Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on September 03, 2003, 01:17:59 am
-
This from a Marine stationed in Bagdad - with the notation:
"In case you come across anyone who stills thinks that the War in Iraq was a bad idea, show them this. Some GI's found this in one of Saddam's palaces in Baghdad."
-
:hopping:
did they burn it afterwards?
-
And to think, if the US hadn't invaded Iraq they never would have found it and this discussion wouldn't be taking place. In other words, despite that picture I still think the war was a bad idea.
-
In other words, ignorance is bliss?
-
Of course Hussein was happy about the towers, what did you expect?
anyway, that sounds so fake, they found that a week before the event anniversary, when they've had control over those palaces for a couple monthes? yeah, right.
-
It did seem a bit fishy, true. But you don't know exactly when it was found, all you know is when Sandwich posted it. The date on the pic is either September 4th ( :doubt: ) or April 9th 2003. And we have not one scrap of evidence that it is fake. Try to be more objective when criticising :)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
It did seem a bit fishy, true. But you don't know exactly when it was found, all you know is when Sandwich posted it. The date on the pic is either September 4th ( :doubt: ) or April 9th 2003. And we have not one scrap of evidence that it is fake. Try to be more objective when criticising :)
The fact that the date is listed as 2003-04-09 (year first) would indicate that it's most definitely April 9th, 2003. Americans may be backwards (April 9th, 2003 = 4/9/2003 :rolleyes: ), but when things are turned around so the year is in front, there is only one logical conclusion.
EDIT: Also, I got this by email from my mom, who got it from someone, etc. Anyway, I was going to post the original file, but then I saw that it was both 1280x960 (or something like that) and over 200Kb in size. So I shrunk it down in Photoshop.
But the point is, the file I got by email - and I can link to it if anyone really wants me to) is unmodified from its original state - it still has the EXIF data embedded (EXIF is the header info embedded in JPEGs by digital camrea with all sorts of interesting info, such as exposure mode, date/time, white balance setting, etc etc).
Just in case anyone started to claim this must be a Photoshopped image or anything. :)
-
Well, that and the fact that it's not September 4th until tomorrow - and Iraq isn't that far east :)
-
Originally posted by Venom
Of course Hussein was happy about the towers, what did you expect?
Yeah, exactly. I'm not surprised seeing this sort of propaganda poster at all... seems standard fare for wartime.
-
I supose if we found part of a nuke that'd be propaganda too...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I supose if we found part of a nuke that'd be propaganda too...
find one, first, and we'll talk about it :doubt:
-
Whoop de doo :rolleyes: It doesn't imply any physical support was given to them. An offensive picture is hardly a good reason to invade a country.
-
well there was the centrifuge thingy, remember, the thing that the guy had for makeing inriched uranium that Sadam forced him to hide in his back yard for the better part of a decade along with all the documants needed to restart there nuke program in a few months after the UN lost interest...
but that's just all evil bushy lies
-
Or we could ask the dude who was head of the Iraqi nuclear energy authority - he was locked in a cupboard for ten years becuase he didn't know how to build a bomb.
Anyway, On the subject of war... (http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html)
-
You know, just because they thought 11/9/2001 was a good thing, it doesn't mean we had provocation to start a war.
While I support any action that reaffirms our tactical and strategic goals in this little east/west spat, I refuse to accept we had any noble goals in invading Iraq. We did it because we needed another foothold in the middle east. Unfortunately the post-war management has rather destroyed that plan.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well there was the centrifuge thingy, remember, the thing that the guy had for makeing inriched uranium that Sadam forced him to hide in his back yard for the better part of a decade along with all the documants needed to restart there nuke program in a few months after the UN lost interest...
Search for five minutes on the web. that centrifuge thinguy, I can order one today if I want. It's a tool that can be used for nukes crappadoo, but it's not the original purpose.
Anyway, of course he has the stuff. Hell, in 91, Bush senior sold nuke detonators to Saddam ( cool, heh, one year before invading it ), Mitterand sold pieces for nuke powerplants, etc etc. of course they have all that, everybody knows that already.
But there's no nuke, and that's all there is to know.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I supose if we found part of a nuke that'd be propaganda too...
Well they dug up some equipment used for enriching uranium.
-
Firstly, What everyone is forgetting is that we(America) ousted one of the world's most feared dictators.
It's done. Don't whine and be a little ***** because you can sleep a little safer at night.
Secondly, if you're(the World Community) lucky, we'll let you in on the humanitarian side of reconstruction. But if you think we're going to let you turn Iraq into another whiney, socialist joke of a country, you got another thing coming.
Thirdly, and this is directed more at Sandwich and his compatriots, Go Get Em'! The people of Israel have lived in fear long enough and the only way it will end is with a total victory on one side or the other. Not another ceasefire or land for peace deal, but honest, true, last man standing VICTORY!
Okay, now that my rant is over, these remarks are general, National level opinions. I don't hold personal grudges unless their a complete bastard.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Firstly, What everyone is forgetting is that we(America) ousted one of the world's most feared dictators.
It's done. Don't whine and be a little ***** because you can sleep a little safer at night.
Secondly, if you're(the World Community) lucky, we'll let you in on the humanitarian side of reconstruction. But if you think we're going to let you turn Iraq into another whiney, socialist joke of a country, you got another thing coming.
Thirdly, and this is directed more at Sandwich and his compatriots, Go Get Em'! The people of Israel have lived in fear long enough and the only way it will end is with a total victory on one side or the other. Not another ceasefire or land for peace deal, but honest, true, last man standing VICTORY!
Okay, now that my rant is over, these remarks are general, National level opinions. I don't hold personal grudges unless their a complete bastard.
when i first read this, i thought you were sarcastic. now, i am hoping you are.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
when i first read this, i thought you were sarcastic. now, i am hoping you are.
Your afraid he is pro-freedom? Hell, i'm pro-freedom too. I don't like dictators, its a personality flaw, i just cant seem to handle people who kill and torture innocent people.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Your afraid he is pro-freedom? Hell, i'm pro-freedom too. I don't like dictators, its a personality flaw, i just cant seem to handle people who kill and torture innocent people.
it depends on what you call freedom.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Firstly, What everyone is forgetting is that we(America) ousted one of the world's most feared dictators.
It's done. Don't whine and be a little ***** because you can sleep a little safer at night.
what was the real threat from Iraq? that it would turn of the oil tap? or that it would perhaps scream "we wan't the USA dead"?
as far as anybody can see now, there were no real nukes, and i still haven't seen complete, real, evidence. and by evidence i mean the nuke, or the gas, itself. and preferably without USA or Russia's markings still on it.
Secondly, if you're(the World Community) lucky, we'll let you in on the humanitarian side of reconstruction. But if you think we're going to let you turn Iraq into another whiney, socialist joke of a country, you got another thing coming.
what exaclty do you mean by "whiney, socialist joke of a country"?
Thirdly, and this is directed more at Sandwich and his compatriots, Go Get Em'! The people of Israel have lived in fear long enough and the only way it will end is with a total victory on one side or the other. Not another ceasefire or land for peace deal, but honest, true, last man standing VICTORY!
so, if two groups of people have an argument, you put them in a cage, and tell them that they can't come out untill one side is totally dead?
Okay, now that my rant is over, these remarks are general, National level opinions. I don't hold personal grudges unless their a complete bastard.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
what was the real threat from Iraq?
All countries ruled by dictators who gas/kill their own people are threats and should be invaded and replaced with a democratic government. Maybe just dictators in general, not really a fan of them. Too bad, assasinations by hitmen are frowned upon these days by democratic governments.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
All countries ruled by dictators who gas/kill their own people are threats and should be invaded and replaced with a democratic government.
Threats to who?
and by what right should you attack a country, by which you will unavoidably kill the people of that country, just to remove a leader YOU think tortures it people?
also, how do you define "kill their own people", whith having the death penalty, the US does that. and somehow i doubt that you would want the US to be "liberated".
-
Its a Threat to Democracy.
The world works on might, there ain't nothing the UN can do to America to stop it doing what it wants to do. International law is meaningless, only works on little tinpot countries, putting sanctions on the US would blow chunks out of the world economy, not to mention it could Veto them anyway. Although, the 2nd Gulf War was legal, because of 1441, the US had the right to inflict serious consequences upon Saddamn.
Every act has a price, but we have to do the greater good. By trying to save everyone, your going to save no-one. Though thousands of people died possibly died in the 2nd Gulf War, Saddamn was killing them by the hundred thousand a year, so it saves more people. Many US and UK troops gave their lives so Iraqi could enjoy life without Saddamn, things might not be perfect right now, but it'll improve, under Saddamn, it'd only get worse.
Really, your being pendantic, equating the US system of law, to using nerve gas on civilians is not smart or impressive debating.
Its in essense its being the worlds policeman, you lock up criminals because they commit crimes, so you kick out dictators because everyone deserves freedom.
-
Originally posted by Venom
Search for five minutes on the web. that centrifuge thinguy, I can order one today if I want. It's a tool that can be used for nukes crappadoo, but it's not the original purpose.
Anyway, of course he has the stuff. Hell, in 91, Bush senior sold nuke detonators to Saddam ( cool, heh, one year before invading it ), Mitterand sold pieces for nuke powerplants, etc etc. of course they have all that, everybody knows that already.
But there's no nuke, and that's all there is to know.
The Iraqis either destroyed the WMD before the US or UN could find them, or they smuggled them out, probably into Syria.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
The Iraqis either destroyed the WMD before the US or UN could find them, or they smuggled them out, probably into Syria.
They probably buried them, a meter of dirt in the middle of the desert is a good way of hiding stuff.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Saddamn.
Good one, although I like to go whole hog and say "Sodamn Insame".:lol:
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Its a Threat to Democracy.
and who sais democracy is the one and only truth? what if some other country decides to be a monarchy, or perhaps an anarchy?
The world works on might, there ain't nothing the UN can do to America to stop it doing what it wants to do. International law is meaningless, only works on little tinpot countries, putting sanctions on the US would blow chunks out of the world economy, not to mention it could Veto them anyway. Although, the 2nd Gulf War was legal, because of 1441, the US had the right to inflict serious consequences upon Saddamn.
so your saying, that the US has a lot of power, and therefore the right to ignore everyone and do whatever it wants cause the rest can't hurt it?
Every act has a price, but we have to do the greater good. By trying to save everyone, your going to save no-one. Though thousands of people died possibly died in the 2nd Gulf War, Saddamn was killing them by the hundred thousand a year, so it saves more people. Many US and UK troops gave their lives so Iraqi could enjoy life without Saddamn, things might not be perfect right now, but it'll improve, under Saddamn, it'd only get worse.
i agree that Saddam wasn't good. but to be honest, war isn't the only way to get a leader of it's throne. and especially a war were you just invade another country. instead, the US could've waited for the UN to agree on attacking Iraq, which was not directly sanctioned by 1441, the only thing 1441 did was say that there would be consequences, which could mean anything. it didn't sanction a war.
Really, your being pendantic, equating the US system of law, to using nerve gas on civilians is not smart or impressive debating.
well, let's see, the US kills it's citizens if they have commited a crime, Saddam could say the same. the only difference is the definition of what a crime is.
Its in essense its being the worlds policeman, you lock up criminals because they commit crimes, so you kick out dictators because everyone deserves freedom.
and who gave the US the right to be the worlds policeman? what makes the USA better then any other country? and there is a great difference between locking a single person up, or attacking an entire country and it's people, and unevitably killing much of them.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
They probably buried them, a meter of dirt in the middle of the desert is a good way of hiding stuff.
ok, so you're saying that if you can't find them, nomatter what, he had 'em, but he hid them.
i think i can yell "THE USA AS AN UFO, ROSWELL WASN'T A WHEATER BALLOON, THERE COMING TO KILL US ALL" and have the same base as you.
-
That Saddam looks somewhat comical with that cigar... :D
Whoop de doo It doesn't imply any physical support was given to them. An offensive picture is hardly a good reason to invade a country.
Actually, you are quite right. But it hardly matters, because no reason from this is needed. A much better reason is that a shivan told Bush to do so in a dream. Case closed. :D
and by what right should you attack a country, by which you will unavoidably kill the people of that country, just to remove a leader YOU think tortures it people?
Ah, this old one again. :D Because the US has the power. That's where the right comes from. You seem to be denying that he tortured his people though. But anyway, that is the least important of reasons that anyone would go after him.
so your saying, that the US has a lot of power, and therefore the right to ignore everyone and do whatever it wants cause the rest can't hurt it?
Absolutely correct! You just figured that out? :p :D
ok, so you're saying that if you can't find them, nomatter what, he had 'em, but he hid them.
I think he is saying that whether or not we can find them has no bearing on whether or not he had them.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
and who sais democracy is the one and only truth? what if some other country decides to be a monarchy, or perhaps an anarchy?
so your saying, that the US has a lot of power, and therefore the right to ignore everyone and do whatever it wants cause the rest can't hurt it?
i agree that Saddam wasn't good. but to be honest, war isn't the only way to get a leader of it's throne. and especially a war were you just invade another country. instead, the US could've waited for the UN to agree on attacking Iraq, which was not directly sanctioned by 1441, the only thing 1441 did was say that there would be consequences, which could mean anything. it didn't sanction a war.
well, let's see, the US kills it's citizens if they have commited a crime, Saddam could say the same. the only difference is the definition of what a crime is.
and who gave the US the right to be the worlds policeman? what makes the USA better then any other country? and there is a great difference between locking a single person up, or attacking an entire country and it's people, and unevitably killing much of them.
I'll simplify it.
Might makes right. I fight for what i believe in, not what others believe in. I don't care what Saddamn says, im intelligent enough to know the difference between nerve gassing kurds and executing a serial killer. Also i never said the US was better than every other country, it has the best economy and military, but that doesn't make it the "best", i never said criminals and war were the same, only that parallels existed, which is true, bad men do bad things, so we kick their ass.
You see, i dont give a damn if you(not you personally Kasp, just anybody) believe torturing people is a good thing, or if you think killing people is a good thing, i'll do everything in my power to stop it. I don't care if you think dictatorships are better, i don't, so i'll do everything in my power to make sure dictators lose power. In the end, its about what i believe is right, if you don't believe what i think is right, then leave it at that, its fine.
-
Well said. People will do what they want, not what others want.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
The Iraqis either destroyed the WMD before the US or UN could find them, or they smuggled them out, probably into Syria.
didn't know you were from the CIA.
I say: they don't have nukes and never had any. what makes you more right than me? nothing, since you have no proofs. you know, that's in your laws: all suspects are regarded as inocent until evidences against them have been found, or something in those lines. It doesn't work for strangers?
Anyway, right now, what I see is that US presence on Iraki ground is a threat for the balance of this area. That's just one big mess.
Regardless, that's one of those threads that have absolutly nothing to do here. Could an admin lock that? the little show over the An0n's case seems really pointless, when I see that kind of thread appearing right after :doubt:.
-
Well I say they may or may not have them (and that it does not matter either way), so I am the most right, because I cannot be wrong while you can. :D As for the laws, that's exactly the case; the laws of a nation only apply to its own citizens.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
I'll simplify it.
Might makes right. I fight for what i believe in, not what others believe in.
so if i follow that philosophy, an dictator who is leading the most powerfull country in the world is right and has the roight to kill, rape, torture, extort or just do antyhing he wants to the entire world population.
I don't care what Saddamn says, im intelligent enough to know the difference between nerve gassing kurds and executing a serial killer. Also i never said the US was better than every other country, it has the best economy and military, but that doesn't make it the "best", i never said criminals and war were the same, only that parallels existed, which is true, bad men do bad things, so we kick their ass.
mmm, right, what did the Iraq populace do to deserve a US military dictatorship instead of Saddam?
You see, i dont give a damn if you(not you personally Kasp, just anybody) believe torturing people is a good thing, or if you think killing people is a good thing,
i never saids that those were good things, i only asked whgat right you had to act for others, while those others never asked you anything.
i'll do everything in my power to stop it. I don't care if you think dictatorships are better, i don't, so i'll do everything in my power to make sure dictators lose power. In the end, its about what i believe is right, if you don't believe what i think is right, then leave it at that, its fine.
-
if i follow that philosophy, an dictator who is leading the most powerfull country in the world is right and has the roight to kill, rape, torture, extort or just do antyhing he wants to the entire world population.
Of course, and that is exactly what would happen in such a case, unless someone else can stop him, which they also have the right to do. Think about it for a moment, what defines this "right" anyway other than capability?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Of course, and that is exactly what would happen in such a case, unless someone else can stop him, which they also have the right to do. Think about it for a moment, what defines this "right" anyway other than capability?
ok, so if i run out into the street, and shoot everybody i see, i am right because i could do it?
if i come up to your house, rape your mother and sister (if you have one) in front of your eyes, then kill your entire family, and the torture and kill you, i am right because i could do it?
-
ok, so if i run out into the street, and shoot everybody i see, i am right because i could do it?
if i come up to your house, rape your mother and sister (if you have one) in front of your eyes, then kill your entire family, and the torture and kill you, i am right because i could do it?
Absolutely. I mean, who am I to say that you are not so? Whether or not I would like it and whether I would try to stand in your way is a different issue, but you certainly have the right. And I don't have a sister. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Absolutely. I mean, who am I to say that you are not so? Whether or not I would like it and whether I would try to stand in your way is a different issue, but you certainly have the right. And I don't have a sister. :D
interesting philosophy.
i still believe however that no-one, should interfere with someone else, unless that someone has asked (i mean verbally, or written, not just by being a dick). nomatter how powerfull either one is.
i believe that would be real freedom, and i don't believe attacking other country's with a different ideology is.
-
But you see, the fact is that people do exactly all those things, and just saying to them that they "should not" isn't going to do anything.
Also, true freedom would involve a complete lack of "shoulds," so that people should do anything they want. When you add in shoulds, you start restricting freedom (assuming there is any in the first place), since they are certain things that "should not" be done.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
As for the laws, that's exactly the case; the laws of a nation only apply to its own citizens.
No. Or then, you're allowed to kill the next foreign tourist that you see. The laws of a country applies for anybody would has to face them.
Do you have any others like that? coz it's hella funny :doubt:
-
I was going to post something in reply to the Israeli-Palestinian situation brought up on the first page, but I think I've said enough about that for a while.
As for this whole "freedom" thing... don't go making idols out of "peace" and "freedom", please. If anything, make an idol out of "justice" - at least that has a chance of being fair. ;)
-
No. Or then, you're allowed to kill the next foreign tourist that you see. The laws of a country applies for anybody would has to face them.
Do you have any others like that? coz it's hella funny
Haven't you heard about all this ruckus on restricting the rights of federal prisoners that are US citizens? They never say anything about people who aren't so; as far as legal purposes go, national citizens and non-citizens are treated a bit differently. But this is all beside the point; the laws within nations exist because there are parties to enforce them, but when you move to the international scale, there is no such enforcement force, and consequently there are no laws applying to the "citizens," which are in this the nations.
-
Sandwich is right--justice is more important than ultimate freedom. Besides, ultimate freedom would be short-lived because there would be no laws and no way to keep the powerful in check and thus might would make right. Anarchy leads to despotism if no one intervenes. And Bush detractors thought the president was talking out of his ass when he said there should be limits to freedom.:ha:
And Kasperl, your moral relativism disgusts me. I was appalled when you compared American capital punishment with Iraqi capital punisment by saying "both are killing people who commit crimes, the only difference is their definition of a crime". Painlessly executing someone with the most humane methods possible for first-degree murder or serial murder is different from beating someone, gouging his eyes out and chopping his head off for speaking out a monstrous dictator who gases and tortures his citizens en masse.:hopping: :hopping: :hopping: :hopping: :hopping: :hopping: :hopping:
-
Damnit, I demand you stop posting new messages while I'm away.
Anyways, I'll read and give my comments. But seriously people, give a guy a break...
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Sandwich is right--justice is more important than ultimate freedom. Besides, ultimate freedom would be short-lived because there would be no laws and no way to keep the powerful in check and thus might would make right. Anarchy leads to despotism if no one intervenes.
define justice
And Kasperl, your moral relativism disgusts me. I was appalled when you compared American capital punishment with Iraqi capital punisment by saying "both are killing people who commit crimes, the only difference is their definition of a crime". Painlessly executing someone with the most humane methods possible
is it humane to kill a person? even if the personhas eneded someone elses life, is it really that humane to commit the same crime to him?
and also, how do you know that it is painless to die? no-one can really answer that one question.
for first-degree murder or serial murder is different from beating someone, gouging his eyes out and chopping his head off for speaking out a monstrous dictator who gases and tortures his citizens en masse.
aside from the method of excucution, there is no real difference. in US prisons, according to scientific surveys which i take for real, there is a large chance of being raped or beaten, which is, in essence torture. the only difference is the crime what the person is excecuted for.
:hopping: :hopping: :hopping: :hopping: :hopping: :hopping: :hopping:
i think one smiley, or perhaps just reasoning, would do.
-
Originally posted by Venom
No. Or then, you're allowed to kill the next foreign tourist that you see. The laws of a country applies for anybody would has to face them.
Do you have any others like that? coz it's hella funny :doubt:
Actually in the strictist sense CP is right, though it works the other way around. The laws involving visas, extridition, etc are rather complex, and it depends on which two countries are involved. However, in essence one who visits another country under visa is agreeing implicitly to obey the laws in the country being visited and to accept the punishment resulting from failing to obey those laws. And technically, you can't enter a country of which you are not a citizen without a visa (though the basic tourist visas are only denied in the rarest of circumstances here). It's a mater of international relations between the two involved countries. (Here in the US we actually have a similar system for non-federal crimes among the states, one can face extradition from one state if he is charged with a crime in another.) That is not international law though, as it still applies to citizens of one country or another rather than to the countries themselves.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
define justice
is it humane to kill a person? even if the personhas eneded someone elses life, is it really that humane to commit the same crime to him?
and also, how do you know that it is painless to die? no-one can really answer that one question.
aside from the method of excucution, there is no real difference. in US prisons, according to scientific surveys which i take for real, there is a large chance of being raped or beaten, which is, in essence torture. the only difference is the crime what the person is excecuted for.
Raped by whom? Being tortured by your cellmates is a different thing than being tortured by the prison staff. The guards are not omniscient. Otherwise there would be no breakout attempts and no prison gangs.
And is it humane to kill a person? Not really, but you can try to come as close to being humane as possible. Some deaths are worse than others. That's why drawing and quartering is not an acceptable method of execution in this country. There may not be very much variation in method of execution in this country, but many countries do it in much more brutal ways. I think there are some people that deserve to die, like that bastard Charles Manson (I think that's his name) who's sitting in a relatively nice US prison (a US prison is better than a lot of Third World slums).
-
*must....not....flame.....*
I think it was good that we invaded Iraq, I think it is bad that we haven't left yet...
I haven't been keeping up with politics lately, but wasn't the guy that supplied the US with false intelligence British (since he commited suicide before he could get a trial, that pretty much ascertains his guilt). Therefore I think the US may have acted a LITTLE too harshly, but then again, we got bad intel from the UK.
For some reason these threads make me sick...so do with this post as you will, I'm not retaliating with another.
EDIT: Well, not the thread, but the de-railment:D
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Raped by whom? Being tortured by your cellmates is a different thing than being tortured by the prison staff.
really? what's the difference from having one dick up yourarse from another?
The guards are not omniscient. Otherwise there would be no breakout attempts and no prison gangs.
suprisingly enough, i never read about rape in Dutch prisons, and you don't hear all that much about crime inside Ducth prisons. i am not saying the Dutch system is better, i am only comparing.
And is it humane to kill a person? Not really, but you can try to come as close to being humane as possible. Some deaths are worse than others.
perhaps in level of pain, yes, but dieing isn't really enjoyable overall, is it?
That's why drawing and quartering is not an acceptable method of execution in this country. There may not be very much variation in method of execution in this country, but many countries do it in much more brutal ways. I think there are some people that deserve to die, like that bastard Charles Manson
what did he do?and who are you to decide about someone elses live? what's the difference between a murderer acting out of revenge for something, and an executioner?
who's sitting in a relatively nice US prison (a US prison is better than a lot of Third World slums).
-
Originally posted by Solatar
*must....not....flame.....*
I think it was good that we invaded Iraq, I think it is bad that we haven't left yet...
I haven't been keeping up with politics lately, but wasn't the guy that supplied the US with false intelligence British
you mean Kelly? AFAIK he never supplied anyone with false intell, he only said he doubted some reports from MI6
(since he commited suicide before he could get a trial, that pretty much ascertains his guilt).
well, the whole "suicide" is rather a debateable subject right now
Therefore I think the US may have acted a LITTLE too harshly, but then again, we got bad intel from the UK.
ok, IIRC, Bush convinced Blair, not the other way around.
For some reason these threads make me sick...so do with this post as you will, I'm not retaliating with another.
EDIT: Well, not the thread, but the de-railment:D
-
Originally posted by kasperl
so if i follow that philosophy, an dictator who is leading the most powerfull country in the world is right and has the roight to kill, rape, torture, extort or just do antyhing he wants to the entire world population.
mmm, right, what did the Iraq populace do to deserve a US military dictatorship instead of Saddam?
i never saids that those were good things, i only asked whgat right you had to act for others, while those others never asked you anything.
Well from his perspective he is right and there is bog all anybody can do about it.
Also, there is no military dictatorship in Iraq, its a Transitional government picked to draft up dates and a consitution for democractic elections, the people were picked because they all represent a segment of Iraqi society. They are Transitional, not a permenant replacement.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Well from his perspective he is right and there is bog all anybody can do about it.
Also, there is no military dictatorship in Iraq, its a Transitional government picked to draft up dates and a consitution for democractic elections, the people were picked because they all represent a segment of Iraqi society. They are Transitional, not a permenant replacement.
ok, right, if there just temporary, then why are they setting up all the rules about the police, the military, the government, and why are they holding razzia's looking for "terrorists"?
-
Originally posted by kasperl
is it humane to kill a person? even if the personhas eneded someone elses life, is it really that humane to commit the same crime to him?
and also, how do you know that it is painless to die? no-one can really answer that one question.
aside from the method of excucution, there is no real difference. in US prisons, according to scientific surveys which i take for real, there is a large chance of being raped or beaten, which is, in essence torture. the only difference is the crime what the person is excecuted for.
i think one smiley, or perhaps just reasoning, would do.
Ok, so you are essentially saying that government-sponsored mass murder is on par with capital punishment? Whether you agree with the death penalty, this equation is just unacceptable. How many times have you worried that your countries leaders would wage literal war on you? The death penalty is in place as an ultimate means of punishment, and can be issued for no crime less than premeditated murder. What was done under Saddam, (and still is done under other dictators) was not a deterrent from taking a basic human right, life, but rather to impose enough fear into surviving subjects to prevent them from speaking out against or rising up against said dictator. There is an inherent difference.
As for the whole rape/beating versus torture argument, erm, no. True, the fundamental physical abuses are similar, but the difference comes in who is performing those actions. In prisons, it is inmates, other criminals (yes, despite what some might argue, anyone serving time in prison is by definition a criminal) that are inflicting physical harm on other inmates. If they are caught, then they face consequences just as serious as those of a normal citizen. And I don't think you completely understand the organization of American prisons; they range from maximum-security lockdowns for violent offenders, to minimal security facilities for people locked up for tax fraud or something. The situation you are describing generally happens in the higher-security prisons (more aggressive and violent inmates, more concentration on keeping them in than watching them at all hours of the day) and even there is not nearly as commonplace as you seem to think. I've (sadly) known a couple of people to land jail time, and nothing remotely like what you are describing happened to them. Government-sponsored torture, like government-sponsored murder, is something else entirely that needs no explanation.
-
About the raping part. The difference is OUR PRISONS DO NOT CONDONE TORTURE. The reason people get dicks jammed up their asses is because the guards can't be everywhere at every time. They can only do so much to prevent it. The Iraqi "justice system" (note the quotation marks) condones torture on every level.
You're thinking in black and white terms. Death is not fun, but that's why it's used as punishment for the worst of the worst crimes. Charles Manson killed an entire family, including a young woman who was eight months pregnant. Clck me (http://www.crimelibrary.com/manson/mansonmain.htm). Don't you think he deserves to suffer for such a horrible deed?
-
Originally posted by Solatar
I think it was good that we invaded Iraq, I think it is bad that we haven't left yet...
- Invading Iraq > Good
- Timing > Bad
- International Coop > Aweful to the extreme
And if they'd leave now nothing in Iraq will change. A new terrorist lead country will rise and will mostlikely be even more anti-US.
-
The intelligence was actually from Italy, and it was debunked by EVERY SINGLE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. The US, the UK, even Italy debunked it, well before the claims made it into the State of the Union speech.
And about it being "right" for the US to invade other countries? Sounds awfully like imperialism. Which is precisely against what the Monroe Doctrine that guided us through most of the 19th Century was supposed to prevent: Imperialism.
-
Nothing wrong with Imperialism. We've been doing it on and off for thousands of years, and look where we are today, with MTV and digital pornography. I say imperialism rules :yes:
-
I think going in unilaterally was a bad idea. Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11, the CIA proved it. That portrait was probably more government propaganda. Thanks to the US, Iraq WILL become a terrorist state (it wasn't before though).
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Nothing wrong with Imperialism. We've been doing it on and off for thousands of years, and look where we are today, with MTV and digital pornography. I say imperialism rules :yes:
:nod:
-
I think getting a chance to kill Hussein and end his tyranny over the Iraqi people is a good enough reason to go to war.
-
If I had a nuke and actually wanted to use it someday, the most likely occasion for me to do it would be when my country was being invaded and I was being hunted by the most powerful army in the world.
But maybe that's just me.
-
Originally posted by redsniper
I think getting a chance to kill Hussein and end his tyranny over the Iraqi people is a good enough reason to go to war.
Okay, so why isn't the US going after every other petty dictator in the world if they really care about freeing people from tyranny? :p
-
I'm tired, I'm working 7/7, and my emotions are **** so you'll excuse me if I dispense with the usual intellectual pleasantries:
(1) Someone mentioned the US might let other countries in to help with humanitarian reconstruction if they were lucky: getting involved is this ****pile of a situation is a very odd definition of lucky. I'm British and I want us out.
(2) Again, bad British Intel? Don't start pinnin it on us yankee boy - its was your President that starting banging on the war bongos first, not our PM.
(3) The post war management has been a complete disaster - civil disturbance, armed civilian conflicts, and the assassination of the Coalition's one true Iraqi supporter in any position of power. It all adds up to one thing: disaster.
I supported destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein. I supported the United Kingdom entering into a war to stop the oppression of the Iraqi people. I also supported us entering a war to gain a tactical advantage in the middle east. None of the above went as planned so to me, the war I was supported was lost. :wtf:
-
My post wasn't intended to be taken too literally. I supported the war, I know the Iraqis weren't responsible for 9/11, and I'm glad Hussein is out of power. That's all.
200 posts!!!
-
Originally posted by Ace
Okay, so why isn't the US going after every other petty dictator in the world if they really care about freeing people from tyranny? :p
Once they find the oil, they'll free everyone from tyranny. :p
-
Originally posted by Ace
Okay, so why isn't the US going after every other petty dictator in the world if they really care about freeing people from tyranny? :p
Technically, under international law, thats illegal, you need a excuse, like WMDs.
Also, they are, look at Burma, the US put sanctions on them because of the Junta's control and refusal to hand power over to the group that won the elections. They push Iran a lot towards democracy.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Okay, so why isn't the US going after every other petty dictator in the world if they really care about freeing people from tyranny? :p
Because the Bu$h Regime only pays lipservice to "freedom". they haven't gone after anyone else because they support us politicaly.
They push Iran a lot towards democracy.
Don't forget it was the US that overthrew Irans democracy in the first place.
Technically, under international law, thats illegal, you need a excuse, like WMDs.
Or non-existent WMDs