07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lukemcmullanI am for invading all of these places to put a stop to genocide. There may be oil in Iraq which made it politically acceptable, but I think Bush and Blair just did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Why does them having oil change the ethics of this war in your mind? If it would be just without oil, then it is just with oil. Are you in favor of genocide or just caught up with how popular it is to be anti-Bush these days?
Let me ask you a question.
Has Bush invaded Zimbabwe?
Has Bush invaded North Korea?
Has Bush invaded Sierra Leone?
No. Guess why not.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowmabey Bush and Blair did the wrong thing(took advantage of the oil????)for the right reasons(stopping the murders of innocent people).
I am for invading all of these places to put a stop to genocide. There may be oil in Iraq which made it politically acceptable, but I think Bush and Blair just did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Why does them having oil change the ethics of this war in your mind? If it would be just without oil, then it is just with oil. Are you in favor of genocide or just caught up with how popular it is to be anti-Bush these days?
07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by windmillMy way of saying it makes a little more sense, but I think we are trying to say the same thing. "Right thing for the wrong reasons" implies that they got rid of Saddam (right thing) for the oil (wrong reason). The reason for invading may have been the oil with the thing (invasion) stopping the murders. But the reason for taking the oil was certainly not to stop the murder of innocents as implied by your phrasing.
mabey Bush and Blair did the wrong thing(took advantage of the oil????)for the right reasons(stopping the murders of innocent people).
P.S. The word you were looking for at the start of your post is spelled "Maybe"
07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowno...i'm looking for motives.this is important to me.two distinct differences.you suggest they did it for oil...i suggest they used the oil as it would have given more support to do what they needed to.either way the use of the oil will still look the same.
My way of saying it makes a little more sense, but I think we are trying to say the same thing. "Right thing for the wrong reasons" implies that they got rid of Saddam (right thing) for the oil (wrong reason). The reason for invading may have been the oil with the thing (invasion) stopping the murders. But the reason for taking the oil was certainly ...[text shortened]... hrasing.
P.S. The word you were looking for at the start of your post is spelled "Maybe"
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowi think the motives of Mr.Bush were for the right reasons however other's in the running of America would not have been.those people who associated with each other at the time would have gained a sense of who the 'good' and 'bad' people were.at the same time Mr.Bush would have had to support some of these wrong people...to get the job done.
I guess I can agree with you that the oil could be used to sell the war politically. They could say things like "This war will practically pay for itself" or something. I don't agree that that was their reasoning but I will concede in that light that your phrasing makes sense.
07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by windmillNo, the pretense for invading Iraq with the consequential deaths of over 20,000 people was WMD's that did not exist outside of a well presented Power Point presentation.
mabey Bush and Blair did the wrong thing(took advantage of the oil????)for the right reasons(stopping the murders of innocent people).
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by STANGBut once again, regardless of the pretext, the invasion was the right thing to do. They just needed to justify it to the people who automatically assume the U.S. is in the wrong without looking at the particular issue in question. We aren't always right, but that doesn't mean we are always wrong either.
No, the pretense for invading Iraq with the consequential deaths of over 20,000 people was WMD's that did not exist outside of a well presented Power Point presentation.
07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowit is wrong...this is why they have to pay for it now.
But once again, regardless of the pretext, the invasion was the right thing to do. They just needed to justify it to the people who automatically assume the U.S. is in the wrong without looking at the particular issue in question. We aren't always right, but that doesn't mean we are always wrong either.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowOkay, you are saying that going to war in Iraq was justified because they were human rights violators? If you check the Amnesty International website they list the top human rights violators in the world. North Korea is at the top of the list. Next on the list at the beginning of the war was Saudi Arabia. Do you prepose that we take them on next? Or does your justification only extend to nations that would be easy targets?
But once again, regardless of the pretext, the invasion was the right thing to do. They just needed to justify it to the people who automatically assume the U.S. is in the wrong without looking at the particular issue in question. We aren't always right, but that doesn't mean we are always wrong either.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by CliffLandin1)threats to their own country would come first over the actual evil?
Okay, you are saying that going to war in Iraq was justified because they were human rights violators? If you check the Amnesty International website they list the top human rights violators in the world. North Korea is at the top of the list. Next on the list at the beginning of the war was Saudi Arabia. Do you prepose that we take them on next? Or does your justification only extend to nations that would be easy targets?
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowMaybe good will come out of 9/11 too ?
But once again, regardless of the pretext, the invasion was the right thing to do. They just needed to justify it to the people who automatically assume the U.S. is in the wrong without looking at the particular issue in question. We aren't always right, but that doesn't mean we are always wrong either.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by CliffLandinI say we should take them on next, I have said it before. I don't just use human rights as an excuse. I think that any large scale violation of human rights should be stopped. If no one else will step in to do it, I think the U.S. has that responsibility. My optimal solution would be for the U.N. to have a strong military of its own and the will to use it. If you kick out U.N. weapons inspectors, they kick your butt. This doesn't look like it is going to happen any time soon, so I am happy with the U.S. stepping in as global policeman. The biggest issue is the one you bring up, they only want to enforce human rights when it is profitable for them.
Okay, you are saying that going to war in Iraq was justified because they were human rights violators? If you check the Amnesty International website they list the top human rights violators in the world. North Korea is at the top of the list. Next on the list at the beginning of the war was Saudi Arabia. Do you prepose that we take them on next? Or does your justification only extend to nations that would be easy targets?
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowSorry Umbrage I'm gonna disagree here. The UN should be the only way to go. Unilateralism cannot be allowed to continue. You speak of the US led invasion as preventing human deaths and human rights abuses, but those things are just as bad now as they were under Saddam. Sure, things may get better in the future, but I believe that were the UN given the full support it requires then this situation could have been dealt with in a better fashion than it currently has.
I say we should take them on next, I have said it before. I don't just use human rights as an excuse. I think that any large scale violation of human rights should be stopped. If no one else will step in to do it, I think the U.S. has that responsibility. My optimal solution would be for the U.N. to have a strong military of its own and the will to ...[text shortened]... s the one you bring up, they only want to enforce human rights when it is profitable for them.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by windmilllol.i lied....why would i waste my time?????it don't matter if he was still living in a palace that didn't belong to him or in the hands of his enemies because justice would be served from those who died and their families who cried out to God.yes God...not god!
i would.
redemtion in God's eyes would be found if he takes responsibility for his actions and asks for a death sentence....this is how i WILL KNOW he is my brother.mabey when he's prepared to lose his whole life i won't want to smack him in the head and put the idiot in hospital.