18 Sep 07
Originally posted by slappy115I think it was Rajk999 that gets the credit for the prosperous Iraq retort .... :-)
Sometimes I jump into the middle of a thread without reading them. But for the most part that whole region has been fairly unstable since God knows when. And Iraq as prosperous? You made a really nice point in that post.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by steponupYes he should be tried and sent to prison along with every US citizen that supported him and all leaders and citizens of other countries that supported the war!
Should George Bush be tried and sent to prison for attacking Iraq without any provocation.
Did he lie intentionally so he could attack Iraq?
Is attacking another country without provocation illegal? Under whose laws? Is the president personally responsible for his countries actions? Did George Bush personally attack Iraq or was it actually the United States of America and it Allies that attacked Iraq? Can a country be tried and sent to in prison?
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by SMSBear716I think America was right to go into Afghanistan. I agree the terror training camps needed curtailling. The taleban regime is also undesirable. I support the ongoing actions in Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Pakistan held the keys to Islamic fundamentalism in the early part of this decade and to a large extent they still do.
Wasn't the fighting in Lebanon and in the Gazain the last year or so involving Hezbollah? Thats what you call Hezbollah being calm huh?
I guess by your definition WWII was just Hitler throwing a 'hissy fit'
The Taliban came after the Soviets in Afghanistan, btw, and they furnished Usama with a base of operation for his terrorist training camps, remember?
You were awake during all this right?
Iraq - if not prosperous was a functioning civil society, with a solid trade base, and healthy infrastructure.
The UN is not a perfect organisation, Food for Oil being an example, but the US likes to use it when it suits - see list above - but ignore it when it comes to the crunch. Blix was doing his job, the was no second resolution agreeing miliatry force. There was no proven reason to attack Iraq - it was complying with inspections - there was no evidence of WMD, it had no links to terrorism, it was not a threat the western interests.
If you wanted Saddam's head on a plate there could have been other methods. Instead many thousands of famillies from many countries have suffered pain and loss.
A small group of people are responsible are responsible for this carnage.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by invigorateYou are implying that the US has the right to decide what other countries do within their borders including what religions they have etc.
I think America was right to go into Afghanistan. I agree the terror training camps needed curtailling. The taleban regime is also undesirable. I support the ongoing actions in Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Pakistan held the keys to Islamic fundamentalism in the early part of this decade and to a large extent they still do.
If you wanted Saddam's head on a plate there could have been other methods. Instead many thousands of families from many countries have suffered pain and loss.
I fully agree with you there, but for some odd reason people are more ready to accept a war with thousands of losses on both sides than an assassination. Its just one of those things....
A small group of people are responsible are responsible for this carnage.
No, a very large group of people are responsible. Unless you are saying the US and the UK are not democracies? Everyone who supported the war must accept some responsibility and even those who didn't must accept some if they are citizens in the countries involved.
I am strongly against the tendency for everyone to blame everything on the leader. For example many people seem to think that Hitler is solely responsible for all atrocities in WW2.
A significant number of people supported the war, some for patriotic reasons, some for selfish reasons (including the belief that it would improve their economy), very very few actually supported it solely because they thought the Iraqi people would be better off as a result.
18 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadCome and get us.we are waiting .... :-)
Yes he should be tried and sent to prison along with every US citizen that supported him and all leaders and citizens of other countries that supported the war!
Is attacking another country without provocation illegal? Under whose laws? Is the president personally responsible for his countries actions? Did George Bush personally attack Iraq or was it a ...[text shortened]... ates of America and it Allies that attacked Iraq? Can a country be tried and sent to in prison?
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by invigorateNow you changed it to 'civil' ?
Iraq - if not prosperous was a functioning civil society, ....
Wiki says :
Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organisations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women's organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.
Iraq had a military dictatorship that killed off the Kurds and Shia'a by the thousands. How can you be so biased ?
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by Rajk999Nice retort!
Now you changed it to 'civil' ?
Wiki says :
[i] Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, b ...[text shortened]... ctatorship that killed off the Kurds and Shia'a by the thousands. How can you be so biased ?
We could argue how much of that description is fitted under Saddam.
But ultimately what we are left with is thousands of unesscessary deaths, even more injured.
A society that does not function, 4 years on, reliable water, electricity supplies and security have not been accomplished.
If we are talking about society in terms of Maslows heirachy of needs - I would suggest Coalition action has pushed it down the triangle quite a bit.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you don't like my response to your post, well maybe then you shouldn't have been so provocative. Thats the kindest most compassionate thing I can say about your rant.
But then I might get tried and sent to jail too, or does your post count as provocation?
That reminds me, where does the original poster get the "no provocation" bit? He clearly never listened to any of Sadams speeches.
What if I suggested that every ANC member that ever participated in a 'necklacing' should be given the same treatment? I suppose that torture wasn't as bad as opponents of Saddam as being fed into a wood chipper. Iraqis who witnessed it say that if Saddam really disliked you you got put in feet first, so the agony lasted longer. Kewl huh?
Have a good day
You know the best thing for you and I to do, is to agree to disagree
18 Sep 07
If Japan/Germany won the world war 2 , we would have seen a trial of US politicians for using Nukes on cities instead of nazis . If there was an US defeat and loss of power of the US, theoratically bush admin and officers would be tried for Iraqi prisoner abuses / and all those illegeal detentions of people in that island and illegal war.
War is nasty and war crimes are usually committed on both sides . It is victor's justice all the way. History is rewritten in the favor of victors .
Even the cold war if it was won by the soviets, we would have been fed a lot of info about how the western bloc tried to oppose worker's society or whatever it is by using money power to overthrow communist ruled countries and about the terrorist organization Cia instead of Kgb .
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by invigorateONE.. No second resolution for force?
[bBlix was doing his job, the was no second resolution agreeing miliatry force. There was no proven reason to attack Iraq - it was complying with inspections
If there was a second you would now be writting "no third resolution." If there was a third you would now be writting "no fourth resolution." Sorry, but YOU don't get to choose except in your own mind.
TWO.. Complying with inspections?
Does delusional ring a bell with you or are you truly so uninformed? Please go to previous post and read resolutions and actual history of the inspectors being thrown out. I dare say you are the only person posting who does not know the inspectors were thrown out by Iraq.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by SMSBear716I'm Zambian not South African so taunts about the ANC won't work. 🙂
What if I suggested that every ANC member that ever participated in a 'necklacing' should be given the same treatment?
But I do think that if the ringleaders get tried then so should the participants. Necklacing was probably morally wrong though I don't know the details. It was certainly illegal and still is.
I suppose that torture wasn't as bad as opponents of Saddam as being fed into a wood chipper. Iraqis who witnessed it say that if Saddam really disliked you you got put in feet first, so the agony lasted longer. Kewl huh?
What does Saddams cruelty have to do with any of this? We all know that the CIA is guilty of torture, sanctioned by president Bush and supported by a significant proportion of the US populace. Can we invade the US on those grounds? Torture is after all illegal in international law.
You know the best thing for you and I to do, is to agree to disagree
If you look at my posts more carefully, I am being a bit sarcastic in the one you didn't like. I don't think that Bush should be tried and sent to jail and I think I made that clear. I do think that the UN should lay down more specific international laws about when countries should be allowed to invade others and on what grounds. But then the world isn't a democracy, its a dictatorship, with the US as the dictator.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by MacSwainI think Invigorate is a lost cause when it comes to world affairs.
ONE.. No second resolution for force?
If there was a second you would now be writting "no third resolution." If there was a third you would now be writting "no fourth resolution." Sorry, but YOU don't get to choose except in your own mind.
TWO.. Complying with inspections?
Does delusional ring a bell with you or are you truly so uninformed? Pleas ...[text shortened]... y you are the only person posting who does not know the inspectors were thrown out by Iraq.
Seems to be ok with other topics though.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI AM REQUESTING A POINT OF CLARIFICATION PLEASE.
[b] Necklacing was probably morally wrong though I don't know the details.
Are you truly saying you do not know if "Necklacing" is morally wrong in all circumstances?
Are you saying details could be supplied to you where you would consider "Necklacing" morally acceptable?