Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on December 14, 2003, 04:18:58 am
-
Looks like they may have finally caught the bastard. Reports are unconfirmed at the moment though.
click me (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3317429.stm)
-
Not betting on it. For one thing, because the Army hasn't confirmed it, and that's downright bizarre. Actually catching Saddam would be about the closest thing to justifying the war to the public they can still reasonably get, seeing as they successfully proved that there weren't WMDs and made a total botch of the "peacemaking" bit.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
...because the Army hasn't confirmed it, and that's downright bizarre.
Agreed.
-
According to British news, there will be an announcement at noon by Coalition forces on this matter. Makes you think they've got something dramatic to say.... ;)
-
Originally posted by vyper
According to British news, there will be an announcement at noon by Coalition forces on this matter. Makes you think they've got something dramatic to say.... ;)
Possibly that it's a hoax?
-
we'll know in 54 minutes.
-
And the tension mounts...
The really funny part is that on ITV (third channel in brit TV) just started a new story stating Saddam had been captured by US forces, when it suddenly lost sound and then changed to a program about the apostles. :wtf:
-
either way.. we'll all know soon enough..
-
It's on Sky News now that Tony Blair has confirmed that he has been captured and DNA test have proved that it is him.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1115282,00.html
-
You mean Tony Blair the yellowcake uranium guy?
-
If I had any idea what you're talking about you can guarantee I'd have a witty reply for you.
:)
-
Blair was the first one to give Bush that whole bit about the documents proving Saddam was buying yellowcake uranium from Niger, which was basically the entirety of the "proof" Bush had that Iraq had MDWs. Same documents were found almost immediately to have been rather incompetent forgeries by MI-6, having names of people who weren't around at the time of the supposed transaction and so on.
-
Oh I know now, the whole forged information dealy. Yeah, that's the same Blair.
What I don't get is why the people are firing there weapons in the air on the city streets, surely these people know what comes must come down?
-
Originally posted by 01010
What I don't get is why the people are firing there weapons in the air on the city streets, surely these people know what comes must come down?
It's customary in Muslim areas to celebrate in that manner; I know a lady who got a bullet through her arm while standing on her balcony in Jerusalem, shot from an Arab wedding nearby. :-/
12 mins.
-
It's kinda an Arab thing. You always see 'em doing it whenever something good is supposed to be happening. One of the many traits they share with hillbillies.
-
Well, if we're using lethal methods of celebration, anyone care if I start throwing my Xbox around?
I just wish I had a seismometer for measurement.
-
:wtf: You identify my country's elected leader as yellowcake guy? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by vyper
:wtf: You identify my country's elected leader as yellowcake guy? :wtf:
Better than calling him "that grinning twat".
-
Meh, better orator than Bush. ;)
-
4 min
CNN is saying that it IS him, and hat everybody is celebratging and all.
-
Yeah, I identify him as that when someone assumes he's a credible source of information on Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah, I identify him as that when someone assumes he's a credible source of information on Iraq.
I didn't assume anything, I was merely relating information :)
-
Well, implied in that it's only relevant information if you don't think he's the sorta guy who lies his ass off at any given opportunity.
-
ok, 3 minutes past now, CNN is still talking crap, they're late.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Well, implied in that it's only relevant information if you don't think he's the sorta guy who lies his ass off at any given opportunity.
He's a politician, it stands to reason that he lies his arse off. However it would be a mighty, mighty balls up if this turned out to be false.
-
C'mon guys its happened, all we're waiting for now is for the Iraq civililian administration to steal the thunder.
-
CNN still hasn't showed anything like an official press conferention.
-
CONFIRMATION
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah, I identify him as that when someone assumes he's a credible source of information on Iraq.
I'll give you that he talks crap but lets face it so does Bush and you don't call him that vote stealing guy do you?.. or do you :D
-
[q]Ladies and gentlemen - we got him![/q]
-
Nice beard, Saddam.
-
i just got stuff from the tv. the turd finally got caught!
-
Originally posted by vyper
Meh, better orator than Bush. ;)
So's R2D2, though..........on the yellow cake thing, didn't the CIA identify it was bollocks before Bush & Blair used it anways?
Anyways, it looks like Saddam on the telly. Or David Blaine.
-
So, is the world saved now?
-
Of coursenot!
Incidentally, 17 people were killed in a suicide bombing of a police station today.
-
I was waiting for that. :rolleyes:
-
To paraphrase George Carlin, the world is fine, the people are ****ed.....
-
Well whadya know... And he was found in a hole too. hah. Oh well, who's the next big bad guy?
-
Mr Chaghra's Grill take away at the end of my street I'd bet.
-
You like chili sauce salad?
-
Woohoo, North Korea here we come.
It's like a war world tour or something.
-
So when do they catch Bush?
-
dunno, when the soviets liberate the states?
-
Originally posted by 01010
Woohoo, North Korea here we come.
It's like a war world tour or something.
if USA want war with China then they would start war with north-Korea but i think that USA military is not that Stupid (so i hope)
that there will not be another war in long time
and another Korea war would be kinda stupid
it's good new's that coalition forces finaly got Saddam
-
Dammit, that means the news will have to change the terrorists names back from 'Saddam employees' to 'Muslim Fanatics', I expect that actually has made the Americans lives a bit more difficult now. I suppose they will settle on 'Saddam Sympathisers'.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
So when do they catch Bush?
Mostly on their weekends off, depends on if the gettings good.
Oh, BUSH.
-
YES, YES, YES!
Anyway, what should we do to with the cow-****er?
I have some ideas...:drevil:
Originally posted by 01010
Mostly on their weekends off, depends on if the gettings good.
Oh, BUSH.
:lol:
-
How convenient. How much longer till the elections, again?
-
Originally posted by Pez
Nice beard, Saddam.
Oh, I was wrong. It seems like they captured Santa Claus.
But seriously, capturing Saddam is good.
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
How convenient. How much longer till the elections, again?
Who knows but I don't think Saddam is in with a chance at getting into power again anyway.
-
[color=cc9900]Yeah, instead of living his life out in a hole just large enough to lie down in, he's going to live it out in a clean, well-lit prison cell with regular meals. Either way, it's unlikely he's ever going to genocide populations again, is it? Put him back in the hole, says I. Give him at least a little free choice.[/color]
-
Great. Well, I've downloaded my immigration forms and started filling them out. Time to move somewhere sane.
There's no way that the GOP can lose the next election now.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Who knows but I don't think Saddam is in with a chance at getting into power again anyway.
i think he means for Bush.
-
Originally posted by Carl
i think he means for Bush.
Sarchasm.
-
I went to sleep 5 ****ing minutes before this,
god ****ing damnit... :/
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I went to sleep 5 ****ing minutes before this,
god ****ing damnit... :/
[color=cc9900]Don't hate yourself, it's not like anything important happened. Well, American and English egos are gradually inflating, but other than that...[/color]
-
I'm slightly worried about what happens now...... odds are Saddam will be put on trial in an Iraq court. Odds are, he'll be guilty (certainty). Odds are, he'll be executed.
For the average Arab, will this not look like a kangeroo court being controlled by the US to remove an opponent? Granted, there's not much doubt amongst sane people that Saddam doesn't deserve it - but it still looks dodgy.
There has to be an independent, UN trial. Not just for the sake of fairness, but for the sake of preventing a martyrdom.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm slightly worried about what happens now...... odds are Saddam will be put on trial in an Iraq court. Odds are, he'll be guilty (certainty). Odds are, he'll be executed.
For the average Arab, will this not look like a kangeroo court being controlled by the US to remove an opponent? Granted, there's not much doubt amongst sane people that Saddam doesn't deserve it - but it still looks dodgy.
There has to be an independent, UN trial. Not just for the sake of fairness, but for the sake of preventing a martyrdom.
I agree, I also think he shouldn't be executed but left to rot for the rest of his life in some dank hole.
-
like the one he was happily liveing in :)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
You like chili sauce salad?
Remove the word salad. :D
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
like the one he was happily liveing in :)
Can't we throw him back in? :nervous: :lol:
-
(http://homepage.mac.com/lwernham/.Pictures/PWN3D.jpg)
:lol:
-
(http://members.swiftdsl.com.au/~monkeytypist/b3ta/trapdoor.gif)
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
Well whadya know... And he was found in a hole too. hah. Oh well, who's the next big bad guy?
Assad? Arafat? Osama Mk. II?
Originally posted by Levyathan
How convenient. How much longer till the elections, again?
:wtf: A bit less than a year - next November, IIRC... :wtf:
Originally posted by aldo_14
For the average Arab, will this not look like a kangeroo court being controlled by the US to remove an opponent?
Eh? You do realize that if they let him loose on the streets of Baghdad, he'd probably be torn to shreds within 2 minutes, right? Muslim justice is rather.... harsh. No western justice system's punishment would seem to harsh for the Butcher of Baghdad - not to the Iraqis.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Eh? You do realize that if they let him loose on the streets of Baghdad, he'd probably be torn to shreds within 2 minutes, right? Muslim justice is rather.... harsh. No western justice system's punishment would seem to harsh for the Butcher of Baghdad - not to the Iraqis.
Arab, not Iraqi. I'd imagine many have a degree of 'respect' for Saddam for standing up against the US. The same would apply to any Arab leader held by the US, but Saddam is especially high profile.
Remember, many of these people have no experience of life in Iraq, only the propaganda they see.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Arab, not Iraqi. I'd imagine many have a degree of 'respect' for Saddam for standing up against the US. The same would apply to any Arab leader held by the US, but Saddam is especially high profile.
Remember, many of these people have no experience of life in Iraq, only the propaganda they see.
Ahh, my bad - read your post too quickly. Sorry.
Yeah, many Arabs I'd think would be supportive of Saddam, but I'd also think that there'd be just as many - who may prefer not to reveal themselves - who are as glad as the Iraqis that Saddam is out of the picture.
-
True - i think there have been some celebrations in other Arab nations.
Unfortunately, it's the vocal minority(?) that present a problem. Number one aim is / has to be not make Saddam a martyr to Islamic / Arab fundamentalists.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
True - i think there have been some celebrations in other Arab nations.
Unfortunately, it's the vocal minority(?) that present a problem. Number one aim is / has to be not make Saddam a martyr to Islamic / Arab fundamentalists.
[q]"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his.
-- General Patton[/q]
Arafat (just using an example I'm familiar with) has said that he wants to be a martyr. I say, go for it, Yasser! :doubt:
-
Yeah, I agree with you.
-
The Iraqi governing council has a tribunal for these guys.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
The Iraqi governing council has a tribunal for these guys.
I wonder if they're into Muslim justice or not. You know, the kind where if a man is caught stealing something, they cut off his hand.
-
well they are mostly Muslim, so you would think that they would be into Muslim justice
-
Muslim justice apparently says that murdering one man is as bad as murdering everyone in the world. It didn't stop Saddam bumping off over four million people.
-
Well if that's the logic they work on what do you expect, if you kill one person it doesn't make a difference if you keep on killing now does it.
-
Well that's one way to look at it.
-
Shariah law, I believe the term is.
-
U.S. military officials told NBC News that it was unlikely that the informer would be eligible for the $25 million bounty on Saddam's head because they were U.S. captives likely to face charges themselves.
:lol:
-
[q]You know, the kind where if a man is caught stealing something, they cut off his hand.[/q]
So since he could be said to have raped Iraq, can we cut of his doohickey? :nervous:
Seriously tho - I think he should be sent to the Hague. Its how we've always dealt with war criminals since post Nuremberg (sp?).
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
True - i think there have been some celebrations in other Arab nations.
Unfortunately, it's the vocal minority(?) that present a problem. Number one aim is / has to be not make Saddam a martyr to Islamic / Arab fundamentalists.
Well for one thing there won't be any complaints from Iran :D They hate him more than the US does.
As for the trial the best thing to do would be to appoint it only after the elections in Iraq. That way the US can say "not our fault" when he does get sentenced to death.
Besides I'd imagine he lost a lot of respect from the fundies after he was captured without firing a single shot.
-
No matter how things fall out with this, the US will be blamed. No matter what government is in power when they try Hussein, it will be seen as a puppet of the US by anyone with an axe to grind against the new regime or the US. We're fukt either way.
-
Perhaps the US will strike a deal with Saddam, to find the chemical weapons places...
-
Apparently if Saddam talks he wont get turned over to the Iraqis (yet) but if he doesn't...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm slightly worried about what happens now...... odds are Saddam will be put on trial in an Iraq court. Odds are, he'll be guilty (certainty). Odds are, he'll be executed.
For the average Arab, will this not look like a kangeroo court being controlled by the US to remove an opponent? Granted, there's not much doubt amongst sane people that Saddam doesn't deserve it - but it still looks dodgy.
There has to be an independent, UN trial. Not just for the sake of fairness, but for the sake of preventing a martyrdom. [/b]
No decision on what kind of trial ol' Madass will be facing. The UN doesn't want to try him if there's any chance he'll get the death penalty through a UN trial.
I also heard that the Hague isn't ready to try him, as there are concerns that he'd try to disrupt his own trial like Milosevic(sp?) is trying to do with his. (Slobodan Milosevic is the former dictator of Yugoslavia and is in the Hague for war crimes in Bosnia, for those of you who don't know. He spends more time denouncing the UN than defending himself in his war crimes trial.)
No way is he going to get tried in the USA; that would smack too much of "victor's justice" and would be resented as a kangaroo court all over the world, even among our allies.
In any case, he's not going to trial anytime soon; he's more valuable as an informant on his cronies. Even if Saddam lies through his teeth during his interrogation, he can still give away valuable information.
The poor schmuck didn't even have the balls to kill himself when he was captured. Was that pistol he had in that hole with him just for show? :lol:
And we got some nice pics of his humiliated, raggedy ass during his medical exam beamed all over the planet. Can't imagine that the Muslim fundies or the Saddam loyalists are feeling too good about now...:D
-
I'm surprised he didn't go the Hitler route....
-
I'm not
-
I'm just saying, deposed dictators usually do one of two things:
1. Flee the country and go into exile.
2. Blow their brains out.
-
Apparently Saddam isn't really that erm.. 'dedicated' though. Murdering Ruthless Dictator, yes, but a real life matyr? Not a chance.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Seriously tho - I think he should be sent to the Hague. Its how we've always dealt with war criminals since post Nuremberg (sp?).
Except for Eichmann (he was post-Nurenberg, right?). He was hiding his lil' ass down in Argentina.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Except for Eichmann (he was post-Nurenberg, right?). He was hiding his lil' ass down in Argentina.
Close enough. The point is we need to give some international credibility to this farce the yanks have made of post war management (and I supported this war btw).
-
Originally posted by vyper
Close enough. The point is we need to give some international credibility to this farce the yanks have made of post war management (and I supported this war btw).
Last I read, the Iraqi whatever said they'd put him to death for his crimes, so methinks they should just let the new Iraqi govt. deal with him.
-
Well, it certainly means we don't have to worry about what to do with him.
Unfortunately I suspect the international community will be incandescent at the Coalition for not stopping a "brutal act of revenge" (note predicted soundbite!)
-
ya know, bush doesn't regosnise the hague.
and i'd hate to see what happens to that city when saddam is held there, it get's kinda messy to have riot cops all over the place.
-
Yeh well maybe its time he started recognising it. :rolleyes:
-
So... uhh.... precisely what are they accusing him of? Being a "Bad Man"?
-
:wtf: You aren't serious, are you?
-
[q]So... uhh.... precisely what are they accusing him of? Being a "Bad Man"?[/q]
Crimes against humanity, although I prefer to define it as a breach of the Geneva convention (and a couple of thousad human rights abuses). Thanks to the yanks carry on with G. Bay thats not very likely though.
The Iraqi government will probably try him for treason of some sort, since the standing argument is that he oppressed his own people as well as others.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Except for Eichmann (he was post-Nurenberg, right?). He was hiding his lil' ass down in Argentina.
IIRC, Israel conducted a raid inside Argentina to grab Eichmann and put him on trial. Technically, that's a violation of another nation's sovereign territory (I think), but I still applaud the move all the same (and never mind the fact that I was born in Agentina). :D
I remember what happened with the Achille Lauro incident back in the '80s, when the USA used Navy fighters to force a civilian airliner carrying fleeing terrorists to put down at a US military base. The terrorists tried to flee after they hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise liner and killed a Jewish-American (who was in a wheelchair). The terrorists were captured and sent to jail after their trial, but many European countries (and my father, schmuck that he is) denounced the US action of forcing the plane down as "airborne piracy." Of course, most, if not all, Americans hailed the move.
In a post 9/11 world, aggressive actions like these are more important and necessary than ever.
-
Wait a sec', I thought the war was about weapons? Big weapons? Are you telling me it was all about human rights and **** after all? Wowzer.
-
So what, they just let him go now since they've yet to find anything?
-
[q]Wait a sec', I thought the war was about weapons? Big weapons? Are you telling me it was all about human rights and **** after all? Wowzer.[/q]
George W and Tony Bliar said that - not me, nor most people supporting the war. I've always admitted it was a strategic move.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Wait a sec', I thought the war was about weapons? Big weapons? Are you telling me it was all about human rights and **** after all? Wowzer.
I think that it was more like the shoot-to-kill orders I get as a soldier. If someone with both intent to cause significant harm and capability/means to do so is threatening you, shoot to kill.
Saddam was the person with the intent to harm. It was likely that he had the means as well. The attack was aimed to remove this person and his regieme from power because of their past actions and their suspected ability to cause major harm to others through nuclear weaponry.
-
As an aside C4 news over here in the UK confirmed something that I had been thinking since I found out about Saddam's capture.
Operation Red Dawn featuring the wolverines? Where have I heard that before (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/)?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I think that it was more like the shoot-to-kill orders I get as a soldier. If someone with both intent to cause significant harm and capability/means to do so is threatening you, shoot to kill.
Saddam was the person with the intent to harm. It was likely that he had the means as well. The attack was aimed to remove this person and his regieme from power because of their past actions and their suspected ability to cause major harm to others through nuclear weaponry.
The problem is that he wasn't threatening anyone, Sandwich. He was spewing rhetoric, of course. Israelis could make a case that he was paying off the families of suicide bombers, which would make him a threat to THEM. However, Hussein was NOT threatening the US. If we wanted to use your yardstick--"The attack was aimed to remove this person...because of their past actions and their suspected ability to cause major harm through nuclear weaponry"--we will have to invade, among other places, North Korea, Israel, the United States, etc. Considering that North Korea rapes its own people regularly as badly as Hussein (perhaps not gassing them, though), Israel's penchant for assassination, and the fact that the USA is willing to send its troops anywhere to support dictators and despots, we're all guilty. Your yardstick is a very dangerous one to use, Sandwich.
-
how would the US invade it'self?
and if you are ready to accept that Sadam's paying off of the palistinian terrorists was real and substantial, then its a very short trip to say that they were a threat to us
#1 reason muslums hate us, Israel
#1 way to fix that, get Israel and the palistinians to live peacefuly
#1 threat to that solution, Palistinian terrorists
wich were suported in no small amount by Sadam.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
The problem is that he wasn't threatening anyone, Sandwich. He was spewing rhetoric, of course. Israelis could make a case that he was paying off the families of suicide bombers, which would make him a threat to THEM. However, Hussein was NOT threatening the US. If we wanted to use your yardstick--"The attack was aimed to remove this person...because of their past actions and their suspected ability to cause major harm through nuclear weaponry"--we will have to invade, among other places, North Korea, Israel, the United States, etc. Considering that North Korea rapes its own people regularly as badly as Hussein (perhaps not gassing them, though), Israel's penchant for assassination, and the fact that the USA is willing to send its troops anywhere to support dictators and despots, we're all guilty. Your yardstick is a very dangerous one to use, Sandwich.
Ok, look at it this way. Saddam is still in power, the US never invaded, and he continues his rhetoric ad infinitum. But then add actual and factual possession of nuclear weapons to that equation. Fine, he hasn't nuked anyone... yet. He hasn't declared out-and-out war on anyone...yet. But, especially based on his past actions, which can teach us of his disregard for life, at what point do you consider a mass murderer with nuclear weapons to be a threat? When the nukes are flying overhead, or just when he deploys them into launch positions? :rolleyes:
-
Except that Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons and the US and Britain knew damn well that he didn't have them.
-
The US and Britian just wanted to get him out of the way for something far more diabolical.
-
Like what? The Cheeky Girls Christmas Album?
-
No, they could be paving the way for Oprah/Microsoft
-
yeah,
today Iraq, tomoro the world!
muhahahahahahahahaha!
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, look at it this way. Saddam is still in power, the US never invaded, and he continues his rhetoric ad infinitum. But then add actual and factual possession of nuclear weapons to that equation. Fine, he hasn't nuked anyone... yet. He hasn't declared out-and-out war on anyone...yet. But, especially based on his past actions, which can teach us of his disregard for life, at what point do you consider a mass murderer with nuclear weapons to be a threat? When the nukes are flying overhead, or just when he deploys them into launch positions? :rolleyes:
I find it interesting that you trot out the nuclear threat, when nothing of the kind has yet been found. Show me the nuclear weapons and we can start to consider Saddam an actual nuclear threat. Hell, show me the chemical and biological weapons.
As for the rest, you're saying that any country can invade Israel.
Israel has all but come out and stated they have nuclear weapons. They show a willingness to assassinate people--and are proud of it. A willingness to deploy gunships and fighter jets at civilians combined with nuclear weapons sounds more than a bit dangerous to me. At what point do you consider them a threat? At what point do you start rolling the tanks?
By invading Iraq on a flimsy pretext that the rest of the civilized world saw through from the first, the US has shown a willingness to trample the rights of other nations, international law, and the will of the international community. It has displayed a willingness to bomb indiscriminately (witness US Army multiple warhead delivery systems and their 40-60% dud rate). To date, the US is still the only country in the entire world to have actually deployed a nuclear device--and that at a civilian target, not a military one. At what point do you consider the US a threat? At what point do you start rolling the tanks?
I just don't see how you can use that line of rhetoric so glibly. Its so easy to apply to any country, any situation. Its so flexible and easy. It doesn't need actual accountability. It only needs suspicion and rumor.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I find it interesting that you trot out the nuclear threat, when nothing of the kind has yet been found. Show me the nuclear weapons and we can start to consider Saddam an actual nuclear threat. Hell, show me the chemical and biological weapons.
As for the rest, you're saying that any country can invade Israel.
Israel has all but come out and stated they have nuclear weapons. They show a willingness to assassinate people--and are proud of it. A willingness to deploy gunships and fighter jets at civilians combined with nuclear weapons sounds more than a bit dangerous to me. At what point do you consider them a threat? At what point do you start rolling the tanks?
By invading Iraq on a flimsy pretext that the rest of the civilized world saw through from the first, the US has shown a willingness to trample the rights of other nations, international law, and the will of the international community. It has displayed a willingness to bomb indiscriminately (witness US Army multiple warhead delivery systems and their 40-60% dud rate). To date, the US is still the only country in the entire world to have actually deployed a nuclear device--and that at a civilian target, not a military one. At what point do you consider the US a threat? At what point do you start rolling the tanks?
I just don't see how you can use that line of rhetoric so glibly. Its so easy to apply to any country, any situation. Its so flexible and easy. It doesn't need actual accountability. It only needs suspicion and rumor.
I have to agree with mikhael here. I understand that this is a post 9/11 world and that it is necessary to strike at terrorists before they can carry out their plots of killing as many innocent civilians as they can. After all, they make no distinction between American civilians and american military targets. However, pre-emption as an overall strategy is very dangerous just for the reasons that mikhael stated: it doesn't need accountability. You don't have to present proof of an imminent threat to start a war. All you have to do is say "Hey, we THINK these people are getting ready to attack us, so let's attack them first."
How the hell does that work? If you're in a bar and you think somebody is about to throw a punch at you so you throw the first punch instead, all that does is get you prosecuted for assault. If you throw the first punch, you're gulity of assault (and battery if you actually hit the other guy).
Of course, we are dealing with terrorists, who have no sense of propriety or legality, so I can see Sandwichs side of the argument as well. But is it morally right to start wars just on assumptions and unproven intelligence? With the standard the Bush administration uses, how can we know that their intelligenc is of any real credibility? Before and during the beginning of the war, Bush kept saying there were nuclear (or "nucular," to use his pronunciation :rolleyes: ) weapons ready to be deployed against the US. Well, guess what? A nuclear weapons program is EXTREMELY hard to hide because of all the infrastructure needed to create such a weapon (storage units, cooling units, finding weapons grade nuclear material and so on). We haven't even found any evidence of chemical or biological weapons, which are significantly easier to produce than nuclear weapons.
Bush kept saying over and over again that the threat was "imminent." It wasn't.
And then there's the fact that the Bushies shut our traditional allies out of contracts to help rebuild Iraq. France, Germany and Russia were all shut out of the bidding for these contracts for, the Bush administration claimed, "reasons of security." Excuse me? How is a contract to rebuild Iraq's electricity grid awarded to a German company (rather than to, say, Halliburton) a threat to American security? Dudes, this is plain for everyone to see: Bush shut our traditional allies out of the bidding because they didn't support the war in Iraq, plain and simple. Net result to the American taxpayer: we wind up footing the bill for rebuilding Iraq, rather than spreading the cost among the international community. Enjoy those tax cuts, peeps! They won't last long! This sort of spiteful behavior will just keep pissing off our friends and allies simply because it's so blatant. Who wants to help and ally with a nation that behaves like a spoiled brat?
With his credibility stretched so far past the snapping point, how can we trust Bush the next time he says we have to start a new war to protect ourselves? How can we trust him when he says anything?
I wouldn't feel so bad about pre-emption if I actually trusted the guy doing the pre-empting. Needless to say, for all of the above reasons (and more), I don't trust Bush. Go figure.
-
As far as I've seen from most experts on weapons, if we wanted to use nuclear weaponry as an excuse, it would only work for the First Gulf War.
And here's a question: Did we actually declare war this time, or is our last official war still World War II? These "police action" excuses are rather pointless.
-
I think Sarnie's point was that Saddam was actively keen on getting hold of nukes, as many witnesses inside his government and without have attested. I doubt that he would have ketp them for the purpose of waving them at people. By time he'd shipped one to Israel or Kuwait as his brother-in-law told us he planned to, it would have been a bit late and all you hippes would have looked a bit silly.
Regarding the US nukage of Japan, let us remember that Japan started that conflict and that history generally considers that ending the war there and then saved lives in the long run.
-
I won't comment on the Iraki nuke thinguy, but about japan, that's bullcrap: they were already on the verge of giving up, the war was pretty much won already. Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualities end up over 300,000 deads. Civilian deads. I don't think that's a fair trade-off for a couple more monthes of war maximum, with much fewer military casualities.
And saving lives in the long run? Tell that to the people who still suffer from the radiations inflicted to their parents and grandparents, we'll see what they think of it.
-
well, Saddam was a cruel brutal Dictator! and that's for sure and i'm glad they've captured him:)
and the only thing i've to say for Bush is:
(http://www.o2go.de/sauron5000/misc/35141625.jpg)
:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Of course, we are dealing with terrorists, who have no sense of propriety or legality, so I can see Sandwichs side of the argument as well.
Yeah, I can kinda see Sandwich's point here too, but I have a reservation. We know that Al-Qaeda plotted and executed the attack on Sept11. We know where Al-Qaeda's head honcho lived (and how did we know this? That same anti-terrorism and intelligence apparatus that Clinton put together as a result of the first attack on the WTC). Sending troops to Afghanistan was not pre-emptive. It was retalitory and justified.
However, Iraq was NOT retalitory. There weren't any Iraqis involved in the WTC attack. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Ladin hated each other. Hussein hates bin-Ladin's theocratic leanings, and Osama hates Hussein's secular government. Bush managed to convince us that because Hussein had done some pretty evil things in the past we had to abrogate our own principles, piss on the organization we founded (the UN) and piss away every last shred of good will the rest of the world had given us. Yeah, he needed to be removed, but not in this way. Not in the worst, most screwed up way we could imagine.
-
Ok, so they caught him...maybe. He wasn't a real threat, so this victory is only symbolic. Capturing Saddam really won't have any effect on either the US or the Iraqi people. If it turns out its really him....
When I first saw the news, there was a picture of the disshelved Saddam on the Yahoo front page. However, since my homepage is actuall yahoo.ca, the headline beside that was something like "Paul Martin sworn in as Prime Minister" and the Saddam picture right beside it. That was a really confusing few moments:):)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
However, Iraq was NOT retalitory. There weren't any Iraqis involved in the WTC attack. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Ladin hated each other. Hussein hates bin-Ladin's theocratic leanings, and Osama hates Hussein's secular government. Bush managed to convince us that because Hussein had done some pretty evil things in the past we had to abrogate our own principles, piss on the organization we founded (the UN) and piss away every last shred of good will the rest of the world had given us. Yeah, he needed to be removed, but not in this way. Not in the worst, most screwed up way we could imagine.
Bingo..
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I understand that this is a post 9/11 world and that it is necessary to strike at terrorists before they can carry out their plots of killing as many innocent civilians as they can.
Okay, I have to go on a little rant here, no offense to you Su-tehp.
A few thousand people die from airplanes being slammed into a couple of buildings and we're in a "Post 9-11 World".
What about the thousands starving in countries every day? Are we in a "Post Kenya World?" Or what about people being shot at in demonstrations with a similar death toll?
If all human life is to be equally valued as we claim it is, then why is a "terrorist attack on America, land of the free" more important than petty dictators starving people to death when just as many lives are being effected?
But anyway, let's all get back to our nationalism, flag waving, and how changed the world is due to "terrorists" while people just as deserving of life are wasting away... whee! :)
-
well nice to see it didn't efect you in the slightest, it must be a nice world your living in
-
Originally posted by Ace
Okay, I have to go on a little rant here, no offense to you Su-tehp.
A few thousand people die from airplanes being slammed into a couple of buildings and we're in a "Post 9-11 World".
What about the thousands starving in countries every day? Are we in a "Post Kenya World?" Or what about people being shot at in demonstrations with a similar death toll?
If all human life is to be equally valued as we claim it is, then why is a "terrorist attack on America, land of the free" more important than petty dictators starving people to death when just as many lives are being effected?
But anyway, let's all get back to our nationalism, flag waving, and how changed the world is due to "terrorists" while people just as deserving of life are wasting away... whee! :)
Sorry Ace, but I'm going to have to go on a litte rant here.
So you don't think 9/11 signified anything? It didn't show that world terrorism is a major threat, and that today, terrorists have the capability to, within a matter of hours, make simultaneous attacks on US (The US being the dominant world power at the time.) soil against both Civilian and Government structures, killing thousands, using the US's own planes?
While both are sadly real, you are saying that people starving to death in Kenya has the same impact on the world as 9/11 has?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Ok, so they caught him...maybe. He wasn't a real threat, so this victory is only symbolic. Capturing Saddam really won't have any effect on either the US or the Iraqi people. If it turns out its really him....
When I first saw the news, there was a picture of the disshelved Saddam on the Yahoo front page. However, since my homepage is actuall yahoo.ca, the headline beside that was something like "Paul Martin sworn in as Prime Minister" and the Saddam picture right beside it. That was a really confusing few moments:):)
It will have an effect of the Iraqi people. Some People in Iraq were convinced that he would come back. With him in custody this could make for a change in attitudes. Although even with out this recent event, I think the Iraqi people were slowly being convinced of that. But it will not make much effect over here, except maybe it give the 9 squabbling Democrats who are gropping for vision something less to complain about.
Originally posted by Ace
Okay, I have to go on a little rant here, no offense to you Su-tehp.
A few thousand people die from airplanes being slammed into a couple of buildings and we're in a "Post 9-11 World".
What about the thousands starving in countries every day? Are we in a "Post Kenya World?" Or what about people being shot at in demonstrations with a similar death toll?
If all human life is to be equally valued as we claim it is, then why is a "terrorist attack on America, land of the free" more important than petty dictators starving people to death when just as many lives are being effected?
But anyway, let's all get back to our nationalism, flag waving, and how changed the world is due to "terrorists" while people just as deserving of life are wasting away... whee!
It does have alot to do with the power of america. It gets alot of praise world wide as being seen as the leader of the freeworld. Not saying that out of pride but saying that as a observation. It has alot to do with the national interest of the US with oil and energy. Africa has nothing we are interested in. Yes we provide drug aid for aids infected individuals. The US does in fact donate some food. Some Non profits do care for them also( I am speaking in general: like starving tribes). It is not nearly enough. Now, also some of africa's problems can be blamed on colonialism also. But that is another argument. Umm, But it is true that because 3000 americans died we can do something about it. Not to get me wrong, the US Gov't has robbed individuals blind that didn't know anybetter such as the indians: they were stupid but the Gov't acted unethically. But, yes their are many acts of unjustice in the world. Tiamen square incident, the holocaust, The Iran Iraq war, the millions Stalin killed, the list goes on and on. However, as dilen said in the Babylon 5 movie "In the Beginning" that there is a single event that defines a generation I think. Or something like that. But what come of that pain and event changes the world. On 9/11/2001 there was an event that rocked the western hepmispheer. What comes of that pain and event defines the future. The US should continue to fight terrorism. The US should also start being a quite abit fervent about human rights with out a question. But the issue should not be used for political reasons like Bush did.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Sorry Ace, but I'm going to have to go on a litte rant here.
So you don't think 9/11 signified anything? It didn't show that world terrorism is a major threat, and that today, terrorists have the capability to, within a matter of hours, make simultaneous attacks on US (The US being the dominant world power at the time.) soil against both Civilian and Government structures, killing thousands, using the US's own planes?
While both are sadly real, you are saying that people starving to death in Kenya has the same impact on the world as 9/11 has?
Now, I did not state that I believe that the events on September 11 were any more or less important, I simply made a rhetorical statement about if all life is to be valued then why is one event considered more important then another when both are crimes as they are taking life.
Would not the act of allowing these people to starve be as evil as the act of allowing terrorism to continue? Both take lives and effect humanity and the world as a whole.
Both then would logically be world effecting events, and so the "Post Kenya World" should be a viable statement, as the events in that nation effect the potential outcome of the global society, just as a terrorist attack does.
-
But at what point does a countries borders stop existing and the world support one another. Are we or should be just one huge nation? Screw sovereignty? The reason I ask this is it seems that I see a general attitude of Globilism here. Are we one Giant people or individuals?
-
why can't we be both?
I'm an individual. I'm also an American. Why can't I be an American AND be a part of the global community?
-
then what happens when the global community and America disagree, wich side will you be on?
-
Originally posted by Ace
Okay, I have to go on a little rant here, no offense to you Su-tehp.
A few thousand people die from airplanes being slammed into a couple of buildings and we're in a "Post 9-11 World".
What about the thousands starving in countries every day? Are we in a "Post Kenya World?" Or what about people being shot at in demonstrations with a similar death toll?
If all human life is to be equally valued as we claim it is, then why is a "terrorist attack on America, land of the free" more important than petty dictators starving people to death when just as many lives are being effected?
But anyway, let's all get back to our nationalism, flag waving, and how changed the world is due to "terrorists" while people just as deserving of life are wasting away... whee! :)
Exactly what I'm thinking, and what I have been thinking ever since 9/11. Its very arrogant to say that when 3000 Americans die its this great historic event that changes the world, but when 30,000 die every day due to hunger and desiese (sp?), they go COMPLETELY un-noticed. This implies that American lives are much much more valuable than the lives to other people, and anyone who agrees with that ought to have their teeth knocked out since its utter ****e.
But you said it better..
-
think of it less as 3000 Americans and more like 3000 westerners,
more over 3000 westerners at the hands of a faction we, as westurners, had not consitered a threat, on 9-11 we realised we had been at war, and the other side was playing for keeps
I doubt 9-11 effected people in Africa much so to them the world hasn't changed, but for us it has
and by us I mean western civilisation, US and Europe + Austrailia, Canada, Mexico, prety much all of South America, and parts of Asia.
also, quite obviusly, it effects the Islamic world, wich would be the middle east north Africa, and south/southeast Asia/Indoneasia.
-
Oh, so its Western lives which are more valuable, not just American? My mistake.
I agree that it probably had little effect on the people living in Africa or South America or almost anywhere for that matter. And yet you (and by "you" I mean the American Government) still present 9/11 as a global event which will be forever remembered in history or something like that. You just experienced a SMALL fraction of what most of the world goes through every day, the death of innocents. One would think that an event such as 9/11 would humble the American people and open their eyes to just what the world goes through every day, due in no small part to America itself. Instead, its seems that America has only retreated further into empty rhetoric and blind nationalism..
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
then what happens when the global community and America disagree, wich side will you be on?
The side which is right?
d'uh.
About 9/11, I agree with Ace, that was not the first terrorist attack ever, even if admitedly it's the deadliesr, by far. Maybe there's a post 9/11 USA, but you know, the rest of the world, well, we saw that on TV, it was sad and all, but it didn't change our lives the slightest. Did it really changed yours, anyway? I doubt your days are any different.
-
what happens if both sides have vertualy equaly valid positions?
and yet after years of that behavor were the most powerful nation on earth, hmmm...
anyway, so, lets put it this way, do you value your mothers life more than some random person on the other side of the planet you have never met and will never meet?
I do beleve that my question is slanted enough that there is no way you can only say "yes, I do" or something similar in the middle of half apage about how that isn't relevent and how were just flustering up warmnongerism blah bleh blu.
this is becase she is a vary close part of your famely, this extends to your father siblings then grand parents uncles, but it goes beond blood relation, you also value the lives of frends, yes I do hope you hold more value in the life of your best frend that someone you have no relation to elsewere on the planet, this does not inherantly imply that they are 'more valuable' but to you they are more important, now lets push this a little further to a point were we may disagree lets say you walk down the street of your local town, you see people, the vast majoroty of wich you don't know, but you recognise them as people who share common values and ideals with you (in general, there are probly a few nutters in there like me), even though you don't intamately know any of these people, don't you feel some sort of connection to them? any sort of above average compasion, or recognition of them as being of the same groupe as you, sort of like an (extreemly) extended famly? now if it came down to it, you care more your your father or brother than probly (me assuming) all of these people combind, BUT a real question is do you care more about them (the people of your town) than some kid who lives on the other side of the planet?
now it's 3:17 in the morning so I might not be makeing much sence, but my point is we, as humans care more for people who are'more like us' than people who aren't. the defenition for 'more like us' is defined by the culture and is the bassis for both the greatest and worst aspects of human nature, both compasion and hate stem from the same instictual behavior of protecting you and your kind, your famely, your race, your religon, your nation, your what ever it is that your culture has identifyed as a unifying feature, from anyhting you perceive as a threat to it, weather it is a threat or not, if you perceive it as a threat you hate it, if you perceve it as one of you, you love it, and you prottect it from 'them'.
Americans, in general, feel that Europe, Austrailia, ect (western nations) are bretheren, we arn't exactly on the frendliest of terms at the moment, but we recognise you as being of the same ideology (one of the big thing our colective culture presents as a unifing feature) as us, we both beleve in freedom, (that the government should not controle the lives of it's people), we both beleve in democracy (that people should have a substantial and final say in what the government does), and we both beleve in the dignaty and value of human life, even though as humans we may not react in a manner consistant with that. if Germany suffered some catastrophic terrorist atack, 5,000 people killed, we would react (after a breif moment of angry I-told-you-so-ism) as if it was an atack on us, becase deep down we see you as being just like us, even if you have some querks that drive us nuts.
so, now do you see how we see the 9-11 atacks as an atack on us, you and me, everyone who visits this board is within the group of people no matter how much you hate America, we still think of you as one of us, and we still feel a desire to help defend you from a threat we perceve, that for some reason beond us you don't
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
what happens if both sides have vertualy equaly valid positions?
You pick up the one your in favour more, and that's it. The same goes for everything in life, not just politics
anyway, so, lets put it this way, do you value your mothers life more than some random person on the other side of the planet you have never met and will never meet?
Bingo, that sentence in itself is enough to sum up the views of the rest of the world, right now.
Well, I'll take the pov of France, coz I'm most familiar with it, obviously: we don't value the americans life more than, say, the ones of Congo.
-for once, you're farther away, "distant", if you know what I mean
-to us, the USA people don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's in their interest
-we consider the USA meddlers
-the recent actions and comments of your government toward us about choices that were legitimate and legal, severly pissed off our people, I can assure you ( "Big Brother", you know? )
-as I said, there's no direct psychological impact from the 9/11, for us. As opposed to Congo where we have soldiers dying ( or worse ). Do you feel for our soldiers ( who are there as peace keepers because they've been asked to )? Heck, I'm sure don't don't even hear about them on your news bulletins :doubt:
No, you see, our world wasn't shattered by the WTC strike, we're more worried about the 10k or so french nationals that are (well, were, it's a bit calmed down, they don't run around beheading people anymore ) in danger of death right now. To each his own pain.
Edit: and I don't hate the USA. In Fance, we have an old saying, dunno if it exists in english, but it could be translated with "who likes well punishes well". You don't seem to understand that we don't take such positions not because we don't like you, but because we think it's the right thing to do, on a moral and geopolitical point of view.
-
Before I begin to rebutt ( :lol: ), I'd like to say up front that my arguments and remarks are not aimed at certain people, but at their arguments and remarks. I'll mostly be responding to Mik and Su's posts here, both of whom I hold in high regard. So again, I'm arguing against your arguments, not against you. Don't get offended or anything.
Here goes:
Originally posted by mikhael
I find it interesting that you trot out the nuclear threat, when nothing of the kind has yet been found. Show me the nuclear weapons and we can start to consider Saddam an actual nuclear threat. Hell, show me the chemical and biological weapons.
Chemical weapons? What do you think he murdered thousands of his own people with back in '88 with? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.saddam.profile/#3) American hot dog mustard??
Originally posted by mikhael
As for the rest, you're saying that any country can invade Israel.
Israel has all but come out and stated they have nuclear weapons.
Israel has stated openly that they (we) have nukes. It was a year or two ago, during the current spate of terrorist attacks, and I forget how it came up exactly. But Israel officially has nuclear weapons now. So what?
Originally posted by mikhael
They show a willingness to assassinate people--and are proud of it.
Israel assassinates known terrorists and those who directly support terrorism, period. Yes, civilian casualties sometimes occur as well, but that is part and parcel of a war, especially when the enemy hides among their own civilians. So anyway, yeah - do you have a problem with assassinating terrorists?
Originally posted by mikhael
A willingness to deploy gunships and fighter jets at civilians combined with nuclear weapons sounds more than a bit dangerous to me.
Excuse me? "...deploy gunships and fighter jets at civilians"?? Israel has NEVER targeted civilians. And if you were to look into the status quo of the Middle-Eastern political balance, you'd very quickly see that our nukes are the only serious deterrent we have against being wiped off the map by our neighbors.
Also, though I have no way to confirm this, I recall hearing somewhere that Israel's nuclear weapons were not strategic, but tactical. In the kiloton, not megaton, range - to be used against army battalions and not cities, that kind of thing.
Originally posted by mikhael
At what point do you consider them a threat? At what point do you start rolling the tanks?
When we stop being a democratic (republic, sorry) nation. When we start handing Syria ultimatums to the effect of "stop supporting terrorism within 7 days, or we nuke Damascus." :rolleyes: When we start carpet-bombing areas of cities and villages that are occupied by "hostiles" simply because to go in there by foot for precision work would be too dangerous to our own soldiers (*ahem*).
I know that media polls have shown that the majority of the public views Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. Well, from our point of view, they're completely right. Although Israel has not started a single war in the 55 years she's been in existence, 3 wars have been started against her, and many other localized battles have been fought. So imagine what it would do to (the god of) World Peace if we actually went on the warpath. :doubt:
Originally posted by mikhael
By invading Iraq on a flimsy pretext that the rest of the civilized world saw through from the first, the US has shown a willingness to trample the rights of other nations, international law, and the will of the international community. It has displayed a willingness to bomb indiscriminately (witness US Army multiple warhead delivery systems and their 40-60% dud rate). To date, the US is still the only country in the entire world to have actually deployed a nuclear device--and that at a civilian target, not a military one. At what point do you consider the US a threat? At what point do you start rolling the tanks?
I just don't see how you can use that line of rhetoric so glibly. Its so easy to apply to any country, any situation. Its so flexible and easy. It doesn't need actual accountability. It only needs suspicion and rumor.
I'm not going to start defending the US here, simply because of the overwhelming irony of who is taking which position in the argument. :p But I will say that the public should realize that they never have the whole picture that the national leaders have (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/16/sprj.nirq.israel/index.html).
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I have to agree with mikhael here. I understand that this is a post 9/11 world and that it is necessary to strike at terrorists before they can carry out their plots of killing as many innocent civilians as they can. After all, they make no distinction between American civilians and american military targets. However, pre-emption as an overall strategy is very dangerous just for the reasons that mikhael stated: it doesn't need accountability. You don't have to present proof of an imminent threat to start a war. All you have to do is say "Hey, we THINK these people are getting ready to attack us, so let's attack them first."
How the hell does that work? If you're in a bar and you think somebody is about to throw a punch at you so you throw the first punch instead, all that does is get you prosecuted for assault. If you throw the first punch, you're gulity of assault (and battery if you actually hit the other guy).
I agree - pre-emption is very dangerous when done without accountability. But there's such a thing as being too cautious; again, at what point do you consider Saddam-ruled Iraq a serious and credible threat? Do you wait until they've launched the ICBM's at you, or does rolling the launchers into launch position count as threat enough?
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Of course, we are dealing with terrorists, who have no sense of propriety or legality, so I can see Sandwichs side of the argument as well. But is it morally right to start wars just on assumptions and unproven intelligence? With the standard the Bush administration uses, how can we know that their intelligenc is of any real credibility? Before and during the beginning of the war, Bush kept saying there were nuclear (or "nucular," to use his pronunciation :rolleyes: ) weapons ready to be deployed against the US.
I refer you once again to the link above. The public never knows the whole truth. Never. That's why the public elects people, places them in charge, and relies on them to weigh all the facts - especially the ones hidden from the public's eyes for various reasons.
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Well, guess what? A nuclear weapons program is EXTREMELY hard to hide because of all the infrastructure needed to create such a weapon (storage units, cooling units, finding weapons grade nuclear material and so on). We haven't even found any evidence of chemical or biological weapons, which are significantly easier to produce than nuclear weapons.
Hard to hide? How many decades has Israel's possession of nuclear weaponry been an unknown-but-assumed? You'd be amazed at how easy it is to hide, well... pretty much anything except for a moon launch.
And as for evidence of chemical or biological weapons, have you tried looking in the mass graves (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.saddam.profile/#3)? :hopping: (@ Saddam)
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Bush kept saying over and over again that the threat was "imminent." It wasn't.
Again, you can't know that for sure. You trust that your leader truly has his nation's best interests in mind. Or look at it this way: what's the 2 most important things to a US president? One thing would be to get re-elected - everyone likes power. But the other thing, which any sane man would put above mere re-election, is the safety and security of the people who put their trust in him and elected him to that position of power. So what does he do when confronted with a situation where he has access to non-public information that proves that a credible threat exists to his people, and yet to act based on that information will look agressive/stupid/war-mongering in the eyes of those who are not privy to said information? He acts on the information, putting the safety of his people above his chances of re-election.
Originally posted by Su-tehp
And then there's the fact that the Bushies shut our traditional allies out of contracts to help rebuild Iraq. France, Germany and Russia were all shut out of the bidding for these contracts for, the Bush administration claimed, "reasons of security." Excuse me? How is a contract to rebuild Iraq's electricity grid awarded to a German company (rather than to, say, Halliburton) a threat to American security? Dudes, this is plain for everyone to see: Bush shut our traditional allies out of the bidding because they didn't support the war in Iraq, plain and simple. Net result to the American taxpayer: we wind up footing the bill for rebuilding Iraq, rather than spreading the cost among the international community. Enjoy those tax cuts, peeps! They won't last long! This sort of spiteful behavior will just keep pissing off our friends and allies simply because it's so blatant. Who wants to help and ally with a nation that behaves like a spoiled brat?
I haven't kept up with these developments at all, so I can't really say. But at first glance, the reasons for alienating France and Russia (dunno about Germany) would seem to be obvious to me: France's government was against the war against Saddam's regime, and even actively worked against American forces in Iraq by providing intelligence to Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/15/bush.france/index.html). Whether that is true or not (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/15/french.list/index.html) is not the question - American officials hold it to be true, and acted on it.
As for Russia... pfft. Where do you think Iraq got her RPG's, her AK-47's, etc? But that's probably a lame reason, since the Russia of today is a different country. So I don't honestly know.
Originally posted by Su-tehp
With his credibility stretched so far past the snapping point, how can we trust Bush the next time he says we have to start a new war to protect ourselves? How can we trust him when he says anything?
I wouldn't feel so bad about preemption if I actually trusted the guy doing the preempting. Needless to say, for all of the above reasons (and more), I don't trust Bush. Go figure.
Who would you trust?
Originally posted by Nico
I won't comment on the Iraki nuke thinguy, but about japan, that's bullcrap: they were already on the verge of giving up, the war was pretty much won already.
That's not what I learned in history (IIRC; I hated history in school :p). Source?
Originally posted by mikhael
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Ladin hated each other. Hussein hates bin-Ladin's theocratic leanings, and Osama hates Hussein's secular government.
This proves what exactly? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? I think you all agree that Bin-Laden can be called America's enemy, so therefore if Saddam is his enemy, then Saddam is America's friend?? I don't think it works that way; this point proves nothing.
Originally posted by mikhael
...piss on the organization we founded (the UN)...
Which, by the way, was a excellent example to the world of what a political "delaying action" is. :rolleyes: More sanctions, more inspections, more time... *sigh*
Originally posted by mikhael
Yeah, he needed to be removed, but not in this way. Not in the worst, most screwed up way we could imagine.
So in what way would you suggest he be removed? Assassination? :rolleyes: Democratically voted out?? :wtf:
Originally posted by Ace
If all human life is to be equally valued as we claim it is, then why is a "terrorist attack on America, land of the free" more important than petty dictators starving people to death when just as many lives are being effected?
Because of the motives behind it. Intent to kill and all that - it means a lot in legal systems; ask Su.
Originally posted by Ace
Would not the act of allowing these people to starve be as evil as the act of allowing terrorism to continue? Both take lives and effect humanity and the world as a whole.
Good point, but I think there's a misconception in there. You're equating "allowing people to starve" with "allowing terrorism to continue". But consider that terrorism itself is an act(ion). Thus to be more accurate, the comparison would have to be "causing people to starve" (not to be confused with not acting on the ability to prevent said starvation) vs. "murdering people".
It's a fine line, and you may even see it as semantics, but it's more. It's the intent that is guiding your actions.
*phew*
-
Well I stopped reading the last page cuz all you all are doing is going back and forth and no ones opinion is going to change. Saddam is a bad boy and I'm glad we got him. I accept us going into Iraq. I accept there's civilian casualties, it's part of any conflict. I honestly believe that if we hadn't stepped in at Iraq, whatever the reasons, that the bastard was going to be there for a long time... And in that time he'd continue killing and oppressing his own people, funding terrorist factions (if you don't believe that, you're an idiot), and attempting to gain WMD (if he doesn't have them already) to use on his neighbors and his favorite western country. Having this man continue in power was just a period stain in a used up tampon.
Regarding us refusing France, Germany, and Russia take part in getting the infrastructure in Iraq back: They can suck our big fat one. It's like Sandwich said. They did not accept nor condone the attack in Iraq, nor did they provide any military assistance. So then suddenly Iraq is liberated and they want to help out? (does jerking off motion) please... Why should we give them the contracts and the potential big-bucks when all they did was whine from the sidelines. We've lost over a hundred troops there and you think we're not going to keep the business to ourselves?
Although, I did see the news last night that the US has met with France, Germany, and Russia so they can pay off Iraq's existing debt. Now that I can accept, cuz they won't be getting anything in return yet still be helping the Iraqi people.
Anyway, I heard some interesting news yesterday. A news reporter was recanting a conference between officials that was on earlier that day. The press was there and before the conference began one official turned to another and asked him basically:
"Isn't it true that we've already caught Bin Laden and we're going to bring him out before the election?"
And that other official didn't respond. A reporter had overheard this. This was reported by FOX news, so take it as you want. I can't find it on their website, but if u can I'll give you a cookie.
-
the dems seem to be floating a bunch of conspeicy theorys lately, damn are they getting desperate, soon maybe they'll let Leberman be taken seriusly
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Chemical weapons? What do you think he murdered thousands of his own people with back in '88 with? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.saddam.profile/#3) American hot dog mustard??
This isn't 1988. This is 2003. In that 15yr gap many things have happened. If Hussein had chemical weapons still, where are they? Why weren't they deployed against the invading US troops? If you can show me one single tank of VX, one nuclear warhead, one tank of biological agent, your argument is valid. Unfortunately, you can't because NO ONE has found them, and we've been looking pretty hard.
Funny though, that you say "american hot dog mustard". We knew about the chemical and biological weapons in 1988. We didn't have to do inspections to know about them back then. All we needed to do was CHECK THE DAMN RECIEPTS. It was Americans (the Reagan/Bush administration) that sold him all those weapons and trained his people to use them.
Israel has stated openly that they (we) have nukes. It was a year or two ago, during the current spate of terrorist attacks, and I forget how it came up exactly. But Israel officially has nuclear weapons now. So what?
Israel assassinates known terrorists and those who directly support terrorism, period. Yes, civilian casualties sometimes occur as well, but that is part and parcel of a war, especially when the enemy hides among their own civilians. So anyway, yeah - do you have a problem with assassinating terrorists?
Excuse me? "...deploy gunships and fighter jets at civilians"?? Israel has NEVER targeted civilians. And if you were to look into the status quo of the Middle-Eastern political balance, you'd very quickly see that our nukes are the only serious deterrent we have against being wiped off the map by our neighbors.
Allow me to paraphrase something I read the other day: they're freedom fighters when we like them, terrorists when we don't and guerillas when we're not sure.
We have to take your government's word that they are targetting the right people, that those people are guilty, and that the evidence them is so overwhelming that apprehension and trial are unnecessary. Somehow, we have to trust that the Israeli government makes mistakes and that every last one of those assassinations are justified. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical, especially considering the overall situation with Israel and Palestine.
When we stop being a democratic (republic, sorry) nation. When we start handing Syria ultimatums to the effect of "stop supporting terrorism within 7 days, or we nuke Damascus." :rolleyes: When we start carpet-bombing areas of cities and villages that are occupied by "hostiles" simply because to go in there by foot for precision work would be too dangerous to our own soldiers (*ahem*).
You mean opressing ethnically separate civilians, shooting at them with gunships, flattening buildings with bulldozers and flying jets into Syria ISN'T enough to roll tanks? Unproven suspicion of the existence of nuclear weapons is enough, but the actual oppression of a populace and actual assassinations AREN'T? Talk about a double standard.
I agree - pre-emption is very dangerous when done without accountability. But there's such a thing as being too cautious; again, at what point do you consider Saddam-ruled Iraq a serious and credible threat? Do you wait until they've launched the ICBM's at you, or does rolling the launchers into launch position count as threat enough?
I honestly don't know what is enough. The Soviet Union parked nukes on our doorsteps in Cuba and we didn't go to war. I'd consider that a far more credible threat than the foolishness with Hussein. Again, I challenge you to provide a shred of credible proof that Hussein had NBC weapons in 2003. Without even a shred of credible proof, you can't consider it a credible threat. Its a supposition, a suspicion. If all you've got is supposition and suspicion you don't commit lives to war. You're not being too cautious, you're being cautious enough.
Hard to hide? How many decades has Israel's possession of nuclear weaponry been an unknown-but-assumed? You'd be amazed at how easy it is to hide, well... pretty much anything except for a moon launch.
Sandwich is right. South African hid a nuclear program for decades. It took them admitting it voluntarily for the rest of the world to find out.
As for Russia... pfft. Where do you think Iraq got her RPG's, her AK-47's, etc? But that's probably a lame reason, since the Russia of today is a different country. So I don't honestly know.
Where do you think Iraq got its bioligcal and chemical weapons programs and initial stockpiles? From the US. Funny, I don't see Bush getting angry at America for creating this monster.
This proves what exactly? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? I think you all agree that Bin-Laden can be called America's enemy, so therefore if Saddam is his enemy, then Saddam is America's friend?? I don't think it works that way; this point proves nothing.
No, it shows that the two of them didn't work together. Just because they have common enemies--the US and Israel, for example--does not mean they are in bed together. There isn't a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, and never was. That was a bunch of lies put together by the Bush administration to convince the American people to go to war. At no point do I imply, or state, that their mutual enmity makes either of them "our friend".
Which, by the way, was a excellent example to the world of what a political "delaying action" is. :rolleyes: More sanctions, more inspections, more time... *sigh*
Actually, what you call a "delaying action", I call "following international law", or "multinational cooperation", or "allowing the UN to perform its mandate". More sanctions, more inspections, more friends, more allies, more real members of the eventual coalition. What coalition? well lets move on...
So in what way would you suggest he be removed? Assassination? :rolleyes: Democratically voted out?? :wtf:
No. I suggest that pissing on the UN and alienating people like the French (historically our most loyal of allies, without whom there wouldn't even be a United States, lest we forget) is the wrong way to proceed. The best thing the US could have done was to aggressively push inspections, aggressively push sanctions and aggressively push blockade busting. If all of these things proved fruitless, then war, with the support of the UN, would have been the right course. Given that we haven't yet seen any proof of CURRENT NBC weapons anywhere in Iraq, I'd say that the sactions and blockading and inspections weren't fruitless.
One thing you brought up Sandwich, is that there are things the government knows that the public does not. I was in the military and worked with the intelligence community. I understand how true this is. I also know that intelligence is shared among friendly governments. If would couldn't convince our staunchest allies, perhaps our intelligence wasn't as good as we thought.
-
we were looking prety hard for Sadam too, and we only now found him
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Where do you think Iraq got its bioligcal and chemical weapons programs and initial stockpiles? From the US. Funny, I don't see Bush getting angry at America for creating this monster.
, what you call a "delaying action", I call "following international law", or "multinational cooperation", or "allowing the UN to perform its mandate". More sanctions, more inspections, more friends, more allies, more real members of the eventual coalition. What coalition? well lets move on...
Not to mention it was Rumsfeld who was in charge of selling weaponry to Saddam to assist his nwar against Iran. So were the Brits, admittedly - I remember a minor story about the marines clearing out a small harbour (Um Qasar I think), where there were drums of Royal Navy labelled mines lying about.
And to also support Miks' argument, the Arab world could make pretty much exactly the same argument for invading Israel as the US did for Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
That's not what I learned in history (IIRC; I hated history in school :p). Source?
Source? geez, man. Take any darn history book ( but preferably not one written by a US historian, you probably heard of "history is written by the winners", right? ). Their military was crippled, their moral was crippled, their land was cripped, the soldiers were starting to desert in mobs, hell, they were so frightened of the US soldiers that civilians commited mass suicides when they were approching. Didn't ever occur to you it was odd those B29 came so freely right over the japanese mainland ( heck, not some remote island, Japan itself ), back and forth, dropped their little surprise and returned back home w/o the slightest trouble? What did they actually teach at school, I'm curious. Now I understand better some stuff, tho. Talk about disinformation :doubt:.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And to also support Miks' argument, the Arab world could make pretty much exactly the same argument for invading Israel as the US did for Iraq.
You reckon Israel would use nukes as anything other than a deterrant do you?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Funny though, that you say "american hot dog mustard". We knew about the chemical and biological weapons in 1988. We didn't have to do inspections to know about them back then. All we needed to do was CHECK THE DAMN RECIEPTS. It was Americans (the Reagan/Bush administration) that sold him all those weapons and trained his people to use them.
Really? Huh - then perhaps Bush was trying to right a wrong? Then again, was it all sold to Saddam, or to a different regime? I recall there being a number of uphevals...
Originally posted by mikhael
Allow me to paraphrase something I read the other day: they're freedom fighters when we like them, terrorists when we don't and guerillas when we're not sure.
No offense, but that's bull****, without even having anything to do with Israel or the Palestinians.
Freedom fighters and guerillas don't target civilians - their fight is a clear-cut one against oppresive ruling powers and/or against opponents larger, stronger, and more powerful than they are.
Terrorists have similar agendas, but their means is different - they also target civilians, to garner (amazingly enough) terror in the general populace.
Originally posted by mikhael
We have to take your government's word that they are targetting the right people, that those people are guilty, and that the evidence them is so overwhelming that apprehension and trial are unnecessary. Somehow, we have to trust that the Israeli government makes mistakes and that every last one of those assassinations are justified. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical, especially considering the overall situation with Israel and Palestine.
Quite true, and your skepticism is completely understandable. I'd go into looking at the track records of different parties as a way of judging their trustability, but I don't feel like getting into that area at the moment.
Originally posted by mikhael
You mean opressing ethnically separate civilians, shooting at them with gunships, flattening buildings with bulldozers and flying jets into Syria ISN'T enough to roll tanks? Unproven suspicion of the existence of nuclear weapons is enough, but the actual oppression of a populace and actual assassinations AREN'T? Talk about a double standard.
Let's look at history for a moment... were they "oppressed" at any time when there wasn't a heavy spate of violence? No... the "opression" comes as part and parcel of the ever-increasing security measures Israel's been forced to take.
Targeting the civilians with gunships? Again, never happened. Targets were terrorists. You think we'd waste flight fuel and expensive weaponry just so that we could target any old civilian? We can do that at any old checkpoint with any old M16. :rolleyes:
Flattening buildings... now this one I like. According to world media, of course, Israel flattens random buildings as they please, right? Again, what's the point? Why not just blow a building up from a distance instead of risking the life of a tractor operator and support units? No, the buildings that have been razed are demolished as deterrent to suicide bombers - all that reward money for the "sacrifice" the families make of giving their son/father/brother/uncle/sister/daughter/mother/aunt as a suicide bomber go into making the hose a luxury mansion. Demolishing said buildings removes that reasoning from the potential suicide bomber's equation.
And the attack on the Hezbollah training camp inside Syria was definitely a violation of their territory, I agree. It was a bold, gutsy move. I'm surprised Syria took it so quietly.
Of course, nobody talks about the breach of national borders when a suicide bomber crosses over into Israel and kills 15 people on a bus. Which happens multiple times a year.
Originally posted by mikhael
I honestly don't know what is enough. The Soviet Union parked nukes on our doorsteps in Cuba and we didn't go to war. I'd consider that a far more credible threat than the foolishness with Hussein. Again, I challenge you to provide a shred of credible proof that Hussein had NBC weapons in 2003. Without even a shred of credible proof, you can't consider it a credible threat. Its a supposition, a suspicion. If all you've got is supposition and suspicion you don't commit lives to war. You're not being too cautious, you're being cautious enough.
Purely hypothetical question here... assume that they DO find evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Assume that it is even the UN who makes the discovery, to rule out "made-up" evidence "planted" there by Bush and friends. If above is hypothetically true, will that have been enough provocation to attack and invade for you?
Back to reality, I doubt open nuclear warfare will ever happen, and I'm willing to bet that the leaders of the US and USSR knew it back then, too. A nuclear ICBM launch will clearly bring about like retaliation, thus basically ending life as we know it in the affected countries. Nobody in power is stupid enough to do that. No, nukes are far more threatening in suitcase form, a surprise attack that nobody could see coming, where you don't know who it was that attacked you.
Imagine an Iraqi suitcase nuke attack on San Fransisco. Tens of thousands killed, etc. But the USA doesn't know whodunnit for a couple of weeks. 5 weeks later, they get proof that it was Iraq. Do you think that they'd then launch a nuclear attack on Iraq in retaliation? Not a chance. They'd invade, and basically do what the US just did. But that opens things up for all sorts of defamations and decries of "falsified evidence" and crap like that. Which gives our example nation of Iraq a free nuke hit against the US, with the chance of not even getting hit back. Sounds like quite the deal.
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, what you call a "delaying action", I call "following international law", or "multinational cooperation", or "allowing the UN to perform its mandate". More sanctions, more inspections, more friends, more allies, more real members of the eventual coalition. What coalition? well lets move on...
"More sanctions, more inspections, more friends, more allies, more real members of the eventual coalition." - For how long? Don't you think that they gave Iraq more than enough time to comply? That's what I saw in the American action - they were sick and tired of watching the UN and EU play along with Saddam's delaying game, and decided to draw the line.
Originally posted by mikhael
...aggressively push inspections, aggressively push sanctions and aggressively push blockade busting...
:wtf: As opposed to the regular pushing of said actions? When is enough finally enough? When the suitcase nuke made in the 10-by-12 laboratory in the middle of nowhere that was never discovered is en route to the US by cargo container?
Originally posted by mikhael
One thing you brought up Sandwich, is that there are things the government knows that the public does not. I was in the military and worked with the intelligence community. I understand how true this is. I also know that intelligence is shared among friendly governments. If would couldn't convince our staunchest allies, perhaps our intelligence wasn't as good as we thought.
IIRC, Blair was supportive of military action against Iraq. Perhaps he knew what the US knew, and the US simply didn't share that info with anyone else. Perhaps wisely, even, depending on if those reports of the French govt. sharing info with Iraq are true or not.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Source? geez, man. Take any darn history book ( but preferably not one written by a US historian, you probably heard of "history is written by the winners", right? ). Their military was crippled, their moral was crippled, their land was cripped, the soldiers were starting to desert in mobs, hell, they were so frightened of the US soldiers that civilians commited mass suicides when they were approching. Didn't ever occur to you it was odd those B29 came so freely right over the japanese mainland ( heck, not some remote island, Japan itself ), back and forth, dropped their little surprise and returned back home w/o the slightest trouble? What did they actually teach at school, I'm curious. Now I understand better some stuff, tho. Talk about disinformation :doubt:.
I hate this argument, I really do, because it gets distorted so easily that no one knows who to believe. This is how I've heard it, not just from American sources either. And from one, my Grandfather, who actually served out there. When US forces were island hopping in the Pacific in WWII, they saw firsthand how hard the Japanese were willing to fight to hold on to every inch of ground that they possessed and committed suicide rather than suffer the humiliation of being captured. It doesn't mean they were scared. The Pacific theater saw some extremely brutal fighting, right up until the end. Yes, Japan was desperate, but that didn't mean a military campaign onto the Japanese mainland was known to be a cakewalk. I've never heard tell of mass desertions, ever, and I've read quite a bit about World War II. Hell, there were still soldiers on islands that had been cut off from reinforcements in the 70's that had Japanese soldiers on them still thinking the war was on. At the time all we could assume was that every man, woman and child in Japan was being armed and would have forcefully resisted invasion, and they would not have surrendered under anything less than American tanks knocking down the palace walls or some other close-to-home demonstration that Japan would be defeated at any cost. That's why the nukes were deployed, to send a message. It was only after the fact that the full significance of those bombings was understood; US troops in both Hiroshima and Nagisaki long before the radiation had cleared because no one really knew it was there.
I will also add that if you judge the United States by its actions today, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinions and we are all free to discuss them. But when you try to hold a nation accountable for its "crimes" 50 years ago or more, you had better take a good hard look in the mirror.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Really? Huh - then perhaps Bush was trying to right a wrong? Then again, was it all sold to Saddam, or to a different regime? I recall there being a number of uphevals...
Nope. It was Hussein. No one else. The Reagan/Bush administration was afraid of Iran's hardline theocracy. They were willing to help a "friendly" dictator do their dirty work for them.
No offense, but that's bull****, without even having anything to do with Israel or the Palestinians.
Freedom fighters and guerillas don't target civilians - their fight is a clear-cut one against oppresive ruling powers and/or against opponents larger, stronger, and more powerful than they are.
...
You're missing the point. The point is that "terrorist" is a label. Who does the labelling determines who gets the label. We called the Contras "freedom fighters" when we were helping them, and they were killing civilians. Its just a label. Perhaps using the Israel/Palestine situation was a bad idea. You're too close to it.
Purely hypothetical question here... assume that they DO find evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Assume that it is even the UN who makes the discovery, to rule out "made-up" evidence "planted" there by Bush and friends. If above is hypothetically true, will that have been enough provocation to attack and invade for you?
Yes. If unambiguous, credible proof is found, then yes. That, however, does not change the fact that Bush went about things the wrong way around. Proof first, action later.
...
Imagine an Iraqi suitcase nuke attack on San Fransisco. Tens of thousands killed, etc. But the USA doesn't know whodunnit for a couple of weeks. 5 weeks later, they get proof that it was Iraq. Do you think that they'd then launch a nuclear attack on Iraq in retaliation? Not a chance. They'd invade, and basically do what the US just did. But that opens things up for all sorts of defamations and decries of "falsified evidence" and crap like that. Which gives our example nation of Iraq a free nuke hit against the US, with the chance of not even getting hit back. Sounds like quite the deal.
I have imagined an attack on the US. Not that I have to, a bunch of terrorists already did it (not that any of them were Iraqi). But why stop at an IRAQI suitcase nuke. Why not a North Korean suitcase nuke? Why not anyone with an axe to grind? Why shouldn't we invade all those other places that might have people who might want to send a nuke to the US and might have the ability to do so? Why not invade North Korea? Li'l Kim is starving his people and riding high. I've got a little conspiracy theory to explain that, but I'll save that for later. ;)
"More sanctions, more inspections, more friends, more allies, more real members of the eventual coalition." - For how long? Don't you think that they gave Iraq more than enough time to comply? That's what I saw in the American action - they were sick and tired of watching the UN and EU play along with Saddam's delaying game, and decided to draw the line.
:wtf: As opposed to the regular pushing of said actions? When is enough finally enough? When the suitcase nuke made in the 10-by-12 laboratory in the middle of nowhere that was never discovered is en route to the US by cargo container?
Given that Hussein hadn't invaded another country since the end of the Gulf War, I'd say that sanctions were going pretty well. If you could, perhaps, produce this 10-by-12 lab in the middle of nowhere, I might buy into it.
The whole cargo container thing is interesting. We search people going on to planes now, but we don't even glance at shipping containers. They're still completely ignored in the 'homeland security' strategy. Its really odd. But I digress.
IIRC, Blair was supportive of military action against Iraq. Perhaps he knew what the US knew, and the US simply didn't share that info with anyone else. Perhaps wisely, even, depending on if those reports of the French govt. sharing info with Iraq are true or not.
Until someone can show proof of the French giving Iraq intelligence, I'd like to leave that off the table. Its more rumor mongering.
The fact is that the evidence that the US did produce for the international community convinced no one. Every piece of evidence Bush and Blair used was discredited. If there had been a single piece of evidence revealed, I'd not be arguing so vehemently about this, and our allies would have stood beside us.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Source? geez, man. Take any darn history book ( but preferably not one written by a US historian, you probably heard of "history is written by the winners", right? ). Their military was crippled, their moral was crippled, their land was cripped, the soldiers were starting to desert in mobs, hell, they were so frightened of the US soldiers that civilians commited mass suicides when they were approching. Didn't ever occur to you it was odd those B29 came so freely right over the japanese mainland ( heck, not some remote island, Japan itself ), back and forth, dropped their little surprise and returned back home w/o the slightest trouble? What did they actually teach at school, I'm curious. Now I understand better some stuff, tho. Talk about disinformation :doubt:.
Baloney. The Japanese fought like madmen on Saipan and the rest of the Marianas Islands. Their atrocities on civilians all over the Pacific area and China are well-documented. I suggest you read "The Rape of Nanking" by Iris Chang for just one example of the Japanese atrocities during WWII. It's a damn interesting read on how Japanese soldiers massacred more than 300,000 Chinese civilians in 1938 in the city of Nanking. It's even got some really...blatant pictures. Oh, BTW, more Chinese died at the Nanking massacre alone than the Japanese who died at BOTH Hiroshima (est. dead 140,000) and Nagasaki (est. dead 70,000).
Mass rapes, massacres of civilians, women taken away from their families to be made into sexual slaves (AKA "comfort women")? The Empire of Japan committed so many atrocities, it's not at all unreasonable to say that Japan had the A-bomb coming to it.
Before Hiroshima, the US warned Japan that it had a new weapon capable of destroying an entire city and would use it on a Japanese city if the Empire of Japan did not surrender unconditionally. Of course, the Japanese thought the Americans were bluffing and refused to surrender. Hiroshima went *POOF* right afterwards. After Hiroshima, the Emperor had several days to surrender. He didn't. All he had to do to save the lives of the people at Nagasaki was to transmit his unconditional surrender and end the war his country started. He refused (or was convinced by his advisors that what happened at Hiroshima couldn't possibly happen again). As a result, the blood of the people who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the hands of the Japanese government, NOT the Americans.
Oh, let's not forget one important detail that led to the whole use of the A-bomb, rather than a conventional invasion of Japan. Projected casualties of an American invasion of the Japanese mainland were in the neighborhood of 250,000. That's right, folks. A land invasion of Japan would have added anywhere from 6 months to a year of additional WWII wartime AND resulted in the death or maiming of at least another quarter million American troops.
As for the Japanese civilians committing suicide rather than let themselves be taken prisoner, well, if they were stupid enough to believe the Japanese government's propaganda that American soldiers would torture and rape them, that's not our fault. When those American soldiers saw the Japanese civilians kill themselves at Saipan, they were horrified by what they saw and would have prevented it if they could have.
And as for the Enola Gay (the B29 that dropped the Big One over Hiroshima) "without the slightest trouble" as you so eloquently put it was because they were flying at a very high altitude so that they could escape the shockwave of the blast. With the Enola Gay flying at such a high altitude, no Japanese anti-aircraft could have touched them. Hell, the Enola Gay was so high in the clouds, no ground-based lookout would have seen it. And the Japanese didn't have radar back then. If the Japanese didn't know it was there, they couldn't even have sent fighters after it.
One would wish that all bombing runs were so easy. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I will also add that if you judge the United States by its actions today, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinions and we are all free to discuss them. But when you try to hold a nation accountable for its "crimes" 50 years ago or more, you had better take a good hard look in the mirror.
To be fair, StratComm, one should judge the US (and all other countries) on the basis of their present crimes and their crimes of 50yrs ago. We SHOULD take a good look in the mirror and own up to the foolish and stupid things we've done.
-
Did I judge today's USA for what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No. About your grandfather stuff, well, what can I say? You're not the only one to have grandparents who served during the wars, members of my family even went to concentration camps ( they weren't reserved only to jews, you know ), and that's not enough to prove anything. You always find guys this way or that way, you've seen them, ok, but that won't resume the whole deal, it would be to easy. Don't take it personally, but I've read a lot of stuff on WW2 too, and what I said above is the result from what I've heard. You've heard another story, that's fine, but don't come and say "I'm right, you're wrong". You're entitled to your opinions too, but don't tell me my argument is the distorded one just for a couple exemples. Japanese soldiers thinking the war wasn't over in the 70's? There's psycho everywhere, they don't represent a whole nation and the course of events back then. And I never said they would surrender w/o fighting, obviously, japanese are full of pride, not only the soldiers, it's in there culture. But don't tell me those mass suicides were jsut some "darn we lost, let's ALL die" :doubt:.
You're making easy shortcuts there.
But when you're getting personal like that in an argument, it just can't end, so there's little point going on.
-
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/hig/0801_014802.jpg)
look well what happened in Hiroshima
A-bomb mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, August 6th, 1945, about one hour after the bombing. Photo taken from a U.S. airplane over the Seto Inland Sea about 80 kilometers from the hypocenter. U.S. Army photo courtesy of the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation
war os bad thing peoples die's so could youn stop talking about it
-
Yep. Pritty much obliterated the city. Though the pic of Nagasaki is a better one. But what does this teach us, boys and girls?
Nukes are bad, mmm'kay?
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
You reckon Israel would use nukes as anything other than a deterrant do you?
I didn't say anything about what I thought, did I?
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
war os bad thing peoples die's so could youn stop talking about it
It's only by talking about war that you can understand it, and try to prevent it. You can't ignore the past, or you'll make the same mistakes in the future.
-
oh,well you are right
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
war os bad thing peoples die's so could youn stop talking about it
Sure. I've had my share of pointless arguments for the month, anyway.
-
After Hiroshima, the Emperor had several days to surrender. He didn't. All he had to do to save the lives of the people at Nagasaki was to transmit his unconditional surrender and end the war his country started. He refused (or was convinced by his advisors that what happened at Hiroshima couldn't possibly happen again). As a result, the blood of the people who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the hands of the Japanese government, NOT the Americans.
The Nagasaki bomb was dropped as the Japanese leaders(I'm not sure how much power Hirohito actually had) were debating whether to try for provisions or to accept unconditional surrender. And the Soviets invaded Manchuria a day before (2 days after Hiroshima). Nagasaki was completely unnessesary.
-
... yeah, Saddam :rolleyes:
What I think they should do is use the whole Muslim justice thing but start with the smallest crimes and work up from there. Ex: cut off a finger, cut off a hand, cut out tongue, then kill him.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
The Nagasaki bomb was dropped as the Japanese leaders(I'm not sure how much power Hirohito actually had) were debating whether to try for provisions or to accept unconditional surrender. And the Soviets invaded Manchuria a day before (2 days after Hiroshima). Nagasaki was completely unnessesary.
I think there is evidence that the bomb was dropped as much to intimidate Stalin as to force the Japanese to surrender. I don't have a specific source though - I remember reading it in the paper a while back.
-
Am I the only one happy we've got a basis for establishing a strategic base in the middle east? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Nope. It was Hussein. No one else. The Reagan/Bush administration was afraid of Iran's hardline theocracy. They were willing to help a "friendly" dictator do their dirty work for them.
Ahh, I see. The same twisted logic of "he's doing what I want to be done now, so let's help him, and damn the consequences". Got it.
Originally posted by mikhael
You're missing the point. The point is that "terrorist" is a label. Who does the labelling determines who gets the label. We called the Contras "freedom fighters" when we were helping them, and they were killing civilians. Its just a label. Perhaps using the Israel/Palestine situation was a bad idea. You're too close to it.
"Just a label" doesn't cut it. Words are used because they mean a specific thing, so that people can understand each other without having to guess "Did he mean terrorist terrorist or terrorist terrorist?" So, unless you want to drop the whole discussion, we must agree on a common definition to the words (not labels), "Terrorist", "Freedom Fighters", and "Guerilla".
And I was distancing my definitions from the I-P situation, like I said:
[q]"...without even having anything to do with Israel or the Palestinians."[/q]
So again, regardless of who we're talking about, I stand by my definitions.
Originally posted by mikhael
Yes. If unambiguous, credible proof is found, then yes. That, however, does not change the fact that Bush went about things the wrong way around. Proof first, action later.
Ok. So, for all we as the public know, he has proof. We can't know for sure, so until they give up the search for WMDs, we cannot justly and logically come to a definite conclusion one way or another. Sure, we can have opinions, but stating that something is a fact is irresponsible of us as beings with the capability for logic and reason.
Originally posted by mikhael
I have imagined an attack on the US. Not that I have to, a bunch of terrorists already did it (not that any of them were Iraqi). But why stop at an IRAQI suitcase nuke. Why not a North Korean suitcase nuke? Why not anyone with an axe to grind? Why shouldn't we invade all those other places that might have people who might want to send a nuke to the US and might have the ability to do so? Why not invade North Korea? Li'l Kim is starving his people and riding high. I've got a little conspiracy theory to explain that, but I'll save that for later. ;)
Indeed, why not? What's NK's belligrency level on a scale of 1 to 10, anyway? Have they invaded any neighbors recently, or flipped the birdy at the US?
Originally posted by mikhael
Given that Hussein hadn't invaded another country since the end of the Gulf War, I'd say that sanctions were going pretty well. If you could, perhaps, produce this 10-by-12 lab in the middle of nowhere, I might buy into it.
:wtf: Just because a nation hasn't invaded another nation in a single decade, you conclude that sanctions against that nation are the cause and reason for the lack of aggressiveness? Sounds like pretty shaky logic to me.
Originally posted by mikhael
Until someone can show proof of the French giving Iraq intelligence, I'd like to leave that off the table. Its more rumor mongering.
Depends on who you listen to, now doesn't it? Of course, when you get down to it, everything we "know" depends on who we listen to or what source we aquired any given bit of "knowledge" from.
Originally posted by mikhael
The fact is that the evidence that the US did produce for the international community convinced no one. Every piece of evidence Bush and Blair used was discredited. If there had been a single piece of evidence revealed, I'd not be arguing so vehemently about this, and our allies would have stood beside us.
Perhaps you're right. But perhaps they had their reasons not to reveal anything more. Who knows?
Just keep in mind that with enough skill, pretty much anything can be manipulated into looking like something completely else.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
"Just a label" doesn't cut it. Words are used because they mean a specific thing, so that people can understand each other without having to guess "Did he mean terrorist terrorist or terrorist terrorist?" So, unless you want to drop the whole discussion, we must agree on a common definition to the words (not labels), "Terrorist", "Freedom Fighters", and "Guerilla".
Oh, you and I agree on the definition of terrorist. Its my government that uses a subjective, case-by-case basis definition of terrorist. Contras were freedom fighters, even though you and I would consider them terrorists. Osama was a guerilla and a freedom fighter, when we were funding and training him even though he supported a regime that felt no remorse in burning women alive, but now he's a terrorist. The problem with labels is that they don't really mean what YOU want or what I want. They mean what the SPEAKER wants and we're left to interpret them.
:wtf: Just because a nation hasn't invaded another nation in a single decade, you conclude that sanctions against that nation are the cause and reason for the lack of aggressiveness? Sounds like pretty shaky logic to me.
Lack of aggressiveness? Hell no. Lack of ability? Hell yes.
Let us consider a salient fact: the complete and utter obliteration of Iraq in less time than it takes to get a house loan. Iraq couldn't fight back. They didn't have have anything that resembled the strength of arms to defend themselves, let alone invade someone else. That lack of strength is a direct result of a regime of sanctions and inspection that crippled the country.
Depends on who you listen to, now doesn't it? Of course, when you get down to it, everything we "know" depends on who we listen to or what source we aquired any given bit of "knowledge" from.
...
Just keep in mind that with enough skill, pretty much anything can be manipulated into looking like something completely else.
You've pretty much summed up exactly why I maintain that you cannot work from supposition and suspicion. To be anything but a hawkish cowboy, a leader has to show proof that is compelling not to just his own people, but to the global community.
-
Hey Mik, this is cool - our posts are getting shorter! The end is nigh!! :p
Originally posted by mikhael
Lack of aggressiveness? Hell no. Lack of ability? Hell yes.
Let us consider a salient fact: the complete and utter obliteration of Iraq in less time than it takes to get a house loan. Iraq couldn't fight back. They didn't have have anything that resembled the strength of arms to defend themselves, let alone invade someone else. That lack of strength is a direct result of a regime of sanctions and inspection that crippled the country.
"Obliteration"? Huh?
And isn't the point of sanctions to cause economical damage to a country?
-
I always thought the point of sanctions are to cripple a country and convince the people that the cause of their problems is policies of their current leadership OR to cause that leadership to change its policies. In either case, the sanctions flattened Iraq's ability to defend, let alone attack. It had been weakened to the point where it couldn't possibly be a threat to anyone.
-
I thought the point of war was to win. Sanctions being just one method.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
It had been weakened to the point where it couldn't possibly be a threat to anyone.
Although in this case it certainly seems to be true, those sounds suspiciously like a classic "Famous Last Words" example, y'know?
-
That's a prudent, and justified, skepticism. Skepticism is a good thing, especially since it is two-edged. We can be skeptical about how ineffective Iraq's military might have been at the same time as we are skeptical about whether or not Hussein was hiding banned weapons. Skepticism is merely a call for proof, not a denunciation of it.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Perhaps wisely, even, depending on if those reports of the French govt. sharing info with Iraq are true or not.
As much as I like you, I'll suggest you to go to hell. I can't believe you out of all people can consider a completly dumb rumour like that possible.
I'm really disapointed, this time. I don't even feel like arguing over the fact you consider we could be the enemy of the USA ( coz that's what it would imply ), I'm too disgusted.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Originally posted by Sandwich
Perhaps wisely, even, depending on if those reports of the French govt. sharing info with Iraq are true or not.
As much as I like you, I'll suggest you to go to hell. I can't believe you out of all people can consider a completly dumb rumour like that possible.
I'm really disapointed, this time. I don't even feel like arguing over the fact you consider we could be the enemy of the USA ( coz that's what it would imply ), I'm too disgusted. [/B]
:(
Dude, you misunderstood, apparently - or I did. I seem to recall when issues concerning the French position on the attack on Iraq came up a few months back that you made a point that the views of the French government were not necessarily the views of the French public. Since then, I've tried not to refer to "France" or "the French", but to "the French government".
But to cut to the heart of the matter, yes, I do believe it's possible that the French government (and you could put in here Russian, German, etc - doesn't make a difference) could have been sharing intelligence information with the Iraqi government. Why should that be so unbelieveable? Governments have said one thing while working at cross-purposes for centuries.
But does that mean that I would consider the French goveernment an enemy of the US? Hardly, although - if those reports (which has the same root as the word "reportedly", remember) are true - they certainly weren't helping matters any.
-
The primary problem with the Bush administration's handle on the whole concept of terrorism, and the nation in general, is that they choose superficial actions in the most part, and their more complex attempts they attempt to pull focus away from after they turn sour. Not to mention the exceptional favoritism that they show big business in general and Haliburton specifically, their attempts to prevent any enviromental reform....
-
in a world were some people beleve Bush staged the 9-11 atacks in a bid for global domination, why is the thought that some European government(s) could be trying to play both sides around the middle so insane.
I was wondering, how do the french feel about there government? do you generaly trust your leaders, or do you hold them suspect (not anything to do with Iraq, just something I was wondering with all the consperesy theorys and 'Bush is a lier' stuff)
-
war, on the whole, is a stupid idea. but sometimes people declare it to be necessary. that might have been so. what's past is past; we can't go back and say, 'yeah, but if this had happened'... cos we don't know, we can't ever know. all the past is ever really good for is supporting argument for what to do next, because you can't change the past. only the future.
even so: i think the iraqi war was necessary if not wanted; i think there's two sides to every argument and neither of them are correct; i think there's alot about the mindset of various people, governments and politicians from the culture of their countries that no one really takes into account when dealing with them; i think some one's going to be stupid enough to start a nuke war simply to prevent the other guy winning; and i think our leaders are leaders for a reason, so we should probably put a little trust into them if not much.