NationStates Jolt Archive

Do we have the right to move into countries and destroy all they have built.. or in some cases further destroy what they already have, because we do not agree with them? Iraq, Afghanastan and others.

Who is to say what we do is right anyway? America is not perfect does it give them the right to invade other nations? Or any country for that matter. What ever happened to live and let live?

And sanctions what the hell. So we are going to throw a fit because someone did something, that a single group does not agree with? If that is how they live then who are we to judge. This is why we have so many problems people dont butt the hell out of each others business.

Afghanistan wanted the Taliban out...

Do we have the right to move into countries and destroy all they have built.. or in some cases further destroy what they already have, because we do not agree with them? Iraq, Afghanastan and others.

Who is to say what we do is right anyway? America is not perfect does it give them the right to invade other nations? Or any country for that matter. What ever happened to live and let live?

And sanctions what the hell. So we are going to throw a fit because someone did something, that a single group does not agree with? If that is how they live then who are we to judge. This is why we have so many problems people dont butt the hell out of each others business.

Generally, no. You don't. Not that that would change a single thing...

There are exceptions, however. If an independent group evaluates the situation and agrees that it is necessary to use military force against another nation for valid ethical reasons, then yes, you do have the right to attack that nation.

But that's just my feeling and understanding of justice and fairness, it has little enough to do with harsh reality.

We do,it's Manifest Destiny.

The question is not "do we have the right", but "do we have the strenght"

The US has the strenght to bully, invade, and wipe out any country in the world (with varying degrees of effort, from a piece of cake like Iraq, to a nuclear war with Russia). Offcourse, by doing so without a nickel of legitimacy (and i dont mean "legal" legitimacy, i mean the legitimacy given by the peoples of various nations), they start to piss off people, They start to get feared. And then, they start to get hated. And then, everyone starts flexing their muscle out of those sentiments. So the US starts to lose power (in relative terms; its not that the US gets weaker, its just that everyone else gets stronger).

So perhaps an even better question is "Since we have the strengh, can we do it in a way others seem right?"

Do we have the right to move into countries and destroy all they have built.. or in some cases further destroy what they already have, because we do not agree with them? Iraq, Afghanastan and others.

Who is to say what we do is right anyway? America is not perfect does it give them the right to invade other nations? Or any country for that matter. What ever happened to live and let live?

And sanctions what the hell. So we are going to throw a fit because someone did something, that a single group does not agree with? If that is how they live then who are we to judge. This is why we have so many problems people dont butt the hell out of each others business.

If I can just answer the question and not the right or wrong of what was done I will try. The seems to be does one country have the right to invade another country. The answer it seems to me is that every country has the right and obligation to defend itself from aggression. Was the US defending itself when it invaded Afganistan and Iraq? There are those who would say yes and those who would say no.

This is a situation where some greater authority than one nation should make the decision. A commonwealth of Nations that rule on disputes between individual nations.

America is the most powerful country out there right now, so if we feel that something is a threat to our security, then we can pretty much whatever the hell we want.

Look at Iraq. No one can do a freaking thing about it. They just talk talk talk.

Oh and even if we (or any one else/group of nations) have "legitimancy" from the majority, what gives the majority the right to invade? "Legal" and " legitimancy" are only words. And you know that by "majority" they mean "powerful western nations" like on the security council. Smacks of oligarchy doesn't it?
"Oh, well, we decided that we should take over your country, so, uh, sucks for you".


Last time I checked, there is no world government, no world police. It's every man for himself, so the biggest gun wins. :D

Do we have the right to move into countries and destroy all they have built.. or in some cases further destroy what they already have, because we do not agree with them? Iraq, Afghanastan and others.
Iraq and some others were a mistake; Afghanistan was a totally legit target in light of 9/11

So perhaps an even better question is "Since we have the strength, can we do it in a way others seem right?"

While that's a nice way to do things, and we could probably do better, there are going to be times when you won't be able to make anyone happy.

As an example, there have been times when Western European nations and the US and Canada want to do things, but other countries outside that area are opposed to the idea. Nothing you say is going to make them happy.

I'm thinking of the NATO bombing of Serbia. Definitely not a UN action. China didn't like it. NATO even bombed the Chinese Embassy (by mistake if you can believe that).

America is the most powerful country out there right now, so if we feel that something is a threat to our security, then we can pretty much whatever the hell we want.

Look at Iraq. No one can do a freaking thing about it. They just talk talk talk.

Just because the U.S can do somehing doesn't make it right.

I can randomly go into my parents' bedroom and kill my mother with an axe. Doesn't make it right though, does it?

America is the most powerful country out there right now, so if we feel that something is a threat to our security, then we can pretty much whatever the hell we want.

Look at Iraq. No one can do a freaking thing about it. They just talk talk talk.

The trick is, if you are small country, is not to spend the past forty-five years trying to invade your neighbors. If you just stick with that, then they will all stick up for you when a big country tries to stick it to you, and inevitably the big country will back down.

Iraq couldn't seem to grasp that simple fact.

Might makes right. Just remember that might can come in many forms, not just militarily. It is unfortunate, in any case, but this is how our world works.

Yeah, it pisses me off that the U.S. thinks it has the right to invade a country, especially over something so inconsequential as a silly misunderstanding over 4 planes and 3000 people. Or something as dumb as a silly terrorist with an inconsequential little pouch of anthrax, or a harmless chunk of radioactive rock. Or an accidental incident involving a teeny hole in the U.S.S. Cole. Or gassing a few Kurds. I mean, Hitler did it, so it must be ok, right?

Damn, we are bullies! We need to butt the hell out. But without borders, or immigration laws, cause thats just insensitive.

Do we have the right to move into countries and destroy all they have built.. or in some cases further destroy what they already have, because we do not agree with them? Iraq, Afghanastan and others.

Afghanistan supported Al Qaeda who decided to wage war on the United States. With the Army and Intel operatives, we assisted the Northern Alliance in taking out the Taliban.

Iraq violated international law when he invaded Kuwait. Then he violated it again when he violated the Cease-Fire. With this violation, we took him out. Again, perfectly legit and all legal.

Who is to say what we do is right anyway?

The Historians and the victors of the conflict.

America is not perfect does it give them the right to invade other nations?

If they attack us or violate a cease-fire agreement with us then yes we do have the right.

Or any country for that matter. What ever happened to live and let live?

9/11 kinda tossed that out the window. Any country can actually invade another. Look at Kenya in regards to Uganda. Soviet Union with Afghanistan and many other nations besides them.

And sanctions what the hell.

A known fact is that sanctions never hurt the leaders. Only the civilians.

So we are going to throw a fit because someone did something, that a single group does not agree with? If that is how they live then who are we to judge. This is why we have so many problems people dont butt the hell out of each others business.

So your saying that people who love to terrorize others should be allowed to continue? Your saying that people shouldn't respond to threats or violations of International law?

Just because the U.S can do somehing doesn't make it right.

I can randomly go into my parents' bedroom and kill my mother with an axe. Doesn't make it right though, does it?

Oh you, with your quaint notions of "right" and "wrong". In global politics, there is no "right" or "wrong", only self preservation.

And Stewie, if you wanted to kill your Mom, could get away with it or are able to fight off the police, FBI etc., then why wouldn't you do it?

Yeah, it pisses me off that the U.S. thinks it has the right to invade a country, especially over something so inconsequential as a silly misunderstanding over 4 planes and 3000 people. Or something as dumb as a silly terrorist with an inconsequential little pouch of anthrax, or a harmless chunk of radioactive rock. Or an accidental incident involving a teeny hole in the U.S.S. Cole. Now, none of these really relate to Iraq...

Now, none of these really relate to Iraq...

Were you alive in 2002?

Now, none of these really relate to Iraq...

Nope. Just Hussein not cooperating with the Approved Cease-Fire Agreement. By violating that, he brought his own downfall.

Just because the U.S can do somehing doesn't make it right.

I can randomly go into my parents' bedroom and kill my mother with an axe. Doesn't make it right though, does it?

Speaking completely hypothetically, and in a completely ass-covering manner, of course,

If you didn't get caught, and got away with it, then what we don't know won't hurt us.

Speaking completely hypothetically, and in a completely ass-covering manner, of course,

If you didn't get caught, and got away with it, then what we don't know won't hurt us.

Still doesn't make it right.

Were you alive in 2002?Yup. And kicking. My shock phase after 9/11 wore off after three days and I was able to witness the following: Bush attempting to get every single straw he could grab to convince the world that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
Saddam did not order or involve himself in 9/11. Saddam was not involved in the Anthrax. The Nigerian yellow cake story turned out to be false. And Saddam wasn't involved in bombing the Cole either.
This, in my eyes, makes Iraq unrelated to those events.

Yup. And kicking. My shock phase after 9/11 wore off after three days and I was able to witness the following: Bush attempting to get every single straw he could grab to convince the world that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Saddam did not order or involve himself in 9/11. Saddam was not involved in the Anthrax. The Nigerian yellow cake story turned out to be false. And Saddam wasn't involved in bombing the Cole either.
This, in my eyes, makes Iraq unrelated to those events.

Right. That's why the administration specifically said that Iraq had nothing to with al qaeda?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

And IIRC, British intel still believes the Nigerian cake story.

International Law? And what if a nation does not want to get involved with NATO, the UN or any other US backed puppet system of control? What if they want to be left alone, and when they do something a nation or two does not like. Do they have a right to go before the International Community for actions against a Nation that does not regonize the International Community as valid?

The 9/11 committe found Iraq not to be part of the plot to bring down the towers. It went from a war on terror to a war on iraq. How can the US justify that (also note Im currently in the US, though looking for a way out) with any sort of intelligence?

A president who claims he had a dream from God telling him that what he was doing was right and just. Now I dont mean for this to bash the US, granted no nation is perfect. Many nations lie, cover up and kill when they need to.

If there where no borders, no divisions, no concept of class or race then we would not see the crimes of the past. But Im a hopeless idealist who sees the good in pretty much everyone.

International Law? And what if a nation does not want to get involved with NATO, the UN or any other US backed puppet system of control? What if they want to be left alone, and when they do something a nation or two does not like. Do they have a right to go before the International Community for actions against a Nation that does not regonize the International Community as valid?

The 9/11 committe found Iraq not to be part of the plot to bring down the towers. It went from a war on terror to a war on iraq. How can the US justify that (also note Im currently in the US, though looking for a way out) with any sort of intelligence?

A president who claims he had a dream from God telling him that what he was doing was right and just. Now I dont mean for this to bash the US, granted no nation is perfect. Many nations lie, cover up and kill when they need to.

If there where no borders, no divisions, no concept of class or race then we would not see the crimes of the past. But Im a hopeless idealist who sees the good in pretty much everyone.

That "Bush thought God was talking to him" story is complete BS. He wasn't even quoted for Pete's sake.

Iraq (Saddam) had ties to terrorism, and the evidence said that he also had WMD's.


And FINALLY! Someone who complains about the US AND is looking for a way out of the country! Normally I have to be like "If you don't like us then leave you dingbat" but you're one step ahead of me!

Do we have the right to move into countries and destroy all they have built.. or in some cases further destroy what they already have, because we do not agree with them? Iraq, Afghanastan and others.

Who is to say what we do is right anyway? America is not perfect does it give them the right to invade other nations? Or any country for that matter. What ever happened to live and let live?

And sanctions what the hell. So we are going to throw a fit because someone did something, that a single group does not agree with? If that is how they live then who are we to judge. This is why we have so many problems people dont butt the hell out of each others business.


This is all the justification we need.

http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/2956/worldtradecenterdemise8vq.gifhttp://img456.imageshack.us/img456/2956/worldtradecenterdemise8vq.gif

That "Bush thought God was talking to him" story is complete BS. He wasn't even quoted for Pete's sake.

Iraq (Saddam) had ties to terrorism, and the evidence said that he also had WMD's.


And FINALLY! Someone who complains about the US AND is looking for a way out of the country! Normally I have to be like "If you don't like us then leave you dingbat" but you're one step ahead of me!


I like the way you think!

:D

Man this forum has changed.

Back when I was Kaltonic there were exactly 2 conservatives on the board total, including me.

But in this thread alone I count 3!!

Yup. And kicking. My shock phase after 9/11 wore off after three days and I was able to witness the following: Bush attempting to get every single straw he could grab to convince the world that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
Saddam did not order or involve himself in 9/11. Saddam was not involved in the Anthrax. The Nigerian yellow cake story turned out to be false. And Saddam wasn't involved in bombing the Cole either.
This, in my eyes, makes Iraq unrelated to those events.

What about Hussein's attempt to violate international law on a constent basis? What about Hussein's violation of a Cease-Fire that he himself agreed to abide by then didnt?

This to me is justification enough to oust him from power.

What about Hussein's attempt to violate international law on a constent basis? What about Hussein's violation of a Cease-Fire that he himself agreed to abide by then didnt?

This to me is justification enough to oust him from power.
But you will agree that Iraq is not related to those other events?

What about Hussein's attempt to violate international law on a constent basis? What about Hussein's violation of a Cease-Fire that he himself agreed to abide by then didnt?

This to me is justification enough to oust him from power.

Lets see... We didn't find WMD's, and saddam let the inspectors back into the country before the US invaded... What are you claiming was breaking the cease fire, at the time we invaded?

But you will agree that Iraq is not related to those other events?

I don't honestly care if he was or not. I do know that he did support terrorism in the region.

Outside of that, his violations of a cease-fire is all I care about.

International Law? And what if a nation does not want to get involved with NATO, the UN or any other US backed puppet system of control? What if they want to be left alone, and when they do something a nation or two does not like. Do they have a right to go before the International Community for actions against a Nation that does not regonize the International Community as valid?

The 9/11 committe found Iraq not to be part of the plot to bring down the towers. It went from a war on terror to a war on iraq. How can the US justify that (also note Im currently in the US, though looking for a way out) with any sort of intelligence?

A president who claims he had a dream from God telling him that what he was doing was right and just. Now I dont mean for this to bash the US, granted no nation is perfect. Many nations lie, cover up and kill when they need to.

If there where no borders, no divisions, no concept of class or race then we would not see the crimes of the past. But Im a hopeless idealist who sees the good in pretty much everyone.

No nation on the face of the earth can avoid the UN, International law, NATO or similiar agencies in Africa, Asia and South America. We don't live in individual countries anymore, Karina, the tidal wave last Dec and now Wilma prove that. Without International law what are we left with? International chaos!

Lets see... We didn't find WMD's, and saddam let the inspectors back into the country before the US invaded... What are you claiming was breaking the cease fire, at the time we invaded?

He didn't fully comply with the cease-fire agreement nor did he fully comply with any UN Resolutions.

What part of this aren't you understanding?

No nation on the face of the earth can avoid the UN, International law, NATO or similiar agencies in Africa, Asia and South America. We don't live in individual countries anymore, Karina, the tidal wave last Dec and now Wilma prove that. Without International law what are we left with? International chaos!

The US seems to be able to push the UN around like a built kid and a 98 pound nerd.....

With Bolton running the show..umm....I don't have an analogy to show how one sided this would be....

For the US that is. :D

He didn't fully comply with the cease-fire agreement nor did he fully comply with any UN Resolutions.

What part of this aren't you understanding?

The part where you refuse to give specifics. I can say there is a genocide in america, and keep saying it without specifics, and every time you refute me, I can simply say you don't understand what I'm saying.

Again: What exactly was he not complying with when we invading?

The part where you refuse to give specifics. I can say there is a genocide in america, and keep saying it without specifics, and every time you refute me, I can simply say you don't understand what I'm saying.

Again: What exactly was he not complying with when we invading?

He didn't fully handover the materials for his WMD program from after the 1st Gulf War within 15 days AFTER signing the Cease-Fire.

He didn't give ALL the documents to the UN regarding his Chem and Bio programs in conjucture with 1441.

These are just 2 things I can think of off the top of my head. If you want a list, read the Congressional War Resolution.

The US seems to be able to push the UN around like a built kid and a 98 pound nerd.....

With Bolton running the show..umm....I don't have an analogy to show how one sided this would be....

For the US that is. :D

I don't expect the UN as it is currently structured to be a governmental orginization that is capble of doing what needs to be done to install system of international law that all nations would eventually follow. That is surely many years in the future. But it will and must come. The real question is what horrible event will push us down that road. It took WWII to awaken the world from its slumber before we all would agree upon the need for the birth of the UN.

He didn't fully handover the materials for his WMD program from after the 1st Gulf War within 15 days AFTER signing the Cease-Fire.

He didn't give ALL the documents to the UN regarding his Chem and Bio programs in conjucture with 1441.

These are just 2 things I can think of off the top of my head. If you want a list, read the Congressional War Resolution.

He didn't do something in 1991, and you use that as a 2003 war reason? Sorry, no go. The time to invade was then, using it as a reason 12 years later is ass covering at best.

What documents did he not give, that we knew we had? What happened to them? Why was nothing done before? Why was this not touted as a reason for invading in 2003?

If you want to make claims, you should source them.

He didn't do something in 1991, and you use that as a 2003 war reason? Sorry, no go. The time to invade was then, using it as a reason 12 years later is ass covering at best.

What documents did he not give, that we knew we had? What happened to them? Why was nothing done before? Why was this not touted as a reason for invading in 2003?

If you want to make claims, you should source them.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/27/161214.shtml

"Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix earlier told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq "does not appear to have come to a general acceptance" of the disarmament demanded of it. He said Iraq has been playing "hide and seek."

What allows the US or any other freaking nation to demand of another to disarm and they not do the same?

Treaty of Versai after WW1 completely dismantled the German army. If they REALLY wanted piece why not have every army be dismantled. If there are no armies then there is no chance for war if EVERYONE disarms. But they did not disarm creating yet another path for war to follow.

If we want Iraq to disarm why wont the US destroy its 10,000 nuclear weapons plus untold chemical and biological weapons. Along with their delivery system and other weapons? What makes the US and other nations capable of having world enders and not Iraq? Are we any less likely not to use them? Pftt I dont think so.

The US has destroyed much of its nuclear arsenal. We just keep our remaining nukes because we trust no one outside our circle...for good reasons. Everyone else hates us. Heck, even our media isn't afraid to talk ill about the US, its military, and even its citizens. No wonder there are so many anti-American terrorists. They can just flip to any major media outlet(even Fox News, a well-known super-patriotic channel hated for its lack of large amounts of liberal crap) and get loads of anti-American propoganda. Yes, Sheehan is aiding the terrorists with her somewhat massive campaign. Those studying the Vietnam War know that the US lost the war on the homefront, not on the battlefields. The US won't get rid of its nuclear arsenal until Iran stops being so sneaky and everyone else does the same.

So the US is not sneaky? CIA, FBI are not cladestine organizations? Or selling weapons to rebels to over throw the current government to set up a US puppet state? Like we did with Bin Laden and many others ie Castro. The US as no right to talk about being sneaky. Nor does any other country, the UK, Isarel?

Government itself is a hypocritical bigoted mass of narrow minded egotisical butt faces. Yes so very eloquent I know, but no way else to put it.

Oh you, with your quaint notions of "right" and "wrong". In global politics, there is no "right" or "wrong", only self preservation.

And Stewie, if you wanted to kill your Mom, could get away with it or are able to fight off the police, FBI etc., then why wouldn't you do it?

Yeah, because it definately wouldn't be wrong for me to drop a nuclear bomb on Norway, because I am jealous of their fish. :rolleyes:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/27/161214.shtml

"Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix earlier told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq "does not appear to have come to a general acceptance" of the disarmament demanded of it. He said Iraq has been playing "hide and seek."

And Hans blix also said he didn't believe Iraq had WMD, so it seems to be a moot point.

He didn't fully comply with the cease-fire agreement nor did he fully comply with any UN Resolutions.

What part of this aren't you understanding?
As far as WMDs go? Saddam had about as much chance of proving that he didn't have WMDs as you do.

Step 1: Prove you have no WMDs
- generate obscene amounts of paperwork and data
Conclusion: Saddam is hiding WMDs

Step 2: Send in UN inspection teams to look for WMDs
- UN inspectors look through everything
Conclusion: Saddam is really really good at hiding WMDs

Step 3: Invade the country to look for WMDs
- US and the "coalition of the willing" tear the place apart looking for WMDs
Conclusion: Saddam knew he was going to be invaded and moved all the WMDs elsewhere.

Not that taking Saddam out of power was a bad idea, but the premise was rediculous.

What allows the US or any other freaking nation to demand of another to disarm and they not do the same?

Simple answer is......the other nation lost a war.

Treaty of Versai after WW1 completely dismantled the German army. If they REALLY wanted piece why not have every army be dismantled. If there are no armies then there is no chance for war if EVERYONE disarms. But they did not disarm creating yet another path for war to follow.

Nice in theory but you'll always get someone in power that'll use force. Even if every nation disarms, someone will always rearm. As for Vesai (not even the correct spelling), it would've worked except that France and Britain didn't enforce it.

If we want Iraq to disarm why wont the US destroy its 10,000 nuclear weapons plus untold chemical and biological weapons.

Mutually Assured Destruction. Some of our enemies still have nukes.

Along with their delivery system and other weapons? What makes the US and other nations capable of having world enders and not Iraq? Are we any less likely not to use them? Pftt I dont think so.

We are less likely to use ours. Don't piss us off and we won't.

And Hans blix also said he didn't believe Iraq had WMD, so it seems to be a moot point.

However since he didn't follow through on past UN Resolutions, him saying he believes there are no WMD is a moot point.

I want to apologize in advance, I'm in a foul mood today.

We are less likely to use ours. Don't piss us off and we won't.
How can we be sure of that? The US is the only nation that has used them in war, making it seem more probable the US would use them in another war than a different country.

Yeah, because it definately wouldn't be wrong for me to drop a nuclear bomb on Norway, because I am jealous of their fish.
I hope you're joking, or you'd annihilate Sweden and probably Denmark as well, and that might not be a good decision (I bomb this country! Two others are annihilated...Ooops, didn't mean to!)

I want to apologize in advance, I'm in a foul mood today.

No need to be in a foul mood.

How can we be sure of that? The US is the only nation that has used them in war, making it seem more probable the US would use them in another war than a different country.

We aren't the only nation to use a force of arms Sonaj. We also weren't the only nation to use WMD either. Britain comes to mind as to force recorded use of Biological warfare. Don't forget World War I either.

Do we have the right to move into countries and destroy all they have built.. or in some cases further destroy what they already have, because we do not agree with them? Iraq, Afghanastan and others.

Who is to say what we do is right anyway? America is not perfect does it give them the right to invade other nations? Or any country for that matter. What ever happened to live and let live?

And sanctions what the hell. So we are going to throw a fit because someone did something, that a single group does not agree with? If that is how they live then who are we to judge. This is why we have so many problems people dont butt the hell out of each others business.
You're what ... about ten? :rolleyes:

You're what ... about ten? :rolleyes:

Good argument. Nice to see you're still in prime debating form.

I am 22 actually. And I have seen the US military in action since I was in it. And that is why I have such a loathing for it.

I am 22 actually. And I have seen the US military in action since I was in it. And that is why I have such a loathing for it.

I'm 22 with relatives in the service. Why do you loath it?

I have seen their bigotry and hypocracy in action. My commanders had a problem with me because I was not Christian. In boot there was a service for alternate religions, when 2 others and myself approached one of the TIs and asked if we could get infront of his squad so we could make the service. Then he went into a triade about how we where not warriors because we wanted to attend the service on Saturday. But that same TI allowed his squad without compliant to go to the normal Sunday services.

Another fact is that the comments made when the nationals of the host nation are working on base. Those comments I found insulting since I was stationed in Kadena, and I am Japanese.

And the things the squadron would do to cover up something their service men did off base. I have seen this "justice" system in action and I am apalled by the UCMJ.

And the government is not much better with assinine policies. Why I want to leave this god forsaken country. But Im not sure what country shares my views.

*snip*

Did you file a complaint with the JAG office?

As for the military problems, I haven't seen it where I have been stationed at or visited. I have been around military bases my whole life and you are the first person to complain about such things that I am aware of.

As for leaving the country, I can't help ya there.

Do we have the right to move into countries and destroy all they have built.. or in some cases further destroy what they already have, because we do not agree with them? Iraq, Afghanastan and others.

....

So we are going to throw a fit because someone did something, that a single group does not agree with?
Did Saddam Hussein have the right to kill 580,000 of his own people just because he was doing it within his own borders? Are you really that much of a relativist?

This is all the justification we need.
*burning tower*
Well, it doesn't give a right to do absolutely anything... but I agree it has warranted the regime change in Afghanistan.

International Law? And what if a nation does not want to get involved with NATO, the UN or any other US backed puppet system of control? What if they want to be left alone, and when they do something a nation or two does not like.
Iraq was a member of the UN. I disagree with the idea that a nation's government may do anything within its own borders. We're all humans and we're all in this planet together. There must be limits on sovereignty. Genocide, for example, can not be allowed.

If there where no borders, no divisions, no concept of class or race then we would not see the crimes of the past.
If only the Saddam Husseins and the Mullah Omars of the world saw it like this.

there are times when we have not just the right but the DUTY to go to war with another country.

true, this does not reflect the reality of many of the wars the united states has been involved in but im sure if you think about it you can come up with a couple that you might agree was justified on defense or humanitarian grounds.

I am 22 actually. And I have seen the US military in action since I was in it. And that is why I have such a loathing for it.
Well, I'm 62 actually. And I have seen the US military in action since I was in it, in one form or another, from 1966 to 2000. And that is why I have such a love for it. :D

there are times when we have not just the right but the DUTY to go to war with another country.

true, this does not reflect the reality of many of the wars the united states has been involved in but im sure if you think about it you can come up with a couple that you might agree was justified on defense or humanitarian grounds.
Yes, I wonder if Arahat thinks that the Allies had "no right" to destroy all that the Nazis had built in Germany.

However since he didn't follow through on past UN Resolutions, him saying he believes there are no WMD is a moot point.

Which you still havn't proven, or really even show, so its a moot point.

Which you still havn't proven, or really even show, so its a moot point.

It is a known fact that he violated the UN Cease-fire. Since he violated a cease-fire, under International Law as well as the rules of war, war picks up where it left off.

Because of this, we didn't need a UN Resolution to go back in since him violating a cease-fire that he himself signed gave us that authority.

Is there something about this that isn't sinking in or are you one of those that no matter what the facts are, if it contradicts your way of thinking its wrong?

Violence will only spawn more violence. If a nation attacks you then you have every right to defend yourself. Using enough force to only get rid of the threat, that does not mean full scale bombing since that is excess force.

We are humans and it is our duty to protect one another. In WW2 the Nazi's needed to be stopped because they killed 7 million innocent lives who where non-combatant, who where killed because of religion.

What I do not agree with is using the "War on Terror" to invade a country when it was already proven they had no hand in any terrorist attack. Yes he killed 50,000 of his own people in genocide which is one of the most evil acts. But we justified our attack as a War on Terror when that is not the case.

Violence will only spawn more violence. If a nation attacks you then you have every right to defend yourself. Using enough force to only get rid of the threat, that does not mean full scale bombing since that is excess force.

We are humans and it is our duty to protect one another. In WW2 the Nazi's needed to be stopped because they killed 7 million innocent lives who where non-combatant, who where killed because of religion.

What I do not agree with is using the "War on Terror" to invade a country when it was already proven they had no hand in any terrorist attack. Yes he killed 50,000 of his own people in genocide which is one of the most evil acts. But we justified our attack as a War on Terror when that is not the case.
thats a whole nother issue isnt it?

Violence will only spawn more violence. If a nation attacks you then you have every right to defend yourself. Using enough force to only get rid of the threat, that does not mean full scale bombing since that is excess force.

So what happened in World War II was excessive?

We are humans and it is our duty to protect one another. In WW2 the Nazi's needed to be stopped because they killed 7 million innocent lives who where non-combatant, who where killed because of religion.

What about the mass killing of kurds and Shi'ites by Saddam Hussein? Didn't that have to be stopped?

What I do not agree with is using the "War on Terror" to invade a country when it was already proven they had no hand in any terrorist attack.

I say harboring terrorists that did launch an attack is reason enough hence why I supported the Afghan operation.

Yes he killed 50,000 of his own people in genocide which is one of the most evil acts. But we justified our attack as a War on Terror when that is not the case.

Read the Congressional War Resolution and get informed.

Justification is besides the point - it is about the cusp of power alone that the world revolves.

And the government is not much better with assinine policies. Why I want to leave this god forsaken country. But Im not sure what country shares my views.


Do you really think that it's better in ANY country? I'm sorry to say this, but if you're expecting that you'll ever find a country with a government that isn't assinine at times, or a populace that isn't bigoted at times, you're dreaming.

Heck, I am a government administrator. I make decisions every day that piss off people. I'm sure that half of them think that I am out to make their lives miserable and make myself more comfortable. It ain't true though. I do the best job I can given the information at my disposal. I have to believe that the majority of government workers in the USA (including the President) are much the same. Notice I said "majority", not "ALL".

Quit talking about leaving the USA...stick around and fight to make this country better. Running solves nothing.

What about the mass killing of kurds and Shi'ites by Saddam Hussein? Didn't that have to be stopped?
Yeah, I bet that is the reason why the US went to war. The mass killing had been going on for years - if you were watching the news 14 years ago or so, you know what I'm talking about. There was a mass exodus of Kurds, and nobody did anything so as not to bother Turkey, good old ally of Americans.
In fact, Saddam managed to kill this much with the use of American weapons. I'm tired of stating this: the US encouraged large-scale destruction of Iranian targets, and gave weapons to Hussein - he used them both on Iran and the Kurds.
It's easy for the US to get all "humanitarian" after 9-11, but keep in mind that Bush had a platform of non-intervention all the way up to that. The Republicans criticized Clinton for "military adventures" and putting American lives at risk. Please, no more of the hubris.

Violence will only spawn more violence. If a nation attacks you then you have every right to defend yourself. Using enough force to only get rid of the threat, that does not mean full scale bombing since that is excess force.

That is what was done in WW2. Not merely self-defense; there was a total counter-invasion and elimination of Nazi society.

That did not spawn more violence. On the contrary, it spawned peace and prosperity for Europe.

We are humans and it is our duty to protect one another. In WW2 the Nazi's needed to be stopped because they killed 7 million innocent lives who where non-combatant, who where killed because of religion.
Hussein had to be stopped because he was genocidal. We humans must protect each other from people like him. Many of his victims were also killed for religion and ethnicity.

What I do not agree with is using the "War on Terror" to invade a country when it was already proven they had no hand in any terrorist attack. Yes he killed 50,000 of his own people in genocide which is one of the most evil acts. But we justified our attack as a War on Terror when that is not the case.
So a false justification, which is ultimately just a few words, is a more evil act than genocide?

Saving the Jews was not given as a reason at the time for fighting WW2. Yet you are using it to justify that war.

Yeah, I bet that is the reason why the US went to war. The mass killing had been going on for years - if you were watching the news 14 years ago or so, you know what I'm talking about. There was a mass exodus of Kurds, and nobody did anything so as not to bother Turkey, good old ally of Americans.

Fourteen years ago, I was EIGHT!!!!! My father just left to head off to fight in the first Gulf War and ever since then, he and the majority of the military wanted to go after him then but were stopped.

In fact, Saddam managed to kill this much with the use of American weapons. I'm tired of stating this: the US encouraged large-scale destruction of Iranian targets, and gave weapons to Hussein - he used them both on Iran and the Kurds.

Someone posted numbers that most of the weapons came from USSR, France and China! Not the United States.

It's easy for the US to get all "humanitarian" after 9-11, but keep in mind that Bush had a platform of non-intervention all the way up to that. The Republicans criticized Clinton for "military adventures" and putting American lives at risk. Please, no more of the hubris.

And now the Democrats are criticizing them. Guess what? This is nothing new. It has been going on for quite sometime, predating most administrations.

Violence will only spawn more violence. If a nation attacks you then you have every right to defend yourself. Using enough force to only get rid of the threat, that does not mean full scale bombing since that is excess force.

We are humans and it is our duty to protect one another. In WW2 the Nazi's needed to be stopped because they killed 7 million innocent lives who where non-combatant, who where killed because of religion.

What I do not agree with is using the "War on Terror" to invade a country when it was already proven they had no hand in any terrorist attack. Yes he killed 50,000 of his own people in genocide which is one of the most evil acts. But we justified our attack as a War on Terror when that is not the case.Well, its hard to figure out where to begin here. Lets start with this.

1)Full scale bombing = excessive force. OK, your right there. Just one problem. When did we use the strategy of full scale bombing? I for one remember watching the shock and awe strategy, scratching my head, and saying "where the hell was the awe?"

2)It's ok to stop Hitler for genocide, but not Hussein? Wheres the reasoning in that? Only arabs can commit genocide legally? And BTW, I believe it was 500k, not 50k killled.

3)So by your logic, I can stockpile massive amounts of explosives in my house, and it's ok as long as I don't shoot at my neighbors? And if I do shoot at them, all they can do is run me off their land?

4)Terrorism = more than 9/11. Just because they didn't fly the planes, didn't mean they wouldn't be next. Did you ever see the news footage from Iran, or Saudi Arabia, where they chant "Death to America"? How about Hussein offering Bin Laden assylum after he was kicked out of Sudan? Everyone seems to forget that shit.

If you hate this country so bad, just leave. The only advice I can give you is to stay out of the middle east, because it's gonna be hectic until people can behave themselves.

Fourteen years ago, I was EIGHT!!!!! My father just left to head off to fight in the first Gulf War and ever since then, he and the majority of the military wanted to go after him then but were stopped.
I was nine, but I remember it.
It's not the "going after him" that matters. The point is that that war was fought for Kuweit (an oil-producing ally of the US - sure it was a UN resolution, but there had been many others that have gone unnoticed by the US, just because the US does not have a "special interest" everywhere), and not the Kurds.
Someone posted numbers that most of the weapons came from USSR, France and China! Not the United States.
"Most". Fine. What about the "some"? (The "numbers" are most likely false - France was a supporter of Iran during the war it had with Iraq, and for a long while prior to that.)
And now the Democrats are criticizing them. Guess what? This is nothing new. It has been going on for quite sometime, predating most administrations.
The Democrats have been consistent. Campaigns in Kosovo where determined just by UN stances (and not a love interest on the side) - they have always advocated cooperation as opposed to hegemony (whatever their "mistakes", they stem from that). The "wars" they fought were remarkably prudent (how many dead in Bosnia or Kosovo or the bombing of Iraq?) and still were opposed by the now bellicose Republicans.

The Democrats have been consistent. Campaigns in Kosovo where determined just by UN stances (and not a love interest on the side) - they have always advocated cooperation as opposed to hegemony (whatever their "mistakes", they stem from that). The "wars" they fought were remarkably prudent (how many dead in Bosnia or Kosovo or the bombing of Iraq?) and still were opposed by the now bellicose Republicans.

You forgot one thing! The Kosovo action didn't have approval by the United Nations Security Council. I still agree with the bombings though. I also agreed with the Iraqi Bombing of his *ahem* WMD storage facilities. However, I didn't agree with the reasons for the bombing and that was to distract the country from the Lewinski testimony. Notice that it ended when she was done testifying?

Also, the Democrats haven't been consistent. Take alook at the 1st Gulf War. Democrats opposed it even with the UN Resolution. Then some of those same democrats in 2003 stated that they wouldn't support it unless they had a un resolution. I see a contradictory here. Do you?

Well, its hard to figure out where to begin here. Lets start with this.

1)Full scale bombing = excessive force. OK, your right there. Just one problem. When did we use the strategy of full scale bombing? I for one remember watching the shock and awe strategy, scratching my head, and saying "where the hell was the awe?"

2)It's ok to stop Hitler for genocide, but not Hussein? Wheres the reasoning in that? Only arabs can commit genocide legally? And BTW, I believe it was 500k, not 50k killled.

3)So by your logic, I can stockpile massive amounts of explosives in my house, and it's ok as long as I don't shoot at my neighbors? And if I do shoot at them, all they can do is run me off their land?

4)Terrorism = more than 9/11. Just because they didn't fly the planes, didn't mean they wouldn't be next. Did you ever see the news footage from Iran, or Saudi Arabia, where they chant "Death to America"? How about Hussein offering Bin Laden assylum after he was kicked out of Sudan? Everyone seems to forget that shit.

If you hate this country so bad, just leave. The only advice I can give you is to stay out of the middle east, because it's gonna be hectic until people can behave themselves.

After all America as done in the region is it any wonder we are hated? We trained Bin Laden, we trained Hussein, and Castro. We continue to do so because we want something out of the area so we train terrorists and rogues to change the established system for the benefit of the US.

I was young the during the first Gulf War, but I remember it. Watching the Iraqi ground war in school. Even though we did not completely understand what was happening. Same with the posts above. First time was for an ally, Kuwait no other reason. So we can brush his war crimes under the carpet until they become a neccessary tool to bring him down and change it? Something is father wanted to do the first time but stopped.

After all America as done in the region is it any wonder we are hated? We trained Bin Laden, we trained Hussein, and Castro. We continue to do so because we want something out of the area so we train terrorists and rogues to change the established system for the benefit of the US.

Where to start where to start. Do you know the real reasons why the Western World is hated in the Middle East?

I was young the during the first Gulf War, but I remember it.

Makes 2 of us.

Watching the Iraqi ground war in school. Even though we did not completely understand what was happening. Same with the posts above. First time was for an ally, Kuwait no other reason. So we can brush his war crimes under the carpet until they become a neccessary tool to bring him down and change it? Something is father wanted to do the first time but stopped.

Go back to studying the 1st Gulf War. See the real reasons why we didnt go into Baghdad and kick him out of power then. Go back to studying military history why your at it.

Go back to studying the 1st Gulf War. See the real reasons why we didnt go into Baghdad and kick him out of power then. Go back to studying military history why your at it.
Bush Sr. didn't want to get involved in a quagmire.

Outside of that, his violations of a cease-fire is all I care about.

If I were being cynical, I'd say that you only care about a 'cease-fire' because you desperately want SOME reason to support the insupportable, and that's the best straw you can find to clutch at.

I thought you said, in another thread, that it was Saddam's abuse of the Kurds that was the only thing you cared about?

You might as well face it, the US invasion of another sovereign nation was unjust. Being a patriot doesn't HAVE TO equate to being a lapdog.

Hussein had to be stopped because he was genocidal. We humans must protect each other from people like him.

It could be argued that Saddam's abuse of the Kurds was no more genocidal than Bush's current war in the Middle East, and posturing for another.

Are you, then, advocating removing Bush from office... by violent means if necessary?

Are you advocating it as 'okay' for another FOREIGN power to invade, to remove Bush from power?

If I were being cynical, I'd say that you only care about a 'cease-fire' because you desperately want SOME reason to support the insupportable, and that's the best straw you can find to clutch at.

Nope! I prefer to follow International Law and the Rules of War. Under International Law and Rules of War, a violation of a cease-fire is responded with war picking up where it left off.

I thought you said, in another thread, that it was Saddam's abuse of the Kurds that was the only thing you cared about?

There are many things I care about. Humanitarian reasons is one of them.

You might as well face it, the US invasion of another sovereign nation was unjust. Being a patriot doesn't HAVE TO equate to being a lapdog.

HAHAHA!! You really do need to get out more. The invasion of Iraq was just and 100% completely legal.

Are you advocating it as 'okay' for another FOREIGN power to invade, to remove Bush from power?

I would love to see this tried. Stay out of the south. Those guys are deadly with their guns.

I would love to see this tried. Stay out of the south. Those guys are deadly with their guns.

Funny, I live in the South, and most of them are all talk, and no action... and puppets to the government they pretend to despise.

Maybe you mean a different South?

Funny, I live in the South, and most of them are all talk, and no action... and puppets to the government they pretend to despise.

Maybe you mean a different South?

Nope!

Nope! I prefer to follow International Law and the Rules of War. Under International Law and Rules of War, a violation of a cease-fire is responded with war picking up where it left off.


Nice pretext. Shame it wasnt the basis claimed for a war, no?


There are many things I care about. Humanitarian reasons is one of them.


That isn't what you said... and it wouldn't be supported by the evidence of your own posts, anyway. You have nothing to trump the fact that the US actively aided Saddam's genocide on the Kurds for decades, until it became politically inconvenient.


HAHAHA!! You really do need to get out more. The invasion of Iraq was just and 100% completely legal.

Perhaps you can wrangle a loophole whereby it wouldn't be 'illegal' (which is STILL a long way from actively being 'legal')... but I have yet to see anything presented that even STARTS to argue it was 'just'.

Perhaps, it is not I that needs to get out more?

Nope!

That's your whole answer?

So... by that I can assume you concur?

Nice pretext. Shame it wasnt the basis claimed for a war, no?[/quote

Read the Congressional Resolution on the Use of Force in Iraq.

[quote]Perhaps you can wrangle a loophole whereby it wouldn't be 'illegal' (which is STILL a long way from actively being 'legal')... but I have yet to see anything presented that even STARTS to argue it was 'just'.

Believe what you want. It has become apparent that no matter the evidence, you won't admit when you are wrong. You are wrong. The war in Iraq is 100% legal in the eyes of International Law. Under International Law, once a nation violates a Cease-Fire, war picks up where it left off.

Perhaps, it is not I that needs to get out more?

Actually it is.

Read the Congressional Resolution on the Use of Force in Iraq.


Why?


Believe what you want. It has become apparent that no matter the evidence, you won't admit when you are wrong. You are wrong. The war in Iraq is 100% legal in the eyes of International Law. Under International Law, once a nation violates a Cease-Fire, war picks up where it left off.


This isn't true. You can, if you wish, cycle back through my posts, and, when I AM wrong, I'll admit it. It's just pretty rare.


But, just keep hanging your hopes on that 'cease-fire' pretext... it really is the best bet. Like I said though... it's a shame THAT wasn't the story that the Bush regime chose to use.


Actually it is.

I can't argue with a witty response like that...

Why?

Because it is stated in there that Saddam violated the Cease-Fire.

This isn't true. You can, if you wish, cycle back through my posts, and, when I AM wrong, I'll admit it. It's just pretty rare.

Well you are wrong here and you have yet to admit it.

But, just keep hanging your hopes on that 'cease-fire' pretext... it really is the best bet. Like I said though... it's a shame THAT wasn't the story that the Bush regime chose to use.

Read the Congressional Resolution on the Authorization to use force against Iraq.

I can't argue with a witty response like that...

Likewise :D

Because it is stated in there that Saddam violated the Cease-Fire.


And....


Well you are wrong here and you have yet to admit it.


How is it you have that figured exactly? You have yet to make any kind of assertion of the 'just' nature of the war...


Read the Congressional Resolution on the Authorization to use force against Iraq.


Again, with the relevence...


Likewise :D

Like I said... can't fight wit like that...

*Snip*

Its relevence is that everything is spelled out there INCLUDING Hussein violating the cease-fire.

Its relevence is that everything is spelled out there INCLUDING Hussein violating the cease-fire.

So - what you are saying is.... if someone offers a thousands lies, and (perhaps, accidentally) includes one thing that might be vaguely true... the more vocal deception is forgiven and the carpet of lies obviated, by one mumbled gem of honesty?

So - what you are saying is.... if someone offers a thousands lies, and (perhaps, accidentally) includes one thing that might be vaguely true... the more vocal deception is forgiven and the carpet of lies obviated, by one mumbled gem of honesty?

You have to prove that it was a lie.

The intelligence was bad. I blame the CIA for that. Makes me wonder if the intel was bad during Operation Desert Fox even though I agreed with that bombing too.

You have to prove that it was a lie.

The intelligence was bad. I blame the CIA for that. Makes me wonder if the intel was bad during Operation Desert Fox even though I agreed with that bombing too.

If it wasn't true.... now, bear with me... it was 'a lie'.

Blame 'intelligence' if you wish, it doesn't alter the fact that the truth was not told, and thus the American people were mislead.

We placed troops, on the ground, in a sovereign nation... because the President gave us reasons to get involved, that later proved to be untrue.

You talked earlier about the South... it seems odd that someone should endorse the South, and not see some irresolvable dichotomy in ALSO supporting the unjust occupation of sovereign territories by external aggressors, and the conflict that stems from it.... especially as that relates to false information and double-standards.

If it wasn't true.... now, bear with me... it was 'a lie'.

Blame 'intelligence' if you wish, it doesn't alter the fact that the truth was not told, and thus the American people were mislead.

We placed troops, on the ground, in a sovereign nation... because the President gave us reasons to get involved, that later proved to be untrue.

You talked earlier about the South... it seems odd that someone should endorse the South, and not see some irresolvable dichotomy in ALSO supporting the unjust occupation of sovereign territories by external aggressors, and the conflict that stems from it.... especially as that relates to false information and double-standards.

No one likes a war based on bad intelligence. However, no intel agency is perfect.

In regards to Iraq, he didn't live up to his end of the agreed upon cease-fire. That is a material breach (and it was called that many times) and thus, in accordence with the Rules of War as well as International Law, we were legally entitled to go back into Iraq.

Yes it was on bad intel, that is something that I have never denied, however, I do support the war effort because we are upholding international law.

No one likes a war based on bad intelligence. However, no intel agency is perfect.

In regards to Iraq, he didn't live up to his end of the agreed upon cease-fire. That is a material breach (and it was called that many times) and thus, in accordence with the Rules of War as well as International Law, we were legally entitled to go back into Iraq.

Yes it was on bad intel, that is something that I have never denied, however, I do support the war effort because we are upholding international law.

So - you think it is okay to 'excuse' thousands of deaths, because our intelligence was bad?

I'd say, when you are talking about the military invasion of a sovereign territory, you want to be working on something a LITTLE more substantial than maybe.

And... yes, perhaps there was sufficient means JUST on the cease-fire issue... (let's not even think about how the conflict ACTUALLY extends BEYOND just the US and Iraq), but that wasn't the excuse given... and... to be honest, we were overlooking STRONGER cause than that, were we not?

You've seem to have decided you support the forceful removal of governments, so long as they are foreigners, basically... and you are looking for the LEAST flimsy reason, among a slew of pretty flimsy reasons, to try to somehow make that 'just' or acceptable.

I also supported the US invasion of Iraq, by the way. But, I don't hide behind any excuses. We SHOULD have intervened in Saddam's war on the Kurds, and we SHOULD have done it decades earlier. I'm willing to admit that we allowed Saddam to butcher Kurds, because it was far away, and it was politically advantageous for a while... that doesn't make our EVENTUAL invasion, on that pretext (and the famous Weapons of Mass Distraction palaver), in any way 'just'.

So - you think it is okay to 'excuse' thousands of deaths, because our intelligence was bad?

so you think it is ok to 'excuse' a ruler who has violated international law and has committed mass murder?

I'd say, when you are talking about the military invasion of a sovereign territory, you want to be working on something a LITTLE more substantial than maybe.

What's more substantial than International Law?

And... yes, perhaps there was sufficient means JUST on the cease-fire issue... (let's not even think about how the conflict ACTUALLY extends BEYOND just the US and Iraq), but that wasn't the excuse given... and... to be honest, we were overlooking STRONGER cause than that, were we not?

The Cease-Fire reason was stated in the Congressional Resolution as well as the humanitarian reasons for the war. It just wasn't all about WMD. Something that liberals can't seem to get through their heads.

You've seem to have decided you support the forceful removal of governments, so long as they are foreigners, basically... and you are looking for the LEAST flimsy reason, among a slew of pretty flimsy reasons, to try to somehow make that 'just' or acceptable.

ACtually no. I don't like war however when a leader has violated International Law and the Organization that is supposed to do something about it doesn't, then yes I support the use of force. Provided of course, the nation we're going after has violated International Law.

I also supported the US invasion of Iraq, by the way. But, I don't hide behind any excuses. We SHOULD have intervened in Saddam's war on the Kurds, and we SHOULD have done it decades earlier.

No Arguement out of me here.

I'm willing to admit that we allowed Saddam to butcher Kurds, because it was far away, and it was politically advantageous for a while... that doesn't make our EVENTUAL invasion, on that pretext (and the famous Weapons of Mass Distraction palaver), in any way 'just'.

And if you bothered to read the Authorization to use force on Iraq, you can see clearly that it just wasn't about WMD.

Of course we have the right. We have the means to invade another country, so we have the right to. :rolleyes: Don't bother attacking me for saying that, I have no intention of responding to any of you.

Of course we have the right. We have the means to invade another country, so we have the right to. :rolleyes: Don't bother attacking me for saying that, I have no intention of responding to any of you.

And, with as well-reasoned an opinion... I'm not too surprised....

so you think it is ok to 'excuse' a ruler who has violated international law and has committed mass murder?


I don't recall saying that.... I believe my comment was about attacking on poor intelligence.


What's more substantial than International Law?


To the US? Apparently, US law supercedes International.


The Cease-Fire reason was stated in the Congressional Resolution as well as the humanitarian reasons for the war. It just wasn't all about WMD. Something that liberals can't seem to get through their heads.


And, the relevence of the 'liberal' comment?

The simple fact is, this 'war' was sold to the American punter, as a response to the threat of terrorism (which was an irrelevence), and necessity to remove WMD's from a dangerous nation (which was untrue).

Saving the embattled Kurds was way down the propoganda list, and, considering our PREVIOUS ignorance of that situation, not TOO believable a rationale.


ACtually no. I don't like war however when a leader has violated International Law and the Organization that is supposed to do something about it doesn't, then yes I support the use of force. Provided of course, the nation we're going after has violated International Law.


And, which 'organisation' do you mean? The same organisation that opposed unilateral war-mongering by the US?


No Arguement out of me here.


And yet, you hide behind the 'cease-fire' excuse, and ignore the implicit GUILT of the US in the suffering of the Kurds.


And if you bothered to read the Authorization to use force on Iraq, you can see clearly that it just wasn't about WMD.

I'm not the one claiming that there IS 'one reason'. And, I'm not so stuck on a party-line that I'll absolve a goverment of deception to salve my conscience.

I don't recall saying that.... I believe my comment was about attacking on poor intelligence.

Happens alot unfortunately :(

To the US? Apparently, US law supercedes International.

And when this action is actually legal under international law.....

And, the relevence of the 'liberal' comment?

Just a comment.

The simple fact is, this 'war' was sold to the American punter, as a response to the threat of terrorism (which was an irrelevence), and necessity to remove WMD's from a dangerous nation (which was untrue).

And yet there is a whole slew of reasons in the Congressional Authorization. Are you going to deny that there was?

And, which 'organisation' do you mean? The same organisation that opposed unilateral war-mongering by the US?

The UN who for some reason can't even grasp the concept of International Law. I haven't yet heard of them condemning France's unilateral actions in the Ivory Coast. What about Kenya's unilateral action against Amin of Uganda? What about Argentina's excursion into the Falkland Islands? Britain took care of that one. Shall I go on with full scale unilateral action that the UN didnt condemn?

And yet, you hide behind the 'cease-fire' excuse, and ignore the implicit GUILT of the US in the suffering of the Kurds.

All I said was that it should've been done in 1991.

I'm not the one claiming that there IS 'one reason'. And, I'm not so stuck on a party-line that I'll absolve a goverment of deception to salve my conscience.

I'm not stuck on a party line either. I am using International Law in my arguements.

It could be argued that Saddam's abuse of the Kurds was no more genocidal than Bush's current war in the Middle East, and posturing for another.
No, that could not be argued, because it is far from reality.

Are you, then, advocating removing Bush from office... by violent means if necessary?

Are you advocating it as 'okay' for another FOREIGN power to invade, to remove Bush from power?
If Bush was a murderous tyrant I would have no problem with an international coalition led by France attacking his regime with devastating force.

You might as well face it, the US invasion of another sovereign nation was unjust. Being a patriot doesn't HAVE TO equate to being a lapdog.
There are limits to sovereignty. World War Two taught us that if nothing else.

I would love to see this tried. Stay out of the south. Those guys are deadly with their guns.
Let's be realistic. A bunch of guys with shotguns would be no match for a modern military machine.

But, just keep hanging your hopes on that 'cease-fire' pretext... it really is the best bet. Like I said though... it's a shame THAT wasn't the story that the Bush regime chose to use.

It doesn't particularly matter that the legality of the war was not part of Bush's marketing plan for the war. You are ignoring the fact that the war was legal, whether Bush talked about it or not.

I also supported the US invasion of Iraq, by the way.
What?
You might as well face it, the US invasion of another sovereign nation was unjust.

So - what you are saying is.... if someone offers a thousands lies, and (perhaps, accidentally) includes one thing that might be vaguely true... the more vocal deception is forgiven and the carpet of lies obviated, by one mumbled gem of honesty?
Why not? The rest of us here in the US have to do this with virtually every liberal program to come down the pike! :p

Why not? The rest of us here in the US have to do this with virtually every liberal program to come down the pike! :p
Examples?

Only when human rights are being abused. And contary to some thoughts, human rights do not equate with cultural imperialism, seing as how democracy is not a human right

The the United Nations had a force to back uo what they say, the US never would have invaded Iraq.

The real problem isn't the United States, it's the UN. The UN is supposed to help the world out, and take care of problems. But unless the US does something, the United Nations seem content to do nothing.

Remember Somalia? The UN was only able to do what it had to thanks to US marines. But when the US pulls out, the UN abandons the country.

The UN was doing little to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The UN wasn't putting enough pressure on Saddam Hussein.

Look, the United States isn't perfect. Someone would be crazy to think that. But the US is also one of the only nations that tries(if annoyingly sometimes) to make a difference in the world.
The United States almost singlehandedly wiped out the Nazis, beat Imperial Japan to death, and then fed the world for the next 15 years.

Europe needs to think about this: if they had been better at watching their own affairs, they could have avoided WWII and the USA becoming a superpower.
But Europe screwed the pooch on that one, and now they have accept that the US will act just like they did when they were superpowers: arrogant and tough.

Class dismissed. There are crackers and milk in the lobby.:p

Only when human rights are being abused. And contary to some thoughts, human rights do not equate with cultural imperialism, seing as how democracy is not a human right

But yet, according to the UN, they want to spread democracy over the planet.

And that is coming from Koffi Anan.

The the United Nations had a force to back uo what they say, the US never would have invaded Iraq.

The real problem isn't the United States, it's the UN. The UN is supposed to help the world out, and take care of problems. But unless the US does something, the United Nations seem content to do nothing.

Remember Somalia? The UN was only able to do what it had to thanks to US marines. But when the US pulls out, the UN abandons the country.

The UN was doing little to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The UN wasn't putting enough pressure on Saddam Hussein.

Look, the United States isn't perfect. Someone would be crazy to think that. But the US is also one of the only nations that tries(if annoyingly sometimes) to make a difference in the world.
The United States almost singlehandedly wiped out the Nazis, beat Imperial Japan to death, and then fed the world for the next 15 years.

Europe needs to think about this: if they had been better at watching their own affairs, they could have avoided WWII and the USA becoming a superpower.
But Europe screwed the pooch on that one, and now they have accept that the US will act just like they did when they were superpowers: arrogant and tough.

Class dismissed. There are crackers and milk in the lobby.:p

As much as I dont want that to be true. It is. British supressed America in the 1700's tried to force us to co-operate. The US beat their ass twice. There was also the French-Indian war as well. And all the other battles the US as fought. The British allying with the south in the Civil War, but yet the Union still won.

America as made its grab of power through force like every other nation that had an empire. Now suddenly this power is in the hands of a nation of the New World, and not the inbreed nobility of Europe. Bah this world is all screwed up.

As much as I dont want that to be true. It is. British supressed America in the 1700's tried to force us to co-operate. The US beat their ass twice. There was also the French-Indian war as well. And all the other battles the US as fought. The British allying with the south in the Civil War, but yet the Union still won.

Couple of Historical accuracies!

1) We didn't beat their ass twice. We only defeated them once. The War of 1812 was draw. No side one that war.

2) The Brits didn't really ally themselves with the Confederate States of America. After a couple of key Union victories, the British decided against it.

America as made its grab of power through force like every other nation that had an empire. Now suddenly this power is in the hands of a nation of the New World, and not the inbreed nobility of Europe. Bah this world is all screwed up.

Are you saying that only Europe is capable of running the world?

Europe had their chance and it was called the Dark Ages, ah wait that was the church. But the point is times are changing. In the future which nation will be the Super power? Will the US exist then, will any of the nations exist as we know them? Probably not, but reguardless we all are human. War is one of the greatest evils mankind can unleash upon itself.

One day when male horomones can be brought under control and all the penis envy goes away we will have peace. I cannot put into words how I want to say it. Since words cannot accurately describe how I want them to go without sounding like a hypocrit.

But yet, according to the UN, they want to spread democracy over the planet.

And that is coming from Koffi Anan.

It is the best form of government, and spreading it all over the planet is a desirable aim but it is not a human right, seing as unto itself it cannot be given to individual humans, but only to nations.

It is the best form of government, and spreading it all over the planet is a desirable aim but it is not a human right, seing as unto itself it cannot be given to individual humans, but only to nations.

Why isn't it a human right? Seems like whereever the US Forces go (I'm talking about an actual attack by us) democracy follows. I could site examples of this.

Why isn't it a human right? Seems like whereever the US Forces go (I'm talking about an actual attack by us) democracy follows. I could site examples of this.

But by that token could it not be concluded that we are insurgents and practically terrorists to what ever nation we "lend" our aid to. We spread our views just as fanatically as the Europeans did during the Crusades trying to get others to convert.

The US as its modern crusade getting others to "Convert" to a democracy and a puppet state of the US?

Do we have the right to move into countries and destroy all they have built.. or in some cases further destroy what they already have, because we do not agree with them? Iraq, Afghanastan and others.

Who is to say what we do is right anyway? America is not perfect does it give them the right to invade other nations? Or any country for that matter. What ever happened to live and let live?

And sanctions what the hell. So we are going to throw a fit because someone did something, that a single group does not agree with? If that is how they live then who are we to judge. This is why we have so many problems people dont butt the hell out of each others business.
I think "we" (meaning my home country of America) should deal with our own shit before we try to fix other people's countries. We're currently doing a better job of funding Iraqi rebuilding than we are of funding the rebuilding of New Orleans, and I think that's crap.

Sanctions are a good idea, though, because it's simply a way of saying that we will not do business with jackarses. We don't need to go around invading countries we disagree with, but we also don't need to help support the economies of countries committing (for example) serious human rights violations. Of course, our current criterion for enforcement of sanctions is shitty, but in theory the practice is fine.

But by that token could it not be concluded that we are insurgents and practically terrorists to what ever nation we "lend" our aid to. We spread our views just as fanatically as the Europeans did during the Crusades trying to get others to convert.

Nope, we are not insurgents. We are not going around, blowing up civilians on purpose. We are not using guerilla tactics either.

The US as its modern crusade getting others to "Convert" to a democracy and a puppet state of the US?

Someone has been listening to President Bush for far to long! :D

I think "we" (meaning my home country of America) should deal with our own shit before we try to fix other people's countries. We're currently doing a better job of funding Iraqi rebuilding than we are of funding the rebuilding of New Orleans, and I think that's crap.

I think that was Jefferson's philosphy however we found out that we couldn't ignore anything that was going on in the world.

Sanctions are a good idea, though, because it's simply a way of saying that we will not do business with jackarses. We don't need to go around invading countries we disagree with, but we also don't need to help support the economies of countries committing (for example) serious human rights violations. Of course, our current criterion for enforcement of sanctions is shitty, but in theory the practice is fine.

Sanctions only hurt the innocent but never the government.

I think that was Jefferson's philosphy however we found out that we couldn't ignore anything that was going on in the world.

Not exactly. We found out that it's possible to get fucking rich off of shit going on in other countries, and that we can make out like bandits if we wage the right kind of war. I don't think that means "we can't afford to ignore anything going on in the world," since many of the nations with the highest standard of living do precisely that.


Sanctions only hurt the innocent but never the government.
Actually, the sanctions kind of hurt the governments more. See, the innocent are fucked no matter what. They can either be fucked because we aren't pouring money into their country (and therefore the Powers That Be cut their wages and starve them) or they can be fucked because we pour money into their governments and the corrupt leaders take all those profits while cutting worker wages and starving the people. The government is not going to be hurt much in either situation, but at least in the first situation we aren't giving OUR money directly to utterly rotten rulers.

No, that could not be argued, because it is far from reality.


Not that far from reality, actually. I seem to recall the pax american agenda calles for invasion of Iran next, and the forceful re-politicisation of several other powers, including China, in the next few years.

Perhaps Bush isn't killing STRICTLY on the basis of basis of gene-pools, but I would argue that killing in the name of one political or religious model is not THAT far removed from genocide.


If Bush was a murderous tyrant I would have no problem with an international coalition led by France attacking his regime with devastating force.


And, if they decided your own government was the problem, you'd have no concerns about massed troops driving tanks through your streets?


There are limits to sovereignty. World War Two taught us that if nothing else.


How would THAT be exactly? Surely, the aggressor in WW2 was (mainly) the Nazi war machine, and they were the ones who violated sovereignty... and were punished for it?

What was the parallel you were looking for?


Let's be realistic. A bunch of guys with shotguns would be no match for a modern military machine.


I've been there. It's mostly talk. There would be practically NO resistance to a modern military invasion.


It doesn't particularly matter that the legality of the war was not part of Bush's marketing plan for the war. You are ignoring the fact that the war was legal, whether Bush talked about it or not.


I've mentioned the 'legality' of war a few times, but, what I've mostly been saying is whether the war was 'just'. Legality is a hazy area... and bigger problems have been ignored, than are being claimed for the 'legality' basis... it's pure politics.


What?

How does dichotomy confuse you so? Is it hypocritical? No - because I have said that I think we SHOULD have stepped up to the plate DECADES ago, to protect the Kurds... not NECESSARILY by war... but certainly, something should have been done.

But, to IGNORE that suffering for DECADES, then to pretend it mattered? THAT is hypocrisy.

Do I favour invasion of sovereign territory? No.
Do I favour invasion of sovereign territory, on poor intelligence? Hell, no.

Do I think we should have been doing SOMETHING to alleviate human suffering for the last couple of decades? Yes, I really do.

Why not? The rest of us here in the US have to do this with virtually every liberal program to come down the pike! :p

Another attack on liberals?

It really is starting to make it look like everyone who supports Bush, has done so because of a rabid hatred of 'liberals'...

Nope, we are not insurgents. We are not going around, blowing up civilians on purpose. We are not using guerilla tactics either.


I guess you haven't actually studied any American history, then...

You might want to look into the tactics actually employed by 'partisans' during the 'war of independence'...

I guess you haven't actually studied any American history, then...

You might want to look into the tactics actually employed by 'partisans' during the 'war of independence'...

I have studied American History actually. I know what our side did just like I know the autrocities committed by the British.

The the United Nations had a force to back uo what they say, the US never would have invaded Iraq.

The real problem isn't the United States, it's the UN. The UN is supposed to help the world out, and take care of problems. But unless the US does something, the United Nations seem content to do nothing.

Remember Somalia? The UN was only able to do what it had to thanks to US marines. But when the US pulls out, the UN abandons the country.

The UN was doing little to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The UN wasn't putting enough pressure on Saddam Hussein.

Look, the United States isn't perfect. Someone would be crazy to think that. But the US is also one of the only nations that tries(if annoyingly sometimes) to make a difference in the world.
The United States almost singlehandedly wiped out the Nazis, beat Imperial Japan to death, and then fed the world for the next 15 years.

Europe needs to think about this: if they had been better at watching their own affairs, they could have avoided WWII and the USA becoming a superpower.
But Europe screwed the pooch on that one, and now they have accept that the US will act just like they did when they were superpowers: arrogant and tough.

Class dismissed. There are crackers and milk in the lobby.:p

Time for the medications trolley, perhaps?

How do you figure the US wiped out the Nazis? Are you missing the fact that the Nazi war machine had lost most of it's impetus by the time the US realised there was a war? Are you missing the fact that, arguably, the BIGGEST act that weakened the Nazi war machine, was expanding to cover the Russian front? Are you ignoring the fact that, when the British and US troops arrived in Berlin, we found the Russians already there, in the city they had conquered?

Also - I think you are mistaking "tries... to make a difference in the world", for "acts like the new Roman Empire". There ARE ways to make a change, without planting your flag in the massed corpses of your 'diplomacy'.

I have studied American History actually. I know what our side did just like I know the autrocities committed by the British.

If that were so, would you have been so partisan, or so brazen, as to deny the use of insurgency and guerilla warfare, by 'Americans'?

Surely, you must admit that the 'war of independence' WAS based on acts of insurgency?

(Humourous, really... the colonies rebelling against 'remote taxation'... when you look at where the average US citizen is today...)

Surely, you must admit that the 'war of independence' was almost entirely carried out AS a war of guerilla tactics, by the colonists?

In the war for independance all bets where off I think. The British had those massive prison ships out in the harbor where thousands died. The US did fight many battles on open ground against the British Army and they won. Either due to the landscape or tactics. But they also used more dirty tricks to wittle away the much larger and better trained army. But ultimately the British surrender at was it Yorktown?

Not even then did the US do it alone. They got aid from the French to push the British out of the America. So hurray for everyone killing everyone else. Are we not proud of the fact everything we use is to destory each other? That in humanities quest for more power which is ultimately pointless since you cannot take it with you, is the death of millions.

No one as the right to point a finger at any one else for the deeds of their nation since at one point all nations did something horrible. The British bringing in Opium to the chinese against Imperial law that they couldnt? Or the Spanish Inquistion? Or the Germans and the 4th crusade? The Ottoman Empire and the fall of Constanipole?

If that were so, would you have been so partisan, or so brazen, as to deny the use of insurgency and guerilla warfare, by 'Americans'?

Surely, you must admit that the 'war of independence' WAS based on acts of insurgency?

(Humourous, really... the colonies rebelling against 'remote taxation'... when you look at where the average US citizen is today...)

Surely, you must admit that the 'war of independence' was almost entirely carried out AS a war of guerilla tactics, by the colonists?

Surely, we must all admit that most people in the colonies didn't want the war to take place. They just wanted to be left alone to make a living and raise their families. They were forced into the war by the intolerance of rulers and the passion of rebels. At the time there may have no other option.

Further evidence that we must find a way to prevent wars so the common person, who always suffers the most during these violent episodes, can be allowed to live their lives in peace.

Surely, we must all admit that most people in the colonies didn't want the war to take place. They just wanted to be left alone to make a living and raise their families. They were forced into the war by the intolerance of rulers and the passion of rebels. At the time there may have no other option.

Further evidence that we must find a way to prevent wars so the common person, who always suffers the most during these violent episodes, can be allowed to live their lives in peace.

Indeed... the 'war of independence' was NOT a 'popular' war. MOST of the population of the colonies had no interest in rebelling against the Crown.

Of course, on the other hand, it was largely indifference of a mad monarch that even ALLOWED the 'war'... if good old George had had any idea that 'America' was NOT a small island off the coast of France, the whole thing might have been handled differently....