offtopic posts about Iraq, Clinton, WWII


Recommended Posts

oh dear :rolleyes:

i love the part about our morality, hahahahaha what a bunch of bull sh*t that is, thanks for giving me a good laugh this morning. since when did starting a illegal war become moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh dear  :rolleyes:

i love the part about our morality, hahahahaha what a bunch of bull sh*t that is, thanks for giving me a good laugh this morning.  since when did starting a illegal war become moral?

586084204[/snapback]

I wasn't aware there was such thing as a legal and illegal war. Oh that's right, because there is no such thing...

And no, the world would never appreciate the U.S. They would sooner die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i think unjustifiable would be a better word than illegal, i am against all forms of war, poor wording on my part. illegal meaning based off of lies and hidden agendas but whatever, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i think unjustifiable would be a better word than illegal, i am against all forms of war, poor wording on my part.  illegal meaning based off of lies and hidden agendas but whatever, lol.

586084239[/snapback]

No, you're term was right. Lieing to the American people, the UN, and the 'Coalition of the Willing' should be illegal. So, that would make it an illegal war.

-Ax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know but i understand what he was saying too, all war is illegal, killing is illegal, so defining it with such terms isnt right (i think thats what he meant, thats how i interperated it), but illegal is what comes to mind and in this case in todays society it is what most properly describes it. i know war is inevitable and in some cases needed, but it is always wrong.

and another point in the article, china will never come asking us for help, it will most likely be the other way around... "Anti-americanism" will always be around as long as arrogant idiots like the author of that article still exist as well as the people who believe such articles.

when the country matures and learns the meaning of "respect", THEN, and only then will some of the "anti-americanism" die down. (that term anti-americanism gets me laughing everytime i type it for some reason)

Edited by MonkeyClaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know but i understand what he was saying too, all war is illegal, killing is illegal, so defining it with such terms isnt right (i think thats what he meant, thats how i interperated it), but illegal is what comes to mind and in this case in todays society it is what most properly describes it.  i know war is inevitable and in some cases needed, but it is always wrong.

586084591[/snapback]

I think killing thousands of innocent people in the WTC was 'illegal'. I think Saddam's brutal regime killing, torturing, mutilating, raping, starving, burning, etc. etc. thousands and thousands of Iraqis would certainly be 'illegal'. It's so disgusting that people sympathize more with the terrorists that flew those planes into the WTC than the thousands who never made it out of the buildings. It's funny how the left is so quick to lecture the right on human rights and harming innocent people, but is so willing to look the other way on these issues.

... but we digress..... after all this thread had very little to do with Iraq. Unfortunately every thread in RWI turns into a debate of the validity and grounds of the Iraqi war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think killing thousands of innocent people in the WTC was 'illegal'. It's so disgusting that people sympathize more with the terrorists that flew those planes into the WTC than the thousands who never made it out of the buildings. It's funny how the left is so quick to lecture the right on human rights and harming innocent people, but is so willing to look the other way on these issues.

586084622[/snapback]

Man I think Foxnews is talking in your post. Why did you merge the Iraq stuff between the terrorist stuff? I fully support the war on terror, you know where the Canadian forces are helping out... In Afghanistan. No one sympathises with terrorists (I hope) but there are more terrorists being born every month in Iraq. This is a terrible situation. If you look back on my posts at the beginning of the war I was firmly in the George Bush camp. That was a war that needed to happen, but after the 'end of major combat' or whatever it was called the war shoudl have been done differently. I remember that canadian contracters could not bid for contracts and that is rediculous...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it is a topic of hipocracy when it comes to morality (the iraq war that is), and please remember when u say sympathize with the terrorists, we are loyal allies with the saudis where most of the hijackers came from, not iraq, so i think its okay to sympathize for innocent men, women, and children living in that country which never did a thing to deserve such harsh punishment as the US blowning them up.

The left is quick to lecture the topic of human rights because the Right ignores such rights. We lecture because the right preaches morality and liberty, while they endorse the ban on gay marriages, and endorse a war that WE STARTED. and dont give me the talk about saddam did this and did that because the same torturing that he was guilty of is going on in our own quentanimo bay (excuse spelling). and his brutal regime killings, well we have killed more civilians (not insurgents, just civilians) than he did, so dont make it sound like the US is so innocent. Saddam was a horrible person, a very very very horrible, terrible person that DID kill thousands of people, and tortured, but as it stands now, the same activities are occuring as a result of this "Liberation". it isnt the military's fault, i have nothing against them, they were simply following orders of those in charge.

It's funny how the right is so quick to lecture the left on 9/11 and anti-patriotism, but is so willing to look the other way when it comes down to the injustice associated with the war.

but yes you are right, this thread doesnt have anything or well very little do do with iraq, and that topic does come up too much when it isnt even an issue so lets try and stear clear. im not going to talk about it anymore in this thread so pm's are welcome, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and dont give me the talk about saddam did this and did that because the same torturing that he was guilty of is going on in our own quentanimo bay (excuse spelling).  and his brutal regime killings, well we have killed more civilians (not insurgents, just civilians) than he did, so dont make it sound like the US is so innocent.  Saddam was a horrible person, a very very very horrible, terrible person that DID kill thousands of people, and tortured, but as it stands now, the same activities are occuring as a result of this "Liberation".  it isnt the military's fault, i have nothing against them, they were simply following orders of those in charge.

586084683[/snapback]

What absolute garbage. There is NO comparison between the highly publicized and transparent 'fraternity hazing' style abuses alleged against the U.S., and the abuses (we know about) committed under Saddam. How can you be so blind as to equate Saddam's 'torture' - everything from pouring gasoline down someone's throat and setting them on fire to surgical mutilation with the U.S. 'torture' of 'stepping on fingers', desecrating a Koran, or sleep deprivation? Give me a break. Let's be clear - there is no equivalency - moral or otherwise between the U.S. and Saddam. What's scary is that you're buying into such dangerous nonsense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're term was right. Lieing to the American people, the UN, and the 'Coalition of the Willing' should be illegal. So, that would make it an illegal war.

-Ax

586084470[/snapback]

So if anyone thinks something should be illegal, then it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think killing thousands of innocent people in the WTC was 'illegal'. I think Saddam's brutal regime killing, torturing, mutilating, raping, starving, burning, etc. etc.  thousands and thousands of Iraqis would certainly be 'illegal'. It's so disgusting that people sympathize more with the terrorists that flew those planes into the WTC than the thousands who never made it out of the buildings. It's funny how the left is so quick to lecture the right on human rights and harming innocent people, but is so willing to look the other way on these issues.

... but we digress..... after all this thread had very little to do with Iraq. Unfortunately every thread in RWI turns into a debate of the validity and grounds of the Iraqi war.

586084622[/snapback]

well if u along with bushy there is so concerned, im waiting for military intervention in Sudan, in China, in Pakistan, in Indonesia, in Phillipines, in Nigeria, In Kazakhistan, in Iran, in Syria, in North Korea, in Saudi Arabia, in Yemen...but ofcourse bush wont, hes not like Clinton who had the guts to save other countries like Somalia (even though us went away) and Bosnia, thats called democratizing, not invasion without correct prescedence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no no no, there is a comparison. granted the us torture isnt as horrible as what he had done, but it is still torture and we are guilty of it. torture is never excusible regardless of what extent. im not buying into such nonsense, cause it isnt nonsense. Torture is illegal regardless of to what extent and it is going on as we type. we are supposed to be saving these people not doing what was done to them already. again its illegal and its wrong and we as "Liberators" should not be doing what was done to them under the previous regime. That within itself is the equivalency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if anyone thinks something should be illegal, then it is?

586084781[/snapback]

Well the Right tried to have Cliton impeached because of lieing to the country. :rolleyes:

I too think that the US should stop ignoring the injustices its commiting against my nation. It has put thounsands of people out of jobs in British Columbia. Even after the world courts ruled their tarrifs as illegal. But hey, who's the world courts to tell the all mighty United States what to do? I mean, if the UN can't stop them, who can?

I wish clinton was back in power. Not only did he take time to visit Canada more than once every 5 years, he listened, understood and worked with the US's top allies and neighbouring nation(s).

-Ax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To try and compare Saddam's tortures to the US's is very hard, simply because you have to take into account the circumstances. I read "but but but you can't compare getting thrown into a woodpulp making machine feet first with flushing a couple of pages down a toilet!!" many times on this forum (and outside); however, as an analogy, imagine a millionaire and a regular, working class guy passing by a tramp. If the millionaire gives ?5, it's nothing to him, as much value as a brush of dust on his shoe. However if the guy who barely clears ?100 a week gives ?5, that's two meals and some drinks down the pub gone, it's a much more important contribution. It's all relative.

Thus by parallel, Hussein (what is it with everyone calling him by his first name anyway, noone calls Hitler Adolf - maybe because as the Iranians pointed out during the first Gulf "Saddam" sounds like "Satan"?) got to power through brutality and needed torture etc. to keep himself in position. Thus to him torture was nothing really, it was a normal part of life. The man was a monster, but it's been overblown by the media who insist that he could have run his country by giving sugar pills to the good workers and sing happy songs on TV, whereas he needed violence to keep himself in power and thus that accounts for part of what he did.

On the other hand... the US prides itself in "bringing civilization to the rest of the world". It is ruled by people elected "fairly" whose opinions represent (or should represent) the opinions of the general public. It has a constitution and rules to ensure that those ruling politicians don't go astray and work for the greater good of the country (not that they do but that was the original idea). It signs treaties and conventions which it "has" to follow, at the risk of appearing to have betrayed the values that they try to promote. Hence I think that the American governement behaved well in that they condemned the tortures in Abu Ghraib etc. - the covering up was just an attempt at saving credibility. The torture was the action of isolated people which can be expected from people in those conditions and in those positions - a study showed 60% of people would have committed tortures on other humans if they were told to, I can't remember the exact name of it but it involved electric shocks given by people to other people and was done shortly after WWII to try and research into how the SS recruits could have done what they did. In the same way it takes one officer to decide to "spice up" the questioning and you have a worldwide scandal. The soldiers see their friends die, they are told these men are worth less than scum, and they certainly didn't go up to Geneva to sign the convention! Which explains their actions.

Thus the reason behind all the outrage at US abuse of human rights is that the US was MEANT to have respect for these rights, whereas in Hussein's case he was only playing by his own rules. Remember the man had to have sosies and huge security all the time around him to protect his life in his own country!

Basically, you can't really say "this side is good, this side is bad". There are other factors to be taken into consideration, and everything is in grayscale anyway, not fax-type black or white.

Now I know noone will have bothered reading this post and probably noone will comment on it (flame war is so much more fun!!!) but I needed to get it off my chest! Thanks for reading if you have.

586085546[/snapback]

i read it and u are absolutely right, it is all in the point of view. what my beef is that the president lies to the world about going to war.

we get there, find out that what he told us was wrong so the liers make a transisition to liberation and freedom from terrorists and wmd's (someone must have left dick out of the loop because he still claims to this day that iraq is behind 9/11).

Now it turns out that the new "liberators" are performing some of the same stuff that the previous guy was doing, the stuff that we were saving the people from.

anyone see anything wrong with this besides me?

Well the Right tried to have Cliton impeached because of lieing to the countr:rolleyes:es:

I too think that the US should stop ignoring the injustices its commiting against my nation. It has put thounsands of people out of jobs in British Columbia. Even after the world courts ruled their tarrifs as illegal. But hey, who's the world courts to tell the all mighty United States what to do? I mean, if the UN can't stop them, who can?

I wish clinton was back in power. Not only did he take time to visit Canada more than once every 5 years, he listened, understood and worked with the US's top allies and neighbouring nation(s).

-Ax

586084838[/snapback]

he really was a good president, its a shame that the right took such a personal matter and turned it into his legacy atleast his present legacy. much better than regan in contradiction to what others say.

Edited by fred666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no no no, there is a comparison.  ...the us torture isnt as horrible as what he had done...

586084824[/snapback]

hmmm?
the same torturing that he was guilty of is going on in our own quentanimo bay....as it stands now, the same activities are occuring as a result of this "Liberation"
You also seem to be missing a key point - Saddam was responsible for and condoned these atrocious activities. G.W. Bush keeps our system incredibly transparent, condemns any abuses, follows through on all reports, reprimands those responsible and does everything within reason to prevent future abuses.

There IS no equivalency.

Something else to consider - have there been any reports or even allegations of deaths of detainees at Gitmo? I don't think so.

FFS, of course the U.S. doesn't have a perfectly clean slate, but realistically it's almost impossible to achieve. What countries can claim to be better in this regard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument maintained here is "Saddam is Evil vs. America is Evil." Consider this: Saddam did some terrible things, and so did the Americans? Both sides have some repenting to do. For example, just because Saddam did some horrible things doesn't mean that the Guantanamo and al-Ghraib cases are excused because they are more lenient (in most cases).

I do have problems with the attitude of the current administration towards Canada, however. The softwood lumber dispute is just one of multiple times that the U.S. has ignored NAFTA. Barriers remain because of two mad cow cases from Canadian cattle, despite the unlikeliness of a recurring problem, promises from President Bush, and two American cattle with BSE. And in theme with the human rights issue, the U.S. has dared to criticize Canada for human rights abuses, despite it's own problems. Oh, and the Canadian 'abuse' was of the Vancouver police, whos members used excessive force to beat up drug dealers ( :o ), and also allegedly tales dug up from an anti-police organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm? You also seem to be missing a key point - Saddam was responsible for and condoned these atrocious activities. G.W. Bush keeps our system incredibly transparent, condemns any abuses, follows through on all reports, reprimands those responsible and does everything within reason to prevent future abuses.

There IS no equivalency.

Something else to consider - have there been any reports or even allegations of deaths of detainees at Gitmo? I don't think so.

FFS, of course the U.S. doesn't have a perfectly clean slate, but realistically it's almost impossible to achieve.  What countries can claim to be better in this regard?

586084965[/snapback]

its ok. first off many choose to forget the british abuse on detainees. i really see it as so many people have nothing better to do than complain rather than offer solutions to problems. when they argue that the US polices the world and then complain that we dont do enough you learn that you will never be able to please everyone. people that arent in power complain that others have too much power, and want power balanced to make it more fair for themselves. dont get me wrong, there should always be checks and balances, and as a superpower we should be extremely careful of what we do, but others shouldnt be so quick to complain when they arent in our shoes. they think the grass is greener on their side of the fence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true to an extent. Was there a thread about those abuses? I honestly don't remember. I think the problem is that here a lot of people post anti and pro american threads, but no one posts the stuff about britain so we are relatively uninformed on that kind of stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we have to turn this into a "was the war right?" thread? The article was about China emerging as a world superpower. Possibly the single largest political event since the rise of Hitler (not that I'm comparing the Chinese to the Nazis here you understand) The China issue is far more important than bickering about a relatively small and casualty free war. Although 'bickering' is not the right phrase. perhaps 'repeatedly stating your point of view in a loud voice while ignoring everyone else' would be better. The RWI forum needs to move on from the war; don't forget about it. Just learn from it. Move on. And get back to talking about the issue that threads are created about.

end of rant. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that not everything should come down to the war, but I did attempt to post something that had almost nothing to do with the war, but no one replied. To oppose what you said a bit though, the war is hard to avoid sometimes because of the way that a lot of the news articles mention it or attach to it indirectly. Like a story on economy would tie in with the massive costs of the war and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To try and compare Saddam's tortures to the US's is very hard, simply because you have to take into account the circumstances. I read "but but but you can't compare getting thrown into a woodpulp making machine feet first with flushing a couple of pages down a toilet!!" many times on this forum (and outside); however, as an analogy, imagine a millionaire and a regular, working class guy passing by a tramp. If the millionaire gives ?5, it's nothing to him, as much value as a brush of dust on his shoe. However if the guy who barely clears ?100 a week gives ?5, that's two meals and some drinks down the pub gone, it's a much more important contribution. It's all relative.

Thus by parallel, Hussein (what is it with everyone calling him by his first name anyway, noone calls Hitler Adolf - maybe because as the Iranians pointed out during the first Gulf "Saddam" sounds like "Satan"?) got to power through brutality and needed torture etc. to keep himself in position. Thus to him torture was nothing really, it was a normal part of life. The man was a monster, but it's been overblown by the media who insist that he could have run his country by giving sugar pills to the good workers and sing happy songs on TV, whereas he needed violence to keep himself in power and thus that accounts for part of what he did.

On the other hand... the US prides itself in "bringing civilization to the rest of the world". It is ruled by people elected "fairly" whose opinions represent (or should represent) the opinions of the general public. It has a constitution and rules to ensure that those ruling politicians don't go astray and work for the greater good of the country (not that they do but that was the original idea). It signs treaties and conventions which it "has" to follow, at the risk of appearing to have betrayed the values that they try to promote. Hence I think that the American governement behaved well in that they condemned the tortures in Abu Ghraib etc. - the covering up was just an attempt at saving credibility. The torture was the action of isolated people which can be expected from people in those conditions and in those positions - a study showed 60% of people would have committed tortures on other humans if they were told to, I can't remember the exact name of it but it involved electric shocks given by people to other people and was done shortly after WWII to try and research into how the SS recruits could have done what they did. In the same way it takes one officer to decide to "spice up" the questioning and you have a worldwide scandal. The soldiers see their friends die, they are told these men are worth less than scum, and they certainly didn't go up to Geneva to sign the convention! Which explains their actions.

Thus the reason behind all the outrage at US abuse of human rights is that the US was MEANT to have respect for these rights, whereas in Hussein's case he was only playing by his own rules. Remember the man had to have sosies and huge security all the time around him to protect his life in his own country!

Basically, you can't really say "this side is good, this side is bad". There are other factors to be taken into consideration, and everything is in grayscale anyway, not fax-type black or white.

Now I know noone will have bothered reading this post and probably noone will comment on it (flame war is so much more fun!!!) but I needed to get it off my chest! Thanks for reading if you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that not everything should come down to the war, but I did attempt to post something that had almost nothing to do with the war, but no one replied. To oppose what you said a bit though, the war is hard to avoid sometimes because of the way that a lot of the news articles mention it or attach to it indirectly. Like a story on economy would tie in with the massive costs of the war and so on.

586085374[/snapback]

I don't think it's so much the war topic but more of the US does this and the US does that. Other countries do things that are not approved of by anyone as well,but are their postings put on here? There is constanting bashing of this country and it's people regardless of what is done. We can't ever do anything right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lying to a grand jury.  Big difference.

586085798[/snapback]

Lieing to the UN and the civilized world is just small potatoes then eh?

I don't think it's so much the war topic but more of the US does this and the US does that. Other countries do things that are not approved of by anyone as well,but are their postings put on here? There is constanting bashing of this country and it's people regardless of what is done. We can't ever do anything right...

586086363[/snapback]

no no, as I said, we liked Clinton.

-Ax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.