Absolute Must Read

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
What do you call it when an invader decides to liberate you without your approval?

Plain old fashioned naked aggression.

Once we crossed the threshold in Iraq, using false evidence to excuse this unprovoked invasion, our fate was sealed. We cannot win. The actions described in OP only serve to prove that point.

We have become a nation which can no longer differentiate between simple right and wrong. The more lies we believe, the more atrocities, committed in our name, that we excuse, the worse this situation will become. Until the day we admit these lies to ourselves and hold the people who are responsible for these sins accountable.

Yeah, I bet the slaves in the South felt that way, huh?

Jason

Are you now suggesting the reason we invaded Iraq was slavery?

LOL

Comparing the unprovoked U.S. attack on Iraq with slavery is almost as ridiculous as the comparisons with WWII.

Not at all. I'm just saying that whether the oppressed people ASKED for help or not is irrelevant. A free nation ALWAYS has the right, though not the obligation, to intervene on the behalf of the oppressed. I am well aware that the liberation of the Iraqi people was not the sole reason for going in, though it was certainly and clearly ONE of the reasons from day one.

The comparisons with WWII are in NO WAY ridiculous. In wars, innocent people die, PERIOD. In wars, soldiers commit horrible acts, PERIOD. These are the FACTS, and you can't skirt around them by twisting words and pretending that war has ever been anything but a brutal and barbarous scenario.

Jason

We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.

 

[fornax]

It must be really bad in Iraq if The Economist has started criticizing the Bush administration. One just has to look at what they wrote back in November 2003:

"By intervening in Iraq, against the majority of world opinion but with the courage of its own convictions and the support of a few allies, America showed that it was indeed a different nation from others: one prepared to shoulder responsibilities and to do what it thinks is right. Such behaviour is alarming precisely because it is bold and, by today's standards, different. It is never likely to bring forth a cascade of praise or gifts. . . . It will take a long, costly and painful effort. Only once it is done, however, will hope be restored and danger dispelled."

Some hope, indeed.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm crossing my fingers that we lose horribly in Iraq.

The motives behind this war are so blatantly obvious now, it's digusting.

Iraq's oil was never worth all this.

Nice of you to thank of all the soldiers that will die defending your right to say what you just did so that your dream may come true.

.....and that doesnt even count all the Iraqi lives that would be lost as well.

Comments like this are sickening. The US going into Iraq was wrong, i'll admit that. But we are there NOW and we owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to finish the job, regardless of your feelings about the war.

We owe it to our troops and Iraqi people to get the hell out of there so they can clean up the mess we left for them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: her209
I like the hypocrisy here... remember all these war hawks were just saying exactly the opposite (when speaking about Vietnam) and they were blasting Kerry for it. Burning villages and shooting civilians?

Is all perfectly typical of war. You think for a minute it didn't happen in WWII as well? I can remember my grandfather telling stories of how they had to shoot CHILDREN because the Germans would send them toward US soldiers with grenades and bombs.

War is hell, and those who expect it to be clean and bloodless are foolish, immature people at best.

Jason

We didn't expect it to be clean and bloodless. That's why we opposed a war without good cause.

Failure in Iraq is the only way our administration will listen and reconfigure their policies.

It's not a good cause to help a repressed people get out from under the thumb of a brutal dictatorship, try to implement democracy in the ME, and address the issue of Islamic fundamentalism that is threatening our country?

I have to wonder what your definition of a "good cause" is.

I'm quite sure this will help you better understand him:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Powell was Bush's Uncle Tom, and now as a reward to all his Latin constituents we get an Uncle Pedro.

Wow, first you say you are crossing your fingers that we lose in Iraq, and now you post this tripe(not to mention your sig)?

Absolutely disgusting.

CsG

CsG

 

[Geardo]

Originally posted by: dahunan
The problem is the Iraqi citizens NEVER EVER DID ANYTHING TO HURT AMERICA YET WE HAVE NOW MURDERED MORE THAN 10,000 OF THEM... Democracy -- one bullet at a time

They invaded Kuwait, signed a cease fire agreement, then violated it. They deserve what they are getting, and more.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Geardo

Originally posted by: dahunan
The problem is the Iraqi citizens NEVER EVER DID ANYTHING TO HURT AMERICA YET WE HAVE NOW MURDERED MORE THAN 10,000 OF THEM... Democracy -- one bullet at a time

They invaded Kuwait, signed a cease fire agreement, then violated it. They deserve what they are getting, and more.

By what this troll quoted and is responding to, I'm going to assume that when he says "they deserve what they get" he means the Iraqi citizens?

I think you and Daniel1113 are two peas in a pod.

 

[imported_brad]

its not really fair to criticise the soldiers for their work. all criticism should fall to the politicians that placed them in such a difficult position.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.

Why the hell not? There are few people in the world who rejoice at the thought of being ruled with no say in their governance, no expression of free ideas, no hopes of fair trials... Who cares what the dictator or his minority powerbase wants, when the will of the people is so evident?

Should we tear up that United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or try to enforce it wherever possible?

 

[chess9]

All the major industrialized nations have made the same mistake the U.S. is making, though most of them made those mistakes 200 years ago. Blair is apparently not a good student of history, otherwise his empire building ambitions would have been repressed. We know GW couldn't have found Iraq on a world map prior to 9-11, so his conduct comes as no surprise.

What is also not a surprise is the quagmire we are in. Every day those troops are in Iraq and over-extended as most of them are is not only a day we've wasted millions of dollars but a day we've wasted human lives and our reputation, such as it is.

The conduct of these Marines does not surprise me in the least. They are expected to act that way by our civilian and military leaders. When you want something destroyed today, call in the Marines. But, the relativistic justification I hear above for this conduct is sheer nonsense. At almost all levels of meaning, the conduct is abhorrent.

Also, many on this board served in the military in time of war. That doesn't mean we have special qualifications to criticize the military, but it does mean we earned our right to criticize them. But, if anyone thinks the Marines' conduct is justifiable, war or not, they are wrong.

Get out of Iraq now. Why wait until we've lost 10,000 Americans?

-Robert

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.

Why the hell not? There are few people in the world who rejoice at the thought of being ruled with no say in their governance, no expression of free ideas, no hopes of fair trials... Who cares what the dictator or his minority powerbase wants, when the will of the people is so evident?

Should we tear up that United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or try to enforce it wherever possible?

Great, so it's alright for Russia to declare war on Saudi Arabia, right? It's a monarchy, ruled by a royal family, oppressed by Islamic law. And in the process, Russia can reward itself for its hard work with a little oil.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.

Why the hell not? There are few people in the world who rejoice at the thought of being ruled with no say in their governance, no expression of free ideas, no hopes of fair trials... Who cares what the dictator or his minority powerbase wants, when the will of the people is so evident?

Should we tear up that United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or try to enforce it wherever possible?

Great, so it's alright for Russia to declare war on Saudi Arabia, right? It's a monarchy, ruled by a royal family, oppressed by Islamic law. And in the process, Russia can reward itself for its hard work with a little oil.

Absolutely! If Russia would like to mirror the United States' efforts in Iraq they are more than welcome. Institute democracy, allow private enterprise to flourish, free wills to be expressed. The U.S. is hardly stealing all of Iraq's oil and under the mirror scenario Russia would follow suit. Hell, we'd probably see a long term drop in oil prices.

It's pretty odd to me that people find moral justification in allowing fellow humans to bend under dictatorships. Well, present company aside - I don't find it odd coming from a person who cheers the deaths of fellow Americans overseas. But I'd expect different from those more sensible.

 

[jpeyton]

We forego improvements (some in dire need of) to our own country while trying to improve the status of ONE mid-sized nation that had a crippled military, and we're struggling. Most other dictatorships around the world would prove a huge challenge for the US to "convert".

Even IF your argument for invading Iraq (bringing democracy to an opressed people) was justified (which it is not, by international law), then we've proven in a little under two years of war that such a policy leads to our own country bleeding money and overextending our military. And we've made little progress in securing the country.

An analogy: if our resolution to bring democracy to the oppressed was like an obese person's resolution to lose 100lbs, then our war in Iraq so far is like the obese person losing 5lbs and racking up major debt and personal harm in the process. The obese person will be bankrupt and dead before they can even reach half their goal.

I would personally hope that the US abandon this line of foreign policy before our country finds itself in even more dire straights.

 

[mwtgg]

jpeyton, it's amazing that you don't choke on all the s[/b]hit you spew.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: mwtgg
jpeyton, it's amazing that you don't choke on all the s[/b]hit you spew.

It goes down easier with a good local beer.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We forego improvements (some in dire need of) to our own country while trying to improve the status of ONE mid-sized nation that had a crippled military, and we're struggling. Most other dictatorships around the world would prove a huge challenge for the US to "convert".

By that basis, let us forego all tax cuts until 99% of Americans are employed and removed from destitution. Why help the middle class when there are so many poor and homeless? Why send any foreign aid overseas for the tsunami victims when hundreds or thousands die a day right here in North America?

It's pretty obvious: We will always have problems at home. This will never change. Accept it and effect change where you can, when you can.

Even IF your argument for invading Iraq (bringing democracy to an opressed people) was justified (which it is not, by international law), then we've proven in a little under two years of war that such a policy leads to our own country bleeding money and overextending our military. And we've made little progress in securing the country.

An analogy: if our resolution to bring democracy to the oppressed was like an obese person's resolution to lose 100lbs, then our war in Iraq so far is like the obese person losing 5lbs and racking up major debt and personal harm in the process. The obese person will be bankrupt and dead before they can even reach half their goal.

I would personally hope that the US abandon this line of foreign policy before our country finds itself in even more dire straights.

What BS use of international law would trump the furthering of human rights in this world? The fact that countries like Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia don't want to see an invasion because of the power vacuum that could result, or the internal pressure to have the same happen locally? France and Russia for the billions still owed to them and to stop what they see as neoimperialism? What a crock.

Another analogy: Not attempting to bring democracy abroad is like watching an emaciated person wither away and saying nothing because it's not polite to tell other people how to live their lives even though it's obvious what is healthy and what is not. We have a bunch of other emaciated people wagging their fingers at us telling is not to interfere, and the knowledge that extending oneself in this way will lead to some blood, sweat and tears. Personal sacrifice for kindness to others should be shunned nowadays, it seems.

 

[jpeyton]

What BS use of international law would trump the furthering of human rights in this world?

The same international law that the US subscribes to (selectively). Sorry Charlie, but much like "we will always have problems at home", the world will always have human suffering. Since the beginning of recorded history, wars, genocide, invasion, etc.

Our nation has the same freedom to exist as Saudi Arabia, or Iran. We are not superior to the point where we can choose to invade, "liberate" and "convert" whomever we see as "oppressed".

Unless you subscribe to Hitler's ideologies.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

What BS use of international law would trump the furthering of human rights in this world?

The same international law that the US subscribes to (selectively). Sorry Charlie, but much like "we will always have problems at home", the world will always have human suffering. Since the beginning of recorded history, wars, genocide, invasion, etc.

Our nation has the same freedom to exist as Saudi Arabia, or Iran. We are not superior to the point where we can choose to invade, "liberate" and "convert" whomever we see as "oppressed".

Unless you subscribe to Hitler's ideologies.

HAHAHA. You should not be one to allude to others speaking like Hitler.

What ridiculous reasoning. The world will always have human suffering, so let's not lift a finger to help. People have a right to exist, not arbitrarily founded nations that survive on stifling all internal dissent and allowing only a select few to have any say in the direction of that country.

There is a point at which relativistic morality ends, and that occurs right at the point where secret police forces start making citizens disappear in the middle of the night because of their views. Or where 50% of a nation can't vote, work or walk around because of their gender. You can carry on happily while millions around the world die at the hands of others, that's fine. There are enough of us who believe in a common set of rights that all human beings should be afforded that change will continue to occur where possible.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: jpeyton

What BS use of international law would trump the furthering of human rights in this world?

The same international law that the US subscribes to (selectively). Sorry Charlie, but much like "we will always have problems at home", the world will always have human suffering. Since the beginning of recorded history, wars, genocide, invasion, etc.

Our nation has the same freedom to exist as Saudi Arabia, or Iran. We are not superior to the point where we can choose to invade, "liberate" and "convert" whomever we see as "oppressed".

Unless you subscribe to Hitler's ideologies.

HAHAHA. You should not be one to allude to others speaking like Hitler.

What ridiculous reasoning. The world will always have human suffering, so let's not lift a finger to help. People have a right to exist, not arbitrarily founded nations that survive on stifling all internal dissent and allowing only a select few to have any say in the direction of that country.

There is a point at which relativistic morality ends, and that occurs right at the point where secret police forces start making citizens disappear in the middle of the night because of their views. Or where 50% of a nation can't vote, work or walk around because of their gender. You can carry on happily while millions around the world die at the hands of others, that's fine. There are enough of us who believe in a common set of rights that all human beings should be afforded that change will continue to occur where possible.

So it's perfectly ok to undermine, spy on, assassinate, torture, and occassionaly invade nations that don't conform to your certain set of rules (regardless of what that might be)?

What if they don't attack you or your allies is it ok to do this?

 

[jpeyton]

Does anybody besides myself understand the concept of soveriegnty, and care to explain it to yllus?

Doesn't matter though. As much as your heart bleeds for "oppressed" people, I don't see our good service going far beyond the occupation of Iraq. As much as "freedom is on the march", Bush can't scam this nation again if he wants to take his campaign anywhere else (my guess is that he'd love to add Iran and their natural resources).

Convenient that we do relatively little to stop the suffering in Africa. Genocide, rape, torture, evil dictatorships, the whole lot is there in a few African nations. However, those nations are missing a certain non-renewable resource.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Aelius
So it's perfectly ok to undermine, spy on, assassinate, torture, and occassionaly invade nations that don't conform to your certain set of rules (regardless of what that might be)?

What if they don't attack you or your allies is it ok to do this?

Generally speaking (though it's likely 100% the case), those who do not 'conform' to your core set of beliefs are always either going to be directly or indirectly trying to undermine your position and security in the world. That goes whether you're a republican talking about a dictator, a communist talking about a fascist, whatever. Ideologies do not play well with others.

These "certain set of rules" are not like traffic violations. They're the big ones: The rights to life, liberty and security of person. Yes, I think it's 100% justifiable to undermine and spy on countries that do not share these views. Ninety percent of a nation's efforts are going to be in one of those two categories. And where deemed necessary, assassinations and invasions are acceptable in my view (torture has little value on the global level). Part of doing this 'morally' is the use of only necessary force. If Saddam could have been assassinated and his family would not have just stepped up in his place, who would honestly be against that?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Convenient that we do relatively little to stop the suffering in Africa. Genocide, rape, torture, evil dictatorships, the whole lot is there in a few African nations. However, those nations are missing a certain non-renewable resource.

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. The reason Bush didn't invade Africa is they didn't have WMD like Iraq. Oh wait...

I hope the rest of the world remembers that nearly 50% of this country voted against Bush mostly because of his "free Iraq crusade" (tic).

 

[TheGreenGoblin]

I really can't believe that there are still ppl out there that think the U.S. is in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people and to give them democracy. How much more evidence to the contrary is needed ?

It's all about oil and defense contracts , people. Making the rich richer , at the expense of an entire nation of people. If there was any justice in this world , Bush , Rumsfeld and their cronies would already be on trial for war crimes.

The funny thing is , this is the 2nd time the American populace has been tricked by the same gang of crooks. 25 years ago Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were demonizing the Russians and holding press conferences where they'd reveal their manufactured evidence of Soviet mobile nuclear labs.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.

No, you're wrong. Any FREE nation ALWAYS has the right to overthrow ANY dictatorship at ANY time. End of story.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm crossing my fingers that we lose horribly in Iraq.

The motives behind this war are so blatantly obvious now, it's digusting.

Iraq's oil was never worth all this.

Nice of you to thank of all the soldiers that will die defending your right to say what you just did so that your dream may come true.

.....and that doesnt even count all the Iraqi lives that would be lost as well.

Comments like this are sickening. The US going into Iraq was wrong, i'll admit that. But we are there NOW and we owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to finish the job, regardless of your feelings about the war.

We owe it to our troops and Iraqi people to get the hell out of there so they can clean up the mess we left for them.

Wow, you are a woefully ignorant man if you truly believe that. They CAN'T clean it up without our help. They've not the resources, the money or the manpower, and without us they have NO protections against whatever would-be dictator who can rouse a small army would set loose upon them.

Shame on your for being a fool and a candyass.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: chess9
All the major industrialized nations have made the same mistake the U.S. is making, though most of them made those mistakes 200 years ago. Blair is apparently not a good student of history, otherwise his empire building ambitions would have been repressed. We know GW couldn't have found Iraq on a world map prior to 9-11, so his conduct comes as no surprise.

What is also not a surprise is the quagmire we are in. Every day those troops are in Iraq and over-extended as most of them are is not only a day we've wasted millions of dollars but a day we've wasted human lives and our reputation, such as it is.

The conduct of these Marines does not surprise me in the least. They are expected to act that way by our civilian and military leaders. When you want something destroyed today, call in the Marines. But, the relativistic justification I hear above for this conduct is sheer nonsense. At almost all levels of meaning, the conduct is abhorrent.

Also, many on this board served in the military in time of war. That doesn't mean we have special qualifications to criticize the military, but it does mean we earned our right to criticize them. But, if anyone thinks the Marines' conduct is justifiable, war or not, they are wrong.

Get out of Iraq now. Why wait until we've lost 10,000 Americans?

-Robert

Nonsense. Their conduct is TYPICAL of soldiers in war. War is, in and of itself, an AWFUL business. Pulling out now would be exactly what we did in 1991 and it would leave the Iraqi people defenseless against the totalitarianism of the Muslim world that seeks to keep Iraq oppressed.

Vietnam was a quagmire; Iraq is not. Yeah, it's a b1tch, it's been a dangerous and costly fight, but as wars go we've lost VERY few men.

Jason