ctembreull

Sure. right here, in Sixate's own words. Unfounded? Hardly.

And yet according to all accounts, Baghdad and surrounds was mostly whole in 1991 before the missiles started falling. See, the fighting against Iran was held mostly on Iraq's eastern border. Which means the vast majority of the existing destruction happened as a direct result of the actions of the United States.

You're entirely missing the point. If Iraq is as "free" as you claim it to be, then why have we suppressed a particular political party? Let me be clear: if the Iraqis don't like Baathists, they can bloody well vote them out. Instead, we're ruling by fiat and suppressing who we wish because we wish. That is not freedom.

Wrong. Very wrong. As you can see here. That's twice now, by the way, that you with all pomp and bombast have claimed things aren't so when they so clearly and obviously are just so. I encourage you to check your facts more closely.

Listen much to The Who? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... after all, we kill Iraqis as well or better than he did. We ban political thought that we don't like, just as he did. We make free with Iraq's mineral wealth, just like he did. Wow, what saviors we are!

Sure, let's push the smoke back into the bottle with a baseball bat. My point is that we never should have been there in the first place. We can't unkill 10,000 Iraqis. We can't un-destroy infrastructure. We can't undo the crimes against international law that we have committed.

And yet they still can't affiliate with certain political parties if they wish. Freedom indeed.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. You don't care enough to try to do something about it, obviously. I do; I plan on executing regime change the legal way: by voting.

As far as evil dictators, did you ever figure out when we're gonna go "liberate" those other countries? Guess not. Looks like liberation only comes for those who have oil, eh?

And that's why the inspectors were there - to verify that there were no more WMDs. The inspectors found none, but we kicked them out before the job was done. Hans Blix himself said that his inspectors had enjoyed "unprecedented" access. But they found no WMDs. And neither have we. That looks suspiciously like evidence; evidence that has not been superseded.

That's it. I have arrived at the unfortunate yet inescapable and plainly obvious conclusion that you possess no understanding of the meaning of the word "sovereignty", nor of international law, nor of the rights of nations to self-determination. You quite clearly do not get it. So, I'm going to flush the rest of your post, and leave you with this:

sovereign, adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.

That's *self-governing*, not subject to the whims of other nations without due process under international law. No nation has any right whatsoever in any circumstances to force the leader of another nation to step down, lacking casus belli. We found no WMDs, we had no casus belli, and if you don't think that's the way it should be, then tough. That's the law. The United States is not above the law. And nor are you.

I'm done wasting my time with you.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

Zeld2.0

jesus ctembruell should run for senator or something - would make congress a lot more exciting

that being said.. i hate to nit-pick on everything but Japan and Germany were hardly "liberated" to remove a dictator

in case you all forgot your history (or maybe its distorted) but the U.S. hardly cared about them - it was when they declared war upon us (yes they first) that we finally declared war on them - because they were the clear aggressors.

We liberated the captured nations of the world - France, the low countries, etc. - Germany was hardly liberated by the U.S. nor was Japan - they simply surrendered unconditionally. Hitler killed himself and Germany was divided - Japan's own Emperor remained in power til he died but 2 decades ago.

The people of Japan and Germany (the majority) mostly all lived willingly under their domestic systems for many years and the majority supported their leaders.

Don't get thigns mixed up please people.

Dragonlich

*sigh*

Congo, Zaire, Angola: The US goes in, the US shoots some random people, and the US spends the next twenty years in a guerilla war, pissing off everyone else on the planet. No, that sounds like a really great plan...

Pakistan: a country filled with fundy muslims, all eager to kill their share of the US invasion force. Again, great idea to "liberate them".

North Korea: An army of millions of brainwashed north-koreans, a maniac at it's head, ready to blow up his neighbors, a large norther neighbor able to intervene, and in the past willing to do so... Perhaps waiting is a better idea, in terms of lives lost/saved, than going in gung-ho, like you seem to advocate.

And Liberia: why NOT wait? Suddenly everything has to be done right away? Wait a week, and Taylor is gone. As for when he's gone: you wanted the US to go in, so *you* think up ways to keep the peace there.

By the way... you seem to think pro-war guys are murderous bastards. They're not. They're just more willing to go to war than anti-war people.

I see it like this: anti-war people are determined to never go to war again, no matter if they're forced into one. They prefer to look at far-away people and be angry about their sad lives. Intervention would be bad, because that might actually kill people, and killing people is wrong. Therefore, we should all just sit back and continue looking and protesting and hoping everything will turn out fine.

Pro-war people don't like doing that: they'd prefer to actually go in and try to *solve* things by direct action. If people die during that action, that is the price to pay for a better world. Yes, it's sad for the families, but they'll get over it eventually.

And finally the links between X and Al Qaida: sorry, but where's *your* prove of links between Taylor and Al Qaida? You started throwing around accusations.

Dragonlich

One opinion doth not make a statistic, sir.

By all accounts, Baghdad is still pretty whole today. It's not as bad as you seem to think - the US did not carpet-bomb the city into oblivion, you know. And still... Saddam did not invest in the infrastructure. Most of the current infrastructure dates back 30+ years, and is in dire need of replacement. How exactly can the US be held responsible for this?

No, YOU are missing the point. The Ba'ath party was in charge of a dictatorship, and were controlling the country by force. You cannot expect the Iraqi people to be free if their former oppressors are still in control, and refusing to give up that control. To end a regime, you need to remove the puppets of that regime. Failure to do so will undermine the future democratic evolution of that country. The fact that "they can be voted out of office" is rather bullshit, particularly if the security apperatus would still be around, the police would still beat the living crap out of everyone opposed to the "former" regime, and the laws would still be made by those former regime members.

Oh, right... hearsay and "we think it might be wrong". Where's the proof, son? And where's your answer to my claim that Halliburton is very good at what they do, which is fixing destroyed infrastructure?

How's about responding to my post, instead of sporting bullshit like this? WMDs or not, the Iraqis are free. Just because you think the US is evil does not mean it's true. If you think the US is even remotely comparable to Saddam, you're either blinded by hatred, or just plain insane.

No, but we can sure as hell give the Iraqis a better future than they would have had with Saddam still around.

Ah yes... the former dictators are not allowed to have a say, and therefore the Iraqis aren't free. Grow up. Wake up and smell the coffee. In loads of countries which changed from a dictatoship to a democracy, the former regime was removed from the political spectrum. It's common sense, and not at all repression. These parties would quickly be able to re-assert their position, thanks to the fear the normal people have of them, and their links to the former security apperatus. They would then be able to grab power again, even if the rest of the people disagree.

My take on it is that you didn't give a rat's arse about the Iraqi people, and would rather have Saddam keep on killing them. I supported the invasion, which was a solution to the problem. You supported standing on the side-line and blaming the US for those deaths, while not doing ONE BIT to stop them. How noble of you.

Oh, you mean like the many other countries the US liberated? Sure, all of them had oil. Yeah, that's it... I encourage you to check your facts more closely.

No WMDs found means that they weren't there, eh? What about those tons of nerve gas and biological agents Saddam claims to have destroyed, but then failed to document? Or would you suggest that Hans Blix himself was lying when he said Saddam had failed to prove the destruction of all that stuff? As has been said time and time again: Saddam had to prove he had destroyed his WMDs. Saddam failed to do that. Therefore, the US/UN had no reason whatsoever to believe his word, especially after he had lied to them time and time again.

You obviously have no idea what international POWER means. Independent sovereign countries are only able to do what they want as long as they don't piss off the rest of the world. When they do, "sovereign" means exactly jack shit.

The "casus belli" in this case was Saddam's refusal to cooperate FULLY with resolution 1441. He did not prove he had WMDs, as was demanded. He did not provide full information, as was demanded. In fact, it turned out he had been building illegal missiles he wasn't allowed to, clearly breaching previous UN resolutions. Casus belli enough.

In the real world, outside of dusty law books, not everything is always black and white. The US is *able* to do what it does, and it will do it, no matter if you agree or not. It does things because it can. The rest of the world will have to deal with that, international law or not. If some bastard like Saddam thinks he can fuck with the US while hiding behind international law... well, it turns out he was wrong. And international law or not, he was STILL a murderous bastard, and he STILL deserved to have his arse kicked. Stating that we have no right to intervene is, in my opinion, a rather pathetic excuse: it's another way of saying "fuck you" to the people of Iraq.

And I'm done with you too. You obviously don't agree with this war, while I do. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we, before we end up in a nasty flame war...

The_Dude

i have nothing against a well-reasoned war. i can agree that the strike on afghanistan was called for. they had known ties to al queda and refused to eject the terrorists. that's all good reasons.
and they also had intel that osama bin laden was in afghanistan and the training camps and all that stuff.

but iraq? i dont see any good reason. most of the reasons that bush touted before the war has been proven wrong or hasnt been validated after months of US troops there.

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

smooth

ctembreull,

If you haven't had the chance to read the papers lately run a search and check out two important items:

1) A recently discovered Presidential order (from about two months ago) that was lingering in the archives that essentially indemnifies all corporate interests from any illegal activities.

2) Soldiers are reporting that we did, after all, drop napalm on Iraqi soldiers and civilian targets.

edit: interested people can start looking here http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2003/08/001179.html

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...3/03-13412.htm

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

j8ear

Most huh? I have heard of only one so far. And NOTHING has been PROVEN wrong.

ctembreull

I know I said I was done. Fine. I lied. I have a fundamental issue with allowing blatant logical fallacies and erroneous assumptions about international law, sovereignty, and the rights of nations pass by unassailed.

Without overloading you with links and statistics, I invite you to browse the online forums at lucianne.com and at freerepublic.com. You'll find all the corroborating evidence you require.

Rather like the infrastructure in a large percentage of America. How does age signify neglect? But you can't claim that we didn't purposefully destroy vast quantities of Iraq's infrastructure, knocking out water and power to thousands and thousands of citizens who previously had both.

Feh, you get your proof and you say it's not good enough? Halliburton did receive a no-bid contract worth hundreds of millions. That's fact. Halliburton's qualifications for the job are a red herring. But since you insist on more, here's a few more links:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0325-11.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/...liburton_x.htm

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/am...s/032803a.html (syndicates an Agence France Presse report)
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/n...ve/5972319.htm (syndicates an Associated Press report)

That enough for you? Halliburton received the contract without having to bid for it.

Just because you think the Iraqis are free, does not mean it's true. Their political expression is being suppressed. Their mineral wealth is being exploited. That is not freedom. We have removed Iraq's government, but we have not freed its people. Your argument, in any case, is a red herring. America was dragged into this war on the backs of claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Go ahead, ask for proof, if you like. The freedom of Iraqis is an ad populem, an attempt to divert the public's attention from the lack of WMD evidence by appealing to other emotions (e.g. sympathy, patriotism, etc.). To claim that our invasion was justified because the Iraqis are now "free" is simply to state that the ends justify the means, and that holds no water.

Just so. Freedom includes political expression. It's just that simple. From your attitude, I can safely infer that you're in favor of banning unpopular speech and unpopular political expression anywhere. There's a word for that: totalitarianism. Hey look! Saddam repressed political speech he didn't like, and so do we! Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...


You don't solve the problem of civilian deaths by causing ten thousand more of them. I do - and have - supported action within the framework of international law. Had the United Nations stated that an invasion was legitimate and required, I would have been disappointed but I would have held my peace. Instead, we acted in contravention of established international law and in doing so, killed thousands of innocent people. I'd love to know how exactly you consider that justified, or even good.


*Ahem* Kuwait. But notably not North Korea. Hmm...

Formal logic states that nobody can prove a negative; an argument which claims a theorem to be true simply because nobody can prove it wrong is a fallacy. It has been stated that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction because he has not proven that he does not. This is a logical fallacy and is a piss-poor justification for a war of aggression which violates the sovereignty of a state. You and every other hawk out there can scream until you're blue in the face about how Saddam has to prove it; this doesn't change the cold, hard fact that the entire basis for the war rested upon a logical fallacy that a first-year college student should know to avoid.

"No principle of international law is more critical than that of state sovereignty. This means that states have not any authority above them and that any state may do within their borders whatever they desire. Sovereignty also means that states are the one that confers power, in a voluntary way, to the international organisations they have decided to join.
The principle of sovereignty and the right of independence guarantee states autonomy in their internal and external affairs. Thus, sovereignty, independence and the principle of non-interference form the basis for the international rule of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. They also feed the UN principle of prohibition of the use of force against other states' territorial integrity or political independence." -- Dr. Ivan Martinez

"Independent sovereign countries are only able to do what they want as long as they don't piss off the rest of the world. When they do, "sovereign" means exactly jack shit." By your logic, Canada has license to invade the United States. China was justified in annexing Tibet, and would be justified in annexing Taiwan. And Saddam was justified in annexing Kuwait. The Soviet Union would have been justified in nuking the United States and the rest of NATO into a faintly glowing pile of dust; they had more nukes and more troops, after all. And for that matter, their invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly within their rights. Each and every one of these cases are examples or hypotheses of the larger dealing with the smaller as it wishes. Nobody is above international law.

Oh, so the basis of your entire argument, then, is that might makes right. Piss off the 800-pound gorilla and you're dead. That's nothing more than ignorant, small-minded, jingoistic bullshit. But let's apply your theorem to domestic policy, shall we? The largest and strongest takes what it wants when it wants. Oops. There go basic civil rights for minorities and women. There go voting rights for non-landowners in general.

Oops.

Who knows, though. If things continue apace, we may just wind up with the nasty, brutish, all-for-me-and-fuck-the-other-guy world you so clearly dream of. Enjoy it; it's the world you made.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

Zeld2.0

The thing that relaly pisses me off is that people still say the U.S. can do whatever it wants - fine, do it, til one day we piss off enough that the entire world decides to screw us over when we're off guard and we are the ones being killed in the streets.

The long term is not very appealing - short term answers don't mean jack when 20 years down the line we are cursing our selves for letting shit happen.

And i will say this - people outside of hte U.S. that support the U.S. should also realize that the U.S. could very well turn on you the next day and you could be dead - so its not so appealing then.

Dragonlich

ctembreull, You said you'd stop it, so stop it already. You're wrong, I'm right; or in your opinion: you're right, and I'm wrong.

I have valid arguments to support my case, you have valid arguments to back up your. Fine.

I'm done with this discussion. Enjoy the silence.

Zeld2.0

... wow never saw that one coming (or maybe im just out of it now)

hobo

Didn't those missles go like 15metres father than they were supposed to? Or was it like 5kilometres? Because 15 metres isn't really a big deal, although a technical violation, it would get the missle about 2 bus lengths father.

I may be wrong, I don't remember the numbers. It was on the news once. I know it was a 2 digit number. So it went XYunits farther than they were supposed to. Anyone have links to news that say how much father the missles went then they were supposed to?

BTW they dismantled those missles after they were found.

Zeld2.0

it wasn't that far btw and yes they were dismantled (another argument was that the simulations were w/o fuel and the warhead in which actuality it wouldn't fly as far)