TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Pakistan / Afghanistan dont understand democracy / freedom of speech
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'll say it again... You have to put it in context. This story is very convienient for those wanting to portray Muslims as evil terrorists, and if we heard that someone flushed a Bible down the toilet I'm sure people wouldn't riot. But that is comparing apples with oranges. If we were under occupation from an enemy that is seen as bent on destroying and conquering Christianity, and then they flushed a Bible down the tiolet there would almost certainly be riots

yeah good points

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil The religion itself isn't fanatic, it is the people that can be fanatic.

That's not what you said earlier.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil This just shows how fanatic this religion truly is.

And as GeorgeSmiley said, you can't generalize the action of a few to everyone else. There's a difference between a religion and it's teaching and the people who claim to follow it. I don't really care about you talking smack about fanatics. I do that too. But when you make generalizations like this,

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Hell when I was in a best western with my girlfriend our fridge had a missing leg and we used the bible to prop it up. Ooooo maybe the Catholic world will burn a few UN buildings, kill some people, protest, flip over some cars, and chant death threats at me. This just shows how fanatic this religion truly is. It is just a book with some print on it, my god, what an overblown reaction to nothing. Perhaps the people protesting and killing each other should be the ones to apologize for being idiots.

Thats really uncalled for. There's fucking fanatics and retards in every group so why are you bashing the religion.

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath maybe, but in my opinion, getting rid of saddam was worth this war. legal or illegal, and you can argue a decent case for either anyway, the fact is they are there now.

Why does everyone love forgetting the fact that Sadaam came to power WITH US SUPPORT and the chemical weapons he used to gas the kurds WERE SOLD TO HIM BY THE US. The US had no fucking business interferring with Iraq in the first place.

Man, you gotta love the goverment. First they create monsters and terrorists (eg. monster = Sadaam, terrorista = al-Qaeda)(in case you weren't aware of it, the CIA funded and trained al-Qaeda), and then they go and bomb the shit out of the countries they're in, and those countries always have lots of oil or need to be forcibly occupied for building a pipeline.

Oh and that comment you passed about how the Iraqi PM wanting troops in Iraq. Well, it doesn't fucking matter what he wants cuz the US is only interested in setting up a puppet goverment in Iraq and not one that will keep the interest of the Iraqi at heart.

@ GeorgeSmiley, I love your sig.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Why does everyone love forgetting the fact that Sadaam came to power WITH US SUPPORT and the chemical weapons he used to gas the kurds WERE SOLD TO HIM BY THE US. The US had no fucking business interferring with Iraq in the first place. Man, you gotta love the goverment. First they create monsters and terrorists (eg. monster = Sadaam, terrorista = al-Qaeda)(in case you weren't aware of it, the CIA funded and trained al-Qaeda), and then they go and bomb the shit out of the countries they're in, and those countries always have lots of oil or need to be forcibly occupied for building a pipeline. Oh and that comment you passed about how the Iraqi PM wanting troops in Iraq. Well, it doesn't fucking matter what he wants cuz the US is only interested in setting up a puppet goverment in Iraq and not one that will keep the interest of the Iraqi at heart.

well i should think that as the prime minister of iraq, democratically elected mind, he speaks for the people of iraq?

regardless of where he got his weapons from, the fact that he was killing his own people with them, suggests he would be prepared to use them against other states. go round iraq and ask the people if theyd rather have saddam back...see what they say.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Hell when I was in a best western with my girlfriend our fridge had a missing leg and we used the bible to prop it up. Ooooo maybe the Catholic world will burn a few UN buildings, kill some people, protest, flip over some cars, and chant death threats at me.

I think that there are some important differences between your Bible experience and the troubles with Korans in toilets: First, you didn't use the bible as you did in a conscious effort to provoke Christians. Second, the reason why cheapening the Koran is much worse, is because it displays the hypocrisy that has been sold to muslims by the US government in the last 3-4 years. When Bush puts on his preacher face and says that he realizes that "Islam is a peaceful religion" and that he dislikes that terrorists perverts it, but at the same time oversees practices where the religion, rather than the terrorists, is severely humiliated, then that adds up to an even greater insult. Not only are your religion degraded, you have to suffer the tort of being lied to as well.

EDIT: And the reason why Catholics wouldn't go nuts? Because they're better educated and generally better off than the people in Afghanistan. Hence, they have the ability and emotional surplus to see a defacement as what it is, and nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z There's a difference between a religion and it's teaching

Which?

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Hell when I was in a best western with my girlfriend our fridge had a missing leg and we used the bible to prop it up. Ooooo maybe the Catholic world will burn a few UN buildings, kill some people, protest, flip over some cars, and chant death threats at me. This just shows how fanatic this religion truly is. It is just a book with some print on it, my god, what an overblown reaction to nothing. Perhaps the people protesting and killing each other should be the ones to apologize for being idiots.

this fanticism is no worse than the US's fanatical war against communisim in latin america, or other places. how many people died there?

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath maybe, but in my opinion, getting rid of saddam was worth this war. legal or illegal, and you can argue a decent case for either anyway, the fact is they are there now.

How do you argue a case for an illegal war......do what the British and Americans did and lie?

If every country in the world carried out illegal wars on countrys, whose assets they coveted that would be ok as well, would it?

And dont give the bullshit that he was dictator and needed to be removed, why dont they remove other dictators, he was removed for the countrys oil assets, monetary gain, no other reason.

well why do you say the war was illegal?

ive read some of the arguments about whether it was legal or illegal, and i dont really want to go into them here otherwise the thread will get totally sidetracked, with people coming back and forth and whatever, but i assure you you can quite convincingly argue a case for the war being legal.

whther or not the UN inspection teams found WMD, and they did find some evidence of chemical capabilities if im not mistaken, i still beleive they are there. just fuckin well hidden. for that reason, id say the threat was such that it justified removing him..for the sake of his own people, and for the sake of the security of the region.

as for the war being all about oil..well thats your opinion, and nobody knows for sure whether that was the govs true agenda, but i personally doubt it. theres a thread on this forum that deals in great detail about this, and although ive not read it properly, the argument agaist the oil idea seems pretty reasonable to me.

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath well why do you say the war was illegal? ive read some of the arguments about whether it was legal or illegal, and i dont really want to go into them here otherwise the thread will get totally sidetracked, with people coming back and forth and whatever, but i assure you you can quite convincingly argue a case for the war being legal. whther or not the UN inspection teams found WMD, and they did find some evidence of chemical capabilities if im not mistaken, i still beleive they are there. just fuckin well hidden. for that reason, id say the threat was such that it justified removing him..for the sake of his own people, and for the sake of the security of the region. as for the war being all about oil..well thats your opinion, and nobody knows for sure whether that was the govs true agenda, but i personally doubt it. theres a thread on this forum that deals in great detail about this, and although ive not read it properly, the argument agaist the oil idea seems pretty reasonable to me.

Sorry if this sidetracks the thread, but the war was totally illegal. If the best that can be said to claim there was a threat was "there may have been the capability to produce chemical weapons" that's hardly a threat. The evidence was so weak, we had to have DRAWINGS of what mobile laboratories might look like at the U.N. presentation, since we didn't actually have clear evidence they existed and we still don't. If the war wasn't illegal, that would essentially justify any pre-emptive attack by Iran or North Korea on our country, since we've used some harsh words against them and actually have WMDs and haven't been under sanctions for more than a decade, like Iraq had been. We had inspectors on the ground, sanctions in place, troops throughout the region and no evidence of WMDs or any links to Al Qaeda/ September 11th. That's a convinciny argument that we could face horrible attacks within less than an hour's notice? It's funny that Newsweek gets blasted for their source while we went to war based on the very wrong evidence provided by someone named "Curveball." You might want to check out the Downing Street Memo HERE

And as for where did Saddam's WMDs go after 1991 that hadn't been destroyed? Just about anything he had would've had a shelf life that would have expired long before 2003, meaning he would have had to produce more of it in order to actually have any stockpiles of it at the time of when we were under a supposed threat. We were justified because the weapons have to be somewhere hidden despite that we can't find ANY proof that they exist? I'm not sure any war in history could be called illegal if this constitutes the threshold of legality.

The argument is that as Saddam was not complying with weapons inspections then he was in violation of the UN Resolutions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War, and therefore the US/UK had the right to act to enforce those resolutions

wolverine>>

well to be honest i take the view that the war was actually illegal, but what i am saying is that you could make a case for it being legal...although the general consensus is that it was illegal...its not undecided, and a chat with an american lawyer might convince you that it was legal.

not only based on WMD, but basically on implicit authorisation of UN Resolution. its contentious yes , but its not absurd. there are other reasons as well that are put forward, but that is the most likely legally acceptable reason as far as i can rememebr

as for the weapons, well i dunno i used to beleive they didnt have any either, but listeing to a talk radio show over here, a kurdish guy who used to work for the iraq gov phoned up and gave some pretty precise detalis about the location of some wmds. that info has been passed to the us intelligence agancies, and you never know we may find weapons yet. however, it does tend to lead me to conclude that perhaps they do still exist, and owuld have been at the disposal of saddam had he still been in power. just becasue you cant find something, doesnt mean it isnt there.

furthermore, morally the case to remove saddam justified the war imo, in terms of humanitarian reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The argument is that as Saddam was not complying with weapons inspections then he was in violation of the UN Resolutions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War, and therefore the US/UK had the right to act to enforce those resolutions

yeah thats correct, but also through the fact that the resolution adopted relating to the invasion of Kuwait, permitted a continued authorisation for force, which is the subject of a lot of the legal debate.

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath well why do you say the war was illegal? ive read some of the arguments about whether it was legal or illegal, and i dont really want to go into them here otherwise the thread will get totally sidetracked, with people coming back and forth and whatever, but i assure you you can quite convincingly argue a case for the war being legal. whther or not the UN inspection teams found WMD, and they did find some evidence of chemical capabilities if im not mistaken, i still beleive they are there. just fuckin well hidden. for that reason, id say the threat was such that it justified removing him..for the sake of his own people, and for the sake of the security of the region. as for the war being all about oil..well thats your opinion, and nobody knows for sure whether that was the govs true agenda, but i personally doubt it. theres a thread on this forum that deals in great detail about this, and although ive not read it properly, the argument agaist the oil idea seems pretty reasonable to me.

quote:

well why do you say the war was illegal?

Firstly because you mentioned it, and secondly because all the evidence or lack of, points in that direction.

svens_bath

quote:

well why do you say the war was illegal?

quote:

well to be honest i take the view that the war was actually illegal

Enough said........

quote:

Originally posted by zig Firstly because you mentioned it, and secondly because all the evidence or lack of, points in that direction.

yeah ok, i mentioned it, but i thought that you would argue that the war was illegal and so the troops shouldnt have been there in the first place, so i just said that it could be argued either way. perhaps should have brought it up then, my bad.

Re: svens_bath

quote:

Originally posted by zig Enough said........

enough said nothing, and dont get all arsey either. i said it could be argued either way didnt i?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The argument is that as Saddam was not complying with weapons inspections then he was in violation of the UN Resolutions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War, and therefore the US/UK had the right to act to enforce those resolutions

I know your thoughts, so I know you're simply stating that's what the arguments were. The thing is that we had weapons inspectors on the ground not finding anything. The 2nd vote in the U.N. also never occured. Just to play devil's advocate, would that mean that a country would be justified to invade Israel for the resolutions they have failed to follow?

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Just to play devil's advocate, would that mean that a country would be justified to invade Israel for the resolutions they have failed to follow?

justified? perhaps not. legally allowed? depends on what the resolutions say.

Re: Re: svens_bath

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath enough said nothing, and dont get all arsey either. i said it could be argued either way didnt i?

If the war is illegal then how can it be argued either way....its either legal or illegal.....there are no suspended sentences handed down.

quote:

enough said nothing, and dont get all arsey either.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I know your thoughts, so I know you're simply stating that's what the arguments were. The thing is that we had weapons inspectors on the ground not finding anything. The 2nd vote in the U.N. also never occured. Just to play devil's advocate, would that mean that a country would be justified to invade Israel for the resolutions they have failed to follow?

The thing with laws (and this is especially the case with international law) is that a law is only a law when it can be enforced! So technically, the UN is the 'ultimate authority' but in reality only those countries where that law can be enforced counts (ie the weak states). As for Israel, that obviously means no-one can invade to enforce them, whether it would give them a right to is another matter. I have a little experience with the main resolutions against Israel (242 & 388) and none of them say force can be used to enforce them so I would say not. The resolutions passed against Iraq in 1991 do (I think altho not sure) grant the use of force to uphold them (in fact we've been bombing Iraq for 15 years now! Not just since 2003!)

UN Resolutions have to grant the use of force, I dont think the rule is anyone with an outstanding resoltuion can be invaded!

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath wolverine>> well to be honest i take the view that the war was actually illegal, but what i am saying is that you could make a case for it being legal...although the general consensus is that it was illegal...its not undecided, and a chat with an american lawyer might convince you that it was legal.

Well what are the grounds that are actually true that would convince me that it's legal? I'm at work right now with lots of American lawyers as we speak.

quote:

not only based on WMD, but basically on implicit authorisation of UN Resolution. its contentious yes , but its not absurd. there are other reasons as well that are put forward, but that is the most likely legally acceptable reason as far as i can rememebr

The U.N. resolution passed was based unanimously and depended on having a 2nd vote which never took place.

quote:

as for the weapons, well i dunno i used to beleive they didnt have any either, but listeing to a talk radio show over here, a kurdish guy who used to work for the iraq gov phoned up and gave some pretty precise detalis about the location of some wmds. that info has been passed to the us intelligence agancies, and you never know we may find weapons yet. however, it does tend to lead me to conclude that perhaps they do still exist, and owuld have been at the disposal of saddam had he still been in power. just becasue you cant find something, doesnt mean it isnt there.

Would this be the author of "The Bomb in My Garden"? He's been around for quite some time, so that should have panned out by now. Let's think about this for a moment if it hasn't already been checked out. We are told we need to go to war because of the fear that WMDs could be used against us and we have to act quickly, why wouldn't we do everything in our power to find them and check out every tip and search for any intelligence we can find on it? It has been concluded by the U.S. & British administrations both through their own investigations that none can be found. The search has already long been called off. If the threat was ever true, I would expect we'd be in grave danger, but apparently it's no big deal we don't know where they are, along again, with what I mentioned before that we had no proof that more weapons were produced, which would have had to have been the case since the 1991 weapons would have expired.

Can I just make arbitrary claims about any country and invade them and claim I'm justified or should I at least have to have one shread of evidence of proof? Otherwise I can go around the world lying and invading countries and when my claims aren't true I can always fall back on "just becasue you cant find something, doesnt mean it isnt there.:" and no one can really doubt me.

quote:

furthermore, morally the case to remove saddam justified the war imo, in terms of humanitarian reasons.

OK, then why specifically Iraq and we've done nothing anywhere else based on humanitarian reasons. Do people of the Sudan and Congo not count?

Re: Re: Re: svens_bath

quote:

Originally posted by zig If the war is illegal then how can it be argued either way....its either legal or illegal.....there are no suspended sentences handed down.

again, i said it could be argued either way..however, IN MY OPINION it was illegal. but that doesnt mean it was. depends on how you interpret the UN resolutions

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The thing with laws (and this is especially the case with international law) is that a law is only a law when it can be enforced! So technically, the UN is the 'ultimate authority' but in reality only those countries where that law can be enforced counts (ie the weak states). As for Israel, that obviously means no-one can invade to enforce them, whether it would give them a right to is another matter. I have a little experience with the main resolutions against Israel (242 & 388) and none of them say force can be used to enforce them so I would say not. The resolutions passed against Iraq in 1991 do (I think altho not sure) grant the use of force to uphold them (in fact we've been bombing Iraq for 15 years now! Not just since 2003!) UN Resolutions have to grant the use of force, I dont think the rule is anyone with an outstanding resoltuion can be invaded!

Well I sort of addressed to Sven that the last resolution passed against Iraq, which was unanimously agreed upon, required a 2nd vote after the inspections if force were to be taken.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.