of Jews in the past 26 months or so. Yes, Israel might be partly responisible through their destructive invasions of Palestinian refugee camps, but I can bet that the Arab nations are all planning ahead for an extermination of Israel and America.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 06:50 AM |
|
|
Quote
“One of these days i should have a theological debate with dargon “
I would enjoy that…let me know when Madunicorn.
quote:
“On what planet? I´ve never seen or read anyone say such a thing. Sorry, that smells like intentional misinterpretation and propaganda to me. “
Every time someone claims that we should take no further military action against Saddam because he has allegedly agreed to inspections…they are TRUSTING……it is that simple. This rationale is being used in the world debate… I am surprised you haven’t heard it. As far as has anyone made such claims in this thread….I will use an earlier quote from this thread ….
Quote
“Well it seems that Iraq has agreed to unconditional weapons inspections. I can see no way Bush can attack Iraq now since his main demand is being met.”
What is the implied message in that statement? It means that Saddam has promised that we can allow inspectors in, so now we don’t have justification for an attack. To believe in the piece of paper that allegedly allows inspectors to return…is to TRUST that the man who authorized that piece of paper will keep his promises in his declaration that UN inspectors can return
quote:
“Logic? What does 9/11 have to do with Sassam´s regime? “
I was following your own statement…your point number 2 specifically! You stated:
“Only problem, this would have at least these two consequences:
1. Thousands of Iraq´s citizens will die.
2. Alliances in the middle east will crumble, people there will become more radical, more fundamentalistic, America´s "unprovoked agression against one of them" (that´s how it will be perceived) will further the popularity of people like OBL and organisations like Al-Quaeda.”
You are the one that said an attack on Iraq will create more terrorists and terrorist support…and now you are saying what do the two have to do with each other?? Very confusing.
quote:
“ And you´ve just compared a US attack against the Iraq with a rape.”
I never made any such comparison! The comparison again in my exact words were “to use your logic if someone would “like” being bombed….that is a nonsensical argument…that is like asking would someone like to be raped"
Seriously…is English your first language? Many times I say “A” and you claim I said “B”….maybe difficulty understanding English may be the reason why we don’t seem to be understanding each other.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 06:54 AM |
|
|
Quote
“On blair mmmmmmm interesting as a fair percentage of the people here don't like what he is doing over Iraq”
That is exactly why I respect him so much…he stands up for the right thing no matter what…that takes extreme courage…I don’t think I could stand as strong against such pressure….the man is great….in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Churchill as far as balls of steel in doing the right thing…not the popular/easy thing.
Quote
“I for one don't want to see us get involved in a war only to have to leave with only half a job done”
Totally in agreement…if we do this we need to do it to the MAXIMUM not half heartedly.
Quote
America and Britain's fight is with Hussain and his supporters and NOT the people of Iraq.
Exactly! So many people seem to blindly miss that point
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 07:32 AM |
|
|
bort:
Quote:
All that said, I repeat my earlier position of -- the US can act unilaterally if and only if it has clear evidence that Saddam/Iraq is helping/harboring significant portions of al Qaeda.
Does that mean even IF (now that is a big IF) US has clear evidence that Hussein is producing Nuclear Weapons or whatever and the UN is still doing nothing about it, US still could/should not act unilaterally? And why could/should US acts unilaterally if it has clear evidence that Saddam/Iraq is helping/harboring significant portions of al Qaeda? This is the second time you brought this up and that is why I ask. I am not taking any stand here, just like to know how you see it. 
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 10:38 AM |
|
|
Dargon
Wow man we agree again (I'm worried now.......). Like I said I dunno about blair, he's acting against the wishes of 40-50% of his people, but I think he is right in this case. To those 40% though he is a warmonger. I only added it to show that not every brit is behind him.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Flamin8Ball
Tavern Dweller
Die young, stay beautiful.
|
posted September 20, 2002 01:45 PM |
|
|
What i was meaning by the M'y Lai statement is that if people are constantly going to refer to other countries past mistakes then Americans shoult try to remember the age old saying "EVERYBODY makes mistakes"
Americans shoud also remember that they trained Sadamm and also Bin Ladden and if a dog bite someone after being trained who is to blame- the dog certainly, but shouldn't the owner understand his responsibility?
And should America possibly remember that they may be the richest country in the world followed possible by Japan, yet Japan are not throwing their weight around the world?
And to concludeall the money spent on bombing civilians in countries such as Serbia and Afganistan could have been used in a way to develop a world improving plan, such as hunger and water problems in the poorer countries in africa.
Why waste more money and send your young out to be carried home in body bags over a suspicion.
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
posted September 20, 2002 02:15 PM |
|
|
why indeed 
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 02:40 PM |
|
|
I can only agree on the part about america funding Hussain. Unfortunately for 40 years America and the west backed anyone remotely anti Communist and/or anti Extreme Islam (IE Khomeni). That unfortunately is done now and cannot ever be reversed.
Nice conclusion though. Unfortunately politics and business gets in the way of such matters. Besides that it is uncertain whether Hussain would respond to monetary aid rather than millitary action. Personally I have always believed in removing Hussain, then funding properly the Iraqui people to fend for themselves and support them in a democracy.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 04:00 PM |
|
|
Well the big difference between "countries make mistakes" and the Iraq situation is we're not really talking about a countries actions, we're talking about a person's actions - ie Saddam Hussein's. Nobody blames Mohammed the bicycle repairman who lives in the suburbs of Baghdad for gassing the Kurds, it was Saddam Hussein's actions. And while you can't judge a people by the actions of some of its citizens, you can judge a person by their past actions - to whit the invasion of Kuwait, the use of chemical weapons, the refusal to comply with UN weapons inspectors, etc.
As to your statement about "why can't we use the money to make everybody happy forever?" that would be absolutely wonderful. My father worked for the US foreign aid department and I've seen that wonderful things have been acheived with aid and continue to be achieved with aid. However, certain conditions need to be in place for aid to work and most of those conditions center around the type of government in place. As long as the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan and there was a civil war going on, aid could never help. Why not? Because the money never gets to the people, it ends up being funneled to weaponry and mansions. With the Taliban in power, you also can't do one of the things that has been shown to provide incredible benefits, economically, in terms of public health, in terms of population growth, socially, and in just about every way which is making sure women get educated. In the western world we almost take for granted that both sexes get equal schooling but that does NOT happen in the islamic world - which I've lived in for 11 years of my life. How can you help a nation when half of its citizens are, by law, prevented from getting any education and therefore barred from any sort of empowerment? Similarly, aid won't help Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein is in charge because the money will just go to weaponry. What about that african president who is refusing food aid for his starving nation on the basis of it being genetically modified? What about the african leaders who still refuse to acknowledge that HIV is the cause of AIDS? It's a wonderful thought but it's really not as simple as writing out a check.
@Snodgard
Okay, the first gulf war was allegedly an international effort to liberate Kuwait. We can argue back and forth on what was really going on, but for sake of argument, lets take it at face value. The coalitions effort was a UN sanctioned and permitted action. When Iraq surrendered, the terms of the surrender included disarmament which was to be enforced by weapons inspectors, essentially, the way a surrender works is "We will stop shooting you if you do x, y and z." Now, since the UN backed coalition was one of the two belligerents in the conflict (Iraq being the other one), that means that it is the UN/coalition that has the right to decide whether or not the surrender terms are being met and whether or not they want to do anything about it. To use an example from American history, let's say after the US civil war Pennsylvania felt that the former confederacy was not following the letter or spirit of the surrender, but the rest of the North either did or decided not to do anything about it. Pennsylvania did not have the right to send a few regiments marching south to enforce the treaty since the surrender was not to Pennsylvania, it was to the US. Since there is nothing inherently illegal about a nation having nuclear weapons, Iraq cannot be attacked solely on that basis. They can be attacked on the basis of violation of surrender, but only by the party who was surrendered to. (I believe North Korea is supposed to have more advanced weaponry than Iraq, but since there aren't any surrender terms being violated, there's no discussion of fighting there).
As to if Saddam is harboring al Qaeda. Well, al Qaeda has essentially declared war on the US and has attacked the US and has shown every indication of continuing to do so. Therefore, if al Qaeda is finding refuge in Iraq from where they can plan and carry out strikes against the US then the US has the right to go in to essentially say "stop that" with a large caliber weapon. If towards the end of world war II hitler and a division or two of the Nazi army had, I don't know, taken refuge in Switzerland or something, and had started bombing France from Swiss airfields then the Allies would have had every right to go into Switzerland and take 'em out and if al Qaeda is being aided by/ protected by Iraq, I think that's the situation we have.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 20, 2002 05:44 PM |
|
|
Hmmm is it just me or is no-one disagreeing with me anymore?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 21, 2002 08:02 AM |
|
|
quote
"EVERYBODY makes mistakes"
yes everybody makes mistakes….but does that mean that we allow more mistakes and horror just because we all have past “blood” on our hands. I would hope we don’t take such a fatalistic view.
Quote
”Americans should also remember that they trained Sadamm and also Bin Ladden and if a dog bite someone after being trained who is to blame- the dog certainly, but shouldn't the owner understand his responsibility? “
Wait a second…when we supported them it was to fight an even greater evil at the time (communism, Iran, etc.)….that they (Saddam and OBL) became more evil than what we were fighting together against does not cast any responsibility on us. That is like saying that if we help a kid who is being beat up by a big bully that somehow we are responsible for the kid who was being bullied becoming something akin to the original bully? Each man determines their own fate…since we don’t have a crystal ball as to what they are going to become how are we responsible?
Quote
“And should America possibly remember that they may be the richest country in the world followed possible by Japan, yet Japan are not throwing their weight around the world? “
throwing our weight around???? Having our own sons and daughters die in a fight for the good of the world is throwing our weight around? That seems quit upside down. We have huge financial and personal costs…it is not like we have robots who do our fighting for us with no real affect on us personally. It amazes me that when someone takes a sacrificial stand they are somehow labeled as self serving. How exactly does what is good for all (i.e. stopping a madman from killing more innocents..namely Saddam) become labeled as evil?….I have no idea how people come to those distorted thoughts.
Quote
“And to concludeall the money spent on bombing civilians in countries such as Serbia and Afganistan could have been used in a way to develop a world improving plan, such as hunger and water problems in the poorer countries in africa. “
We have spent BILLIONS of US dollars on helping the poorest countries (more than any country in the world… mind you)….how many more billions would you have us spend? Also a sad fact…the majority of countries that we have given support aid to over the decades have actually become MORE poor. Sometimes the best thing is not to give a man a fish but teach him how to fish. As much as financial aid makes us all feel better…sadly it creates either dependency that destroys what it was aimed at…or the gluttonous tyrants/criminal who run the country find a way to siphon the money for their own gain.
Bort again eloquent post…..more and more I seem to be agreeing with you…either you are becoming more conservative, or I am becoming more liberal, or we are both coming to our senses…lol.
Private Hudson….you are wrong!...just kidding...lol…Just didn’t want you to think nobody was disagreeing with you
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 22, 2002 01:08 AM |
|
|
What has Saddam to gain from starting a war? Hes spent most of his life fighting to stay in power, unlike bin laden he has got a hell of a lot to lose. He isnt living in a freaking cave but in splendid luxury. The leader of a state has to be somewhere even if he's hidden in a bunker otherwise he isn't ruling anymore.
You see Saddam as a huge threat to the US, a big player in the "axis of evil", i see him as a sad old clever man wanting to be on telly and be talked about.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 22, 2002 01:16 AM |
|
|
|
I also doubt Hussain would start a war for those exact reasons, but Blair and Bush are leaving him in no doubt that he will either be killed or arrested soon. Given that I would not like to say what a cornered hussain with nothing to loose may unleash with his anger
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 22, 2002 02:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What has Saddam to gain from starting a war? Hes spent most of his life fighting to stay in power, unlike bin laden he has got a hell of a lot to lose. He isnt living in a freaking cave but in splendid luxury. The leader of a state has to be somewhere even if he's hidden in a bunker otherwise he isn't ruling anymore.
You see Saddam as a huge threat to the US, a big player in the "axis of evil", i see him as a sad old clever man wanting to be on telly and be talked about.
What did he have to gain from starting a war when he invaded Kuwait? What did Hitler have to gain from starting a war? What did the leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea have to gain from starting the war betwen those two nations? What did Osama have to gain from starting to fight in the first place? (remember, he comes from a rich family, he was living in luxury before he decided to take up his little holy war) What did Saddam have to gain from gassing the Kurds? Why are you assuming he thinks like somebodies eccentric but harmless grandfather?
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 22, 2002 03:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Every time someone claims that we should take no further military action against Saddam because he has allegedly agreed to inspections…they are TRUSTING……it is that simple.
There is a word for the way you simplify such a difficult subject: Propaganda. Saddam has given in to the US (and UN) demands, so no matter to what extend they will be fulfilled later, the legitimation for an attack is very small right now.
About OBL and Saddam, you´re playing the equivocator here. The point I made is that military aggression against middle east countries will not raise the United States´ popularity there, but will do quite the opposite. Are you seriously denying this?
Your reply, that 9/11 has happened without a war against the Iraq, looks like another attempt of yours to simplify - of course this conflict is not the initial reason for the existence of islamistic terror.
Quote:
I never made any such comparison!
Of course, you compared a war with a rape. Not that it matters much, initially I was talking about the minimum requirements for a morally justified attack. And you did not answer my question. The bomb war on Iraq will destroy many civilian lives, and even more will be crippled or lose their homes. Would you support the "regime-change", if this had to be done to Americans instead?
Quote:
yes everybody makes mistakes….but does that mean that we allow more mistakes and horror just because we all have past “blood” on our hands. I would hope we don’t take such a fatalistic view.
What matters is: Did you learn from your mistakes? Read the answer to this question in the quote below:Quote:
Dargon: Wait a second…when we supported them it was to fight an even greater evil at the time (communism, Iran, etc.)….that they (Saddam and OBL) became more evil than what we were fighting together against does not cast any responsibility on us.
____________
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
