Phaenx

No, you've missed the point. I don't think we're genetically superior to the rest of the world. I think that our government is there to do good for America, and that the people who live in America deserve at least to not be blown up by some foriegner.

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

The_Dude

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

Xell101

Military Justice is to Civilian Justice as Military Music is to Civilian Music.

I like Military music.

Dragonlich

1) Yes, you can - you're certainly powerful enough to do it.
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?

The_Dude

so, we're just gonna swoop into any sovereign nation where the people are anti-US ?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Ace_of_Lobster

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

Dragonlich

If you take logic to the extreme, then yes, you should. That'd certainly be an effective (if very bloody) way of maintaining world dominance. It worked for the Roman Empire, so why not for the US Empire?

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.

dasani1455

WTF?


Dumbush said 9/11 was an "ACT OF WAR"

Note: "Act of WAR"

Therefore they are POW's

The_Dude

hmm...if US can use this principle, why cant other people??

if the whole world followed this principle, there would be no tomorrow.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Ace_of_Lobster

The UK has certainly been very involved in the war on terrorism, and has spilled its soldiers blood to prevent future terrorist attacks.
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

Phaenx

POW's are defined in the geneva convention. If you had read it, and understood what a POW is, you would know that it does not apply to these people.

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

Dragonlich

Why? If people in country A are preparing to attack people in country B, it's up to the governments of either country A or country B to stop this. That is perfectly normal, and perfectly acceptable. I see no reason to assume that this principle will somehow translate into some global cataclysm...

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.

The_Dude

your example is pretty bad.

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

Phaenx

I heard their proposal, so I'm not ignorant. Yet here I am, feeling otherwise. I always feel that what is ignorant, is calling dissent ignorant.

__________________
"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

Pacifier

OK, but where are the proofs that Iraq planned an attack on the USA? With which weapons?

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?


exaples? where are the attacks "on a daily basis"? I remember two major attacks against the WTC, one was sucessful. Other attacks?

__________________
"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

Ace_of_Lobster

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

Xell101

1. This war was bad?
2. (btw) Your point?

The_Dude

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

seretogis

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

Dragonlich

Yes, what if? What if South Korea were to attack the North for constantly provoking them? What if India decides to attack Pakistan *AGAIN*? What if the countries in Africa decide to attack each other *AGAIN*?

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.

One: Iraq has been supporting terrorists, Iraq has been spreading anti-US propaganda, Iraq has failed to listen to the reasonable demand to provide proof of their disarmament. A direct attack on the US might not have been possible, but they could certainly hurt the US economically and politically. Hence, the US had the "right" to stop them.

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?

Oh, you forgot about those attacks on US ambassies and diplomatic missions in Africa and Pakistan? Or the countless attempts to blow up westerners (Remember that shoe-bomb guy?), or the many attacks on US troops and citizens in Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait and other countries? Or the attack on the USS Cole? Perhaps you remember the attack on those nasty Australians in Bali; you know, allies of the US?

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...

Pacifier

in palestina, thats true.

that does not justify an attack on the iraq

the USA has failed so far to proof that there were WMDs at all. So right now it looks like the iraqi statement "we have no WMDs" was true..

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.

yeah, why didn't they used WMDs....perhaps they didn't had WMDs....

just curious, i would have loved to see the US reaction on that attack....



allies....hmm but only as long as they say what bush likes to hear.....

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

Oh yeah, i forgot him. What was that for a guy? al-kaidia (of course, every terrorist is al.kaida in these days...)?

__________________
"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

The_Dude

ok, let's just think of what would happen if.

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

Ace_of_Lobster

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

The_Dude

and the US is just going to sit around and watch that?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Dragonlich

Ah, but the point was that the US didn't *have* to prove that Iraq had them. UN resolutions demanded that Iraq provided proof that they had destroyed those weapons, which they failed to do. Saying that they destroyed them wasn't enough - they needed to provide evidence. Given that the Iraqi government (like most succesful dictatorships) had a large amount of people working to report on virtually every detail of daily life, it seems unreasonable to assume that Iraq had just gotten rid of it's WMDs without any proof whatsoever, especially since they *knew* that they had to provide that evidence later on.

The fact that they didn't use WMDs is no proof of their non-existance. If I were to have a gun in my house, and fail to use it during a burglary, does that mean the gun doesn't exist?

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.

I don't have to link those attacks to one nation. I never said one nation was responsible. I said Al-Qaida (and it's friends) are the instigators of these attacks. Al-Qaida is actively supported by some people, and actively ignored by some countries. This has to stop. If a government chooses to ignore international terrorists operating from it's soil, it's in fact supporting these guys. In that sense, Bush was right: either you fight the terrorists (you're with us), or you support them (you're against us). There is no middle ground. You cannot just look away and claim to be independent, because that's an open invitation to terror groups to set up camp in your country... And these days, that leaves you open to an attack (military, politcal or economical) by the Western world, the targets of those terror groups.

Pacifier

but they should be able to find them now, don't you think?

unreasonable? we are talking about Saddam here, the crazy madman, remember?

hmm, not really. this war was planned long before, today i read an article, according to Lt. Gen. Michael Moseley the US had dropped over 600 bombs before the war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul19.html). So Saddam never had a chance to stop this war.

__________________
"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

Dragonlich

Well, if Saddam had indeed destroyed them, or had moved them to another country, or had hidden them in the middle of the friggin' desert... then no, they shouldn't be able to find them. Ever.

True, but even madmen feel the need to control everything around them. Suppose Saddam had *not* documented the destruction of his WMDs, even though he had destroyed them... what the hell would be the purpose of such a move? He knew he would have to provide evidence, or else... it doesn't add up.

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.

Hell, there were many attacks on Iraq over the past decade, all of which helped prepare for this war. It would have been foolish for the US *not* to prepare the way. This does not mean Saddam couldn't stop the war. Had he provided the forementioned evidence, he would have been safe and sound. The US would never have been able to attack.

seretogis

Rumsfeld made it very clear that if Iraq used WMDs against our troops that we would be justified to use any means necessary (including nuclear weapons) to put them down. This would most likely involve heavy civilian casualties, which is something that Saddam would be seen as responsible for.

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

The_Dude

oooo saddam was scared off by rummy's remarks.

and i thought that he didnt care about his people.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Ace_of_Lobster

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

Dragonlich

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.

Xell101

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?

He wouldn't go to war over being modest, most probably explanation is that he moved out of the country that which he could and hid the rest.

If the number of US military we had placed over there was quintupled then in around a month I'd start furrowing my eyebrow.

A lot of the Anti-US arguments revolve around Saddam being victimized in a way. If he is universally renowned as a evil dictator of vileness, predispositions be damned everyone will hate Saddam and like the US more.

I percieve this as irrelevant because I don't think this war was a bad thing.

I concur.

Zeld2.0

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.

Darkblack

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

Dragonlich

I agree with this. Unfortunately, it was pretty much impossible to go after Saudi-Arabia with Iraq still in the picture. We needed their support to contain Saddam, and we were using their bases to do it... with Iraq out of the picture (in a few years, when it's more stable), the US might turn on SA, if they still support terror by then. They're slowly changing, so let's hope it won't be necessary.

Zeld2.0

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.

The_Dude

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

Darkblack

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.

Zeld2.0

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)

Dragonlich

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.