<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 3 2004, 12:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 3 2004, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Who watches the watchers, if the US consistently claims that its legal system is better than any other, ever, and thus they refuse to accept ICC legislation?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ICC legistlation? Americans are the only ones who need to govern themselves, thanks. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're missing the point. America does <i>not</i> have the right to invade another country because America wants to, when the rest of the world says it's not right, on the basis that America only cares about what America thinks. Americans are <i>not</i> the only ones who need to govern themselves if their actions affect other nations.
I can understand your point if we were to go into a nation on the sole intent of kiling innocent people, or robbing the invaded nation of everything valuable. But that's not the case - and if America ever tried doing that, not only would other nations rise up against us, but the citizens of America would as well.
If we listened to France and Germany, who had their pockets in Iraq, Saddam would still be in power. Personally, I don't think it'll work well having other countries govern our decisions. America was founded on that rebellion, and I don't think 200 years is a long enough time to give that up.
Man our government is a big hypocrite. Sold weapons to Iran to kill Iraqis, sold weapons to Iraq to kill Iranians, and in 2004 when things don't go our way (when the fact of the matter is things weren't even going wrong with WMD) we smite them. Hmm...
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 3 2004, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 3 2004, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Man our government is a big hypocrite. Sold weapons to Iran to kill Iraqis, sold weapons to Iraq to kill Iranians, and in 2004 when things don't go our way (when the fact of the matter is things weren't even going wrong with WMD) we smite them. Hmm... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And once again I ask to forum community to join me in prayer that CWAG never, EVER gets a car. In the event he swerves to miss another car and hits a pedestrian, then the same moral clarity underlying his above statement will force him to drive on, leaving the pedestrian bleeding and suffering behind him.
Let us never forget that if you are in any way responsible for misery in this world, then that automatically invalidates and condemns any action you take to allieviate the same pain. If you caused it, you aint allowed to fix it. In fact, you should be reminded daily that you caused it, but any attempts to rectify should be howled at.
Seeing as someone took the liberty of quoting Micheal Moore, let me add another quote from the same movie, spoken by a young US soldier:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont get it. When we drive past they tell us they hate us and want us to go home, but when insurgents attack, they scream and cry and demand to know why we weren't there to protect them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 3 2004, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 3 2004, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can understand your point if we were to go into a nation on the sole intent of kiling innocent people, or robbing the invaded nation of everything valuable. But that's not the case - and if America ever tried doing that, not only would other nations rise up against us, but the citizens of America would as well.
If we listened to France and Germany, who had their pockets in Iraq, Saddam would still be in power. Personally, I don't think it'll work well having other countries govern our decisions. America was founded on that rebellion, and I don't think 200 years is a long enough time to give that up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you truly believe in fighting to defend your right to unilaterally govern other countries? How America looks after its own people is its business. Either that right must be extended to <i>all</i> nations, and be invioble, or <i>all</i> nations must be subject to international scrutiny.
What I mean to say is that you cannot declare that America has the right to conduct its own affairs, and in the same breath say that Iraq does not - Saddam Hussein or no Saddam Hussein.
I'm not trying to justify totalitarian regimes. Personally, I believe they should be officially and internationally outlawed, which would sanction international attacks against evil governments such as Saddam's. The fact is, America has <i>no right</i> to decide on its own how another country should be run. Do <i>not</i> mistake that as being part of America's right to govern itself.
Regardless, I don't believe for one second that the USA attacked Iraq because the government believed there was a connection to the World Trade Center attack, or because they believed there were chemical, biological or nuclear weapons hidden there - it was simply a pretext. Nor do I believe that this pretext was a guise for a desire to help out the oppressed people of Iraq - no government is that altruistic. There are definately ulterior motives in play here, which makes the situation worse. But I'm straying from the topic.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 3 2004, 12:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 3 2004, 12:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And we are the worlds police why? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I personally think we should be the worlds LAPD.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 2 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 2 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And we are the worlds police why? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> because
1) we can afford it 2) aren't as uptight as other 1st world countries regarding foreign policy
SoulSkorpion, I understand your point. I don't see a good resolution to it - I don't think the ICC is the answer to every problem this type of situation may face. I don't like having American run by other countries, but I do think the government needs to be held accountable for its actions. At the moment, I don't think that the removal of Saddam was wrong - at least, it did more good than harm. I don't think America could send its soldiers to a country to do something terribly immoral without some sort of kickback, which is why I think the outcry for the ICC is a little ungrounded.
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Aug 3 2004, 12:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Aug 3 2004, 12:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 3 2004, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 3 2004, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can understand your point if we were to go into a nation on the sole intent of kiling innocent people, or robbing the invaded nation of everything valuable. But that's not the case - and if America ever tried doing that, not only would other nations rise up against us, but the citizens of America would as well.
If we listened to France and Germany, who had their pockets in Iraq, Saddam would still be in power. Personally, I don't think it'll work well having other countries govern our decisions. America was founded on that rebellion, and I don't think 200 years is a long enough time to give that up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you truly believe in fighting to defend your right to unilaterally govern other countries? How America looks after its own people is its business. Either that right must be extended to <i>all</i> nations, and be invioble, or <i>all</i> nations must be subject to international scrutiny.
What I mean to say is that you cannot declare that America has the right to conduct its own affairs, and in the same breath say that Iraq does not - Saddam Hussein or no Saddam Hussein.
I'm not trying to justify totalitarian regimes. Personally, I believe they should be officially and internationally outlawed, which would sanction international attacks against evil governments such as Saddam's. The fact is, America has <i>no right</i> to decide on its own how another country should be run. Do <i>not</i> mistake that as being part of America's right to govern itself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong. The country has just as little right <i>not to be invaded</i>, as little as we have to invade. For someone to claim we have no right to be the worlds police is ludacris.
<b>Might</b> is <i>right</i>. Whether you like it or not, that is how our world operates.
Simply because we are the most benevolent world power to date does not mean you get to take advantage of us claiming we have no right to invade in the first place. There are no inalienable rights here.
To quote the obvious and spider man: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Do you know what that the responsibility is? It is to keep the power. So far, the USA has been the least ruthless in history to keep this power.
Simply sitting on our thumbs while pretending no one will notice how big and rich we are is crazy... we were the targets of Japan even though we minded our own buisiness, and France was the target of Germany even though they tried talks....
How many examples can you think of where the more powerful one fell because they chose not to use it? If you want things to stay your way, you need to make sure it happens.
Don't like it? Then I suggest you tune out of planet earth. I know I sound harsh, but this is the way the world works...
I like the USA because we have been the nicest in terms of pushing our power around. I can only wonder what Saddam would do if he was king for a day (aka president)
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Simply sitting on our thumbs while pretending no one will notice how big and rich we are is crazy... we were the targets of Japan even though we minded our own buisiness, and France was the target of Germany even though they tried talks....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Japan attacked us because we cut off their oil supply, and they either had to cripple us or pull their military back in. Germany attacked France because Hitler wanted to control all of Europe, and France would have retaliated with military force had it not been caught off gaurd.
In the case of Iraq, they were not a threat to any other nation. Between our constant searches for WMD's and our patrolling of the no-fly zones over Iraq, it would have been quite difficult for them to produce a meaningful threat. It's possible they could have been a threat to neighboring nations (maybe), but their neighbors weren't asking for help.
Maybe the US should be policing the globe. However, what need was there to interfere in Iraq? If it was because of the dictatorship regime, then there are probably lots of other places we should invade to change that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Zig+Aug 3 2004, 12:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Aug 3 2004, 12:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2) aren't as uptight as other 1st world countries regarding foreign policy <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Neither was hitler. "WE NEED MORE LIVING SPACE"
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 3 2004, 02:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 3 2004, 02:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Aug 3 2004, 12:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Aug 3 2004, 12:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 3 2004, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 3 2004, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can understand your point if we were to go into a nation on the sole intent of kiling innocent people, or robbing the invaded nation of everything valuable. But that's not the case - and if America ever tried doing that, not only would other nations rise up against us, but the citizens of America would as well.
If we listened to France and Germany, who had their pockets in Iraq, Saddam would still be in power. Personally, I don't think it'll work well having other countries govern our decisions. America was founded on that rebellion, and I don't think 200 years is a long enough time to give that up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you truly believe in fighting to defend your right to unilaterally govern other countries? How America looks after its own people is its business. Either that right must be extended to <i>all</i> nations, and be invioble, or <i>all</i> nations must be subject to international scrutiny.
What I mean to say is that you cannot declare that America has the right to conduct its own affairs, and in the same breath say that Iraq does not - Saddam Hussein or no Saddam Hussein.
I'm not trying to justify totalitarian regimes. Personally, I believe they should be officially and internationally outlawed, which would sanction international attacks against evil governments such as Saddam's. The fact is, America has <i>no right</i> to decide on its own how another country should be run. Do <i>not</i> mistake that as being part of America's right to govern itself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong. The country has just as little right <i>not to be invaded</i>, as little as we have to invade. For someone to claim we have no right to be the worlds police is ludacris.
<b>Might</b> is <i>right</i>. Whether you like it or not, that is how our world operates.
Simply because we are the most benevolent world power to date does not mean you get to take advantage of us claiming we have no right to invade in the first place. There are no inalienable rights here.
To quote the obvious and spider man: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Do you know what that the responsibility is? It is to keep the power. So far, the USA has been the least ruthless in history to keep this power.
Simply sitting on our thumbs while pretending no one will notice how big and rich we are is crazy... we were the targets of Japan even though we minded our own buisiness, and France was the target of Germany even though they tried talks....
How many examples can you think of where the more powerful one fell because they chose not to use it? If you want things to stay your way, you need to make sure it happens.
Don't like it? Then I suggest you tune out of planet earth. I know I sound harsh, but this is the way the world works...
I like the USA because we have been the nicest in terms of pushing our power around. I can only wonder what Saddam would do if he was king for a day (aka president) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Overwhelming power does not give any country the right to make rules about other countries, nor the right to invade them. Period. F*** the status quo; I'm talking about what's right, not what's current.
What power does is enables them to to do so regardless. I'm not an idiot - it's <i>obvious</i> that the country with the most power can dictate or ignore the rules. That doesn't make it <b>right</b>, and it doesn't have to be that way. If you're so ****ing benevolent then <i>follow the rules</i>.
The ends do <i>not</i> justify the means. If you compromise that rule, you put your own freedom at stake. Violating freedom in the name of freedom is bull****.
Here's an example of your ****ing belevolence: Australia's had two of its citizens held at Guantanamo Bay for over a year now without charge, with their own lawyers having severely restricted access to them, and our government does nothing because they're too busy sucking America's wang. Are you suggesting that it's ok with you to put people in camps and refuse to allow neutral organisations to verify that they haven't been tortured? How about if you got arrested for something you didn't do, the legal system assumes you're guilty unless proven otherwise, and they're allowed to torture you to get a confession out of you? "It's for a good cause, you dirty terrorist (which, of course, you're not). We're defending freedom here". Welcome back to the middle ****ing ages!
In terms of whether or not Saddam deserved to be deposed: does the phrase "crimes against humanity" mean anything to you? There is precedent for trying leaders of other countries who abuse their people, so rather than **** on it you could perhaps use it? Whether or not removing Saddam from power was a good thing or not is utterly and totally irrelevant.
[edit]And you know what makes me really ****ing furious? You not only let your leaders get away with ****ing on your freedoms in the name of freedom, but you defend it! We can't hold your leaders responsible for violating our freedoms, but you'd better hold them responsible for violating <i>yours</i> before you lose that ability.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Aug 3 2004, 07:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Aug 3 2004, 07:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Overwhelming power does not give any country the right to make rules about other countries, nor the right to invade them. Period. F*** the status quo; <b>I'm talking about what's right, not what's current.</b>
In terms of whether or not Saddam deserved to be deposed: does the phrase "crimes against humanity" mean anything to you? There is precedent for trying leaders of other countries who abuse their people, so rather than **** on it you could perhaps use it? <b>Whether or not removing Saddam from power was a good thing or not is utterly and totally irrelevant.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To be fair, I suspect most Australians really dont care about Hicks and Habib, even if they should. I still find it really hard to feel even the slightest whit of sympathy for them - they werent in Afghanistan handing out candy..... Still, I want a little more transparency. And if its the case (and I strongly suspect it is) that most Australians couldnt give a damn about those two, then the Government is kinda carrying out the will of the people by leaving it alone.
But on to my second point - hilarious that at the start of your tirade against the US, you talk about whats RIGHT!, but when it comes to Saddam, the RIGHT! thing to do becomes "utterly and totally irrelevant". Explain to me what the RIGHT! thing to do is? Do we have to take everything through the UN for it to be RIGHT! - I suspect a couple of hundred thou of our Rwandan friends might argue against that idea, were they still breathing. You speak of RIGHT! as though it was something set in stone, some untouchable principle, self explanatory and self evident. Its not, at least according to most people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Explain to me what the RIGHT! thing to do is?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Try him for war crimes at the International Court of Justice. That's due process. Simply invading the country doing what you like with him is not.
Wow...Zig makes a wonderful post on something great that has come out of Iraq, and all you guys can do is ridicule him and the whole story. Shame on you or anyone who had ANY negative posts.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mullet+Aug 3 2004, 09:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mullet @ Aug 3 2004, 09:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow...Zig makes a wonderful post on something great that has come out of Iraq, and all you guys can do is ridicule him and the whole story. Shame on you or anyone who had ANY negative posts.
I've never been so disgusted by this community.
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> dont be such a drama queen. you know if anyone posts a negative aspect of whats going on in Iraq they get beat down just as bad.
Well all the folks here that are so pro war why don't you sign up then. Oh no, we'd rather the lower-middleclass children do that for us or else they don't get their college money. I hope you choke on your monocles.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Aug 3 2004, 12:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Aug 3 2004, 12:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 3 2004, 12:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 3 2004, 12:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And we are the worlds police why? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I personally think we should be the worlds LAPD. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah. The world needs more Rodney Kings.
<!--QuoteBegin-Melatonin+Aug 3 2004, 02:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Aug 3 2004, 02:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Mullet+Aug 3 2004, 09:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mullet @ Aug 3 2004, 09:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow...Zig makes a wonderful post on something great that has come out of Iraq, and all you guys can do is ridicule him and the whole story. Shame on you or anyone who had ANY negative posts.
I've never been so disgusted by this community.
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> dont be such a drama queen. you know if anyone posts a negative aspect of whats going on in Iraq they get beat down just as bad. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's drama <i>king </i>to you.
I guess I will just play along with all the liberals and blame everything on Bush.
Iraq had violated the cease-fire agreements it had agreed upon following its defeat in the first Gulf War, primarily the requirement to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. This in itself is justification for military action to be taken. If we're going to draw off examples from WW2, then anyone remember what happened when nobody cracked down on Germany for violating the Treaty of Versailles?
At any rate, Iraq has been free for only a short time. As stated before, occupation forces are there to ensure the new democracy is not destabilized by terrorists. Pulling these forces out would do much more harm than good. It may be ten years, it could be twenty, perhaps longer, but I have no doubt Iraq can join the ranks of modern, developed democratic nations if its new democracy endures.
Though, in today's society which values instant gratification, it's understandable how some people cannot understand the long-term situation and plans for Iraq...
<!--QuoteBegin-Rage against the Pepsi machine+Aug 3 2004, 05:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rage against the Pepsi machine @ Aug 3 2004, 05:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Though, in today's society which values instant gratification, it's understandable how some people cannot understand the long-term situation and plans for Iraq... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Long term? What's that? Something that doesn't fit in my 14-second attention span, probably.
Seriously, though, I can always appreciate a good long-term plan. It's just that in the case of Iraq the administration didn't have one.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mullet+Aug 3 2004, 09:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mullet @ Aug 3 2004, 09:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> dont be such a drama queen. you know if anyone posts a negative aspect of whats going on in Iraq they get beat down just as bad. [/QUOTE] That's drama <i>king </i>to you.
I guess I will just play along with all the liberals and blame everything on Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> see now, that wasnt so hard was it, your highness.... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh, that statement of mine about playing along....that was sarcastic. My bad....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though, in today's society which values instant gratification, it's understandable how some people cannot understand the long-term situation and plans for Iraq...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The funny thing is, the people bitchin about omg freedom sucks usualy had a very high paying job from sadam or he often gave those people something. So when we get rid of him, they actualy have to WORK (omg noez!) so of course their going to throw a fit D:
Comments
ICC legistlation? Americans are the only ones who need to govern themselves, thanks. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're missing the point. America does <i>not</i> have the right to invade another country because America wants to, when the rest of the world says it's not right, on the basis that America only cares about what America thinks. Americans are <i>not</i> the only ones who need to govern themselves if their actions affect other nations.
If we listened to France and Germany, who had their pockets in Iraq, Saddam would still be in power. Personally, I don't think it'll work well having other countries govern our decisions. America was founded on that rebellion, and I don't think 200 years is a long enough time to give that up.
And once again I ask to forum community to join me in prayer that CWAG never, EVER gets a car. In the event he swerves to miss another car and hits a pedestrian, then the same moral clarity underlying his above statement will force him to drive on, leaving the pedestrian bleeding and suffering behind him.
Let us never forget that if you are in any way responsible for misery in this world, then that automatically invalidates and condemns any action you take to allieviate the same pain. If you caused it, you aint allowed to fix it. In fact, you should be reminded daily that you caused it, but any attempts to rectify should be howled at.
Seeing as someone took the liberty of quoting Micheal Moore, let me add another quote from the same movie, spoken by a young US soldier:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont get it. When we drive past they tell us they hate us and want us to go home, but when insurgents attack, they scream and cry and demand to know why we weren't there to protect them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we listened to France and Germany, who had their pockets in Iraq, Saddam would still be in power. Personally, I don't think it'll work well having other countries govern our decisions. America was founded on that rebellion, and I don't think 200 years is a long enough time to give that up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you truly believe in fighting to defend your right to unilaterally govern other countries? How America looks after its own people is its business. Either that right must be extended to <i>all</i> nations, and be invioble, or <i>all</i> nations must be subject to international scrutiny.
What I mean to say is that you cannot declare that America has the right to conduct its own affairs, and in the same breath say that Iraq does not - Saddam Hussein or no Saddam Hussein.
I'm not trying to justify totalitarian regimes. Personally, I believe they should be officially and internationally outlawed, which would sanction international attacks against evil governments such as Saddam's. The fact is, America has <i>no right</i> to decide on its own how another country should be run. Do <i>not</i> mistake that as being part of America's right to govern itself.
Regardless, I don't believe for one second that the USA attacked Iraq because the government believed there was a connection to the World Trade Center attack, or because they believed there were chemical, biological or nuclear weapons hidden there - it was simply a pretext. Nor do I believe that this pretext was a guise for a desire to help out the oppressed people of Iraq - no government is that altruistic. There are definately ulterior motives in play here, which makes the situation worse. But I'm straying from the topic.
I personally think we should be the worlds LAPD.
because
1) we can afford it
2) aren't as uptight as other 1st world countries regarding foreign policy
If we listened to France and Germany, who had their pockets in Iraq, Saddam would still be in power. Personally, I don't think it'll work well having other countries govern our decisions. America was founded on that rebellion, and I don't think 200 years is a long enough time to give that up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you truly believe in fighting to defend your right to unilaterally govern other countries? How America looks after its own people is its business. Either that right must be extended to <i>all</i> nations, and be invioble, or <i>all</i> nations must be subject to international scrutiny.
What I mean to say is that you cannot declare that America has the right to conduct its own affairs, and in the same breath say that Iraq does not - Saddam Hussein or no Saddam Hussein.
I'm not trying to justify totalitarian regimes. Personally, I believe they should be officially and internationally outlawed, which would sanction international attacks against evil governments such as Saddam's. The fact is, America has <i>no right</i> to decide on its own how another country should be run. Do <i>not</i> mistake that as being part of America's right to govern itself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. The country has just as little right <i>not to be invaded</i>, as little as we have to invade. For someone to claim we have no right to be the worlds police is ludacris.
<b>Might</b> is <i>right</i>. Whether you like it or not, that is how our world operates.
Simply because we are the most benevolent world power to date does not mean you get to take advantage of us claiming we have no right to invade in the first place. There are no inalienable rights here.
To quote the obvious and spider man: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Do you know what that the responsibility is? It is to keep the power. So far, the USA has been the least ruthless in history to keep this power.
Simply sitting on our thumbs while pretending no one will notice how big and rich we are is crazy... we were the targets of Japan even though we minded our own buisiness, and France was the target of Germany even though they tried talks....
How many examples can you think of where the more powerful one fell because they chose not to use it? If you want things to stay your way, you need to make sure it happens.
Don't like it? Then I suggest you tune out of planet earth. I know I sound harsh, but this is the way the world works...
I like the USA because we have been the nicest in terms of pushing our power around. I can only wonder what Saddam would do if he was king for a day (aka president)
Japan attacked us because we cut off their oil supply, and they either had to cripple us or pull their military back in. Germany attacked France because Hitler wanted to control all of Europe, and France would have retaliated with military force had it not been caught off gaurd.
In the case of Iraq, they were not a threat to any other nation. Between our constant searches for WMD's and our patrolling of the no-fly zones over Iraq, it would have been quite difficult for them to produce a meaningful threat. It's possible they could have been a threat to neighboring nations (maybe), but their neighbors weren't asking for help.
Maybe the US should be policing the globe. However, what need was there to interfere in Iraq? If it was because of the dictatorship regime, then there are probably lots of other places we should invade to change that.
2) aren't as uptight as other 1st world countries regarding foreign policy <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neither was hitler. "WE NEED MORE LIVING SPACE"
If we listened to France and Germany, who had their pockets in Iraq, Saddam would still be in power. Personally, I don't think it'll work well having other countries govern our decisions. America was founded on that rebellion, and I don't think 200 years is a long enough time to give that up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you truly believe in fighting to defend your right to unilaterally govern other countries? How America looks after its own people is its business. Either that right must be extended to <i>all</i> nations, and be invioble, or <i>all</i> nations must be subject to international scrutiny.
What I mean to say is that you cannot declare that America has the right to conduct its own affairs, and in the same breath say that Iraq does not - Saddam Hussein or no Saddam Hussein.
I'm not trying to justify totalitarian regimes. Personally, I believe they should be officially and internationally outlawed, which would sanction international attacks against evil governments such as Saddam's. The fact is, America has <i>no right</i> to decide on its own how another country should be run. Do <i>not</i> mistake that as being part of America's right to govern itself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. The country has just as little right <i>not to be invaded</i>, as little as we have to invade. For someone to claim we have no right to be the worlds police is ludacris.
<b>Might</b> is <i>right</i>. Whether you like it or not, that is how our world operates.
Simply because we are the most benevolent world power to date does not mean you get to take advantage of us claiming we have no right to invade in the first place. There are no inalienable rights here.
To quote the obvious and spider man: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Do you know what that the responsibility is? It is to keep the power. So far, the USA has been the least ruthless in history to keep this power.
Simply sitting on our thumbs while pretending no one will notice how big and rich we are is crazy... we were the targets of Japan even though we minded our own buisiness, and France was the target of Germany even though they tried talks....
How many examples can you think of where the more powerful one fell because they chose not to use it? If you want things to stay your way, you need to make sure it happens.
Don't like it? Then I suggest you tune out of planet earth. I know I sound harsh, but this is the way the world works...
I like the USA because we have been the nicest in terms of pushing our power around. I can only wonder what Saddam would do if he was king for a day (aka president) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Overwhelming power does not give any country the right to make rules about other countries, nor the right to invade them. Period. F*** the status quo; I'm talking about what's right, not what's current.
What power does is enables them to to do so regardless. I'm not an idiot - it's <i>obvious</i> that the country with the most power can dictate or ignore the rules. That doesn't make it <b>right</b>, and it doesn't have to be that way. If you're so ****ing benevolent then <i>follow the rules</i>.
The ends do <i>not</i> justify the means. If you compromise that rule, you put your own freedom at stake. Violating freedom in the name of freedom is bull****.
Here's an example of your ****ing belevolence: Australia's had two of its citizens held at Guantanamo Bay for over a year now without charge, with their own lawyers having severely restricted access to them, and our government does nothing because they're too busy sucking America's wang. Are you suggesting that it's ok with you to put people in camps and refuse to allow neutral organisations to verify that they haven't been tortured? How about if you got arrested for something you didn't do, the legal system assumes you're guilty unless proven otherwise, and they're allowed to torture you to get a confession out of you? "It's for a good cause, you dirty terrorist (which, of course, you're not). We're defending freedom here". Welcome back to the middle ****ing ages!
In terms of whether or not Saddam deserved to be deposed: does the phrase "crimes against humanity" mean anything to you? There is precedent for trying leaders of other countries who abuse their people, so rather than **** on it you could perhaps use it? Whether or not removing Saddam from power was a good thing or not is utterly and totally irrelevant.
[edit]And you know what makes me really ****ing furious? You not only let your leaders get away with ****ing on your freedoms in the name of freedom, but you defend it! We can't hold your leaders responsible for violating our freedoms, but you'd better hold them responsible for violating <i>yours</i> before you lose that ability.[/edit]
In terms of whether or not Saddam deserved to be deposed: does the phrase "crimes against humanity" mean anything to you? There is precedent for trying leaders of other countries who abuse their people, so rather than **** on it you could perhaps use it? <b>Whether or not removing Saddam from power was a good thing or not is utterly and totally irrelevant.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be fair, I suspect most Australians really dont care about Hicks and Habib, even if they should. I still find it really hard to feel even the slightest whit of sympathy for them - they werent in Afghanistan handing out candy..... Still, I want a little more transparency. And if its the case (and I strongly suspect it is) that most Australians couldnt give a damn about those two, then the Government is kinda carrying out the will of the people by leaving it alone.
But on to my second point - hilarious that at the start of your tirade against the US, you talk about whats RIGHT!, but when it comes to Saddam, the RIGHT! thing to do becomes "utterly and totally irrelevant". Explain to me what the RIGHT! thing to do is? Do we have to take everything through the UN for it to be RIGHT! - I suspect a couple of hundred thou of our Rwandan friends might argue against that idea, were they still breathing. You speak of RIGHT! as though it was something set in stone, some untouchable principle, self explanatory and self evident. Its not, at least according to most people.
Try him for war crimes at the International Court of Justice. That's due process. Simply invading the country doing what you like with him is not.
I've never been so disgusted by this community.
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I've never been so disgusted by this community.
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
dont be such a drama queen.
you know if anyone posts a negative aspect of whats going on in Iraq they get beat down just as bad.
I personally think we should be the worlds LAPD. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. The world needs more Rodney Kings.
I've never been so disgusted by this community.
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
dont be such a drama queen.
you know if anyone posts a negative aspect of whats going on in Iraq they get beat down just as bad. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's drama <i>king </i>to you.
I guess I will just play along with all the liberals and blame everything on Bush.
If we're going to draw off examples from WW2, then anyone remember what happened when nobody cracked down on Germany for violating the Treaty of Versailles?
At any rate, Iraq has been free for only a short time. As stated before, occupation forces are there to ensure the new democracy is not destabilized by terrorists. Pulling these forces out would do much more harm than good. It may be ten years, it could be twenty, perhaps longer, but I have no doubt Iraq can join the ranks of modern, developed democratic nations if its new democracy endures.
Though, in today's society which values instant gratification, it's understandable how some people cannot understand the long-term situation and plans for Iraq...
Long term? What's that? Something that doesn't fit in my 14-second attention span, probably.
Seriously, though, I can always appreciate a good long-term plan. It's just that in the case of Iraq the administration didn't have one.
you know if anyone posts a negative aspect of whats going on in Iraq they get beat down just as bad. [/QUOTE]
That's drama <i>king </i>to you.
I guess I will just play along with all the liberals and blame everything on Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
see now, that wasnt so hard was it, your highness.... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though, in today's society which values instant gratification, it's understandable how some people cannot understand the long-term situation and plans for Iraq...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So true....
A place for more serious not NS-related discussions.
only asking... <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'd move it, but with an initial page already violating several of Disc's rules, that's of little use.
(Edited because I shouldn't try to write while I'm still half-asleep.)