Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
If Exxon/Mobil and Chevron/Texaco want stability/instability in the Middle East (the later is probably more accurate which is why the administration installed the oil minister that they did), I say let them foot the bill.
If the big engineering firms- CH2M Hill, Bechtel, MW, Haliburton, et al want to go in and rebuild, fine, but why are the US taxpayers paying for it?
The current administration has continually cut funding to R&D for alternative energy programs and continues to subsidize the petroleum and coal industries. If the same money was spent on developing the infrastructure for celluosic ethanol that we spent on the war, we'd already be petroleum free.
Why anyone would vote someone from either party is beyond me.
<snip>I'm in Vespertine's camp.
Thank you for opening that door for me, Judge.
Since Saddam could not, or would not produce evidence that he dismantled these weapons or produce the weapons for inventory purposes, the conservative approach to take was to assume that he still had these weapons.I'm so sick of the "There were no WMDs" argument. It's completely misleading to say that we were wrong to invade because there were no WMD. However, there are plenty of legit reasons why we were wrong to invade.
im not saying what the U.S did by going under the un was right, but, with the us thinking that iraq had wmd's do you think that the us should have done nothing, except maybe try to find more evidence?
<snip> What applies to you should apply to everyone else.
How would you feel if I was in a position of power and suspected you of being a druglord and ordered your arrest? Lets say I was wrong and you were in fact innocent and I have robebd you of 5 yeares of your life. How would you feel? No one should have that kind of power, and I don't care if you are the President of the United States.
im not saying what the U.S did by going under the un was right, but, with the us thinking that iraq had wmd's do you think that the us should have done nothing, except maybe try to find more evidence?remember when al-Quida bombed the wtc's a decade ago... we did nothing... and they came backso, maybe the us should have tried to find more evidence... but dont you think that whoever was in control of the whole wmd operation would find out that someone was snooping around? do you not think they would try to not nessecarily wipe out the threat, since the us would be a big threat... but severly wound them?
My pleasure!I'm not pretending they never existed nor am I denying that the cooperation wasn't there. But in this case, the "conservative approach" was completely inadequate. You don't start a war because you "assume" something you cannot prove in any way other than fabrication of the allege proof, which I remind you is what was done. The proper conservative approach would be to confirm the assumption with tangible and REAL evidence, and then take the necessary action. It's innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until suspected of wrongdoing.
This invasion was a huge gamble and this time, the house lost the bet (i.e. the Whitehouse). See, they assumed that there HAD to be a bunch of WMDs hidden all over Iraq. They assumed they could bluff their way in the country, charge in, find evidence of WMDs and walk out of there with their heads high. They fabricated lies and stories that supported their "assumptions" and presented those to the world, hoping to get blessings from the international community. When that didn't happen, they were so convinced their "assumptions" were factual that they completely lost their objectivity, they ignored the will of the international community, and illegally attacked another country. Granted, there were reasons for the US to be frustrated with the UN, but the fact that they have bigger guns doesn't grant them the right to bypass the UN. It completely undermines the principal of this alliance. IF that's your attitude, then forget the UN. It's only good as long as it works for you? What are you, a teenager?
When the US got to Iraq and found nothing, what happened? Well... They were still so convinced they were right about the WMDs so again, they "assumed" that someone out there had the information they wanted. They were so desperate for this information (which they had no proof existed) so they rationalized a way to exploit legal documentations and concluded that the Geneva Convention didn't apply anymore. Then, they started treating human beings as if they weren't human beings. Brought them to various locations around the world. All in the name of national security! They arrested without cause, justification or trial, essentially kidnapping hundreds of individuals and letting their relatives in the dark as to where the prisoners were held, why they were held, and what the situation was. Little by little, information leaked out. The more that got out, the more disgusted the world became. And this is just the 2 minute version of a very complex story! I'm not even talking about how they used the media and propanda tactics.
We certainly know a lot more today then we did back then, but just imagine what we know nothing about... And for the record, just because US advisors found a loophole in the Geneva Convention doesn't mean they had to exploit it. There are such things as values and ethics in this world and if the torture, mutilation, aggression of human beings, innocent or not, represents the American way, then damn you all to hell. Obviously, that's not a true representation of American values, but that's what happened. It cannot be denied. Torture was ordered from top officials and there are plenty of documents that prove it. Yet there are no repercussions what so ever. Personally, I think a few top advisors and the President of the United States should be charged with crimes against humanity and should be behind bars, but who's going to intervene? No one can do anything about it. No one can enforce justice.
All of this happened because of WMDs assumptions, or so it appears. We can all come up with ulterior motives, with various theories as to why the US "really" invaded Iraq. I don't want to get into that. The fact remains that what the US presented to the world as a rationale for this circus was the presence of WMDs in Iraq. It's therefore not completely misleading to say that the US was wrong to invade because there were no WMDs: This was the rationale for the invasion.
In this case the Bush administration felt they had enough evidence to convict Iraq. Most cases of justice result in some guessing based on facts. Murders don't leave signs that say they did it. They leave slight clues that have to be pieced together to solve the case. Which is basically what happened with Iraq. But sometimes clues can be misleading, as they were here.
The UN is a place for countries to go and discuss their problems in order for the rest of the world to help, and possibly mediate a peaceful solution. In this case Sadam refused to cooperate with the UN. The UN wasn't being effective. Not to mention, the UN was never meant to rule the world, it was meant to be a place where conflicts could be mediated without war. In this case, they weren't effective because Sadam kept throwing the weapons inspectors out.
I'm actually very glad they did this, and I'm sick of hearing about the Geneva Convention.
The Geneva Convention dealt with war. We aren't fighting enemy soldiers, we are fighting terrorists. They're not soldiers, they're cowards. Soldiers were brave units of a countries defense force that were paid to protect the country and to destroy any attacking force. Terrorists use high explosives against civilian targets. They aren't the same, they shouldn't be treated the same.
Not to mention, the U.S. or any other country can not follow the Geneva Convention in this kind of situation.
The other side doesn't follow it, so in essence they are cheating.
We have to cheat to, in order to win. That's just the way it is, and I'm damn proud that the politicians are doing whatever is necessary to end terrorism.
Although I don't agree with aggression and torture against enemy soldiers or civilians I am perfectly okay with them doing it to terrorists. I don't know what you find so pristine about human life, but I'm glad the politicians don't share your point of view. There are over 6 billion people in this world. Human life is not rare, and as such I'm sick of people acting like every person's life is some miracle. It isn't. People are probably the earth's most abundant commodity. But I'm getting side tracked. My point is that not every person needs to be treated humanely. If they murder/rape/torture their fellow man they deserve whatever they get and probably a lot worse. I find it disgusting that the law breakers have more power than the law enforcers these days.What the U.S. says and why it does things are almost never the same.
In this case the Bush administration felt they had enough evidence to convict Iraq.
One might also say that they were misleading on purpose.Particularly since the CIA has admitted as much. The "clues" didn't add up to any legitimate reason for an invasion, so the "evidence" was twisted until it did.
And explain again how this was our problem. Is Iraq directly bordering our nation? Oh wait. Baghdad is 6,211 miles away from Washington D.C.Sounds like it was the UN's problem to me.
If you were serving in the armed forces you'd be changing your tune. The Geneva Convention is necessary, believe me.
I love how this is "war" when it's convenient, and "fighting terrorism" when it's not convenient to call it "war".
The U.S. and EVERY country that signed the Geneva Convention is bound to follow it. It mandates civilized, humane treatment of prisoners and ensures that they are not tortured or mistreated. Not following it makes one not only uncivilized, but cruel, sadistic, evil.
If anything, that is ALL THE MORE reason we should follow it. Ever heard of taking the high road? If we torture and mistreat prisoners, we are just as bad as them. I don't want to live in a country whose government is allowed to torture human beings without reasons or consequences. Do you?
You have a lot to learn about politicians, my friend. They aren't doing much of anything to end terrorism. And that is nowhere near their primary motives.
You know, usually people that say things like that end up getting the government they deserve.And inevitably, when they find themselves living in a totalitarian state of oppression, grinding poverty, constant surveillance, and pain, they whine and cry and plead "NO, I DIDN'T MEAN THIS!!!!".Read something other than propaganda, boy. Turn off Fox News and pick up a book.
What was it? Show me.
The UN does not only exist so that countries can discuss their problems. It also exists to promote respect for human rights, protect the environment, fight disease and reduce poverty to name a few.
"respect for human right" is key. Terrorist are still humans and should be treated as humanly regardless of what they have done. You're hatred for them only compounds the problem and in the end, you are no better than them. You may be sick of hearing about the Geneva Convention? It dealt with war? This is a war! A different kind of war. The intent of the convention can still be applied to terrorist under the same principles that it is applied for soldiers: Basic human rights.
Oh, and by the way, not all soldiers are brave units of a country that are paid. "Not one step back". Ever heard that? If you happened to be a healthy male Russian in the 40's, you were sent to war at gun point, not because you were brave or because they were paying you. You had better chances of surviving by going unarmed into the conflict than by not going at all.
You say you are OK with the torture of terrorist? But it's not OK for everyone else? Double standards again.
Don't you understand that we are all human beings? We all originate from the same source?
Don't you understand that mentalities differ because they are generated by the environement we live in, by our values, by our perception of the world which varies significantly from place to place? In the terrorist mind, he sacrifices his life in the name of his God and attacks the "evil" entity based on his beleif system. You call that a coward act? There's an element of bravery in there as well.
Don't you think we have to work on communication and clarify perceptions instead of going around torturing people left and right? In the long run, torture will accomplish nothing. Dialogue will. Perceptions are like assumptions and can lead people to take the most radical behaviors.
Unlike you, I don't view life as a comodity, nor do I view it as a miracle. It's quite simple: The things I wouldn't want done to me, I don't do to others. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't hit people. I don't steal. I don't kill, and I certainly don't torture.
The CIA is the most corrupt organization on the face of the earth, and often operates without justification from the people who govern the country. Before 2004 or 2005 they didn't even have to report their actions of account for their budget. The CIA could've been the reason the country(including the politicians) was tricked into war in the first place.
It was endangering our bussiness interests.
In war time, yes. To put down a couple of rebellious uprisings who will do anything to achieve victory, no.The war was over in my mind when the republican guard was destroyed. After that point it's been terrorism.
It doesn't say prisoners, it says prisoners of war. Terrorists are not prisoners of war, they are crazy extremeists who kill innocent people. Not to mention I don't believe in the word "evil". That word stinks of propaganda.
I don't want to live in a country where the government can torture without reasons. However, if the reason is there I would like to see a more harsh form of punishments applied across the board.
They are trying to end terrorism that is a threat to the U.S. and that's what I care about.
I'm an American. Let other governments worry about terrorism that's a threat to them.
I don't believe in the patriot act, I don't believe in torture and imprisonment without just cause. But I think terrorism is just cause for both of those.
And by the way, I have read quite a lot on the subject, I don't watch the news.
Your ideas border on fuedalism. People shouldn't have life made simpler for them because of where they are born, or what they are born as. The only thing that should determine the quality of the individual is the actions of the individual. In the case of terrorists and criminals, the quality of the individual is low grade, and thus they should not be treated with respect, but should be treated like the scum that they are.
It's not a double standard. The same could be said about arresting criminals in this country. Why is it okay to arrest them, and force them to be caged against their will. They are still human beings. But yet we do arrest them.
It's only a matter of how far you are willing to go to prevent criminal activities. I think we should do all that is necessary to make sure that those who have done nothing wrong do not have to suffer.
The guilty shouldn't be given rights if it means more murder and suffering of innocents.
Things I wouldn't want done to me I wouldn't do to others. However, if someone attempted to do those things to me I would do them back. I would never hit someone for nothing, or because I thought they looked like a moron. However, if the person harmed me physically I would indeed defend myself and knock them unconcious. It's cause and effect. Criminals can not be dealt with like the rest of us, because they do not follow laws laid down by society, and terrorists are just international criminals.
So are you saying the evidence the CIA provided was good or not? You can't have it both ways.
What "bussiness" [sic] interests? Where?
You know, the Bush administration wasn't even using that as a reason. They cited "imminent threats" to national security and denied vehemently and repeatedly that economics had anything at all to do with the Iraq invasion.
Actually, Congress never declared "war", so this really has never been a "war".
Ah. Terrorists. Like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols? In that case then there's this thing called DUE PROCESS. Evidence is gathered, rights are read, charges brought, and a fair and speedy trial is conducted with the end result being either conviction and sentencing or dismissal.
What about the "war on terror"? That's how this administration keeps referring to it. Doesn't that make these detainees prisoners of war?
Prisoners of war, terrorists. Either way, torturing them is not the act of a benevolent government. Nor is holding them for years without counsel, without charges being filed. If anything, that's a great way to guarantee that they will most likely be set free by the courts, since that is a violation of their rights.
As for "evil", call it what you will. But the act of intentionally inflicting pain on somebody is not a "good" act, regardless of what your end goal is. Depriving human beings -- no matter how vile they might be -- of their rights without due process is not a "good" thing.
And I think you should look up the word "propaganda" before you throw that around anymore. While you're at it, look up the word "irony".
Torture is not the act of a civilized government. Harsh punishments are one thing, but torture runs headlong into the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I suggest you read that document as well, as it is quite relevent to this discussion, and you seem unfamiliar with it.
So... you're saying that the Iraqi government was terrorist in nature?
That's what I've been trying to say! I'm glad we agree on that then. We should never have invaded Iraq... perhaps some of the neighboring countries should have, since Iraq was a direct threat to them, but the US had no business there.
And you are wrong. 8th Amendment again. And if by "just cause" you mean "due process", then I agree with the imprisonment angle. I say in that case that we file formal charges of terrorism against those being held and give them fair trials so that they may be sentenced and imprisoned if convicted.
1) The invasion of Iraq somehow being involved in the "war on terror"
2) The US Constitution and the justice system in the United States
3) The role of the military in the defense of the US
4) The difference between "prisoners of war" and "criminals"
This might come as a shock to you, but this isn't the first time some of us have had political discussions.
Where do you draw the line?There must be absolutes when it comes to "humane treatment" regardless of the "quality" of person with whom one is dealing.
Otherwise all it takes is one regime to declare some arbitrary act "terrorism" and you've opened the door to horrific, inhuman treatment of a whole group of people who may not necessarily be deserving of it by your particular way of gauging things.
That's called "Due Process". Again, another one of those things you need to do some reading about. They aren't caged just because they are criminals. There is a procedure that is followed for EVERYONE accused of a crime. This is to ensure that the rights of those who are accused are respected and freedoms and liberties are not removed without a fair process that is observed in every case, every step of the way.
That seems to contradict your earlier positions on how to treat people you see as not being "quality".
Nobody is "given" rights. Rights are inherent. They are either acknowledged, or they are not.
And guilt or innocence is determined (again) via DUE PROCESS. This is to ensure that the innocent are not punished for crimes they did not commit.
It has been said that it is better to let a thousand criminals go free than to imprison one innocent person.
That concept is what our justice system is founded around. It is why you and I can have this discussion right now. It is why we don't all end up in one concentration camp or another because of the whims of those like you if they happen to come into public office.
So again, you think that terrorists are criminals? Then the terrorists that we capture deserve due process. Counsel, a speedy trial, the right to call witnesses at their trial, and the right to face their accusers.
Evonus, I don't feel like compiling all of your different "torture is good" statements into a quote, so I'll just state it here. Torture, as a means of getting information, doesn't work. People who have been trained to withstand torture will either withstand it, or they will give mis-information. People who have not been trained to withstand torture will tell you anything, just to make it stop. Let me put it to you this way, if I was having a red-hot poker shoved up my ass (Saddam-style), I would say absolutely anything. I would tell my torturer exactly where Osama was hiding, and what his grand plan is. And you know what? The imformation would be completely made up, thus wasting time and resources by sending troops (or agents, or whatever) out there to track down my info. Meanwhile, because the resources were diverted from their original tasks, Osama continues planning, and gets one step closer to executing, his next big show.
I'm sure that doesn't always work, but honestly, especially when many of the leaders are captured it does help us find terrorists. I don't have a torture statistic off hand, but the U.S. has captured up to 400 terrorists in a month before, and I bet some of it was due to torture methods. Plus, if for nothing else torture is a good deterant against future terrorist acts. Because they know that's what'll happen if they're caught.
Bullshit! There is no deterrent there. The only thing that happens when we torture is that we create more and more people who virulently hate the U.S. and everything the U.S. stands for. In addition, torture by the U.S. inherently authorizes our "enemies" to torture anyone that they capture. Why? Because (quoting Demo) you can't have it both ways. It's either wrong or it's right. If it's wrong, than it's wrong for everyone, and if it's right and just, than it's right and just for everyone.
Do oil contracts ring a bell?
Congress voted in the war. We didn't send a formal declaration, but we announced an attack date. We haven't sent a formal declaration since WWII. It's a war.
You know, I do agree that everyone deserves a fair trial. The problem is, if someone is obviously guilty it shouldn't take 5 years to convict them, and the justice system is corrupt, so that's what ends up happening. Look how long it took to convict Milosevic and Hussein, when it was pretty obvious they commited human rights violations. There were thousands of witnesses on both ends. They should've been convicted in less than a few hours. But they weren't. The trials dragged on for months. That's why I'm not upset that if someone is obviously a collaborator that they aren't given a fair trial.
Do I think that that leads to some innocents being wrongly tortured. Yes, but in all honestly, I'd rather have a few potential terrorists who were innocent tortured than have hundreds of innocents killed.
In the 1960's during the war on drugs, if a drug dealer was caught were they considered a POW? Seriously, it's a name to rally the people. Don't nitpick.
I think that getting the information out of them and saving thousands of lives is a very benevolent act.
Good is subjective. I think that as long as you are saving potential victims it is a good deed.
Mud slinging will get you no where.
The 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. It's very subjective. Perhaps I don't consider the methods of torture used against terrorists to be cruel. I can definately think of much worse.
Bussiness Interests. That's why we invaded. They were endangering our bussiness interests. However, I think we picked a very poor time to invade. I don't support the war in Iraq, because I think it was very half assed. But I do think it was inevitable, I just think it could've been handled better.
If only it were made faster I would agree with you. But by the time we convicted them and then began to question them future acts that they knew about that could've been prevented would've already happened.
Just because I live in the U.S. that doesn't mean I agree with the way the justice system is run. It's far too lenient.
Prisoners of war are captured enemy soldiers. Criminals are civilians that break the law, which includes terrorists.
You obviously don't seem like you have, because you seem intent on personal attacks there cupcake.
I don't think the person's family or friends should be harmed because of their wrong doing. That's where I draw the line. The person's body is forfeight after they've killed innocents.
Perhaps all we need is a solid definition of terrorism then.
I fail to see how.
No, rights are given by the controlling system.
Rights change by the year, they are not some supernatural rules that those in charge can choose to follow or not, because which rights people should be given are subjective.
I love the system, but like I said, it's too slow.
I prefer, "can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs."
Like I said, in most cases I agree with and love the system, but like all systems, it has it's shortcommings.
$right_wing_propaganda
Total Members: 4955