We invaded Iraq because they violated international law.

[Korgoth]

... And shunned the U.N.

It appears we are doing the same. What role models we are!
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...L18389434_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-USA-TORTURE.xml

 

[CptStern]

yes but you wrapped yourself (the US not you) in the mantra of justice and feigned humanitarianism in the hopes that that would allow for a quick brutal usurpation of power. Just look at how so many of our members will say things like "the torture is justified because they're terrorists" yet fail to see the hypcritical aspect of it all

I'm convinced you could have dozens of smoking guns and a large portion of the american population would still defend the decision to invade ..even to go so far as to lie in order to save face: "oh the intelligence was wrong, not the administration" or "they were wrong but they never lied" "we had no choice, we saw a threat and had to take the chance because the alternative (nukes over america) is far worse"

 

[VictimOfScience]

Hahaha! This thread is going to go nowhere in a great hurry!

The fact that people are surprised by our (America's) hypocrisy will never cease to confusticate and bebother me.

 

[Korgoth]

I swear, the bush administration is the "abusive, alcoholic husband who insists he'll change his ways but never does". This country keeps letting him punch her in the eye and apologize, its time we divorced this douche bag.

 

[bbson john]

I'm convinced you could have dozens of smoking guns and a large portion of the american population would still defend the decision to invade ..even to go so far as to lie in order to save face: "oh the intelligence was wrong, not the administration" or "they were wrong but they never lied" "we had no choice, we saw a threat and had to take the chance because the alternative (nukes over america) is far worse"

you are right, I really want to ask those guys.

What do you think Iraq is, a senseless butcher? There is no possible chance that Iraq nukes America.

First, they have no ability to build any nuclear weapon after decades of economic blockade. Plus, they have no such a technique, let alone the equipments and uranium required to make a nuclear weapon.

Second, ask yourself: what's the point? Irap will not nuke America for nothing. Nuking America does no good to Iraq but a self-destruction.

Also, I have noticed that America own a lot of nukes. It is the most dangerous country and it it necessary for the UN to gather an army to invade it.

I feel happy that most of the people in this forum have such a clear mind.

 

[Solaris]

you are right, I really want to ask those guys.

What do you think Iraq is, a senseless butcher? There is no possible chance that Iraq nukes America.

First, they have no ability to build any nuclear weapon after decades of economic blockade. Plus, they have no such a technique, let alone the equipments and uranium required to make a nuclear weapon.

Second, ask yourself: what's the point? Irap will not nuke America for nothing. Nuking America does no good to Iraq but a self-destruction.

Also, I have noticed that America own a lot of nukes. It is the most dangerous country and it it necessary for the UN to gather an army to invade it.

I feel happy that most of the people in this forum have such a clear mind.

Erm. Iraq's now under US control.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The point of the Invasion was too stop Saddam giving WMD to terrorists, even if they had the weapons (which have been supposedly moved to Syria), It's doubtful that Saddam would have given Osama any, as they did not follow similar idealogies and hated eachother.

Iran on the other hand is run by a fanatical nutjob, unfortunatley America and the UK are too overstretched to invade Iran.

 

[CptStern]

The point of the Invasion was too stop Saddam giving WMD to terrorists,

no it wasnt, the bush admin knew saddam didnt have wmd, congress knew he didnt have any, the cia knew he didnt have any, the blair government knew he didnt have any ..the majority of the world's population knew he didnt have wmd

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6456.htm

even if they had the weapons (which have been supposedly moved to Syria), It's doubtful that Saddam would have given Osama any, as they did not follow similar idealogies and hated eachother.

Iran on the other hand is run by a fanatical nutjob, unfortunatley America and the UK are too overstretched to invade Iran.

you have no right to attack anyone ..nut job or not ..were that true bush would be in shackles and the US would be under an occupying army right now

 

[Mr Stabby]

The Iranian president has stated he wanted to wipe Isreal of the face of the earth, and non-muslims are now being forced to wear badges to seperate them from Iranian society, therefore he qualifies as a nutjob

Do you think Neville Chamberlain did a good job at, stopping Hitler

Some people cannot be stopped through diplomacy,the Iranian President is one of them

 

[Solaris]

The Iranian president has stated he wanted to wipe Isreal of the face of the earth, and non-muslims are now being forced to wear badges to seperate them from Iranian society, therefore he qualifies as a nutjob

That doesn't mean you get to invade him.

 

[15357]

Oh yeah, international laws mean nothing when you are one of the top 3 world powers.


Keep it up!

 

[ComradeBadger]

I that the US is handling things badly now, there's no doubt about that.. but to those who are advocating the invasion of the US.. calling them a dangerous power.. it's more than a little bit naive.

 

[Element Alpha]

I that the US is handling things badly now, there's no doubt about that.. but to those who are advocating the invasion of the US.. calling them a dangerous power.. it's more than a little bit naive.

You're kidding right? naive?

Climate change: The big emitters

And don't get me started on world politics, energy, deficit or south America, I've had a long day and it's not even 6PM yet.

Have a nice weekend everyone :cheers:

edit: I'd never support any kind of attack on the US though (or any other type of invasion or abuse of force)

 

[Solaris]

The US must be taken out from the inside.
The people are the problem.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The US must be taken out from the inside.
The people are the problem.

that's a contridication, if the people are a 'problem' how will they bring it down from the inside

 

[Solaris]

that's a contridication, if the people are a 'problem' how will they bring it down from the inside

Becuase we have to change the people to change the state.

 

[Mr Stabby]

how do you do that from the inside?

 

[Solaris]

Sigh,
Invading the USA would be stupid, we would lose. Infact invading anywhere without the consent of the invaded population isn't going to change them..Re Iraq.

What needs to happen for the USA to become good again is for the people to get smart and vote left, or otherthrow there government and impose a socialist democracy.

 

[CptStern]

The Iranian president has stated he wanted to wipe Isreal of the face of the earth,

nope, it was the state of isreal not isrealis

and non-muslims are now

so it's law now?

being forced to wear badges to seperate them from Iranian society, therefore he qualifies as a nutjob

nope, you're wrong

Some people cannot be stopped through diplomacy,the Iranian President is one of them

just like saddam? naybe the US should nuke iran "just in case". Pre-emptive strike = illegal ..that would add another warcrime to the long list

 

[ComradeBadger]

I'd never support any kind of attack on the US though (or any other type of invasion or abuse of force)

That's what I'm saying - I'm not supporting their decisions in any way..

 

[DeusExMachina]

Voting left isn't going to make the country all better again. While I'm a supporter of democratic socialism, imposing that won't work very well either.

We need good leaders, whether they be from the left or right. We need moderate leaders. Leaders who don't see everything in black and white. Those leaders will get moderate people to go into the House, the Senate, their own Cabinet. We don't need a left-wing or right-wing government. We need a balanced one.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Agreed.

 

[Solaris]

If the people supported it, it would work.

 

[DeusExMachina]

That's exactly the thing. People have opinions. And, the First Amendment allows them to have that right. Obviously, not everyone is going to support it. That's why you need to find a balance so that everyone is at least relativley content.

 

[Mr Stabby]

nope, it was the state of isreal not isrealis

I said Isreal, and it's implied by wiping Isreal off the face of the earth, that some form of harm will come to it's citizens

just like saddam? naybe the US should nuke iran "just in case". Pre-emptive strike = illegal ..that would add another warcrime to the long list

No, like Hitler. Saddam posed no real threat, Ahmadinejad has shown he is high on religious zeal, clearly crazy and is in the pursuit of nuclear technology.

 

[mortiz]

Oh no, now you've gone and done it, you've opened up a can of Stern on yo' ass.

 

[Lemonking]

That doesn't mean you get to invade him.

if it was for people like you and stern back back in 1939,most of europe and russia would be speaking german.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I doubt it.

America would've still been attacked by Japan and Germany would've declared war on us days later.

And Russia would never surrender. Ever.

 

[Lemonking]

no,imo Germany would have shared asia,then Germany would have betrayed Japan.instead of having a cold war with russia,it would have been the Germans.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Niether Russia, America or the UK could have beaten Germany alone, If Britian stayed out of the war, then Russia would have fallen before Pearl Harbour, and America would have been unable to get a foothold in Europe, it's also possible that America only got involved in the Second World war to help Britian so if Britain stayed out, so would America

 

[CptStern]

why is it that in almost every thread where americans are taken to task for the war in iraq those who justify it always bring up the US' role in WW2? ......what the hell does that have to do with anything? how does that in any way matter about the here and now? it's just nothing but deferrenace of blame ..much like Pontius Pilate you're attempting to wash away all responsibility for the US role in global terrorism ..well it's not going to work ..people have long memories

I said Isreal, and it's implied by wiping Isreal off the face of the earth, that some form of harm will come to it's citizens

the state of israel ..you made it sound like another holocaust

No, like Hitler. Saddam posed no real threat,

yet he was disposed of anyway ..despite the mountain of evidence he was no threat he was removed and thousands of people paid with their blood all for the US to secure a foothold in the middle east

Ahmadinejad has shown he is high on religious zeal

and? not grounds for removal

, clearly crazy

and? not grounds for removal

, and is in the pursuit of nuclear technology.

which is his countries right since they've signed the non-proliferation act and and have abided by IAEA guidelines

the US has over 3000 nukes at the ready ..iran is at least 10 years away from having enough enriched uranium to produce a single nuke ...who's a threat to whom?

 

[DeusExMachina]

Niether Russia, America or the UK could have beaten Germany alone, If Britian stayed out of the war, then Russia would have fallen before Pearl Harbour, and America would have been unable to get a foothold in Europe, it's also possible that America only got involved in the Second World war to help Britian so if Britain stayed out, so would America

Russia was allied with Germany at that time. And America got in the war because of Pearl Harbor. Unless something directly affected us, we didn't intervene. Britain wouldn't have been able to stay out of the war, Germany declared war on them.

 

[Mr Stabby]

the state of israel ..you made it sound like another holocaust

'wipied off the face off the earth', was used in the context of the physical state of Israel, with Israeli in it, I don't think wiping off the face of the earth, sounds like dissolving a political entity

yet he was disposed of anyway ..despite the mountain of evidence he was no threat he was removed and thousands of people paid with their blood all for the US to secure a foothold in the middle east

So, I am aware he was diposed, when it was not necessary, although I am in favour of getting rid of every tyrannical regime in the world, although it's not feasible

Iraq is irrelevant, Iran poses a threat to Israel, I think they should be stopped

and? not grounds for removal



and? not grounds for removal



which is his countries right since they've signed the non-proliferation act and and have abided by IAEA guidelines

the US has over 3000 nukes at the ready ..iran is at least 10 years away from having enough enriched uranium to produce a single nuke ...who's a threat to whom?

when you combine the crazy religious belief that killing the infidel west grants you a place in paradise, with the means to do it, you get a dangerous cocktail, No one knows how far away from a nuclear bomb they are, but they are not far from a radiological dirty bomb, they could in theory make one now, it may not have a big bang, but it can kill just as many.

The USA has no intention of wiping anybody off the face of the earth, they have had the weapons 60 years, and haven't used them, since the true extent of the dangers of nuclear power were discovered (albeit after Nagaski and Hiroshima)

 

[Mr Stabby]

Russia was allied with Germany at that time. And America got in the war because of Pearl Harbor. Unless something directly affected us, we didn't intervene. Britain wouldn't have been able to stay out of the war, Germany declared war on them.

Hitler didn't want a war with Britain, Britian declared war on Germany when they refused to leave Poland

 

[<RJMC>]

I think precautions should be taked,not nesesary a invasion or attack,but get ready in case if something bad hapen
and sure if iran launch a nuclear bomb to israel the whole world (specially the western civilitations they condem of enemyes of the jihad blablabl) will not stand there just looking

 

[Solaris]

Isreal won't let them get close to making a nuke.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Hitler didn't want a war with Britain, Britian declared war on Germany when they refused to leave Poland

Yeah my bad, I don't know why I said Germany...

But still, Britain wouldn't let Germany take Poland so they would have to be involved with the war. France as well.

 

[ríomhaire]

if it was for people like you and stern back back in 1939,most of europe and russia would be speaking german.

You don't see the difference between being a nut-job and invading Poland?

 

[DeusExMachina]

why is it that in almost every thread where americans are taken to task for the war in iraq those who justify it always bring up the US' role in WW2? ......what the hell does that have to do with anything? how does that in any way matter about the here and now?

I don't want to turn this into a deterministic debate, but I'd say WW2 has as much to do with this as 9/11 does.

Of course, I do not understand either why WW2 is brought up in these conversations, but to say it doesn't matter...well, it does.

 

[Lemonking]

Isreal won't let them get close to making a nuke.

true,I can kinda understand why Iran would want nukes...Israel has been threatning them for years.