The W
Views: 95599904
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.4.14 0603
The W - Current Events & Politics - Iraq (Page 3)
This thread has 33 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(2499 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (68 total)
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2845 days
Last activity: 59 days
#41 Posted on

    Originally posted by cranlsn
      Suppose the above happened, and Afghanistan asked us to hand over or prosecute the terrorists. If we told them to "Fuck off" the way they did us...then yes they might be justified in attacking an area that was harboring the terrorists.


    It's odd that a President and his cronies who were so gung-ho on the "Turn over the terrorist or we bomb your country flat" notion... would then turn around and want no part of an International Criminal Court that would be capable of trying anyone for war crimes.

    Got something to hide, do they? National sovereignty only applies when our nation's the one under scrutiny?







    "No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
    -- Frank Zappa
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1081 days
Last activity: 878 days
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.09

    Originally posted by vsp

      Originally posted by cranlsn



    It's odd that a President and his cronies who were so gung-ho on the "Turn over the terrorist or we bomb your country flat" notion... would then turn around and want no part of an International Criminal Court that would be capable of trying anyone for war crimes.

    Got something to hide, do they? National sovereignty only applies when our nation's the one under scrutiny?






The United States should never subscribe to the International Criminal Court, for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that innocents can(and will) be prosecuted unjustly without the protections of the American criminal justice system.

Man, are there a lot of bleeding hearts on this board...
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#43 Posted on
Please, whatever you feel about Iraq and Afghanistan, please know that a World Court of any nature is a BAD, BAD idea. It's bad for us, it's bad for everyone else, even Iraq and Afghanistan. A World anything is just way too much power for any sort of governing body to have.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2845 days
Last activity: 59 days
#44 Posted on
I'm seeing a lot of this "We know right from wrong; we're good, they're evil" rhetoric floating around this thread.

So why is it preposterous to ask that America's leaders and armed forces be held to the same standards of conduct as those from other nations? To borrow a favorite question of the right, if Americans are out there doing the right and noble thing at all times, what do they have to fear?

As a theoretical exercise, if representatives of the US perform acts that much of the rest of the world would consider "war crimes" worthy of investigation, how do you suggest that those representatives be held accountable?

Or is America so much better than the rest of the world that its shit doesn't stink, and it should be trusted to police its own affairs with impunity, on a tier above everyone else?

Won't the rest of the world look at the US as Bush currently looks at Hussein? "They won't let us investigate their activities, so they must be hiding something..."



(edited by vsp on 23.7.02 0853)


"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1081 days
Last activity: 878 days
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.09
For one thing, Iraq agreed to said inspections. It looked more promising for them than losing.

As far as not subjecting ourselves to the ICC, why would we. I'm not sure that everybody got the memo, but we have a little thing called "sovereignty." The United States has not surrendered its soverigny, nor should it ever. France, Britain, Germany et al have signed on to and acceeded to the ICC covenants. We have not. The ICC claims that it has sovereignty over countries that have not signed onto the document, which is completely absurd.

Does the United States have something to hide? No. Do we have something to protect? Yes. You see, most of the rest of the world has it in for the United States. Most people are jealous of our financial success, our standard of living, our hegemonic stance in the world. France is always looking for an excuse to throw the US under the bus. And why not. We only liberated the country TWICE. Most countries would like to throw us under the train despite everything we have done for the world. The United States liberated Europe twice. We have defeated the Kaisers, the Nazis, the Militarists in Japan, and the Communists, and now we have Islamicist Terrorists on the run. But never mind that the United States is inherently EVIL. Well if these countries had bothered to adhere to market capitalism and taken care of their own affairs, maybe just MAYBE we wouldn't have to clean up the world's mess.

Sorry about the rant, but for those of you nuts who believe the ICC can do good, think about this. The International Criminal Court, citing certain enviro. treaties can have you arrested if you cut down a tree while putting a deck on your house, charge you with the ominous charge of "crimes against the environment", ship you off to Europe and try you in a tribunal that has few of the witness, evidence and procedural protections of American courts. Can you support THAT[/red]?
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 9 days
AIM:  
#46 Posted on
You know, while I hate that "LIEbrals is evil!" rhetoric, and people who think you can boil foreign policy down to Good VS Evil (so when you're trying to argue with them, saying the US is wrong on anything means you must be saying they're EVIL! It's the Jerry Lawler school of politcal debate...), and, man oh man, do I love the Evil Environmentalist arguements, but...

Anyway, it pains me to agree with Grimis, but, yeah, the World Court isn't a good idea. I know, it pains me.



"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."
---George Carlin

"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music."
---Anon.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2845 days
Last activity: 59 days
#47 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    The International Criminal Court, citing certain enviro. treaties can have you arrested if you cut down a tree while putting a deck on your house, charge you with the ominous charge of "crimes against the environment", ship you off to Europe and try you in a tribunal that has few of the witness, evidence and procedural protections of American courts. Can you support THAT[/red]?


Please. The ICC is meant for major crimes, not parking tickets.

There's sovereignty, and then there's accountability. I'll ask again: if American forces do something that the rest of the world is appalled by, and the American government/judiciary does not view these actions as prosecutable, exactly what are the other nations of the world supposed to do about it?

If you reply "Nothing, and that's how it should be," that's just sad. The US is quick to defend its own sovereignty, but fuzzier when it comes to everyone else's. (Sort of like how we keep telling other nations who should or shouldn't be their leaders, not being above tinkering with overseas elections to make sure.)

Since we'll never convince each other, however, DJ FrostyFreeze's user bio is ringing in my ears. (Check the Wienerlist -- it's the bright orange block.)




"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1081 days
Last activity: 878 days
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.09
Yes, I know the ICC is meant for major crimes. The Alternative Minimum Tax is designed for corporations too, but that hasn't stopped the IRS from using it against individuals.

I'm not really sure there is much the US can do that is going to appall the rest of the world and avoid internal prosecution.

Now(stop the presses on this one) I agree(?!) that US foreign policy relies on the violation of other's sovereignty just a tad too much for my taste. I do NOT support getting too up and into somebody elses internal affairs unless there is an overwhelming US interest to do so. As in Vietnam/Panama/Grenada/Somalia was a bad idea, Afghanistan was a good idea. We'll see what happens with Iraq...
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 39 days
Last activity: 2 days
#49 Posted on
The terrorists attacked America and its government symbolically on 9/11, and thousands of people who had nothing to do with our government's actions died horribly. Our government lashed out at Afghanistan in response, chasing the symbol of terrorism, and thousands of people who had never even heard of the World Trade Center died horribly. Bob the WTC accountant and Omar the Afghani goat herder have a lot in common, besides being dead. Did anything productive come out of either attack? Not really.


Iīm generally a big lefty. But itīs this kind of shit that sometimes makes me ashamed to be indentified as one. America doing something that has some bad consequences is very different than doing something wrong, and it is unfair to point out ONLY the bad consequences of American action in order to show itīs 'wrong.'

Case in point: attacking Afganistan. Have we had some bad accidents that could have been avoided? Yes. Does that mean we should sit at home and do nothing? No. Letīs pretend that 9-11 never happened, and finding the terrorists isnīt even a concern. Still:

#1 It isnīt like weīre attacking a great government here. Weīre attacking probably the most represive, human-rights violating government in the world. A grand total of 3 countries in the world recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government (not even France!). Before 9-11 lefties, especially womanīs groups, were BEGGING the U.S. to take out the Taliban. They were complaining every which way about the U.S. turning the other cheek to the abuses of the Taliban because of oil interests. But gee, because the terorists they sponsor actually attack America, now itīs a different story. What kind of logic is this? The 'Americaīs foreign policy is always wrong' one.

#2. Yes, innocent lives have been lost because of U.S. mistakes, and the U.S. should be held accountable for that. Iīm very glad these incidents have gotten international press (you think Saudi Arabia would own up to fucking up like that?) and have kept the pressure on the U.S. to do this right. But the amount of innocent lives lost and destroyed is far less than the amunt that would have been if the Taliban had remained in charge. Ask Achmed-who-wore-his-beard-too-short-one-day if 'anything productive came out of the attack.' Does this mean the U.S. should have free reign to do what it wants, how it wants, regardless of consequences? Of course not. But please folks, when you complain about what the U.S. is doing, remember the alternative. Jesus.

#3. Just compare the amount of Afgan exiles (aprrox. 0) who returned during the Taliban years and the amount who are returning now (500,000+) to figure out who they like better.

Click Here

I definitely think the U.S. could be doing this thing better, and definitely think it needs to provide more humanitarian and infastructure assistance rather than just more guns for warlords to fight remnents of the Taliban. But there is a big difference between 'the U.S. isnīt doing this quite right so they should do better' and 'the U.S. isnīt doing this quite right, so itīs obviously useless and wrong.'



Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2845 days
Last activity: 59 days
#50 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Case in point: attacking Afganistan. Have we had some bad accidents that could have been avoided? Yes. Does that mean we should sit at home and do nothing? No. Letīs pretend that 9-11 never happened, and finding the terrorists isnīt even a concern.



You're assuming that "finding the terrorists" and "bombing Afghanistan" are one and the same action.

As for the Taliban, yes, they weren't what I would call an asset to anyone. Time will tell if what emerges as the ruling government in Afghanistan is any kind of improvement, or if it ends up as repressive warlords fighting for the title of King of the Shitheads. From what I've seen so far, my guess is the latter. The returning exiles may be in for one hell of a rude awakening.

"They weren't a great government, so it's okay to bomb their country." That logic makes, what, half the planet viable targets?





"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 9 days
AIM:  
#51 Posted on
You know, if you're a liberal, everyone assumes you must always be insanely anti-war, no matter what happens. Bullshit. I was in favor of this war - I'd just have liked to have seen us be able to get ahold of *anyone* in Al Queda, as opposed to some dumbass hippie douchebag from California.

As far as Afghanistan goes, the Taliban was an oppressive, anti-human rights theocracy that needed to go a long time ago. The only good thing we've gotten out of this "war" is the disbanding of the Taliban. I'll even give Dubya credit there - you did good there, boy. Now, go lie down before you fall down. (Find a Republican who's willing to give Clinton credit for anything. Then ask them why they're so war gung-ho when they blackballed Clinton when he tried to go after Bin Laden in '98 when he bombed the US Embassy in Africa, saying it was "wagging the dog" to distract us from The Evil Blowjob.)

Sorry, where was I?

Ah yes, with that said, the bombing of Afghanistan accomplished *nothing* (aside from a clever warning to Al Queda (NOT the same thing as the Taliban, in case you've forgotten) to get a'runnin'.). The Taliban fell because of our ground troops and the Northern Alliance. not because we were bombing sand. The bombs fell to make the American people think something was getting done, because we sure as hell weren't dealing with typical warfare here.

Meanwhile, we want to pull out of Afghanistan, leaving it in the hands of fueding warlords. Yeah, that's a good plan. It's not like anything bad came about the last time we let that happen...

Still, explain to me how much Bush really gives a fuck about human rights violations when our oil buddies in Saudi Arabia are still listed in the "GOOD" column.



"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."
---George Carlin

"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music."
---Anon.
Socks
Landjager








Since: 25.6.02
From: Ottawa

Since last post: 633 days
Last activity: 246 days
#52 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.21

    Originally posted by cranlsn
    In a nutshell...

    Since the Gulf War we've had UN advisors checking to make sure Iraq is behaving. Meaning no chemicial, biological, and especially nuclear weapons.

    A few years back, Iraq kicked the advisors out, and has not let them back in.

    US: Are you developing weapons of mass destruction?

    Iraq: Um...no of course not.

    US: Can we come look?

    Iraq: No! Bye now!

    That's really simplistic, and diplomatic solutions and sanctions had been in place. But...since 9/11 we've been wanting to keep a little better tabs on Saddam's war chest.

    Does that help a little? I know that there are more complex answers, and more reasons, but this is what is at the forefront.





By Gawd what a great post!


Iraq and Saddam cannot be trusted.


Click Click BOOM!



I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok, I work all night and I sleep all day!

vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2845 days
Last activity: 59 days
#53 Posted on
You're missing one part of the conversation:

UN: Can we come look?

Iraq: No. There are US spies on the UN inspection teams.

US: Harumph! That's ridiculous.

[pause until 1999]

US: Er, well, yeah, we DID have spies on the UN inspection teams. But that doesn't matter, and besides, we won't do that again. Really. Would we lie?

Iraq: Yes. Go away.

US: They won't let us in, so therefore they have something to hide, our approval ratings are dropping, and he made my daddy look bad. EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL






"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1081 days
Last activity: 878 days
#54 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.09
Click Here
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2845 days
Last activity: 59 days
#55 Posted on


Yeah, well, consider the source. Click here. You might as well link to NewsMax.


(edited by vsp on 26.7.02 0847)


"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1081 days
Last activity: 878 days
#56 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.09
So what. Your source is a far left-wing organization that is connected with America haters such as Noam Choamsky. If you are going to call something a disreputable source, I would suggest countering it with something other than a disreputable source.

Regardless, you probably et your news from such politically biased publications like the NY Times and the Washington Post or the CBS evening news.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2799 days
Last activity: 2796 days
#57 Posted on
Maybe you missed these the first time.



ELECTRIC BLOOD - Get the "F" Out! part 2
>BUY RPGs FROM ME!! PLEASE!

Weekly Visitor
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1081 days
Last activity: 878 days
#58 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.09
Look, I hate to break it to you but the media is> biased. Why do you think that W is always portrayed as being stupid and being dumber than Gore(specifcially during the election) despite the fact that he had higher SAT scores than Gore, never flunked out of divinity school, and was an F-104(which they just don't hand out to the stupid). Now compare that with the coverage of Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend, dumb as a brick, who is portrayed by the media as being brilliant.

The preponderance of bias is immeasurable. If you took everything the media says at face value, then killer sharks would have eaten everything last year, racism is America's biggest problem, profiling criminals is evil, meat will kill us and the ocean levels will rise 20 feet tomorrow.

Another thing: 92% of Reporters voted for Clinton in 1996. One would exect a similar number to have done so for Gore. Dan Rather is unashamedly liberal.

There are hundreds more conservative radio talk show hosts than liberal ones(even though a lot of the Conservative ones are hard to listen to) because liberal ideology is generally completly indefensible.

(edited by Grimis on 26.7.02 1415)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2799 days
Last activity: 2796 days
#59 Posted on
wait, the media is liberal but there's hundreds more Conservative radio hosts (and tv)? I don't think that adds up right.

I hate to break this to you, but you didn't say anything to prove the media is liberal. So what if "92% of reporters voted for Clinton." Does that mean they can't do their job? More importantly, I bet a fair majority of those that own the media voted against Clinton. When Pat Buchanan says: "For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." I think we can safely say that the media is not liberal.

And just because the media sensationalizes things doesn't make it liberal, either. There are serious problems with media in this country, namely its tendency to sensationalize everything and the lack of real analysis and discussion, but reporters voting for whom they want to be President is not the problem.



ELECTRIC BLOOD - Get the "F" Out! part 2
>BUY RPGs FROM ME!! PLEASE!

Weekly Visitor
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 9 days
AIM:  
#60 Posted on
Ah, the "liberal media" arguement...

I didn't personally write this, but I think it applies:

"
What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush?
It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's
qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all.
But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Bush?

I'll tell you what would happen:

Rush The Vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true
and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true
and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it
wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

"Doctor" Laura the Whore would spend at least an hour on her radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will
would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.

Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Still with me? We're close to the end...

BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Wolf the Whore would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.

Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN
(Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.

John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?

Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking
if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.

Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline.
Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline.
Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline.
Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline.
William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.

OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."

Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.

My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"

When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?

Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list
has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.

There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television.
The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely
a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing,
Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.

I don't think you ditto-heads can offer an answer.

Prove me wrong."


EDIT: Took out the part about Crossfire, because that, thankfully, doesn't apply anyone.

EDIT #2: And, yeah, Donahue's got a show now, but this article at least predates 9/11 because it also used to have Barbara Olson in it.

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 26.7.02 1556)

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 26.7.02 1601)

"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."
---George Carlin

"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music."
---Anon.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: Okay, someone defend this:
Next thread: Suing fast food as a drug.....
Previous thread: Poor Traficant!
(2499 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
You've got a lot of chutzpah accusing the Democratic Party of being the ones always playing the race card. You bring up "blatant race-baiting" in a question about the candidates FUCKING FAVORITE SONG.
- MoeGates, 9/9 Debate Thoughts (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Iraq (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.15 seconds.