| Forum Index > General Forum |
Personal attacks and off-topics arguments won't be tolerated. Report posters that break the rules, instead of responding to them. | ||
|
hongo
207 Posts
And when you say the troops CHOOSE to be somewhere you show that you are clearly ignorant of what it means to be in the military. You CHOOSE to be in the military, you don't then just CHOOSE to go to Iraq, or to some nice country instead. You go where they send you or you end up in jail. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml | ||
|
wwer
United States53 Posts
On March 29 2011 13:51 Husnan wrote: Those troops knew (just like everyone else) that invading Iraq was NOT about stopping a dictator. They knew that it was NOT about ensuring security for the Iraqi people, or for the American people, or anyone else's. Yet, they went there. This is true in some sense but its not fair to people already in the military when the war started or people like Pat Tillman who joined soon after. | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
On March 29 2011 14:09 hongo wrote: Husnan you are putting words in our mouths by saying we never questioned going to war with Iraq or not. First off let me say there is a HUGE difference between "support our troops" and support the decision of our politicians to send our troops. I will always support our troops for all the crap and horrible things they have to go through, whether I agree with the fact that they are there or not. I'm sure they don't want to be fighting in the desert anymore than some of us want them there, but we support the fact that they are risking their lives for our country. So understand that simple difference first. Also, millions of Americans have questioned going to Iraq, even in 2003 a poll shows that 25% of America said we should have stayed out. Hopefully now you won't be "puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops"." when you clearly didn't understand what was going on politically at the time and what we mean when we say support our troops. I know that many US citizens questioned the war in Iraq, I remember the protests in every major American city. I guess I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was that this "support our troops" slogan seems to be generally accepted even amongst the anti-war partisans. This may very well be untrue, I'm watching the USA across a five (six?) thousand km wide ocean, so it's hard to be accurate, which is exactly why I'm posting here, to discuss with Americans and try and learn a thing or two. On March 29 2011 14:09 hongo wrote: And when you say the troops CHOOSE to be somewhere you show that you are clearly ignorant of what it means to be in the military. You CHOOSE to be in the military, you don't then just CHOOSE to go to Iraq, or to some nice country instead. You go where they send you or you end up in jail. Is this true? Because that doesn't sound right. It sounds more like what they would do to deserters in 1915's armies. If it is, then I'll agree to that : On March 29 2011 13:57 Leporello wrote: What you're saying is actually the same faulty logic used by so many American right-wing Bush-voters. You can support the troops, and not necessarily support the "invasion" or the mission. There is actually a very wide difference there. Supporting the troops, who are largely just everyday people, and supporting the politics of war are two completely different things. If it's not, then you can't "not support the invasion", and still "support the troops". | ||
|
number1gog
United States1081 Posts
On March 29 2011 14:25 Husnan wrote: I know that many US citizens questioned the war in Iraq, I remember the protests in every major American city. I guess I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was that this "support our troops" slogan seems to be generally accepted even amongst the anti-war partisans. This may very well be untrue, I'm watching the USA across a five (six?) thousand km wide ocean, so it's hard to be accurate, which is exactly why I'm posting here, to discuss with Americans and try and learn a thing or two. Is this true? Because that doesn't sound right. It sounds more like what they would do to deserters in 1915's armies. Regardless of support for our leaders, we support our troops. We want them safe, we want them all to come home. Debate rages over whether or not the powers that be are in the right, but when it comes down to it the guy that's on the front line who had no choice where he was deployed (yes it's true, you go where you're told) will always have our unwavering support. | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
On March 29 2011 14:29 number1gog wrote: Debate rages over whether or not the powers that be are in the right, but when it comes down to it the guy that's on the front line who had no choice where he was deployed (yes it's true, you go where you're told) will always have our unwavering support. So you can't just "quit"? That seems odd, really. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On March 29 2011 13:51 Husnan wrote: To Ordained : Sorry, I didn't get the joke. On the second part of your answer, you'll notice if you read my posts once more that I didn't say one thing about these 3 soldiers. I was not making any generalizations either. Many American TLers seem to have a grudge against French, I don't know why that is, we too have our share of anti-american retards, but I would like you to understand that I'm not one of them by any stretch of the imagination. All I'm saying is I'm puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops". I don't understand your answer at all. "They are American, so I don't wanna see them killed". Well, duh.. I don't wanna see anyone killed either. That's not the point. The point is this invasion was decided by deceptive politicians under false pretenses (I hope I spelled that one right) and yet, amazingly enough, people don't seem to question it. They "support our troops". They choose to ignore the fact that those troops have chosen to be where they are. Those troops knew (just like everyone else) that invading Iraq was NOT about stopping a dictator. They knew that it was NOT about ensuring security for the Iraqi people, or for the American people, or anyone else's. Yet, they went there. When France sent soldiers to Serbia to ensure the security of civilians, I agreed with it. When we heard in the news that a French soldier had died there, I was genuinely saddened. When France joined the US to help free Koweit from Saddam Hussein's attack in 1991, I was behind it too. But when France waged a war in Algeria to prevent the Algerian people to gain independancy, I wouldn't (I wasn't born, but you get the idea). The war in Algeria was a dirty war not only because it was fought by soldiers who didn't choose to be here (they were'nt professionnal soldiers, just kids doing their military service for most of them) but also because it was fought for wrong reasons. The first gulf war in 1991 was about protecting Koweit (how the hell do you spell that in English?) that was invaded by a hostile foreign country. The people who fought there did it for a morally justified cause. What was the second war in Iraq about exactly? On a slightly different subject, I still fail to see how me being French and not supporting the invasion of Iraq is "ironic" or whatever. The International Community has rules. The United States of America are not above those rules. One of those rules is that no country has a right to intrude into another country's internal politics. Admittedly, I have very little understanding of international legislations or diplomacy but if you think (that's not aimed at you, Ordained) that the second Iraq war has anything to do with the US intervention in France during WW2, you're a fool. If Nazi Germany had not invaded several other countries, and conducted the most horrible crime against humanity, then there would have been no place for any other country to wage war against Germany. You may find it sad, or wrong, or depressing, but this is how international law works. The war in Iraq is extraordinarily unpopular in the States. Even the war in Afghanistan, a war which by all objective measurements is certainly more justified, receives a incredible amount of distaste. I'll take the example of Kuwait to expand on a point I made earlier, that moral principles and national interest are not mutually exclusive. Based on moral principles and the international order, the war against Saddam over Kuwait was just that- it prevented a weak nation desiring independence from being gobbled up permanently by a hostile neighbor. On the other hand, it also destroyed the, at the time, very real danger of having Iraqi tanks 200 miles from Riyadh, the capital of America's largest oil supplier outside of Canada. American diplomatic history is replete with numerous examples of moral principles fitting and working with the perceived national interest; Monroe Doctrine promotes self-determination and independence of Latin America, while furthering American economic and political hegemony in the hemisphere. Naturally, internet warriors and the "radical" school of thought will say "herp derp American imperialism in Latin America", whereas more rational minds will realize comparing American adventures in Latin America to real imperialism is like comparing an amputated toe to a machete'd face, but whatever. If Nazi Germany had not invaded several other countries, and conducted the most horrible crime against humanity, then there would have been no place for any other country to wage war against Germany. You may find it sad, or wrong, or depressing, but this is how international law works. No. International law, in a broad sense, means nothing like that. International law exists to the point where the UN Security Council says it does. If the UNSC says intervention in Libya is allowed, then it is. If the UNSC had existed and said intervention in Nazi Germany was to be allowed, it would have been. Yes, countries are totally sovereign, but that sovereignty is a fickle thing at best that can be violated without repercussions if the legal consensus deems it appropriate. On March 29 2011 14:25 Husnan wrote: I know that many US citizens questioned the war in Iraq, I remember the protests in every major American city. I guess I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was that this "support our troops" slogan seems to be generally accepted even amongst the anti-war partisans. This may very well be untrue, I'm watching the USA across a five (six?) thousand km wide ocean, so it's hard to be accurate, which is exactly why I'm posting here, to discuss with Americans and try and learn a thing or two. Is this true? Because that doesn't sound right. It sounds more like what they would do to deserters in 1915's armies. If it is, then I'll agree to that : If it's not, then you can't "not support the invasion", and still "support the troops". While you can request particular duty stations, you can't say "I won't go to Iraq, but I'll go to X instead". Branching infantry or a direct combat role increases the chance of a tour in the middle east as well, though particular careers (language, etc) would have no use for someone without the appropriate skill set. You can resign, although barring medical reasons leaving before your contract is up is probably quite a hassle. I've no evidence for this claim, however. | ||
|
hongo
207 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWOL#Absence_without_leave Here it even specifically says "no soldier has been imprisoned for more than 18 months for desertion or missing movement during the Iraq war" Which implies that soldiers have been imprisoned for up to 18 months for not showing up when they were supposed to go to Iraq. Please please please have an idea of what you're talking about before you post things such as the idea of a soldier having a choice of following orders from a superior or not. | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
On March 29 2011 13:06 hongo wrote: The French can say whatever they want about armies and wars because they have never effectively fought a war since Napoleon and are effectively the biggest pussies in the world. They no nothing about war until it's on their doorstep and they need to be rescued. Actually, you're wrong, the French have fought many wars since Napoleon, and the latest wars we've fought are pretty much some of the most shameful parts of our history (Algeria, Indochine). Which is probably why most French people are not big on war, y'know. One of the great things about the US in my opinion is that your country seems (once again, I'm far away so I could be wrong) better at dealing with its history, even if it's shameful. There have been tons of movies and books about the Vietnam war for instance. France is only now beginning to have a public debate over the war in Algeria (which ended 10 years before Vietnam) and the atrocities that took place within it. One movie was published recently that dealt with this history and the outburst that it created (extreme-right protests and so on) was pretty ugly, trust me. On March 29 2011 14:35 hongo wrote: It is true, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWOL#Absence_without_leave Here it even specifically says "no soldier has been imprisoned for more than 18 months for desertion or missing movement during the Iraq war" Which implies that soldiers have been imprisoned for up to 18 months for not showing up when they were supposed to go to Iraq. Please please please have an idea of what you're talking about before you post things such as the idea of a soldier having a choice of following orders from a superior or not. Fair enough, dude. If I came off as judgemental or whatever, I did not mean to. I didn't understand so I asked questions. I did not make any claims of things I was unsure of though, I said I found it weird, because I didn't know how things worked. The only claim I made is that Bush lied about WMD's and the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq. Which I don't think anyone in their right mind and with the bare minimum of intellectual honesty can argue with. To Elegy : cool post, learned a bunch, so thanks. I'm pretty confused by this : On March 29 2011 14:33 Elegy wrote: No. International law, in a broad sense, means nothing like that. International law exists to the point where the UN Security Council says it does. If the UNSC says intervention in Libya is allowed, then it is. If the UNSC had existed and said intervention in Nazi Germany was to be allowed, it would have been. Yes, countries are totally sovereign, but that sovereignty is a fickle thing at best that can be violated without repercussions if the legal consensus deems it appropriate. The English word for what I meant was "right of interference" (if I trust my online English-French dictionnary). I googled that and I ended up on the United Nations Charter, which is really hard to understand for me. 2nd article, 7th paragraph of the Charter : "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state". So if I understand this correctly, it basically means you don't go mess with another country's business unless it spills over the border, or, if I understand what you said correctly, if the UNSC says it's fine. Correct? I think I remember pretty clearly that the UNSC never actually said Bush's plan to intervene in Iraq was fine, right? | ||
|
hongo
207 Posts
| ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
On March 29 2011 13:57 Leporello wrote: What you're saying is actually the same faulty logic used by so many American right-wing Bush-voters. You can support the troops, and not necessarily support the "invasion" or the mission. There is actually a very wide difference there. Supporting the troops, who are largely just everyday people, and supporting the politics of war are two completely different things. Amen brother | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
To whoever was saying France hasn't been in a war since Napoleon, do you not realize that they had a standing army in Vietnam given the run around by the Viet Cong previous to us being there? France sat out in the open expecting the North Vietnamese to come out and fight them... well, as you know, that's not how they rolled. Husnan: there was a huge campaign against "blood for oil", mainly around the college aged students, and liberals. The "war" in Iraq definitely had opposition, as people were generally confused as to why we were over there and not just demolishing the Taliban who would not release Osama. I questioned whether or not we really wanted him released after seeing his families flight records on that Michael Moore film... they were flown out of the country right after 9/11, which in and of itself is sketchy considering temperatures in relation to melting steel of building columns. The WMDs thing was generally figured to be a joke, even among the intelligent parts of the public society. The American Government itself dismissed the idea previously to Bush giving a report at the UN on it. I'm not sure how it got added back in, but I know for a fact Bush didn't write the speech himself, and probably hadn't even read it before giving it | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
On March 29 2011 15:03 Bill Murray wrote: I am surprised that I missed seeing this, but I guess my country wouldn't really want me to know about this. I'm sure it is kept hush-hush, though it doesn't surprise me, as I've seen some pretty gruesome and unusual videos come out of Iraq. To whoever was saying France hasn't been in a war since Napoleon, do you not realize that they had a standing army in Vietnam given the run around by the Viet Cong previous to us being there? France sat out in the open expecting the North Vietnamese to come out and fight them... well, as you know, that's not how they rolled. Husnan: there was a huge campaign against "blood for oil", mainly around the college aged students, and liberals. The "war" in Iraq definitely had opposition, as people were generally confused as to why we were over there and not just demolishing the Taliban who would not release Osama. I questioned whether or not we really wanted him released after seeing his families flight records on that Michael Moore film... they were flown out of the country right after 9/11, which in and of itself is sketchy considering temperatures in relation to melting steel of building columns. The WMDs thing was generally figured to be a joke, even among the intelligent parts of the public society. The American Government itself dismissed the idea previously to Bush giving a report at the UN on it. I'm not sure how it got added back in, but I know for a fact Bush didn't write the speech himself, and probably hadn't even read it before giving it I know this isn't even my country, but the Colin Powell speech at the UN where he held that supposed "bottle" of Anthrax (or whatever the hell he said it was) is one of the main reasons why I stopped believing in politics and stopped voting all together. | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
On March 29 2011 14:39 Husnan wrote: The English word for what I meant was "right of interference" (if I trust my online English-French dictionnary). I googled that and I ended up on the United Nations Charter, which is really hard to understand for me. 2nd article, 7th paragraph of the Charter : "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state". So if I understand this correctly, it basically means you don't go mess with another country's business unless it spills over the border, or, if I understand what you said correctly, if the UNSC says it's fine. Correct? I think I remember pretty clearly that the UNSC never actually said Bush's plan to intervene in Iraq was fine, right? Well, I had some time to make some research, and I was wrong. The UNSC did actually vote a resolution (#1441) that aimed at disarming Iraq. Edit: sorry for the double post, don't know how to erase the second one (can I?) | ||
|
wwer
United States53 Posts
On March 29 2011 15:03 Bill Murray wrote: The WMDs thing was generally figured to be a joke, even among the intelligent parts of the public society. The American Government itself dismissed the idea previously to Bush giving a report at the UN on it. I'm not sure how it got added back in, but I know for a fact Bush didn't write the speech himself, and probably hadn't even read it before giving it Please don't troll, this is not funny. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On March 29 2011 14:39 Husnan wrote: Actually, you're wrong, the French have fought many wars since Napoleon, and the latest wars we've fought are pretty much some of the most shameful parts of our history (Algeria, Indochine). Which is probably why most French people are not big on war, y'know. One of the great things about the US in my opinion is that your country seems (once again, I'm far away so I could be wrong) better at dealing with its history, even if it's shameful. There have been tons of movies and books about the Vietnam war for instance. France is only now beginning to have a public debate over the war in Algeria (which ended 10 years before Vietnam) and the atrocities that took place within it. One movie was published recently that dealt with this history and the outburst that it created (extreme-right protests and so on) was pretty ugly, trust me. Fair enough, dude. If I came off as judgemental or whatever, I did not mean to. I didn't understand so I asked questions. I did not make any claims of things I was unsure of though, I said I found it weird, because I didn't know how things worked. The only claim I made is that Bush lied about WMD's and the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq. Which I don't think anyone in their right mind and with the bare minimum of intellectual honesty can argue with. To Elegy : cool post, learned a bunch, so thanks. I'm pretty confused by this : The English word for what I meant was "right of interference" (if I trust my online English-French dictionnary). I googled that and I ended up on the United Nations Charter, which is really hard to understand for me. 2nd article, 7th paragraph of the Charter : "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state". So if I understand this correctly, it basically means you don't go mess with another country's business unless it spills over the border, or, if I understand what you said correctly, if the UNSC says it's fine. Correct? I think I remember pretty clearly that the UNSC never actually said Bush's plan to intervene in Iraq was fine, right? you are correct, the UNSC never directly authorized war with Saddam, hence the purported "illegality" of the war. Unfortunately, there are no repercussions for such an action, so claiming it as illegal is a rather moot point. resolution 1441 did not say it was ok to wage war exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War#Unaccepted_resolution The UNSC would have never authorized war with Saddam, at least according to most analysts article 2 paragraph 4 of the UN charter is pertinent for this as well specifically "inconsistent with the purposes of the UN" and article 41 and 42 "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." also since France and others have recognized the rebel government as legitimate representatives of the Libyan people you've got an interesting case The UN charter is quite vague, and the UNSC is the effective branch of the UN in terms of actually doing things with regards to international affairs and conflict. For Libya, the UNSC has declared a no-fly zone, which is to say armed intervention, into a completely domestic civil war. The "legal basis" for it is, again, a moot point, because international law is so flimsy and unenforced that it, by necessity, becomes a tool of powerful states to do with it what they will. And as I said before, the national interest of western states does not necessarily entail a departure from commonly accepted moral principles, though in practice in oftentimes does. My overall point is that, when it comes to a field such as international law, the systematic incapability to enforce it on an even and objective level becomes vividly apparent. By all reasonable measurements of legality on the international scene, the war in Iraq was extremely shady at best. Likewise, the imposition of a no fly zone over Libya highlights the extremely selective nature of the UNSC when it comes to interventions, for a mix of political and practical factors. when China used its veto power to repeatedly block any attempts at stopping genocide in Sudan, when nothing was even mentioned in the UN about Rwanda until the French intervention which ironically prolonged the genocide, repeated American vetos of any resolution against Israel, even extremely mild ones that are purely symbolic, it's easy to become disillusioned with the way the UNSC operates as an international body It's difficult to take international law seriously when there is a severe lack of both enforcement and willingness of states to voluntarily abdicate some of their unilateral powers in favor of a more fair and less arbitrary international system Sorry for the rambling posts, I'm absolutely exhausted and going to go to sleep now. I usually structure longer responses a lot better than this | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Paid for with US loans you idiot I'm sure that partly they were, but considering that before 1991 Iraq was one of the world's top five oil producers, they had little need for "US loans" (whatever that means, foreign aid or loans from American banks?) I really doubt that your argument holds much weight. Other than you being mad because I debunked a talking point so now you're making an accusation that is more likely not true. Yeah he was gonna have an invasion force ready to land in NY in moths if we didn't stop him. Sarcastic and stupid. Could you be any more condescending? You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Actually I do, probably far more than you do, and I'm right so if it came off as condescending sorry. I'm tired of people like you giving Americans a reputation for arrogance and willful ignorance so I'll say it again. I'm tired of people like you who equate disagreement with ignorance and arrogance JUST BECAUSE an American is disagreeing so that MUST MEAN we are being arrogant and ignorant. I'd take your challenge as to who knows more American foreign policy from 1787 to now, and the results of it, any day. Take off the rose-colored glasses, they make you look fucking stupid They're not rose-colored, but the ones you've spray-painted black from the inside really aren't making a positive statement for you. Apparently not adopting a strident tone and a harsh anti-US line = "Rose-colored classes." Whatever. Those troops knew (just like everyone else) that invading Iraq was NOT about stopping a dictator. They knew that it was NOT about ensuring security for the Iraqi people, or for the American people, or anyone else's. Yet, they went there. That's your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's true, and it is definitely not true that American soldiers "knew" that it wasn't about Saddam or the Iraqi people or American security. The only one of those three that might actually be true is that we didn't need to invade for the security of the American people, because there were no WMD stockpiles, but that's beside the point you are making here. Didn't have time to read all you wrote, but I will and try to answer. But please, don't be putting words in my mouth, bro. You know better. Yes that was too sarcastic and uncalled for, that sentence you quoted. You don't understand. Of course, there were muslim terrorists in Iraq, as there is in every other country (not even just arab countries). What I meant to say was "There were no more terrorists in Iraq than any other Arab country and it is a lie to pretend this is the reason (or one of the reasons) why Iraq was invaded." I still disagree because your conclusion does not seem to support your premise. Terrorists everywhere meaning invading Iraq in part because there were terrorists there doesn't mean that that justification is a "lie." Someone else already reminded you of the proofs we have that Bush and his administration lied about WMDs, so I'm not gonna do that again. I'll just add that after the Colin Powell episode at the UN, and what an embarassment it was for your country, I don't understand why anyone still tries to defend them. Please do understand once again, I have nothing against the USA, or the American people, but if I was king, this government would be first against the wall. There were several US Senate investigations, including one when the Democrats were in control, that disagree. It is not believed by anyone except Democrats and others who have a political edge to gain by saying Bush lied who do so. You don't see the French government, for example, saying Bush lied, even though it was France that led the international opposition to the war. Why? Because the foreign intelligence agencies of France, and many other European countries, had the same intelligence Bush did, some of it came from them, they didn't think that it was sufficient to support going to war because they thought the new round of inspections should have more time to work, but they didn't think Bush was lying. I don't see why Powell's embarrassing presentation means what you say it does. He had reservations about parts of it but overall thought it was solid. Basically all you're doing is asserting over and over again with no proof - except that provided and interpreted by people who already reached the conclusion that Bush lied - that Bush lied, and anyone defending him should be ashamed. The truth is that Bush did not due diligence on checking out information because too many people were telling him what he already believed: Saddam had a bunch of WMD left. So he said things he believed were true that weren't. That isn't lying. That is a gross, almost unforgivable mistake when you are president and the issue is war or peace. Please, once again, you're either putting words in my mouth or maybe my English isn't good enough to get my point across, or you're reading what I write with a bias because it's written "France" next to my name, but geez, I am not "whining because we let some alone." Whining is how I took it so that's why I said it. You're pointing at a meaningless inconsistency and going on and on and on about. I sincerely believe that the fact that the USA did indeed "wage a war putting all national effort towards winning with the goal being liberating countries from foreign occupation to restore their political liberty" is exactly what makes the USA's greatness. I'm not a historian, and I'm not sure if the US really fought Germany only to free France, Poland, Austria and the other invaded countries (I think I remember learning in History class a long time ago that the US stayed neutral in WW2 until Pearl Harbor, after which they declared war to Japan, and since Japan was allied to Germany and Italy, they also were at war with them), but it doesn't change the fact that they fought for a noble end goal. In the spring of 1941 Roosevelt ordered the Atlantic Fleet to shoot at U-boats on sight and to have US Navy ships start escorting convoys to England along with the Royal Navy. We were at de facto war with Germany right then. The reason we didn't come in at the start was that isolationism was very strong in America before Pearl Harbor; we thought "we went over there and helped them end World War I, and it's only 20 years later and they're starting again? We don't want to get into another mess." But we did give all that Lend-Lease aid to Britain and Russia both before and after Pearl Harbor, we were basically belligerents in all but name from 1939-1941 and after that openly in the war. And we went after Germany harder than Japan because we knew Germany was stronger and the bigger threat and there wasn't 5,000 miles of Pacific to get past to get to Germany. Just get to England then hop over the channel and take a drive through France. Actually from December 8 to December 11 the US and Germany weren't at war, and then Hitler declared war on us because as you said of alliances. We didn't have any "formal" alliance like "the Axis" countries did until the US entered the war. There was one between Britain and France, but not either of those two and America. After that, of course we were formally allied with them. I'm merely trying to explain that trying to pretend that getting rid of a horrible dictator such as Saddam Hussein is NOT the reason why the US invaded Iraq. It's logically absurd to believe it. If it was true, then the US would also intervene everywhere else where the basic freedoms are ignored, where the political police decide what people should think, etc... I'm saying that it is not logically absurd to believe that, because our argument wasn't that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam was horrible to his own people. It was an argument that we should. And does not the US already intervene, with sanctions and criticism and diplomatic maneuvers, quite often when it comes to the internal affairs of countries with bad human rights records? Like, say, North Korea? Or Sudan? Intervention doesn't just have to mean bombing or invading. It is not logically inconsistent to say "we overthrew Saddam partly because he was a brutal tyrant" just because we haven't done that to every brutal tyrant in the world, or didn't try to do it all at the same time we invaded Iraq. In fact, wouldn't it be true to say that the opposite is the case? That in this decade we have two and hopefully soon three dictatorships notched on our belt? Isn't that fast enough to be "consistent" to you? I just don't understand your argument. The US invaded a brutal dictatorship and removed it but since they aren't doing it to all brutal dictatorships simultaneously (or something), it's a lie when we say the brutality of the dictatorship was part of the reason? How does that mean it's a lie? Just an overall answer : I think you're mistaken (or misinformed) if you really do believe that this war in Iraq was fought for the freedom of the Iraqi people. It was not. It was not fought for the security of the USA's territory or people. I think you are misinformed and mistaken. Freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam and giving them the power to rule themselves was a central part of Bush's idealist vision. The man dedicated his second inaugural address almost exclusively towards 'spreading freedom worldwide.' He got a lot of criticism for that speech for being allegedly unrealistic. I just think you are so cynical on this issue that you find it simply impossible to believe that the US invaded Iraq for any other reason than naked greed for "power" or something. Your arguments so far as to why this simply has to be true don't make any sense because you keep simply asserting that it's true without giving any evidence why other than "everyone knows Bush lied" (no, they don't, and plenty disagree) and "America wasn't being consistent according to me so I'm right." Weaksauce. | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
| ||
|
Kal_rA1
160 Posts
 | ||
|
Kal_rA1
160 Posts
On March 29 2011 13:06 hongo wrote: I'm not saying these soldiers have had something as crazy as that happen, but my point is CRAZY STUFF HAPPENS IN WAR. We have no idea what these soldiers had gone through before this and what they were thinking or experiencing at the time. yea but still.. i dont give a fuck what someone been through/seen/experienced in life.. nothing gives anyone the right to harm, let alone kill an INNOCENT person (if they deserve it, thats a different story) getting in a fight or something is alright.. but killing someone, you cant take that shit back... and no matter how fucked up/high you are at the moment, a decision to kill someone (that too an innocent) is weak, sad, and cruel. I dont believe for a second that someone can make a decision to kill (even when high) without it coming from somewhere dark inside... there is always plenty of time to stop and think about an action of that magnitude... this kind of stuff shouldnt ever happen in war dude Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder.. even when your stoned. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Yeah... I think I'm done here... I'm sorry if you don't want to keep talking if you think I'm still being too harsh, really I just want you to explain your opinions a bit more because even though you're wrong I say you are actually articulate and not a raving lunatic and you're interesting because you obviously don't just parrot something you've read or heard somewhere you've thought about it what you think it means before expressing an opinion. I just think a lot of the things you've read or heard are wrong =) yea but still.. i dont give a fuck what someone been through/seen/experienced in life.. nothing gives anyone the right to harm, let alone kill an INNOCENT person (if they deserve it, thats a different story) These soldiers who've committed these murders and others like them, they have no excuse. Now, shooting a grenade through a window a terrorist just fired at you from and there's two civvies in the room or the room beside you didn't know were there who get killed or hurt, that is really awful, but that's war. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Stormgate 4789Rain  3769Bisu 2721Shuttle 2392firebathero  2003Flash 1947Horang2 1148Mong 890Larva 756Mini 678[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2210 hiko1116 Beastyqt956 Lowko440 crisheroes396 Fuzer  245XaKoH  154ArmadaUGS86 KnowMe69 Trikslyr55 QueenE51 ZerO(Twitch)13 |
|
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
