Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Actually the problem is with people like you who are so desensitized that you easily write off situations like this with the coy phrase"War is Hell"Originally posted by: daniel1113
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
Murder? Hardly. Perhaps you should review your dictionary, as there is a difference between murder and killing. War is hell - innocent people will die.
You see, people like you are the problem. You equate the casualties of war to be no different than the murders and attrocities committed by tyrants like Saddam. I pity you, really.
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.
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: 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
I don't recall Iraq's majority asking to be freed from Saddam.
You just pissed away any moral high ground you might have had.
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: 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
Excuses for poor behaviour and even poorer leadership does not make one's actions right.
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: 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.
WOW, that's a bunch of tripe if we haven't heard it a thousand times before. Still too obstinate to admit that there are MANY reasons for being in Iraq, and oil isn't even at the top of that list, eh?
Grow up. Grow a brain.
Jason
Yes lets look at some of those reasons.
-Free the nation from tyranny. Declaring martial law certainly did that.
-Bring to an end the torture of innocent Iraqi civilians under a brutal dictator. I guess we sure showed them a thing or two.
-Bring Democracy to the nation. The CIA puppet and lack of any International monitoring is nothing for concern of course.
-Get Iraq's WMDs secured. Did I mention we plan to go to Mars?
-Oil? Don't get us wrong we are only here to guard, preserve and ensure the future of a free Iraq and its people. I guess that's why US bases will be left behind. But hey! Isn't your gas price back down to around pre-war levels? Mine sure are! YAY!
-Bring Saddam to justice for helping terrorists. 500lb bombs in civilian centres will of course ensure that it won't happen again. Insurgency? Mostly foreign terrorists trying to undermine a free Iraq and it's people! Did I mention your gas prices are better and we plan to go to Mars?
Mission Accomplished.
More anti-american propaganda from a liberal rag that refuses to acknowledge all the good news coming for iraq.
Originally posted by: BBond
Bush invaded Iraq based on false claims of the threat Iraq's non-existent WMD posed.
We are witnessing the results of foreign policy built on lies in Iraq.
No nation has the right to attack another nation unprovoked.
Even if Iraq was about liberation (and it wasn't), when you go down the road of "nation building" by choosing which dictator to overthrow out of a hat, you wind up with...Iraq.
We'd do much better right now to worry about our own freedom before we export any.
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: BBond
Bush invaded Iraq based on false claims of the threat Iraq's non-existent WMD posed.
We are witnessing the results of foreign policy built on lies in Iraq.
No nation has the right to attack another nation unprovoked.
Even if Iraq was about liberation (and it wasn't), when you go down the road of "nation building" by choosing which dictator to overthrow out of a hat, you wind up with...Iraq.
We'd do much better right now to worry about our own freedom before we export any.
No, no SOVEREIGN nation has the right to invade another unprovoked. Iraq was NOT a valid sovereignty, being a dictatorship. The citizens of Iraq had NO CHOICE, NO VOICE and NO CHANCE against Saddam's tyranny and you damn well know that.
You can argue the pro's and cons of liberating another country (and there are certainly man, many of both) all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that we ABSOLUTELY had the right to go into Iraq.
Jason
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".
Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.
The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.
"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.
'Valid'
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Originally posted by: bharok
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.
:thumbsup:
Originally posted by: bharok
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
What, you thought it would be all fun and games? There is a REASON why the term "War is Hell" came into common usage and has been brought up during every war fought.
Oh, and incidentally, I found Grace. She works at the front desk in my office
Jason
war may be hell but Bush keeps sayig they are there for peace keeping which doesnt really seem to be happening
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: BBond
Bush invaded Iraq based on false claims of the threat Iraq's non-existent WMD posed.
We are witnessing the results of foreign policy built on lies in Iraq.
No nation has the right to attack another nation unprovoked.
Even if Iraq was about liberation (and it wasn't), when you go down the road of "nation building" by choosing which dictator to overthrow out of a hat, you wind up with...Iraq.
We'd do much better right now to worry about our own freedom before we export any.
No, no SOVEREIGN nation has the right to invade another unprovoked. Iraq was NOT a valid sovereignty, being a dictatorship. The citizens of Iraq had NO CHOICE, NO VOICE and NO CHANCE against Saddam's tyranny and you damn well know that.
You can argue the pro's and cons of liberating another country (and there are certainly man, many of both) all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that we ABSOLUTELY had the right to go into Iraq.
Jason
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".
Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.
The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.
"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.
'Valid'
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
1. I'm not so sure there were not any WMDs.
2. Bush Bush Bush and his jump to war. I'm sure in Jr. High you weren't tuned into these things so here is a cronology of events from the end of the Gulf War up to is administration:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...s/unscom/etc/cron.html
3. As far as liberation and the "murdering" of civilians you can't have it both ways. There were many public outcries over the number of deaths sanctions were causing. Should we have continued touse them until Saddam died of old age? Would that have caused less anymosity toward the US? Should we have just said screw it and dropped sanctions?
OMG, face it. There are no weapons of mass destruction. We've been there for 2 months shy of 2 years. Believe me, if the WMD was there they would have trumpeted it by now.
When I went to school there was no junior high.
The public outcries over the sanctions doesn't justify an unprovoked invasion that is killing more civilians per year than the sanctions did.
We have been there that long.
They have consolidated Jr. and High school in the last ten years its all one school, or did you just call it middle school?
Have you read the reports of the deaths sanctions were blamed for?
What does justify an invasion of a country knowing that civilians will be killed or for that matter our soldiers?
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: yllus
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.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?
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?
I'm not quite sure where to start. Such blatant trashing of personal freedoms and liberties, in the name of freedom and liberty, smacks of a hypocritical totalitarian system.
While I agree that certain groups of people with certain ideologies will end up clashing with ones that do not possess such ideology you have to remember what it is you are fighting for. Personal freedom and liberty. If you force this on someone and tell them that it's for their own good it doesn't make it freedom and it doesn't liberate them if they didn't ask for it. That's a definition of a totalitarian system.
If you attack a nation, or a person, that has not attacked you or your allies it does not make it a fight for freedom but a fight of aggression.
That doesn't mean that as a Libertarian I'm some sort of pacifist. On the contrary. Libertarians believe that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. A strong military is a necessity to ensure personal freedoms are protected.
This also means that a very small federal government is required that's only mandate is to protect personal freedoms and liberties and to protect the nation and its allies.
The pessimistic warmongering and crying of wolf about NBC and terrorist attacks on a nation on a regular basis, without any proof what so ever, is a propaganda war waged on civilians to ensure compliance.
It worked for Hitler. It has worked in the US before in the 20s, 30s, and into the Cold War. Last time I checked the human psyche hasn't changed in the last 100 years so why stop now.
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: yllus
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.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?
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?
I'm not quite sure where to start. Such blatant trashing of personal freedoms and liberties, in the name of freedom and liberty, smacks of a hypocritical totalitarian system.
While I agree that certain groups of people with certain ideologies will end up clashing with ones that do not possess such ideology you have to remember what it is you are fighting for. Personal freedom and liberty. If you force this on someone and tell them that it's for their own good it doesn't make it freedom and it doesn't liberate them if they didn't ask for it. That's a definition of a totalitarian system.
If you attack a nation, or a person, that has not attacked you or your allies it does not make it a fight for freedom but a fight of aggression.
That doesn't mean that as a Libertarian I'm some sort of pacifist. On the contrary. Libertarians believe that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. A strong military is a necessity to ensure personal freedoms are protected.
This also means that a very small federal government is required that's only mandate is to protect personal freedoms and liberties and to protect the nation and its allies.
The pessimistic warmongering and crying of wolf about NBC and terrorist attacks on a nation on a regular basis, without any proof what so ever, is a propaganda war waged on civilians to ensure compliance.
It worked for Hitler. It has worked in the US before in the 20s, 30s, and into the Cold War. Last time I checked the human psyche hasn't changed in the last 100 years so why stop now.
It's certainly true to say that in MOST situations the proper way to deal with war is to act only against an aggressor. The war on terrorists is, however, a unique scenario.
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: 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
I don't recall Iraq's majority asking to be freed from Saddam.
You just pissed away any moral high ground you might have had.
Not at all. It makes no difference whether they ask or not. A tyrant is a tyrant, and freedom ALWAYS has moral superiority over tyranny, PERIOD.
Jason
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: 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
Excuses for poor behaviour and even poorer leadership does not make one's actions right.
THere's no question that Bush is the very PICTURE of poor leadership and bad decision making. That fact, however, does not negate the fact that freedom is morally superior to tyranny--PERIOD. Freedom and it's defenders ALWAYS have the moral right to overthrow a tyrant, whether they are asked or not.
Jason
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: 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.
WOW, that's a bunch of tripe if we haven't heard it a thousand times before. Still too obstinate to admit that there are MANY reasons for being in Iraq, and oil isn't even at the top of that list, eh?
Grow up. Grow a brain.
Jason
Yes lets look at some of those reasons.
-Free the nation from tyranny. Declaring martial law certainly did that.
-Bring to an end the torture of innocent Iraqi civilians under a brutal dictator. I guess we sure showed them a thing or two.
-Bring Democracy to the nation. The CIA puppet and lack of any International monitoring is nothing for concern of course.
-Get Iraq's WMDs secured. Did I mention we plan to go to Mars?
-Oil? Don't get us wrong we are only here to guard, preserve and ensure the future of a free Iraq and its people. I guess that's why US bases will be left behind. But hey! Isn't your gas price back down to around pre-war levels? Mine sure are! YAY!
-Bring Saddam to justice for helping terrorists. 500lb bombs in civilian centres will of course ensure that it won't happen again. Insurgency? Mostly foreign terrorists trying to undermine a free Iraq and it's people! Did I mention your gas prices are better and we plan to go to Mars?
Mission Accomplished.
More like Mission in progress, dvmbass. These things don't happen overnight, and if you had ever bothered to pick up a goddamn HISTORY BOOK you would know that.
God but you morons are infuriating!
Jason
If you support our actions in Iraq then how come you don't join up yourself? You are at the perfect age and I'm sure that the Army would welcome you with open arms. Walk the walk Danny Boy!
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: yllus
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.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?
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?
I'm not quite sure where to start. Such blatant trashing of personal freedoms and liberties, in the name of freedom and liberty, smacks of a hypocritical totalitarian system.
While I agree that certain groups of people with certain ideologies will end up clashing with ones that do not possess such ideology you have to remember what it is you are fighting for. Personal freedom and liberty. If you force this on someone and tell them that it's for their own good it doesn't make it freedom and it doesn't liberate them if they didn't ask for it. That's a definition of a totalitarian system.
If you attack a nation, or a person, that has not attacked you or your allies it does not make it a fight for freedom but a fight of aggression.
That doesn't mean that as a Libertarian I'm some sort of pacifist. On the contrary. Libertarians believe that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. A strong military is a necessity to ensure personal freedoms are protected.
This also means that a very small federal government is required that's only mandate is to protect personal freedoms and liberties and to protect the nation and its allies.
The pessimistic warmongering and crying of wolf about NBC and terrorist attacks on a nation on a regular basis, without any proof what so ever, is a propaganda war waged on civilians to ensure compliance.
It worked for Hitler. It has worked in the US before in the 20s, 30s, and into the Cold War. Last time I checked the human psyche hasn't changed in the last 100 years so why stop now.
It's certainly true to say that in MOST situations the proper way to deal with war is to act only against an aggressor. The war on terrorists is, however, a unique scenario.
Wrong.Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
1. I'm not so sure there were not any WMDs.
2. Bush Bush Bush and his jump to war. I'm sure in Jr. High you weren't tuned into these things so here is a cronology of events from the end of the Gulf War up to is administration:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...s/unscom/etc/cron.html
3. As far as liberation and the "murdering" of civilians you can't have it both ways. There were many public outcries over the number of deaths sanctions were causing. Should we have continued touse them until Saddam died of old age? Would that have caused less anymosity toward the US? Should we have just said screw it and dropped sanctions?
OMG, face it. There are no weapons of mass destruction. We've been there for 2 months shy of 2 years. Believe me, if the WMD was there they would have trumpeted it by now.
When I went to school there was no junior high.
The public outcries over the sanctions doesn't justify an unprovoked invasion that is killing more civilians per year than the sanctions did.
We have been there that long.
They have consolidated Jr. and High school in the last ten years its all one school, or did you just call it middle school?
Have you read the reports of the deaths sanctions were blamed for?
What does justify an invasion of a country knowing that civilians will be killed or for that matter our soldiers?
what you been the sanctions that the US and Britian put in place?
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
1. I'm not so sure there were not any WMDs.
2. Bush Bush Bush and his jump to war. I'm sure in Jr. High you weren't tuned into these things so here is a cronology of events from the end of the Gulf War up to is administration:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...s/unscom/etc/cron.html
3. As far as liberation and the "murdering" of civilians you can't have it both ways. There were many public outcries over the number of deaths sanctions were causing. Should we have continued touse them until Saddam died of old age? Would that have caused less anymosity toward the US? Should we have just said screw it and dropped sanctions?
OMG, face it. There are no weapons of mass destruction. We've been there for 2 months shy of 2 years. Believe me, if the WMD was there they would have trumpeted it by now.
When I went to school there was no junior high.
The public outcries over the sanctions doesn't justify an unprovoked invasion that is killing more civilians per year than the sanctions did.
We have been there that long.
They have consolidated Jr. and High school in the last ten years its all one school, or did you just call it middle school?
Have you read the reports of the deaths sanctions were blamed for?
What does justify an invasion of a country knowing that civilians will be killed or for that matter our soldiers?
what you been the sanctions that the US and Britian put in place?
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: BBond
Bush invaded Iraq based on false claims of the threat Iraq's non-existent WMD posed.
We are witnessing the results of foreign policy built on lies in Iraq.
No nation has the right to attack another nation unprovoked.
Even if Iraq was about liberation (and it wasn't), when you go down the road of "nation building" by choosing which dictator to overthrow out of a hat, you wind up with...Iraq.
We'd do much better right now to worry about our own freedom before we export any.
No, no SOVEREIGN nation has the right to invade another unprovoked. Iraq was NOT a valid sovereignty, being a dictatorship. The citizens of Iraq had NO CHOICE, NO VOICE and NO CHANCE against Saddam's tyranny and you damn well know that.
You can argue the pro's and cons of liberating another country (and there are certainly man, many of both) all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that we ABSOLUTELY had the right to go into Iraq.
Jason
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I could care less what Annon says. He's no one with authority to make the decision for the United States. By Constitutional Law, ONLY the President of the United States has the authority to recognize Sovereignty of another nation. Further, there are PLENTY of legal authorities who say that it is COMPLETELY legal.
Jason
Originally posted by: Pohemi420
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I could care less what Annon says. He's no one with authority to make the decision for the United States. By Constitutional Law, ONLY the President of the United States has the authority to recognize Sovereignty of another nation. Further, there are PLENTY of legal authorities who say that it is COMPLETELY legal.
Jason
So what you're saying is that the U.S. has the right to judge what is right or wrong for the rest of the world and fvck what any other countries think, is that how I'm understanding you? :thumbsdown: