Originally posted by CliffLandinThat's a tribute to the stupidity that is at the helm of the boat, so to speak...
The part I find amusing is how the most powerful man in the world was lead to believe Iraq had WMDs. Everyone except his so-called experts was saying "No they don't." including the people that were sent there to find them. But everybody knows them foriegners lie.
1 edit
Originally posted by chancremechanicHow many atomic bombs did Iraq set off? c.f. U.S.A.
President Bush, upon incorrect? advise from his security council, concluded that Iraq had WMD, and under a despot such as Saddam, would either use them on Israel, a neighboring adversary (Kurdish state), or on the U.S. itself by way of Al-Qaeda. The U.S. used the UN counsel to resolve the issue, but unless one lives on Mars, one should know that the ...[text shortened]... ome to an understanding that one doesn't have to shed blood in order to practice his/her faith.
The world knew that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons for years, hell, the West SOLD him weapons. Why did they go to war when they did? You can talk about the war on terror, but an inquiry found that Saddam had less links with Osama bin Laden than George W. Bush.
The U.N. is useless? I kindly direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Successes_and_failures_in_security_issues
They did a better job of keeping the peace than the American Security Council, did they not? The UN is involved in many peacekeeping missions, in countries like the Sudan. The UN provides arbitration over international treaties. The UN has helped run elections in countries with little democratic history including recently in Afghanistan and East Timor. The UN runs international criminal tribunals. The UN provides food, drinking water, shelter and other humanitarian services to populaces suffering from famine, displaced by war, or afflicted by some other disaster. Major humanitarian arms of the UN are the World Food Programme (which helps feed more than 100 million people a year in 80 countries), the High Commissioner for Refugees with project in over 116 countries, as well as peacekeeping projects in over 24 countries.
Useless?
You can talk about Saddam flaunting UN mandates, but how many international laws has the colation broken going to war in Iraq on this political crusade?
' "Allies" on the "war on terror, such as France, Germany, and Russia were "wheeling and dealing" with Saddam, therefore were unwilling to be partners in the "coalition of the willing" to finally put a stop to a despot and maybe put a crippling dent in the Al-Qeada network that theoretically could have gotten WsMD from Saddam, who hated the U.S. in particular, and the West in general.'
The U.S. has done more "wheeling and dealing", as you put it, with Iraq than anyone else has.
The reason that the ill-treatment of prisoners by Americans and others in the coalition is mentioned here is to make a point, that the Americans aren't treating people much better than the insurgents.
Before you condemn the insurgency, consider the following: Would you have supported French Macquis bombings of German HQs in France? Germany's invasion of France was another ideological war. History repeats itself.
America would only use "WMDs" as a last resort? Have you forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945?
"This information about torturing prisoners by the U.S., whether true or not, is something the media shouldn't even be reporting about because the media, even U.S. media, tends to be biased."
Oh yea, better that it is not mentioned at all! Because the colation is doing a GREAT job! Why spoil the fun by talking about its failures?!
I urge you to rationally rethink your thoughts of this "war on terror".
All of these things are evidence of the glaring double standards that Bush and his adminstration operate on.
What I would like to know is if by a country neutral to America treated an American citizen was treated the same way that the American government treats some people and then after a period of time was released. What would your feelings be? Would you think it was fine? Would you hate the country? Would you forgive them as they were only trying to gather intelligence or mistook you for someone else?
The point I am trying to make is that if a country claims something’s acceptable(torture in this case) then it might have to be prepared for other countries to use it.
"What gives a country the right to go to war? "
..................................................................
Countries give themselves the "right" to go to war.
Different Countries go to war for different reasons.
"Also for what reasons do people think its ok to go to war?"
..........................................................
If attacked or in self defense.
To defend America, Americans and our way of life.
"If a country netral to america conducted the same treatment of prisoners that america has on citizens would america ignore it?attack?ask nicely?demand release?"
..................................................................
This, of course, has already happened in most every war ever fought.
When it's in Americas interest to "ignore", "attack" or "ask nicely" .. it does exactly that .. acts in Americas interest.
American POWs have been tortured in every war we've fought .. from the Native Tribes to the Islamo-Facists.
We torture sometimes too.
War is chaos. The politically correct are at a distinct disadvantage. In a war for survival, the timid, the innocent, the politically correct and the cowards will be eaten. Sometimes you end up standing in the middle of a battlefield screaming for it to stop.
But it won't.
Sooner or later you'll have to pick a side when Islamo-fasism offers no alternative but death to you and yours.
Originally posted by Will EverittYou write as if you don't know that the situation you discribe has already happened many, many times throughout history.
What I would like to know is if by a country neutral to America treated an American citizen was treated the same way that the American government treats some people and then after a period of time was released. What would your feelings be? Would you think it was fine? Would you hate the country? Would you forgive them as they were only trying to gather ...[text shortened]... cceptable(torture in this case) then it might have to be prepared for other countries to use it.
If you read the history I believe you'll see that America reacts differently depending on the specific situation.
"Acceptable" has little meaning when discussing what a Country will do to ensure it's very survival. Governments act and react depending on each situation/threat, percieved or real. They do what they deem necessary to survive and thrive.
Originally posted by jammerSo how did going to war in Iraq "ensure the very survivial" of the US? Iraq had no connection to the people that attacked us, but we are still allied with the country that supplied eleven of fourteen attackers.
You write as if you don't know that the situation you discribe has already happened many, many times throughout history.
If you read the history I believe you'll see that America reacts differently depending on the specific situation.
"Acceptable" has little meaning when discussing what a Country will do to ensure it's very survival. Governments act ...[text shortened]... ach situation/threat, percieved or real. They do what they deem necessary to survive and thrive.
Originally posted by jammerAmerica even denies the international law court. So when a US citizen is taken into custody and shall brought before the international law court the US would free him with weapon power (I think even according to their law).
You write as if you don't know that the situation you discribe has already happened many, many times throughout history.
If you read the history I believe you'll see that America reacts differently depending on the specific situation.
"Acceptable" has little meaning when discussing what a Country will do to ensure it's very survival. Governments act ...[text shortened]... ach situation/threat, percieved or real. They do what they deem necessary to survive and thrive.
So everybody but an US citizen can be judged for war crimes for example.
Two scales if you ask me.
Bush must be brought to Den Haag. That would be fair and legitim.
In this connection: And justice for all.
Originally posted by jammerThere was never any threat to America's "very survival" from Iraq. While language like that makes for a nice speech, it's good for little else.
You write as if you don't know that the situation you discribe has already happened many, many times throughout history.
If you read the history I believe you'll see that America reacts differently depending on the specific situation.
"Acceptable" has little meaning when discussing what a Country will do to ensure it's very survival. Governments act ...[text shortened]... ach situation/threat, percieved or real. They do what they deem necessary to survive and thrive.
The US military overwhelmed the entire Iraqi Army in, I believe, 60 days or less. How on earth could an army that was beaten in less than two months have been a threat to the US homeland???
Iraq had no Navy, no Air Force, no stealth teachnology, 25 year old Soviet tanks, no satellites, etc etc. The list of advantages for the US goes on forever.
Turns out the one thing Iraq was supposed to have that really was a threat, the infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction... well they didn't have those either.
So basically we beat the sh1t out of a bunch of people armed with AK-47s, homemade bombs, and wearing towels on their heads. And these people were a threat to the US???
1 edit
Originally posted by wibI agree with you that the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people were no threat to the US, but the length of time that the war took is not a real indication. The Egyptians and Syrians got their asses whooped in six days back in, what '67. They were a serious threat to Israel's very survivial.
There was never any threat to America's "very survival" from Iraq. While language like that makes for a nice speech, it's good for little else.
The US military overwhelmed the entire Iraqi Army in, I believe, 60 days or less. How on earth could an army that was beaten in less than two months have been a threat to the US homeland???
Iraq had no Navy, ...[text shortened]... homemade bombs, and wearing towels on their heads. And these people were a threat to the US???
1 edit
Originally posted by CliffLandinYes I know. But that's Israel. Due to geography Israel gets a bad hand. The US is a whole other kettle of fish. So while I clearly see your point, and agree, it doesn't make Iraq a threat to the US.
I agree with you that the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people were no threat to the US, but the length of time that the war took is not a real indication. The Egyptians and Syrians got their asses whooped in six days back in, what '67. They were a serious threat to Israel's very survivial.
The only possible threat to the US would have been nuclear strike capabilities. At a minimum Iraq would have needed long range missles capable of carrying biolgical or chemical weapons. To my knowledge, and the rest of the world's knowledge, they never had those. They certainly never had long range nuclear weapons. They did have short range missles, and Saddam did use chemical weapons on his own people and of course the Iranians.
But that's a long way from being a threat to the US. That's my point.
EDIT: Oops, just re-read your post. I see you already agreed to all of that. Ok. Sorry. I'm posting and trying to work at the same time.
Originally posted by jammerI wrote as I did because it was a question aimed at Americans, a question that I haven’t got an answer to yet.
You write as if you don't know that the situation you discribe has already happened many, many times throughout history.
If you read the history I believe you'll see that America reacts differently depending on the specific situation.
"Acceptable" has little meaning when discussing what a Country will do to ensure it's very survival. Governments act ...[text shortened]... ach situation/threat, percieved or real. They do what they deem necessary to survive and thrive.
Would you let a foreign country treat you as the American government have treated citizens of other countries that they have tortured for information? I am sure you would find it unacceptable then why is it ok Americans to treat people like that? It may be essential to prevent risks but what if another country perceives you as a threat? I am sure innocent people have been tortured for information and how would you feel if it was you?
"Would you let a foreign country treat you as the American government have treated citizens of other countries that they have tortured for information?"
I wouldn't be able to much about it in that situation now would I?
"I am sure you would find it unacceptable then why is it ok Americans to treat people like that?"
National security is the reason it is sometimes "acceptable."
"It may be essential to prevent risks but what if another country perceives you as a threat? I am sure innocent people have been tortured for information and how would you feel if it was you?
I'd scream and cry like a little child .. then tell them anything I thought they might want to hear.
Originally posted by jammerOk its true that you wouldn’t be able to do anything but after when you are home safely would you forgive them on the grounds they were trying to help national security tell everyone how horrible it was and the country/fraction that did it needs to be punished?
[bI wouldn't be able to much about it in that situation now would I?
"I am sure you would find it unacceptable then why is it ok Americans to treat people like that?"
National security is the reason it is sometimes "acceptable."[/b]
So you have no problem with Iraqis kidnapping Americans to try and get rid of the occupation (not going to happen that easily but they try)