|
On January 16 2010 04:45 shidonu wrote:
yeah we should take the moral high ground and allow innocent people to die so the terrorists don't feel uncomfortable.
I don't see why the guys who died in the World Trade Centre are more innocent than the dozen if not hundred thousand people ytour country have killed duriong theses two murderous wars.
I don't like Al Qaeda, but your country isn't doing a much better job.
|
On January 16 2010 04:11 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans. We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through. That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq. "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture. Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority. At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time. lol. So now America represents Justice. Better and better. You do nothing but spout bollocks. Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one. You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety. Stop being a sheep. The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't legal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm
Kofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. "
|
On January 15 2010 02:18 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote:
After Bush got the US into the whole mess with two wars, there is not much Obama can do at the moment.
Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive. Are all Europeans this uninformed about America?
Pretty much ^^
|
On January 16 2010 04:59 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 04:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:
[quote]
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through. That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq. "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture. Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority. At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time. lol. So now America represents Justice. Better and better. You do nothing but spout bollocks. Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one. You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety. Stop being a sheep. The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it. No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stmKofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. "
Yes it is legal.
It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following.
The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
|
On January 16 2010 05:06 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 04:59 Boblion wrote:On January 16 2010 04:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
[quote]
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq. "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture. Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority. At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time. lol. So now America represents Justice. Better and better. You do nothing but spout bollocks. Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one. You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety. Stop being a sheep. The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it. No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stmKofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. " Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
That's the reason American have given, and it has never been voted. The diplomat in Ghana represents the United Nations. He speaks for the United Nations. (What does it do that he is from Ghana, btw?)
|
On January 16 2010 05:06 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 04:59 Boblion wrote:On January 16 2010 04:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
[quote]
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq. "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture. Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority. At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time. lol. So now America represents Justice. Better and better. You do nothing but spout bollocks. Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one. You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety. Stop being a sheep. The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it. No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stmKofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. " Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
This man happens to speak for the UN, which represents far more of the world than a man trying to rationalize a war that his own country has perpetrated.
|
On January 16 2010 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 05:06 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 04:59 Boblion wrote:On January 16 2010 04:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
[quote]
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority. At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time. lol. So now America represents Justice. Better and better. You do nothing but spout bollocks. Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one. You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety. Stop being a sheep. The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it. No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stmKofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. " Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world. That's the reason American have given, and it has never been voted. The diplomat in Ghana represents the United Nations. He speaks for the United Nations. (What does it do that he is from Ghana, btw?)
Doesn't matter where he is from. The resolutions required already exist.
|
On January 13 2010 04:21 motbob wrote:+ Show Spoiler +You're grasping at straws. You always do. Stop posting.
|
On January 16 2010 05:06 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 04:59 Boblion wrote:On January 16 2010 04:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
[quote]
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq. "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture. Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority. At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time. lol. So now America represents Justice. Better and better. You do nothing but spout bollocks. Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one. You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety. Stop being a sheep. The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it. No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stmKofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. " Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
The "diplomat of Ghana" was the Secretary-General of the United Nations and you are an ignorant and despisable person.
|
Are you comparing water boarding to systematic genocide?
As a matter of fact, no I am not. Now I suggest you open up a couple of valves in your brain and go back. Read carefully, both my post and the one before it.
|
I don't know if you guys know this (because it kind of went unnoticed) but reports released after Sadam Hussein's death say that the reason he did not allow foreign inspectors (which led the US to believe he was hiding WMD's) was because he did not want to show Iran (rival country) how weak its arsenal really was.
700 Billion dollars down the fucking drain.
|
Did he really just call the UN Secretary General of the United Nations that "diplomat of Ghana"?
God I love the people in my country.....
|
On January 16 2010 04:11 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans. We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through. That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq. "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture. Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority. At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time. lol. So now America represents Justice. Better and better. You do nothing but spout bollocks. Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one. You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety. Stop being a sheep. The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't.
If it had been, the United States would not have fought to get Security Council Resolution 1441, a resolution which in no way authorized force, passed and then decided to invade when it became clear that Iraq was complying with that resolution and no such authorization for an invasion would come from the Security Council.
|
On January 16 2010 06:00 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 04:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:
[quote]
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through. That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq. "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture. Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority. At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time. lol. So now America represents Justice. Better and better. You do nothing but spout bollocks. Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one. You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety. Stop being a sheep. The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it. No it wasn't. If it had been, the United States would not have fought to get Security Council Resolution 1441, a resolution which in no way authorized force, passed and then decided to invade when it became clear that Iraq was complying with that resolution and no such authorization for an invasion would come from the Security Council.
I find it amusing that when other countries pull this kind of stunt, we condemn them and slap them with sanctions, yet when we do it, we still see ourselves as holding the moral high ground.
|
America isn't atypical. Hypocrisy is the norm in international relations.
|
On January 16 2010 06:25 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 06:00 Mindcrime wrote:On January 16 2010 04:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
[quote]
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq. "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture. Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority. At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time. lol. So now America represents Justice. Better and better. You do nothing but spout bollocks. Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one. You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety. Stop being a sheep. The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it. No it wasn't. If it had been, the United States would not have fought to get Security Council Resolution 1441, a resolution which in no way authorized force, passed and then decided to invade when it became clear that Iraq was complying with that resolution and no such authorization for an invasion would come from the Security Council. I find it amusing that when other countries pull this kind of stunt, we condemn them and slap them with sanctions, yet when we do it, we still see ourselves as holding the moral high ground.
It's one of the perks of hegemony.
|
I would say that it's humanity's norm, at every level from individual onward.
|
On January 16 2010 06:57 Draconizard wrote:
I would say that it's humanity's norm, at every level from individual onward.
Hmm not necessarly.
It's the human's being norm while considering his ineterests. Luckily, sometimes, we can act without being ruled by our private interests. That's what makes human fundamentally different from animal.
|
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
Hey guys - stay on topic and don't resort to personal attacks on someone or their nationality. It contributes absolutely nothing to the thread.
|
On January 16 2010 06:57 Draconizard wrote:
I would say that it's humanity's norm, at every level from individual onward.
Of course it is. Hypocrisy is merely the consequence of people sometimes falling short of their ideals. Hypocrisy is fundamentally different from a lie in that the contradiction can only be seen by indirect inference, and is therefore committed unintentionally. It's the equivalent of moral sloppiness or carelessness.
I'm afraid the behaviour of the American administration on the eve of the Iraq war was far worse than hypocrisy; it was cynical. It will be difficult to assign responsibility for the web of lies fed to the public in the early months of 2003, but there is no doubt today that the conductors of the scheme were set on invading Iraq many months ahead of the event, and the diplomatic charade of the antebellum was quite insincere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
