|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by bishop375:
If 12 of your peers, colleagues, friends, and coworkers came to you with the EXACT same information on something, would you not believe it, and with good reason? Would you not believe what you are told to be true, thus try to bring others' attention to it?
No, I would not just believe what I was told, even if many others said it to me. I would THINK FOR MYSELF. I would look at the information with an open mind. I would examine the evidence on which they based their conclusions. I would use my own reasoning power to draw my own conclusions.
Sounds exactly like why we went to war. The evidence available at the time, coupled with suspicious behavior and admitted possesion, with a history of mass murder and near lunacy, directly pointed to a potential threat that had to be removed.
The last time a manical leader who drummed up the kind of support Hussein had, we were attacked on December 7, 1941. We debated and debated about how Hitler wasn't a threat, just like you're saying now. So what if he slaughtered people in his own country by the thousands? So what if he attempted an invasion of a neighboring country a few years ago? Does any of this not sound like history repeating itself?
What would it have taken for you to agree with us being in Iraq? For Hussein to have killed a few thousand of us on US soil? Would civilians who couldn't ID Iraq on a globe have to die in order for you to take your blinders off? Please, enlighten me. Obviously, you're fine with us rolling into Afghanistan and engaging in a manhunt for one person behind the single most deadly act of terrorism acted upon our soil. I suspect if we'd rolled into Afghanistan on 9/10/01, you'd have been screaming bloody murder too, right? What makes that so different? In fact, bin laden, et al, should have been "less of a threat" since they never admitted to having bio/chem weaponry. But, I suppose that doesn't matter to you, either.
You people are all alike. You cry and scream for justice and claim police brutality all at the same time.
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
Sounds exactly like why we went to war. The evidence available at the time, coupled with suspicious behavior and admitted possesion, with a history of mass murder and near lunacy, directly pointed to a potential threat that had to be removed.
The last time a manical leader who drummed up the kind of support Hussein had, we were attacked. We debated and debated about how Hitler wasn't a threat, just like you're saying now. So what if he slaughtered people in his own country by the thousands? So what if he attempted an invasion of a neighboring country a few years ago? Does any of this not sound like history repeating itself?
this right here is exactly why i supported and still support ousting hussein. he wasn't the biggest meanest threat on the planet but he was presenting himself that way and had the mean streak to back it up.
00 black/tan svt, #2052 of 2150, born 2/1/00
formerly known as my csvt
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
The last time a manical leader who drummed up the kind of support Hussein had, we were attacked on December 7, 1941. We debated and debated about how Hitler wasn't a threat
WTF?
Hussein had support?
I hope you're not suggesting that Japan attacked us as support to Hitler!
We did debate about wether Hitler was a direct threat to the U.S. but we were very isolationalist at the time coming out of the Great Depression and all. On the other hand, Hitler had taken over most of Europe, and Hussein could not even fly a plane over two thirds of his country.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Try again hotshot. Every county who provides us with intel which in the past has been reliable (England, Russia, etc.) were all saying that Iraq had or was developing WMDs.
This is an interesting point. I recall that the UK and Israel and a few other countries were vouching publicly for Bush's conclusion that Iraq was an imminent WMD threat. I have never given much credence to their public support, as each of them had powerful political reasons for doing so. Each of them wanted to: 1) cooperate with the U.S. and the UN in presenting a united front to Saddam, 2) curry favor with the world's only superpower, and 3) get in line for a slice of the war pie. Furthermore, we are talking about international politics here; we have no idea whether their "support" were based on solid evidence or on political strategy.
Sure, some countries supposedly "vouched" for Bush's conclusion about WMDs, and even joined his absurd little "coalition." The UK officially vouched for the WMDs and supported Bush's war. But the British memo shows that they may have privately believed that it was all bogus. Also, many members of the so-called "coalition of the willing" were anything but willing. Ordinary spaniards, brits, poles, and italians opposed the war, even though their governments officially supported it.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
These are the same countries that were against us going in there.
I don't know which countries' intel you are alluding to. Please let me know.
Logically, if any country vouched for Bush's conclusions about WMDs, and then were against us going to war, doesn't that tell us something isn't right? Isn't is likely that country didn't really think there was an imminent WMD threat, and that they were just trying to cooperate with the US and the UN to present a united front against Saddam?
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Just because "you said" that no county had evidence doesn't mean it's true. You show me what evidence from other countries you have beef with.
I don't know which specific evidence you mean. Please fill me in.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by caltour:
I was referring to the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. in Kuwait in the early 90's (after Gulf War I). If you need more info about it, maybe someone will dig up an old news article about it.
Again, talking down to me like somehow you have a clue what you are talking about does nothing to further your argument. I know quite well about the plans to assasinate Bush Sr.
I really didn't mean to sound like that. I wasn't sure we were both referring to the assasination attempt, so I wanted to clarify. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676 |
Originally posted by Zoom Zoom Diva:
Originally posted by caltour:
But international law is a different matter entirely. It generally forbids pre-emptive attacks on other nations. Many argue that Bush's war is illegal under international law. See the links I posted earlier about that.
That opens up a whole issue of whether or not international law has any right to exist at all, and what powers it has over sovereign nations (if any).
I look at our Constitution as the supreme law of our land, and it in no way provides for the existence or power of any form of international law. Therefore, Bush had the legal authority to invade Iraq by the highest legal authority having power over him.
There is a current trend in International Law and International Relations in general that suggests that the Westphalian System of absolute Sovereignty over ones nation is breaking down. The International community now sees it fit to judge a state as weak or failing and can intervene in these states. Also if a state does not respect human rights (usually a weak or failed state) the international community also can intervene.
As for the International Law aspect there is a small dispute over the language used. There are two types of war that we are talking about (with regards to self-defense), Preemptive and Preventative. Pre-Emptive is when you know for a fact that another state is going to attack you and you do something about it to pre-empt the attack. Preventative war is just veiled aggression. Personally I do not believe Saddam represented an immanent threat and therefore the Iraq war was illegal internationally speaking. I do not believe that what we did was an act of self-defense, I do not believe we are safer now than before.
Damnit who brought this thread back up anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408 |
Ahhh, preemptive.
Lincoln had something to say about that in 1848.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118 |
Originally posted by caltour:
This is an interesting point. I recall that the UK and Israel and a few other countries were vouching publicly for Bush's conclusion that Iraq was an imminent WMD threat. I have never given much credence to their public support, as each of them had powerful political reasons for doing so. Each of them wanted to: 1) cooperate with the U.S. and the UN in presenting a united front to Saddam, 2) curry favor with the world's only superpower, and 3) get in line for a slice of the war pie.
Sorry I don't buy this borderline conspiracy theory. The countries that supported the intel were the same ones who supported our actions there. Countries like France, Germany, etc that opposed us don't have the intel capability that U.S. and England (in particular) have.
Your point #1, that they wanted to present a united front against Saddam... What is wrong with that? That goes right on logically with them believing that he has WMDs. Hell, Iraq was a whole lot closer to these European countries than to us, they SHOULD be the ones that want actions against him.
#2) Being our #1 ally in most everything, I really don't think England needed to "win us over," as you say.
#3) Countries like France etc. that were so opposed to the war didn't know that they weren't going to get a "piece of the pie" until after the war was over and the bids for rebuilding began.
Quote:
Furthermore, we are talking about international politics here; we have no idea whether their "support" were based on solid evidence or on political strategy.
I guess if you want to continue to question every single thing that might show favor towards the "Bushmen," as you so disrespectfully refer to our president, you can go right ahead and twist everything to look in your favor. While I don't believe EVERYTHING for face value, I do think that there is some honesty even in politics.
You choose not to take their support at face value because it would bring discredit to your arguement. And on the flip side, I guess you can say I choose to believe it for my own reasons too.
Quote:
Sure, some countries supposedly "vouched" for Bush's conclusion about WMDs, and even joined his absurd little "coalition."
I don't know what is so absurd about it but like I said, Bush can't do a damn thing right in your mind, why should his coalition mean anything to you too right?
Quote:
The UK officially vouched for the WMDs and supported Bush's war. But the British memo shows that they may have privately believed that it was all bogus. Also, many members of the so-called "coalition of the willing" were anything but willing.
I thought that little memo was already disproved or shown to be not what it looked like or something?
Quote:
Ordinary spaniards, brits, poles, and italians opposed the war, even though their governments officially supported it.
Ordinary citizens are, for the most part, stupid and ill informed when it comes to politics. California is good proof of that. I take absolutly no creedance to what the citizens of these countries think. They had no access to the types of documents that their leaders that did support us had. Documents that couldn't and still can't be released due to security issues I am sure.
Quote:
Logically, if any country vouched for Bush's conclusions about WMDs, and then were against us going to war, doesn't that tell us something isn't right? Isn't is likely that country didn't really think there was an imminent WMD threat, and that they were just trying to cooperate with the US and the UN to present a united front against Saddam?
Which countries agreed with the intel but disagreed with the actions? Don't try and tell me anyone went along for the ride because the U.S. said so. France, Germany, Italy, etc etc etc. all were strongly against what we went and did.
I have no clue why they would not want us to go in and take out a brutal dictatorship. Even if the whole WMD case was not there at the time, there is still pleanty of reason to get rid of him.... Oh wait, I can answer this myself, can we say "Oil for food scandal."
If there is ANY country that you should be arguing had a poitcal interest in a particular decision on Iraq it should be France, our greatest anti-ally in the war.
Quote:
I don't know which specific evidence you mean. Please fill me in.
You brought up that you didn't believe some other countries evidence, I was asking you to show me what you have problems with?
"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
