kmd Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by InsaneSith How is violence the way to bring peace? Since Bush has brought religion into his whole forte(sp?) I'll do the same. Don't all religions state somewhere in their books and doctrines that violence only brings more violence? If not then I must not read very well. :\ I live my life by just avoiding conflict or ignoring it and I have yet to find myself in a situation where violence is the only means to escape the confrontation. Perhaps a lot of you need to rethink your life lessons and how to attain peace, especially you who think violence brings peace. ever heard the phrase, "Freedom isnt Free!" well, that basicly sums it up right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by kmd ever heard the phrase, "Freedom isnt Free!" well, that basicly sums it up right there What does that have to do with peace? Freedom and peace are 2 different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmd Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 in order to have your freedom you must fight to keep it, or others will take it away, you wont have peace if your being bommbed by some country, or living under a tyrents rule, you must first take them out...then peace will come. it all ties in, peace is good, peace is what i want, but you cant have it when people are knokcing at your door with nukes and crap.... the irage peeeps didnt have it till we took care of sadam, now we still have sadam loyest out to fight to the last, which they will. the war was about giving and freeing the irague people, and making sure that sadam in the future would not try anything on the "American Infidels!" and for the most part yes, they love us for it, becuase now they are free, mostly, still havnt set up a fricken govornment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I think the issue here is that arguing solely on the issue of peace and/or international law is stupid and insanely radical. Peace without freedom is not worth anything. Otherwise, the Nazis and god knows who many other factions would have ruled the world. Laws are designed to bring peace and freedom. If they don't, they need to be changed, period. Now, if you want to argue that it's not the US's place to liberate the world for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine. However, you actually have to state that vs. "OMG! THEY VIOLATED THE UN CHARTER!" (which I might add every nation does). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Who says it always has to be about self-importance and about Oil? Does the fact of "Its the right thing to do" cross any of your minds? Saddam killed millions of his own people through some of the worst means possible. Anyone remember Desert Storm? Saddam was behind that and how he wanted to control Saudi Arabia, so the U.S. Stepped in to protect its ally and we tried getting him then, so this was just a prolonged man-hunt from 1993. Long overdue? Possible. Worth it. Just ask the Iraqi couple that were wed in broad daylight after Saddam left power and went into hiding. And how bout all those people who were fearfully loyal to Saddam who are now saying "Death to Saddam! Down with Saddam!" What America and its allies did in the coalition was definitely the right thing to do. We just didnt remove Saddam because of what he did to his own people, it what he COULD have done to the rest of the world. We prevented another Hitler essentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Luke Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by Andy867 Who says it always has to be about self-importance and about Oil? Does the fact of "Its the right thing to do" cross any of your minds? Saddam killed millions of his own people through some of the worst means possible. Anyone remember Desert Storm? Saddam was behind that and how he wanted to control Saudi Arabia, so the U.S. Stepped in to protect its ally and we tried getting him then, so this was just a prolonged man-hunt from 1993. Long overdue? Possible. Worth it. Just ask the Iraqi couple that were wed in broad daylight after Saddam left power and went into hiding. And how bout all those people who were fearfully loyal to Saddam who are now saying "Death to Saddam! Down with Saddam!" What America and its allies did in the coalition was definitely the right thing to do. We just didnt remove Saddam because of what he did to his own people, it what he COULD have done to the rest of the world. We prevented another Hitler essentially. If this is the case then America should invade Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe from his tyranny. Mugabe has killed thousands and thousands of Zimbabweans. He IS essentially another Hitler. Why don't America do the same thing they did to Saddam and remove Mugabe preventing anymore violence by their dictator? Also I think we've gotta be careful in saying that Iraq is happy. Sure the majority of it is (or of what the media illustrate) but I was watching world news yesterday and already protests against America in the Southern Gaza strip were taking place, all of whom protesting FOR Saddam. These loyalists are extremely dangerous. Yes Saddam had to be removed from power to prevent further death of Iraqis, but my point is this: If Amercia are eliminating these tyrants, then why doesn't America stop Mugabe? Simple reason (you've guessed it), Oil. Certainly for Bush along with other American leaders believe that the financial end justifies all means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 That's really bad actually. How can they hope to give him a good trial if he's judged in Iraq? I know he doesn't really deserve it, but neither does Slobodan Milosevic and he still got one. They're doing the trial in Bagdad too and they've also revealed the location of it. Now that's not something good...Imagine the number of angry people amassing around the place... Oh boy... The main fear of the Iraqi is the US possibly leaving them after they got Saddam. I'm not sure what will happen here but if the US ever decides to withdraw, we're gonna see a new Iran...and nobody wants that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by Jedi Luke If this is the case then America should invade Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe from his tyranny. Mugabe has killed thousands and thousands of Zimbabweans. He IS essentially another Hitler. Why don't America do the same thing they did to Saddam and remove Mugabe preventing anymore violence by their dictator? Also I think we've gotta be careful in saying that Iraq is happy. Sure the majority of it is (or of what the media illustrate) but I was watching world news yesterday and already protests against America in the Southern Gaza strip were taking place, all of whom protesting FOR Saddam. These loyalists are extremely dangerous. Yes Saddam had to be removed from power to prevent further death of Iraqis, but my point is this: If Amercia are eliminating these tyrants, then why doesn't America stop Mugabe? Simple reason (you've guessed it), Oil. Certainly for Bush along with other American leaders believe that the financial end justifies all means. Like I mentioned earlier, we don't have the resources (polictically and militarily) to go in and take out every tyrant in the world. We can and have intervened militarily in countries where we had no financail interests. Unfortunately, with the way the current policial system works, our attention tends to be controlled by the public opinion rather than actual need. And before you start pointing your finger at the US for not doing enough, consider what France, Germany, and the other nay-sayers have done to fight tyrants thru out the world. Sure the majority of it is (or of what the media illustrate) but I was watching world news yesterday and already protests against America in the Southern Gaza strip were taking place, all of whom protesting FOR Saddam. These loyalists are extremely dangerous. The Gaza Strip is not Iraqi land and those are palestians, not Iraqis. But, I agree those dudes are dangerous. Unfortunately, a lot of people still think it's ok to negoicate with terrorists in the case of the Middle East conflict. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Well, we ALL know why FRANCE wont get involved in any more wars . They dont know HOW to fight wars, just be defeated and have their asses saved by the Americans. Seriously though, if you dont believe me, go to Google and type in French Military victories, and it will come up and say "Do you mean French military defeats?" But anyways, Razorace is right. We dont have the resources we would need to rmove every Tyrant on this earth, just the worst ones. compared to Saddam, that Zimbabwe guy is a pushover, when you consider that Saddam killed MILLIONS upon millions of Iraqis and others, where this Zimbabwe guy killed thousands. See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by Andy867 Who says it always has to be about self-importance and about Oil? Does the fact of "Its the right thing to do" cross any of your minds? Saddam killed millions of his own people through some of the worst means possible. Anyone remember Desert Storm? Saddam was behind that and how he wanted to control Saudi Arabia, so the U.S. Stepped in to protect its ally and we tried getting him then, so this was just a prolonged man-hunt from 1993. Long overdue? Possible. Worth it. Just ask the Iraqi couple that were wed in broad daylight after Saddam left power and went into hiding. And how bout all those people who were fearfully loyal to Saddam who are now saying "Death to Saddam! Down with Saddam!" What America and its allies did in the coalition was definitely the right thing to do. We just didnt remove Saddam because of what he did to his own people, it what he COULD have done to the rest of the world. We prevented another Hitler essentially. I would have gone after North Korea, since they DO have nuclear capacity._Now I am glad Saddam is out of the picture, he was an evil person. If Bush said "we are going to Iraq in order to liberate them" I wouldn't have any problem, but he kept going on and on about WMD's that don't exist, that's my problem with Bush, the fact that he lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Also, leave national attacks out of this. Perhaps the French prefer non-violent solutions to conflicts, yes there is such a thing as non-violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Btw, I assume that it's been verified with DNA evidence that this really is the real McCoy and not just one of this look alikes who's been hiding out since the other guys up and ran? Anyway, assuming it's really him, I don't think it will change a thing. At best it will be a propaganda piece for Bush (and his supporters on the GOP side) to say "ha! Look! We won the war and we captured Saddaam, something the last two presidents failed to do!" The resistance fighters in Iraq will probably continue to fight, though people who suffered through Saddam will obviously be happy he's captured, they probably would be happier if they could have food, running water and not have to worry about being accidentally shot or blown up by Western troops or suicide bombers. And if the zealots who are calling for Saddam's immediate show trial and execution get their way, I predict that his followers will just consider him a martyr and fight harder to avenge him. Now if this had been Osama Bin Laden that was captured, then I might be excited. But still you have the same problems as before. Sure, you take the leader which is a big propaganda thing, but then you risk making him a martyr, and his followers either trying to rescue him or (if you kill him) to avenge him, and somebody else in the group will just take power and for all you know he'll be worse than the other guy. Good points made about the Geneva Convetion and election-timing politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by STTCT Now why can't they just get Osama? It just proves that you can run, but you can't hide! seems like he didnt run far enough, he was caught in Iraq right? haha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by The_One The biggest irony of them all is this: The USA is trying to bring peace to the world. How are they doing that? With war. Yes, bring peace with war. Classic. so um...how many times has that been done in the past....not bu the us. im not getting into an argument because all the anti-bush, anti-war haters and bandwagoneers all say the same crap over and over its pointless:rolleyes: I'll just let them bathe in their own ignorancy and not get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 ACCIDENTIALLY shot or blown up by suicide bombers? You're kidding I hope. As for that piece on international law.. oh come on, who the hell are you all kidding? No semimajor country follows international law, since it's stupidly breakable with minimal penalty. The US and other countries have ignored some of the Iraqi sanctions over the years for crying out loud. I'm quite frankly under the impression that for the most part international law is a farce that lets countries have influence on other countries via, say, the UN. It's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Luke Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by Andy867 Zimbabwe guy is a pushover, when you consider that Saddam killed MILLIONS upon millions of Iraqis and others, where this Zimbabwe guy killed thousands. See the difference? (not reffering to Saddam being captured in this comment) He probably has killed millions!! And NO I don't see the difference. Thousands of deaths are still a lot of deaths, you think about everyone you know and imagine if they were all executed. Do all those people match up to THOUSANDS?! No! That's why Mugabe must be stopped too! So why don't the US go in and stop Mugabe BEFORE HE DOES KILL MILLIONS!?!?!?!? He's no pushover!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel Without war, there can be no peace. Using war to attain peace is like using sex to attain virginity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Buncha tree huggin' hippies around here. Whether or not the U.S. goes to war, let me assure you there will be war. And it's real easy to sit and type about how you want peace when it isn't YOUR ASS doing the fighting. Spines anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by InsaneSith Also, leave national attacks out of this. Perhaps the French prefer non-violent solutions to conflicts, yes there is such a thing as non-violence. While I can respect people wanting to stick to non-violent means in all situations, the fact of the matter is that true tyrants can only be removed from power by force. Now, the biggie is who does the forcin'. As a foreign power, you basically have three types of ways to help this happen: 1. Indirect actions (political/trade sanctions/Cold Waring/etc) that encourage the native people to raise up against their opposers ("Mr. Gorbekov, tear down this wall.") Unfortunately, this doesn't so much triggers a revolution as it accelerates the revolutionary cycle. As such, tyrants have a tight power base (the worst kind) won't really be affected by this sort of action. 2. Direct actions like providing intel, weapons, etc. to rebel groups. 3. Direct Force Countries like France have deminstrated that they aren't willing to go beyond indirect actions in any case that doesn't involve themselves. This makes things difficult for the nations (like the US) that actually want get things done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Buncha tree huggin' hippies around here. Whether or not the U.S. goes to war, let me assure you there will be war. And it's real easy to sit and type about how you want peace when it isn't YOUR ASS doing the fighting. Spines anyone? I understand there will always be war, what you don't get is that many are pissed at how we went to war. We went to war based on a lie and we then had to throw in a distraction to cover up the lie by saying we're removing Saddam from power in order to liberate the Iraqi people. Also, why is it that Bush isn't allowing ANYONE but America and Britian to hold stock and contracts with the oil claims and such? Britian wasn't the only country at our side during this invasion. Don't get me wrong people, I'm damn glad Saddam is captured and I hope they torture his ass off even after they get all the info they want. I just am pissed that Bush didn't just say "We're going to Iraq to get rid of that evil man Saddam in order to salvage the Iraqi people's human rights." Also, does anyone remember Napoleon? Seems with all this talk about French never winning battles you people don't. But I could care less on how many battles the French have won. Besides, who cares if they didn't back us. They have the right to choose, seems Americans should respect that, being the land of the free and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by XERXES seems like he didnt run far enough, he was caught in Iraq right? haha... Well, it's not like he could go anywhere, he's recognized all over the world. And remember Bush's speeches about any country that harbors terrorists will meet opposition with US forces? I doubt any country would want to harbor him and take chances facing off with the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 BOO! To the senate where all the boring political threads go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by InsaneSith Well, it's not like he could go anywhere, he's recognized all over the world. And remember Bush's speeches about any country that harbors terrorists will meet opposition with US forces? I doubt any country would want to harbor him and take chances facing off with the US. good point...Osama aparently ran his tail off though...or dug some extreemly deep hole. *shrug* oh well. I dunno I would think a man with that kind of power could do things in secret such as go hide somewhere...like antartica:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel ACCIDENTIALLY shot or blown up by suicide bombers? You're kidding I hope. As for that piece on international law.. oh come on, who the hell are you all kidding? No semimajor country follows international law, since it's stupidly breakable with minimal penalty. The US and other countries have ignored some of the Iraqi sanctions over the years for crying out loud. I'm quite frankly under the impression that for the most part international law is a farce that lets countries have influence on other countries via, say, the UN. It's ridiculous. So, you're saying people should be able to go to war and such just because they feel like it? Also those farce international laws are what keep US soldiers off tv when they get captured as POW's and I would have figured with your blind patriotism you would be all for not globaly embarrasing them. If no country followed international law, the US would most likely have been bombed to hell, especially during the cold war. Think before you speak. And yes, accidentally. America wanted to capture Saddam not blow him up. And most of the targets of suicide bombers are not political figures but instead major civilian areas to get their point across. (though I don't agree with their point mind you) Originally posted by Kurgan a propaganda piece for Bush (and his supporters on the GOP side) to say "ha! Look! We won the war and we captured Saddaam, something the last two presidents failed to do!" The purpose of the Gulf war wasn't to get Saddam, it was to get his troops out of Kuwait. And I'm not sure, but I don't think Clinton went after Saddam. Also I kind of doubt Bush would insult his dad like that, but he might. It could be one of Saddam's double's but the US might just say it's him just to use as propaganda, but that's a long shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by InsaneSith So, you're saying people should be able to go to war and such just because they feel like it? Also those farce international laws are what keep US soldiers off tv when they get captured as POW's and I would have figured with your blind patriotism you would be all for not globaly embarrasing them. If no country followed international law, the US would most likely have been bombed to hell, especially during the cold war. Think before you speak. And yes, accidentally. America wanted to capture Saddam not blow him up. And most of the targets of suicide bombers are not political figures but instead major civilian areas to get their point across. (though I don't agree with their point mind you) Erm... Just how did that invalidate my point? Oh, right. It didn't. (You forget that Iraq showed images of two American POWs.. heh.). As for the cold war.. What on EARTH does that have to do with international law? Neither side gave a damn about international law except when it suited them (Vetoes in Security Council), fingers were on the buttons to launch missiles quite often. Think before you speak. So... Just how is it an accident that civillans get blown up by suicide bombers again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.