Freshly free and liberated Iraqis get their guns taken away
-
Spangaloid_PE
- Almost 1337
- Posts: 564
- Joined: March 9, 2003, 4:24 pm
- Location: Kuwait
Sure Crav, attacking Afghanistan prevented Al Qaeda from executing future terrorist attacks (war on terror is war as far as I'm concerned). Taking out Saddam prevented him from starting future wars- all of which would have been much more devestating than the precise war America waged.
Saddam is the serial killer. He's attacked others before, he was rebuilding his army, producing WMDs, and it was just a matter of time before he got his hands on a nuclear weapon. I'd make the case anyday of the week that this serial killer was planning to strike again, and we stopped future wars/attacks and prevented many more lives from being lost.
I'll re write that as a hypothetical, because I really don't feel like arguing over Iraq for the millionth time.
There's a dictator who has attacked other nations in the past. He's re building his army. He's building bigger and better weapons. He's been given chance after chance to change his ways- chances that would have given him and his country huge benefits, but he still persisted in increasing his deadly arsenal. Now, do you wait for him to attack his neighbors again? Or do you remove him from power?
Would removing him save lives? Prevent future wars? I certainly think so.
Saddam is the serial killer. He's attacked others before, he was rebuilding his army, producing WMDs, and it was just a matter of time before he got his hands on a nuclear weapon. I'd make the case anyday of the week that this serial killer was planning to strike again, and we stopped future wars/attacks and prevented many more lives from being lost.
I'll re write that as a hypothetical, because I really don't feel like arguing over Iraq for the millionth time.
There's a dictator who has attacked other nations in the past. He's re building his army. He's building bigger and better weapons. He's been given chance after chance to change his ways- chances that would have given him and his country huge benefits, but he still persisted in increasing his deadly arsenal. Now, do you wait for him to attack his neighbors again? Or do you remove him from power?
Would removing him save lives? Prevent future wars? I certainly think so.
By the fact that there have been two attacks made by Al Qaeda, I think that the statement that invading Afgahnistan prevented attacks is false, but we can agree to disagree on that one since someone will probably bring up the fact that these attacks were not on U.S.(which I personally find an offensive arguement).Sure Crav, attacking Afghanistan prevented Al Qaeda from executing future terrorist attacks (war on terror is war as far as I'm concerned).
Now as for your hypathetical, I will say that a dictator with the capability to enhance his ability to wage war and the willingness to use it that ability to invade other nations is cause to take action against. However, by that hypathetical we should remove Kim Jong Il since his army is much more dangerous and his ability to produce weapons far exceeds that of any other nation outside of those whom already have that capability. North Korea has shown the willingness to wage war against it's neighbors in the past. However, I see that diplomacy is the weapon of choice in this situation as I feel that it should usually be. Now I'm not going to get into the Iraq situation since as you said it's been drummed to death on these boards, however, I do not feel that the examples that you have posted come close to supporting your logic that war can stop bigger wars.
To continue this I will give another example of wars causing wars, Franco-Prussian war lead to World War I, which lead to World War II. If you wish I can give older examples of these.
Crav Veladorn
Darkblade of Tunare
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
Darkblade of Tunare
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
When it comes to criminal cases and convicting criminals, proof is the standard. Or at least, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree that Saddam violated U.N. resolutions or murdered people on a daily basis, but so does Israel, N.K., and a host of other nations. But these are not the reasons we invaded Iraq. We invaded Iraq (against the will of the majority) because we whole-heartedly believed that he possessed WMD and had the will to use them. This turned out to be completely untrue. This makes the invasion, then and now, unjustified. Again, I ask you these questions.Avestan wrote:Absolute proof is not the standard. It never has been the standard. Can you image the gridlock in all walks of life if gevernments, CEO's, and all decision makers decided that would not act on anything without absolute proof? Nothing would get done. On the other hand it is absolutely true that Saddam violated the resolutions set forth at the end of the Gulf War and it is absolutely true that he murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands in his own country.
1) Within the U.S., people are innocent until proven guilty, but the U.S. doesn't uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why?
2) Within the U.S., there is majority rule with minority rights, but the U.S. does not uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why?
3) Within the U.S., the government uses checks and balances to protect its people, but the U.S. does not uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why?
I do think we have the greatest civilization on earth. Why we choose to lead by force instead of by example is what I question.
You claim that he does not know how to debate. I won't refute this, but you are the one blowing your top at every comment. That is not exactly fine debating form either.
Yeah I know. It's my own fault. I should've known better than to attempt to communicate with a monkey. I will stop now.
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
-
miir
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 11501
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
- XBL Gamertag: miir1
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Yeah, like Saddam was in any position to start a war... with his joke of a military and his mystery bio/chem weapons.... Iraq would have lost a war with the Lubbock chapter of the NRA.Taking out Saddam prevented him from starting future wars- all of which would have been much more devestating than the precise war America waged.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
Yea, but then he would have messed with Texas and you know it's over when you do thatYeah, like Saddam was in any position to start a war... with his joke of a military and his mystery bio/chem weapons.... Iraq would have lost a war with the Lubbock chapter of the NRA.
. Texas is better armed then most other nations, which is why people are so nice. Nothing like knowing the person your talking to might have a gun to keep a conversation civil!Crav Veladorn
Darkblade of Tunare
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
Darkblade of Tunare
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
Xyun, only a couple of points.
"We invaded Iraq (against the will of the majority) because we whole-heartedly believed that he possessed WMD and had the will to use them."
This is not why I supported invasion. I supported invasion because of the person that is(was) Saddam Hussein. I supported invasion because of what he did to his people and because I really believe that given a decent opportunity, he would strike at the United States in any way he could find. For that reason, he was a danger to us and an enemy to us. I believe that long ago he had the chance to disarm, he did not. He had the chance to change his ways, he did not. This is why I supported invasion, I do not believe in giving a brutal dictator unlimited chances at something that was clearly understood many years ago.
"1) Within the U.S., people are innocent until proven guilty, but the U.S. doesn't uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why?"
These rights only apply to US citizens. I think it is clear that the rest of the world does not want us applying our morality to other countries. This swings both ways. We do not have the infastructure to conduct investigations abroad, we do not have the resources or the permissions to do what is necesary to give every combatant a fail trial of their peers, and to be flatly honest, unless they are US citizens, they do not automatically have that right.
"2) Within the U.S., there is majority rule with minority rights, but the U.S. does not uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why?
3) Within the U.S., the government uses checks and balances to protect its people, but the U.S. does not uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why?"
I don't understand these points, please elaborate.
"I do think we have the greatest civilization on earth. Why we choose to lead by force instead of by example is what I question"
I believe we are leading by example and by force. Sometimes force is necesary to achieve what is right.
"We invaded Iraq (against the will of the majority) because we whole-heartedly believed that he possessed WMD and had the will to use them."
This is not why I supported invasion. I supported invasion because of the person that is(was) Saddam Hussein. I supported invasion because of what he did to his people and because I really believe that given a decent opportunity, he would strike at the United States in any way he could find. For that reason, he was a danger to us and an enemy to us. I believe that long ago he had the chance to disarm, he did not. He had the chance to change his ways, he did not. This is why I supported invasion, I do not believe in giving a brutal dictator unlimited chances at something that was clearly understood many years ago.
"1) Within the U.S., people are innocent until proven guilty, but the U.S. doesn't uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why?"
These rights only apply to US citizens. I think it is clear that the rest of the world does not want us applying our morality to other countries. This swings both ways. We do not have the infastructure to conduct investigations abroad, we do not have the resources or the permissions to do what is necesary to give every combatant a fail trial of their peers, and to be flatly honest, unless they are US citizens, they do not automatically have that right.
"2) Within the U.S., there is majority rule with minority rights, but the U.S. does not uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why?
3) Within the U.S., the government uses checks and balances to protect its people, but the U.S. does not uphold this standard for the rest of the world, why?"
I don't understand these points, please elaborate.
"I do think we have the greatest civilization on earth. Why we choose to lead by force instead of by example is what I question"
I believe we are leading by example and by force. Sometimes force is necesary to achieve what is right.
The reasons why you supported the war were part of the same reasons the U.S. gave the world for invasion. However, the primary reason was WMD's and fear of their use. That was the crux of the pro-war argument. It is easier for you to disregard the fact that Iraq seems so far to be innocent of this particular infraction, but it is not so easy for those in other countries. Kinda like finding out someone was actually innocent of a crime after their death sentence was executed.
When I talk about majority rule and balance of power, I'm talking about how the U.S. relates to the world. If we believe that democracy is the proper way to govern, why do we curtail the U.N. when they refuse to support us? The U.N. is, after all, the only governing body this world has.
At the beginning of the war, there were only two countries in the entire world where the majority of the population supported war. Those two countries were the U.S. and Israel. And this, my boy, is what it's all about.
Israel has violated more U.N. resolutions then any other country. They have done as they pleased for half a century without so much as a slap on the wrist from the U.S. They have waged war on five different middle eastern countries (if you count Palestine as a country) mercilessly. They are on hostile terms with every single middle eastern country. The mere fact that they are a democracy does not make them justified in what they do.
It sets a very bad example and puts a bad taste in people's mouths all over the world for the U.S. to practice this sort of hypocracy. I believe that 9-11 happened because of this hypocracy.
Now, I agree that there does come a time for force. I took the first gulf war with a grain of salt, understanding its necessity. O:IF was completely different.
I disagree with the way the U.S. handled this war politically. They conducted it with haste and hatred. They used 9-11 as a trampoline to convince the rabble that two opposing factions were one and the same, when in reality they were completely different.
When I look at it from a global standpoint, and not just a U.S. citizen, I can't help to think that this war was detrimental to the well-being of America in the long run. Regardless of what the U.S. says this war was about (i.e. freedom), the rest of the world does not look at it in this limelight. Since we failed to convince people of our justifications, we planted way more seeds of hate than we exterminated.
We do lead the world, but a leader with no respect is not truly a leader. It is one of our most important responsibilities as a leader to earn that respect. Our governments failure to do so simply pisses me off. In my mind, Bush is/has been/will be inadequate for the job he has been appointed to.
The question now that it has been done is, how will we try to regain the respect we lost? My fear is that the U.S. will begin to exploit Iraq. If this happens, my money is on WWIII within the century.
When I talk about majority rule and balance of power, I'm talking about how the U.S. relates to the world. If we believe that democracy is the proper way to govern, why do we curtail the U.N. when they refuse to support us? The U.N. is, after all, the only governing body this world has.
At the beginning of the war, there were only two countries in the entire world where the majority of the population supported war. Those two countries were the U.S. and Israel. And this, my boy, is what it's all about.
Israel has violated more U.N. resolutions then any other country. They have done as they pleased for half a century without so much as a slap on the wrist from the U.S. They have waged war on five different middle eastern countries (if you count Palestine as a country) mercilessly. They are on hostile terms with every single middle eastern country. The mere fact that they are a democracy does not make them justified in what they do.
It sets a very bad example and puts a bad taste in people's mouths all over the world for the U.S. to practice this sort of hypocracy. I believe that 9-11 happened because of this hypocracy.
Now, I agree that there does come a time for force. I took the first gulf war with a grain of salt, understanding its necessity. O:IF was completely different.
I disagree with the way the U.S. handled this war politically. They conducted it with haste and hatred. They used 9-11 as a trampoline to convince the rabble that two opposing factions were one and the same, when in reality they were completely different.
When I look at it from a global standpoint, and not just a U.S. citizen, I can't help to think that this war was detrimental to the well-being of America in the long run. Regardless of what the U.S. says this war was about (i.e. freedom), the rest of the world does not look at it in this limelight. Since we failed to convince people of our justifications, we planted way more seeds of hate than we exterminated.
We do lead the world, but a leader with no respect is not truly a leader. It is one of our most important responsibilities as a leader to earn that respect. Our governments failure to do so simply pisses me off. In my mind, Bush is/has been/will be inadequate for the job he has been appointed to.
The question now that it has been done is, how will we try to regain the respect we lost? My fear is that the U.S. will begin to exploit Iraq. If this happens, my money is on WWIII within the century.
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
good points.
I would disagree that Iraq seems to be innocent of WMD infractions, I believe they seem guilty, but I do agree there has been no hard proof. The item that comes immediately to mind are the trailers they found that have been cleaned so absolutely thoroughly that inspectors cannot find a speck of residue of anything. . .anywhere inside. The claim that those trailers were used for hydrogen production for weather baloons has been determined not to be true due to the equipment inside. While this is not proof, it is one of many circumstancial instances that lend themselves to the suggestions that Iraq was developing WMD.
Israel is not this overbearing evil organization. They have a hard line approach because they are living inside the hornets nest. I do not think we have been unfair to palastinians. Under Clinton, Arafat had the chance to solidify a state, and he threw it out the window. Hopefully this time he will not have the opportunity to destroy another peace process. I believe that the majority of people in this country support a Palastinian state (in fact my best Jewish friends support it as well).
That having been said, I will never not take a stance because of what some radicals might do in response. If we do change our foreign policy based on fear, then they are dictating our foreign policy. I support taking our stance, and defending it ad infinitum and not backing down, ever, unless that stance is changed.
War is never a popular thing. In WWII, France was convincing everyone not to attack Germany until they were at the doorstep to Paris. We elect officials to make decisions, not regurgitate public sentiment. What is the saying, a person is smart, but people are stupid.
I agree wholehartedly that one of the biggest challenges of the next 5 to 10 ears will be to restore relations with many of our allies abroad. This will be especially difficult because I think there are a large number of people on both sides who will not want to have anything to do with each other because of machismo and a fear of losing pride. We will just have to see. I am very happy to see that China and Russia seem to finally be stepping up to the plate regarding North Korea. That will be a major test for us to try to put together a coalition that we CANNOT lead simply due to sentiment towards America worldwide.
Stan
I would disagree that Iraq seems to be innocent of WMD infractions, I believe they seem guilty, but I do agree there has been no hard proof. The item that comes immediately to mind are the trailers they found that have been cleaned so absolutely thoroughly that inspectors cannot find a speck of residue of anything. . .anywhere inside. The claim that those trailers were used for hydrogen production for weather baloons has been determined not to be true due to the equipment inside. While this is not proof, it is one of many circumstancial instances that lend themselves to the suggestions that Iraq was developing WMD.
Israel is not this overbearing evil organization. They have a hard line approach because they are living inside the hornets nest. I do not think we have been unfair to palastinians. Under Clinton, Arafat had the chance to solidify a state, and he threw it out the window. Hopefully this time he will not have the opportunity to destroy another peace process. I believe that the majority of people in this country support a Palastinian state (in fact my best Jewish friends support it as well).
That having been said, I will never not take a stance because of what some radicals might do in response. If we do change our foreign policy based on fear, then they are dictating our foreign policy. I support taking our stance, and defending it ad infinitum and not backing down, ever, unless that stance is changed.
War is never a popular thing. In WWII, France was convincing everyone not to attack Germany until they were at the doorstep to Paris. We elect officials to make decisions, not regurgitate public sentiment. What is the saying, a person is smart, but people are stupid.
I agree wholehartedly that one of the biggest challenges of the next 5 to 10 ears will be to restore relations with many of our allies abroad. This will be especially difficult because I think there are a large number of people on both sides who will not want to have anything to do with each other because of machismo and a fear of losing pride. We will just have to see. I am very happy to see that China and Russia seem to finally be stepping up to the plate regarding North Korea. That will be a major test for us to try to put together a coalition that we CANNOT lead simply due to sentiment towards America worldwide.
Stan