07-17-2003, 09:51 PM | #41 (permalink) | |
The Northern Ward
Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
Quote:
As for their basic human rights, they're having their trial, by way of a military tribunal. Are you saying that's not fair? I believe you may be happier in Soviet Russia yourself if you enjoy defaming our noble military servicemen like this.
__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy |
|
07-17-2003, 10:30 PM | #42 (permalink) |
The GrandDaddy of them all!
Location: Austin, TX
|
plz dont draw comparisons to another other nations (USSR, iraq whatever).
we're just not the same. we're at a much higher level than those countries. and i dont think we should stoop down any lower.
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal |
07-17-2003, 11:50 PM | #44 (permalink) | |
42, baby!
Location: The Netherlands
|
Quote:
2) Yes, you should - with today's terrorists and the possibility of WMDs, you shouldn't wait for anyone to take action against you, because that action might kill millions. 3) Define "action" for anti-US guys - does this involve preaching hatred of the Western world? does it involve training kids to blow up Americans? does it involve preparing for terror attacks? Or does it just involve those actual attacks, and only after the fact? I.e. where do you draw the line? |
|
07-18-2003, 08:57 AM | #45 (permalink) | |
The GrandDaddy of them all!
Location: Austin, TX
|
Quote:
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal |
|
07-18-2003, 09:24 AM | #46 (permalink) | |
Crazy
|
Quote:
Yes im saying the military tribunal is not fair. You would have to be pretty ignorant of what the military tribunal is to feel otherwise.
__________________
"Hundreds of men must have told you how beautiful you are. Would you displease the gods to hear it once more? I wouldn't. Im young and I hope to see a god before I die." -Patera Silk |
|
07-18-2003, 09:34 AM | #47 (permalink) | |
42, baby!
Location: The Netherlands
|
Quote:
But personally, I'd prefer a more constructive way of solving problems than brute force. However, if there are countries where the *leaders* refuse to stop anti-American (and anti-Western) people from plotting terrorist acts, or are actually promoting such acts, then someone should do something about it. Sovereign nation or not, when your citizens are preparing to attack another country, or supporting people that attack, you are fully responsible for those actions. Either you stop them, or the country being targeted has to stop them, to prevent a potential massacre. Remember, there's a difference between being "Anti-US" and supporting terrorist acts against the US. The former is perfectly okay, while the latter will get you in trouble, as it should. |
|
07-18-2003, 10:03 AM | #48 (permalink) | |
Upright
|
Quote:
Dumbush said 9/11 was an "ACT OF WAR" Note: "Act of WAR" Therefore they are POW's |
|
07-18-2003, 11:08 AM | #49 (permalink) | |
The GrandDaddy of them all!
Location: Austin, TX
|
Quote:
if the whole world followed this principle, there would be no tomorrow.
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal |
|
07-18-2003, 11:50 AM | #50 (permalink) | |
Crazy
|
Quote:
Some of the prisoners in Guantanamo are from the UK. Is the British government fully responsible for the actions of these people?
__________________
"Hundreds of men must have told you how beautiful you are. Would you displease the gods to hear it once more? I wouldn't. Im young and I hope to see a god before I die." -Patera Silk |
|
07-18-2003, 11:53 AM | #51 (permalink) | |
The Northern Ward
Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
Quote:
Besides, since when do you lefties believe anything Bush says, I find it ironic his word is now the living word =).
__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy |
|
07-18-2003, 11:55 AM | #52 (permalink) | |
42, baby!
Location: The Netherlands
|
Quote:
I think I know what you're trying to say here, though: what if (for example) China were to say that people in Taiwan are plotting to attack China - they'd have an "excuse" to attack. Well, they don't. There wouldn't be any proof whatsoever for such a claim, and the Chinese would be kicked back in line. The US, on the other hand, faces attacks from global terrorists on a daily basis, which is well documented, and proven by the attacks in the past decades. |
|
07-18-2003, 12:04 PM | #53 (permalink) | |
The GrandDaddy of them all!
Location: Austin, TX
|
Quote:
what if south korea acts on this? what if india acts on this? what if the countries in africa (where there is already a lot of wars) act on this?
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal |
|
07-18-2003, 12:09 PM | #54 (permalink) | |
The Northern Ward
Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
Quote:
__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy |
|
07-18-2003, 12:09 PM | #55 (permalink) | ||
undead
Location: Duisburg, Germany
|
Quote:
BTW: theoretically the Iraq would have had the right to attack the USA befoe the US Attack because it was clear that the USA was planning an attack, right? Quote:
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein |
||
07-18-2003, 01:41 PM | #56 (permalink) | |
Crazy
|
Quote:
What do you think constitutes a fair trial?
__________________
"Hundreds of men must have told you how beautiful you are. Would you displease the gods to hear it once more? I wouldn't. Im young and I hope to see a god before I die." -Patera Silk |
|
07-18-2003, 07:44 PM | #57 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
2. (btw) Your point? |
|
07-18-2003, 07:52 PM | #58 (permalink) |
The GrandDaddy of them all!
Location: Austin, TX
|
his point is that, iraq could have just as easily used the "pre-emptive strike" theory and started a war on the United states.
and in doing so, they would have had much more clear evidence of a possible attack since US troops were massing up near their borders.
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal |
07-18-2003, 08:53 PM | #59 (permalink) |
Huggles, sir?
Location: Seattle
|
By the way, recently 37 people were released from Guantanamo Bay and sent back to Afghanistan and Pakistan so people there are obviously not being lined up and shot without any consideration.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames |
07-18-2003, 11:58 PM | #60 (permalink) | |||
42, baby!
Location: The Netherlands
|
Quote:
My principle doesn't change anything at all - countries are already attacking each other, so what's your point? You think that in reality (without my principle) they'll suddenly stop doing that, and all line up at the UN to talk? This hasn't happened over the past 50 years, so that is simply not the case. Quote:
Two: Yes Iraq would have had that right. I would not have been surprised if Iraq had lobbed some missiles (or WMDs) at the US troops as they were preparing to attack. However, Iraq obviously decided *not* to do that, in order to achieve some goal - they were hoping the war wouldn't start or something. So your point is? Quote:
And just because you don't hear about attacks doesn't mean they weren't planned - occasionally the FBI and CIA get it right, and arrest terrorists before they can strike. You know, like that moron that tried to blow up a bridge in New York... |
|||
07-19-2003, 04:34 AM | #61 (permalink) | |||||||
undead
Location: Duisburg, Germany
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
BTW: the usa are searching for thei justification *after* the attack, in the above China example that would mean, that china could invade taiwan and *then* start to search for a reason. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
OK, but can you link all those attacks to one nation? can you say a nation is responsible for that? If a nation comes to mind it would have bee afghanistan, but the US already liberated them (LOL). I think a lot of attack right now are some sort of single attacks that are not linked to a certain nation. The al-kaida has broken up into samller, independent groups, hard to link them to a nation. And I think "on a daily basis" is a <i>bit</i> exaggerated Quote:
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein Last edited by Pacifier; 07-19-2003 at 05:06 AM.. |
|||||||
07-19-2003, 10:31 AM | #62 (permalink) | |
The GrandDaddy of them all!
Location: Austin, TX
|
Quote:
1) s.korea invades n korea - pretty gruesome, china might kick in, US might help s.korea, north might use nukes...next world war? 2) india vs pak - another nuclear scenario
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal |
|
07-19-2003, 12:33 PM | #63 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
north korea would beat the snot out of south korea, but it wouldnt use nukes on south korea. not only because it has enough guns to flatten s. korea without nukes, but also because north koreans and south koreans see each other as family, and you dont really nuke your family no matter how angry you are with them.
However its wrong to conclude that just because certain countries havent been able to work out their differences through diplomacy in the past means that diplomacy is a complete waste of time. Leaders change, people change their minds, progress can be made without reaching for weapons all the time.
__________________
"Hundreds of men must have told you how beautiful you are. Would you displease the gods to hear it once more? I wouldn't. Im young and I hope to see a god before I die." -Patera Silk |
07-19-2003, 04:01 PM | #64 (permalink) | |
The GrandDaddy of them all!
Location: Austin, TX
|
Quote:
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal |
|
07-20-2003, 12:19 AM | #65 (permalink) | |||
42, baby!
Location: The Netherlands
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for the US reaction: it would have been swift, bloody and brutal. Any such move by Iraq would have been political (and real) suicide. Quote:
|
|||
07-20-2003, 05:38 AM | #66 (permalink) | |||
undead
Location: Duisburg, Germany
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein |
|||
07-20-2003, 06:32 AM | #67 (permalink) | |||
42, baby!
Location: The Netherlands
|
Quote:
Quote:
And actually it doesn't really matter what reasons he had, or if he had reasons at all - he was forced to provide evidence, and didn't do it. the UN had no reason to belief his claims, not after the many lies he had told them already. Without evidence, the UN had no option but to either continue inspection indefinately, or end the inspections and attack. Any other option would have meant that Saddam would get away with breaking UN resolutions. The security council would never have accepted that. Quote:
|
|||
07-20-2003, 08:06 AM | #68 (permalink) | |
Huggles, sir?
Location: Seattle
|
Quote:
As Dragonlich says, the burden of proof was not on us, but on Iraq to prove that they indeed destroyed their WMDs and didn't just ship them off to another country or bury them in the sand. The war on Iraq should have been ended 12 years ago.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames |
|
07-20-2003, 08:42 AM | #69 (permalink) | |
The GrandDaddy of them all!
Location: Austin, TX
|
Quote:
and i thought that he didnt care about his people.
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal |
|
07-20-2003, 10:01 AM | #70 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
Saddam would not be seen as responsible, the United States would be.
__________________
"Hundreds of men must have told you how beautiful you are. Would you displease the gods to hear it once more? I wouldn't. Im young and I hope to see a god before I die." -Patera Silk |
07-20-2003, 12:59 PM | #71 (permalink) |
42, baby!
Location: The Netherlands
|
Regardless of who would be seen as responsible, Saddam would have been toast. He wanted to survive, thus he decided not to use WMDs. Well, that's one theory anyway...
The problem is that nobody but Saddam knows what he was thinking, or if he was thinking at all. We can only judge his actions against our experience and sense of reason. To me, his actions were pretty suspicious, and I don't even have access to all the intelligence data that the US president has. |
07-20-2003, 11:48 PM | #72 (permalink) | |||||
Junkie
|
Something I'm still wondering, other than "people died" and "bush sucks", I hjaven't gotten an answer about why this war was a bad thing?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
07-21-2003, 10:10 AM | #73 (permalink) |
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
Location: Los Angeles
|
You cannot piercieve it as irrelevant because if you do you are very much saying "i dont care about it.. this time."
Look one day the U.S. will be in a slump, it might not happen in our lifetime, but hell it might and for sure it will happen one day far in the future. And would that be justification for a more powerful nation to attack? The reason our country doesn't pre-emptive strike on N.Korea, China, etc. is because we know getting invovled there would really really screw things up and have far worst effects. And yes also because our casualties would a lot higher and would not be so pleasing to the public. But thats besides the point right now. Thing is though, the entire deal with whether its right or wrong should be CONSISTENT. You do not make up rules on one issue then change it to another. You stay as it should be. Anyways I expect the U.S. to still be seen as the land of the free with justice and all that stuff. I think it very un-US like to act the way it has. I for one think its too much of the gov't playing on the 9/11 fears. People please goddamn get over it. I know those are harsh words but you do realize all of you are just playing into the gov't and using those fears to justify what it has interests in? Sure, they may truly believe it is the right thing to do, but people please at least THINK for yourselves and not keep the past from changing what youwant to do in the future. Because if you have already changed, then the terrorists have won. |
07-22-2003, 07:10 AM | #74 (permalink) | |
Banned
Location: Pennsytuckia
|
Honestly I think we are going after the wrong country. I am pretty anti-war but I think there is one country out there we need to pay a visit too. I don't see it happening durring this administartion though.
http://msnbc.com/news/941425.asp Quote:
|
|
07-22-2003, 08:58 AM | #75 (permalink) | |
42, baby!
Location: The Netherlands
|
Quote:
|
|
07-22-2003, 09:04 AM | #76 (permalink) |
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
Location: Los Angeles
|
Well its not so easy on SA being they do export a lot of our oil and what not. Its not going to be easy without suffering a lot for our economy and SA won't fall w/o the other Arab nations all coming to help - then we'd be in some crap for it.
|
07-22-2003, 09:14 AM | #77 (permalink) |
The GrandDaddy of them all!
Location: Austin, TX
|
no way we're even gonna remotely try to attack saudi arabia. cuz they're our "ally". remember, either you're with us or against us.
what 11/18 911 hijackers came from there and i dont even remember hearing gwb tellin saudi's to reign in the terrorists, not alone a threat against 'em.
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal |
07-22-2003, 09:57 AM | #78 (permalink) |
Banned
Location: Pennsytuckia
|
Well, that is my point.
We can declare a county to "Harbor Terrorists" as long as there is no gain to be had by befriending them. This county can be pretty screwed up most of the time. Rarely do we do what is right just because it is right. That pisses me off. |
07-22-2003, 10:18 AM | #79 (permalink) |
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
Location: Los Angeles
|
Well thats the thing that always irked me - theres this double standard floating around. You're either with us or against us - but you're gonig to be with us if you're against us simply because you have something we want (or because it makes us better)
|
07-22-2003, 10:25 AM | #80 (permalink) |
42, baby!
Location: The Netherlands
|
Actually, the Saudis have been getting a *lot* of flak from the US government. So much in fact, that they recently decided to finally attack "Al-Qaida" terrorists (just a tag) instead of blaming terror attacks on foreigners; usually Westerners, who did it to control the illegal alcohol market... Just because it's not all over the front pages doesn't mean that the Saudis aren't getting overt threats. I'd say there were enough unofficial threats in the past years, such as a semi-official government report (later denounced as "too extreme") that suggested the US nuke Mecca.
As I said, they're slowly changing their ways, because the government there can see where this is going. They won't stay a "friend" for long if they keep ignoring the problem. Remember: Saddam used to be everyone's friend too, until he went too far. |
Tags |
bay, guantanamo, justice |
|
|