Our President is delusional, does that bother anyone?

[vanesch]

Should we go after problems like Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, the Ivory Coast, the Sudan, etc.? You're damn right we should!

I'd say that you only should do so when you have a solution to bring ; when there's a problem and your intervention can solve it. In Iraq, quite foreseeable, the opposite happened: the intervention created a problem. A big one, that no-one knows how to solve. The problem that was there was rather small: a local dictator who lost his military muscle, and didn't have much to do with another annoying problem originating in the region: some islam radical terrorism. Yes, he had been a bad boy, yes he was a dictator etc... but he was only a problem to his own population and even they managed.
Your "solution" brought in the biggest terrorist propaganda campaign ever started in the ME, a country on the border of civil war, and such a hatred for everything western that you'll have a theocratic domino effect.
I'd say, only intervene when you know what you're doing. Clearly, over there, you guys didn't know what you were doing.

 

[Smurf]

Should we go after problems like Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, the Ivory Coast, the Sudan, etc.? You're damn right we should!

Uhhh. no, you should mind your own ****ing business for once.
Maybe (and only MAYBE) you should go in when asked by both sides of a conflict to help with peace-keeping. and even then it should only be under an impartial flag like the UN.

 

[faust9]

Uhhh. no, you should mind your own ****ing business for once.
Maybe (and only MAYBE) you should go in when asked by both sides of a conflict to help with peace-keeping. and even then it should only be under an impartial flag like the UN.

Someone posted w/out think things through. Ok, we have a genocide going on in Durka-Durka-Stan. The Durka-Stanies are native but in the minority to the Humpty-Dumpties. The Humpty-Dumpties decide to eliminate the Durkas. The Durkas ask for help. The Humpties don't. So, by your reasoning we should just step back and let a genocide occur because the Humpties don't want help(they are killing Durkas just fine w/out outside assistance).

Are you pro-genocide Smurf?

 

[vanesch]

Are you pro-genocide Smurf?

Well, it surely is ecological

 

[Informal Logic]

I find the "police of the world" premise to be of concern. There are other options to world problems, such as N. Korea and involvement of neighboring countries (China, Japan, etc.), or UN peacekeeping missions, etc. Why is it even the question whether the US should intervene or not, as if these two options are all that there is? Bush may not be delusional, but the neocons around him are, and other people who have fallen for this thinking.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why is it even the question whether the US should intervene or not, as if these two options are all that there is?

Well, they kinda are the only two options: any particular thing that could happen would fall into one of these two categories, né?

 

[Informal Logic]

Well, they kinda are the only two options: any particular thing that could happen would fall into one of these two categories, né?

Suppose there were no other options (though of course there are), why is the US responsible for all the ills of the world? Why not expect other countries such as China and Japan to share in responsibilities? This was the direction of our foreign policy until Bush started listening to the likes of Wolfowitz, and the neocon dream of taking over the world.

 

[Hurkyl]

Intervening is orthogonal to responsibility. Whatever happens in, say North Korea, it could either be said that U.S. intervened or the U.S. did not intervene. This is independent of the question of whether the U.S. is responsible for what happens in North Korea. But now it's clear that you were referring to responsibility in your previous post, thanks.

 

[russ_watters]

Uhhh. no, you should mind your own ****ing business for once.

I'm sorry, I'm a compassionate conservative I can't watch a million people get hacked to death by machettes(Rwanda) without wanting to stop it. More than that, I have a moral obligation to stop it if I can. In fact we all have a legal obligation to do so: it is written into the UN Charter (the Genocide Convention) that the word "genocide" compells the UN to act.

For Rwanda, everyone in the west refused to use the word on the floor of the UN. But genocide is what it was. For the Sudan, Colin Powell did use the word and the UN refused to follow its own laws and did nothing.

Maybe (and only MAYBE) you should go in when asked by both sides of a conflict to help with peace-keeping. and even then it should only be under an impartial flag like the UN.

Smurf, Rwanda was a UN brokered peace agreement and there were UN-flagged peacekeepers on the ground when the fighting started. The UN pulled them out!

Sickening, Smurf.

edit: Here is what the UN has to say about Genocide:

Article I: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. [Gencide Convention]

http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm

The UN also failed in its responsibilities regarding Yugoslavia. The nations of the west went outside the UN to stop the genocide there after the UN refused to act.

 

[Brad_1234]

I would like to see proof of this.. Maybe your views are so intune with Hitler’s that it would be Self-defamatory for you to admit that this statement is grrroooossssslllyyyy wrong..
I hope you take that as an insult, becuase at least that would show that you have some integrity

According to most Human Rights watch dogs Saddam killed less people in his reign of terror than has been killed since the start of the Iraq War...


Hitler Ordered the Holocaust. Or will you deny this happened?

QUOTE]

Do you want proof, or do you want to criticize the proof itself? I realize that many folks don't have time to search for details. But I point out the left leaning networks don't discuss the crimes Saddam committed. Perhaps if his trial begins? Those crimes will be made public and perhaps then you may have a different pov.

Deny Hitler ordered the holocaust? I not only DONT deny it, I used it for comparison sake. Saddam is rumored to have murdered more than Hitler, the trials should give numbers for the history books.

Its interesting if you were compassionate for people killed in the "Iraq invasion" Yes, war is terrible, but do you prefer to capitulate with terrorists? Live under oppression and say being a slave is good enough? Well not everyone would agree. I recall in US history, the flag that was considered for national use has the quote "live free or die". But in todays age of liberalism, that kind of radical thinking is outlawed from public schools? I'd bet they don't teach that particular flag exists, or that it represented how people wanted freedom.

Do you have similar compassion for Israeli people who have had to suffer homocide bombers? And note since Saddam is out of power how those bombings declined? Because Saddam was linked to those murders, paying cash to families of the bombers with money from illegal oil sales.

You asked if I denied the holocaust against the Jewish people, do you?

 

[Anttech]

You asked if I denied the holocaust against the Jewish people, do you?

Certainly not!

Saddam is rumored to have murdered more than Hitler, the trials should give numbers for the history books.

Ahh a neocon rumor, well that's says it all, glad you had the integrity to accept that don't (and never will, because it is a lie) have any proof.

Do you have similar compassion for Israeli people who have had to suffer homocide bombers? And note since Saddam is out of power how those bombings declined? Because Saddam was linked to those murders, paying cash to families of the bombers with money from illegal oil sales.

obviously you don't have any proof for this either do you. Another lie

but do you prefer to capitulate with terrorists?

Sadam wasnt a terrorist, a dictator yes, but a terrorist no.

But I point out the left leaning networks don't discuss the crimes Saddam committed. Perhaps if his trial begins? Those crimes will be made public and perhaps then you may have a different pov.

The "trial" of Sadam won't be a fair. Before I say anything more I want to make it clear that I believe he is guilty of Human Rights violations and Murder on a Grand scale. But here is my problem, Sadam is being tried in Iraq, an Iraq that is controlled by the US. His Lawers are yet to have access to him. The America administration is controlling the whole process, and has some a very strong hidden agenda for doing so. For his trail to be accepted internationally, and not made into a one sided farce, he should be tried in Den Haag, by international Judges (including ones from Iraq). The US should stop controlling the process and allow him proper Legal process (as outlined in international Law). Why is Bush and his neocon cronnies not allowing this? It is very simple, because they have many skeletons in the closet, that they don’t want out. If Sadam went to Den Haag, Bush would be on the stand also… Something that won't happen.
Another thing to note here is, you may or may not be aware of the 'Hague Invasion Act' which was passed by your current administration.

The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm
How sad is that? Bush basically doesn’t accept International Law. Bush says Sadam has commited crimes against Human Rights, well that law is also one.

 

[Grogs]

Do you want proof, or do you want to criticize the proof itself? I realize that many folks don't have time to search for details. But I point out the left leaning networks don't discuss the crimes Saddam committed. Perhaps if his trial begins? Those crimes will be made public and perhaps then you may have a different pov.
Deny Hitler ordered the holocaust? I not only DONT deny it, I used it for comparison sake. Saddam is rumored to have murdered more than Hitler, the trials should give numbers for the history books.

Comparisons to Hitler, Nazis, Brownshirts, etc. are overused and abused these days. Most of the time it's an appeal to emotion, basically a cop-out when the person making the comment has no other logical argument to make. If you're trying to say Saddam Hussein was a bad dude and did a lot of bad things, you'll get no argument from me. If you really do believe he was worse than Hitler, make your case.

Its interesting if you were compassionate for people killed in the "Iraq invasion" Yes, war is terrible, but do you prefer to capitulate with terrorists? Live under oppression and say being a slave is good enough? Well not everyone would agree. I recall in US history, the flag that was considered for national use has the quote "live free or die". But in todays age of liberalism, that kind of radical thinking is outlawed from public schools? I'd bet they don't teach that particular flag exists, or that it represented how people wanted freedom.

You go directly from A to Z here without showing any of the letters in-between. Is it your contention that if we hadn't invaded Iraq we would be their slaves right now? Can you show me any examples of schools removing the 'Live Free or Die' flag from its curriculum? Or is that an appeal to emotion without any logical merit?

Do you have similar compassion for Israeli people who have had to suffer homocide bombers? And note since Saddam is out of power how those bombings declined? Because Saddam was linked to those murders, paying cash to families of the bombers with money from illegal oil sales.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc? (after this, therefore because of this)

 

[moose]

Uhhh. no, you should mind your own ****ing business for once.
Maybe (and only MAYBE) you should go in when asked by both sides of a conflict to help with peace-keeping. and even then it should only be under an impartial flag like the UN.

So we only went in for one reason, and one reason only? Really?

 

[SOS2008]

Very quickly to Brad_1234 and any others who believe there were WMD and/or links between Saddam and 9-11 terrorists -- I suggest you begin with the 9-11 Commission Report. And there are other intelligence documents regarding the impossibility of WMD of a significant quantity being moved before the invasion (you can guess we were watching for this VERY closely).

Another suggestion is to study history and U.S. foreign policy. You will learn the atrocities of Stalin or Hitler, and that the U.S. has supported dictators more often than not, etc. etc. You should research and think for yourself, and not allow yourself to be so influenced by unsupported propaganda.

 

[Yonoz]

Saddam paid $10k to the families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel, and $25k to the families of suicide bombers. It was quite public, I'm surprised it's denied so feverishly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm"

 

[Informal Logic]

Saddam paid $10k to the families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel, and $25k to the families of suicide bombers. It was quite public, I'm surprised it's denied so feverishly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm"

It is common knowledge that the Arab world supports the Palestinian cause, and probably assistance has been provided by many Arab nations. If Saddam did so, it still does not connect him to Bin Laden and 9-11.

 

[russ_watters]

It is common knowledge that the Arab world supports the Palestinian cause, and probably assistance has been provided by many Arab nations. If Saddam did so, it still does not connect him to Bin Laden and 9-11.

I don't see where anyone (other than liberals attempting to argue a straman) stated that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The claim is that Saddam supported terrorism. And clearly he did.

 

[Manchot]

Deny Hitler ordered the holocaust? I not only DONT deny it, I used it for comparison sake. Saddam is rumored to have murdered more than Hitler, the trials should give numbers for the history books.

There is not a single knowlegeable individual who claims that Saddam killed more people than Hitler. No offense, but it's just stupid to think that that's possible. Hitler is estimated to have killed 11 million people. Iraq's population is currently about 26 million people, meaning that Saddam would've had to kill at least a third of the population of his country to be worse than Hitler.

Do you want proof, or do you want to criticize the proof itself? I realize that many folks don't have time to search for details. But I point out the left leaning networks don't discuss the crimes Saddam committed. Perhaps if his trial begins? Those crimes will be made public and perhaps then you may have a different pov.

We want proof, not your claim that there is proof but that the liberal media didn't report it. If there is so much of proof, why didn't Fox News report it? Why didn't any conservative bloggers report it? Or anyone in the current administration, for that matter? Is it a giant conspiracy to suppress the proof that Saddam was worse than Hitler?

Also, Brad, your assertion that there could've been WMDs is just wrong. It has been discredited by everyone at every level, including the current administration. Unfortunately, a lack of evidence is not evidence in itself.

 

[SOS2008]

Saddam paid $10k to the families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel, and $25k to the families of suicide bombers. It was quite public, I'm surprised it's denied so feverishly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm"

I see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as an old, ongoing conflict, and I do not see either side as terrorists, but rather enemies at war. So I'm also unsure of the point you are trying to make.

 

[Anttech]

I don't see where anyone (other than liberals attempting to argue a straman) stated that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The claim is that Saddam supported terrorism. And clearly he did.

Therefore so do the Americans, as they supported Sadam while he was supporting terrorists

 

[vanesch]

The claim is that Saddam supported terrorism. And clearly he did.

Give me the name of ANY Arab government who didn't, in one way or another, officially or not, gave money to the Palestinian cause ! (ok, except Egypt maybe, I'm not sure about it).
I'd say that giving money to women and children is not really something that could be called "supporting terrorism". It was Arab public relations. Giving money to the Palestinians over there is like giving money to the Red Cross in the west. It is to make you see in a better light. And he knew damn well that he would be labeled a terrorist if he gave money to *terrorist organisations* (such as does Saoudi Arabia and other Gulf states).
Would you call giving an aid to the widows and orphans of German soldiers who died during WWII also "support for Nazism" ??

 

[SOS2008]

Therefore so do the Americans, as they supported Sadam while he was supporting terrorists

Or therefore so do the Americans as they supported Israel? Even Al Zaquari's operations in the Kurdish regions are a stretch, but this is definitely reaching for straws. And ultimately, even these weak claims of terrorism perpetrated by Saddam have absolutely nothing to do with 9-11.

 

[Yonoz]

I see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as an old, ongoing conflict, and I do not see either side as terrorists, but rather enemies at war. So I'm also unsure of the point you are trying to make.

Do you consider suicide bombers who kill innocent civilians to be terrorists?

Give me the name of ANY Arab government who didn't, in one way or another, officially or not, gave money to the Palestinian cause ! (ok, except Egypt maybe, I'm not sure about it). I'd say that giving money to women and children is not really something that could be called "supporting terrorism".

As the report says, families of suicide bombers received $25k compared to $10k to families of those killed "in fighting". Suicide bombers are only used to attack civilian targets. Due to the fact that there was a distinction between the two, and that the suicide bombers' families were privileged, I think I can safely call this practice "supporting terrorism".

It was Arab public relations. Giving money to the Palestinians over there is like giving money to the Red Cross in the west. It is to make you see in a better light.

There are many other ways to contribute money to the Palestinians. This particular one is obviously encouraging more violence. I don't even think you can label this as "supporting the Palestinian cause", as it only worsens their situation.

And he knew damn well that he would be labeled a terrorist if he gave money to *terrorist organisations* (such as does Saoudi Arabia and other Gulf states).

He supported terrorism in other ways, the only difference is that in this particular case its public.

Would you call giving an aid to the widows and orphans of German soldiers who died during WWII also "support for Nazism" ??

If I answer this question, do you promise not to blame me for trying to win the world's pitty etc. like in previous times Nazism and the holocaust were brought up?

 

[SOS2008]

Do you consider suicide bombers who kill innocent civilians to be terrorists?

I see them more like the Kamikaze, Japanese Suicide Bombers, though the killing of innocent civilians versus military targets is more horrendous. But I see it this way because these are more similar to acts of war in which both sides are responsible for horrendous behavior, and therefore different from the terrorist attack on the WTC.

 

[Yonoz]

I see them more like the Kamikaze, Japanese Suicide Bombers, though the killing of innocent civilians versus military targets is more horrendous. But I see it this way because these are more similar to acts of war in which both sides are responsible for horrendous behavior, and therefore different from the terrorist attack on the WTC.

In what ways are these "more similar to acts of war"?

 

[Burnsys]

I don't see where anyone (other than liberals attempting to argue a straman) stated that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The claim is that Saddam supported terrorism. And clearly he did.

The united States support terrorism too..

 

[SOS2008]

In what ways are these "more similar to acts of war"?

Like the Kamikaze’s, these are tactics being used during a war – The Israeli-Palestinian War 55 years and counting. Therefore, if I am to refer to Palestinian acts as terrorism, then I must refer to Israeli acts the same way. Furthermore, suicide bombings are not the only forms of terrorism, nor are civilian targets the only targets of terrorists. We consider the attack on the Pentagon on 9-11 a terrorist act.

 

[Yonoz]

Like the Kamikaze’s, these are tactics being used during a war – The Israeli-Palestinian War 55 years and counting.

[EDIT]These are not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactics" [/EDIT]

Therefore, if I am to refer to Palestinian acts as terrorism, then I must refer to Israeli acts the same way.

Why should this (flawed) reasoning be applied to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not to the US-Al-Qaeda conflict? What Israeli act would you say is the equivalent of a suicide bomber killing innocent civilians, so that you may refer to them in the same way?

Furthermore, suicide bombings are not the only forms of terrorism, nor are civilian targets the only targets of terrorists.

That's correct. What's you point?

We consider the attack on the Pentagon on 9-11 a terrorist act.

You should, considering that the attackers used a hijacked plane as their weapon.

 

[SOS2008]

[EDIT]These are not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactics" [/EDIT]

Why should this (flawed) reasoning be applied to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not to the US-Al-Qaeda conflict? What Israeli act would you say is the equivalent of a suicide bomber killing innocent civilians, so that you may refer to them in the same way?

That's correct. What's you point?

You should, considering that the attackers used a hijacked plane as their weapon.

I don't want to continue too much on this, not only because it is OT, but also such a debate will come to no conclusion (not unlike religious debates). There are many differences between a global phenomenon with no clear enemy, and territorial disputes between two known enemies typical of traditional war. (The only common variable between the two is that both are a result of poor U.S. foreign policies). And if you google you will find many references to Israeli terrorism -- It is just a matter of which side you are on. I'm not going to play that game -- Nor the game of those who desperately seek to prove Saddam was linked to terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Yonoz]

I don't want to continue too much on this, not only because it is OT, but also such a debate will come to no conclusion (not unlike religious debates). There are many differences between a global phenomenon with no clear enemy, and territorial disputes between two known enemies typical of traditional war. (The only common variable between the two is that both are a result of poor U.S. foreign policies). And if you google you will find many references to Israeli terrorism -- It is just a matter of which side you are on. I'm not going to play that game -- Nor the game of those who desperately seek to prove Saddam was linked to terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq.

You think this is a game? I'm simply disgusted at seeing you describe targetted bombings of civilians as "acts of war" and not terrorism, plain and simple.
This "game" of yours is http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1197000/1197051.stm" . It would be only decent of you to bear them in mind before you make these offhanded remarks.

 

[Anttech]

You think this is a game?

War is the ultimate game

You should probably re-read SOS's post, imo she wasnt infering Palestinian-Israeli plight is a game

 

[Yonoz]

imo she wasnt infering Palestinian-Israeli plight is a game

I know. She off-handedly justified targetted killing of innocent civilians, and when in turn confronted by a few serious questions replied "I will not play this game". The recognition of the (il)legitimacy of terrorism is not a game for victims of suicide bombings and their families. She should have expressed her opinion on the matter in a subtler, more considerate way if she does not want to it to be addressed.

 

[vanesch]

As the report says, families of suicide bombers received $25k compared to $10k to families of those killed "in fighting". Suicide bombers are only used to attack civilian targets. Due to the fact that there was a distinction between the two, and that the suicide bombers' families were privileged, I think I can safely call this practice "supporting terrorism".

The women and children who got the money didn't kill anyone, and I don't think that anyone became a suicide bomber because of the money, so I don't think that this was increasing the violence in any way.

There are many other ways to contribute money to the Palestinians. This particular one is obviously encouraging more violence. I don't even think you can label this as "supporting the Palestinian cause", as it only worsens their situation.

My point was: compared to OTHER contributions from other Arab nations, this one was not particularly "violent". I would think that sending money directly to Hamas would be a LOT more "supporting terrorism" than giving money to women and children. As I say, it was a public relations act, nothing more.

 

[Yonoz]

The women and children who got the money didn't kill anyone, and I don't think that anyone became a suicide bomber because of the money, so I don't think that this was increasing the violence in any way.

It shapes the attitude to suicide bombings in Palestinian society - displaying suicide bombings as having a higher value than other forms of fighting. Also, it capitalizes on the terrible state of Palestinians to make it easier to recruite more suicide bombers.

My point was: compared to OTHER contributions from other Arab nations, this one was not particularly "violent". I would think that sending money directly to Hamas would be a LOT more "supporting terrorism" than giving money to women and children.

If this was given to just "women and children" I would not have argued this at all, but it specifically privileges suicide bombers' families over those of others, paying them 2.5 times as much.

As I say, it was a public relations act, nothing more.

I do not presume to know the exact motives behind this move. However, that does not change the conclusion - that it is support of terrorism, whether by public or financial support of it, or both.

 

[vanesch]

If this was given to just "women and children" I would not have argued this at all, but it specifically privileges suicide bombers' families over those of others, paying them 2.5 times as much.

My life insurance also pays my family twice as much if I die in a sudden and violent way. Does that mean that this insurance company is endorsing violence?
(BTW, I just took a standard contract in which this clause was present, I didn't negociate anything special about it).