|
If you could go back in time and kill any one person... (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| crazedcanuck |
| Just a sidenote btw diabolic... the US has infact refused to pay millions in UN dues for sometime. |
|
|
| disko-kandi |
| quote: | Originally posted by d!abolic
Well, first things first. The UN wouldn't even EXIST without US funding |
aahhh man!!! ur so uninformed! first of all they are the only ones who either not pay their dues on time or not at all!
plus, they are kown to withhold funding, thereby using it as a political bargaining tool with the UN!
| quote: | | so let's keep that in mind while painting a picture that makes the US look like a naughty kid trying to get away with bad behavior. Their move, as described in the article was just good PR. Having their own troops on trial for war crimes next to the likes of Slobo wouldn't make the US look good. Is it right? Of course not, but it's damage control, and you can't expect the US to allow the scandal to escalate without trying to make it better. Those troops WILL be tried and punished nevertheless, so as long as justice is served, i personally couldn't care less if it's done by a court by Washington or The Hague. And besides, we shouldn't forget that the troops weren't exactly torturing nuns and schoolgirls in that prison. Those people were there for a reason: they were criminals. Not convicted criminals perhaps, but believe me when i say that most, if not all of them have US blood on their hands and that's exactly why they were tortured. That's not what our democracy stands for, i agree, but these weren't innocent bystanders, and that does matter. |
i can't believe the kinds of arguments you make!! the US is known for its notorious violations of international criminal law (for decades, - any war you take a closer look at!) and international humanitarian law - i.e. preemptive strikes (the most recent ones being Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq), bombing of innocent civilians and public buildings, taking POW's locking them up for extended periods of time without the right to a fair trial etc. (Guantanamo Bay), - just to name a few, as well as interfering with the sovereignty of other states! ... how do you justify that??? what, they're the world 'police man' and it's ok for them to act as God, when it fits into their opportunistic political agenda?! ...they know full well that they've also committed some of the worst crimes against humanity and gross human rights violations in history and that's why they will not sign on to and ratify the ICC treaties! ... always trying to wash their hands clean ... trying to find a way to justify their actions ... just b/c 'they can'!
and you're trying to find a way to justify torture?!? |
|
|
| nycionx |
| ^^^^^^^^listen to this guy. you can learn something from him:p |
|
|
| nycionx |
i had a good laugh reading this one...its just soo true
Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)
© 2003 anarchie bunker
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy. |
|
|
| disko-kandi |
| quote: | Originally posted by nycionx
^^^^^^^^listen to this guy. you can learn something from him:p |
i'm a GIRL!!! :p |
|
|
| disko-kandi |
| quote: | Originally posted by nycionx
i had a good laugh reading this one...its just soo true
Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)
© 2003 anarchie bunker
|
what a messed up world ... but so true!!! |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by disko-kandi
i'm a GIRL!!! :p |
HAWT?? :crazy:
:toothless
|
|
|
| d!abolic |
| quote: | Originally posted by disko-kandi
aahhh man!!! ur so uninformed! first of all they are the only ones who either not pay their dues on time or not at all!
plus, they are kown to withhold funding, thereby using it as a political bargaining tool with the UN!
i can't believe the kinds of arguments you make!! the US is known for its notorious violations of international criminal law (for decades, - any war you take a closer look at!) and international humanitarian law - i.e. preemptive strikes (the most recent ones being Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq), bombing of innocent civilians and public buildings, taking POW's locking them up for extended periods of time without the right to a fair trial etc. (Guantanamo Bay), - just to name a few, as well as interfering with the sovereignty of other states! ... how do you justify that??? what, they're the world 'police man' and it's ok for them to act as God, when it fits into their opportunistic political agenda?! ...they know full well that they've also committed some of the worst crimes against humanity and gross human rights violations in history and that's why they will not sign on to and ratify the ICC treaties! ... always trying to wash their hands clean ... trying to find a way to justify their actions ... just b/c 'they can'!
and you're trying to find a way to justify torture?!? |
1. What's wrong with pre-emptive strikes? Yes, there were civillians killed in the process, but we do have the most accurate munitions on Earth, and far more civillians would have died if we just rolled in there with tanks. If you had to fight that war, what have you done instead of pre-emptive strikes that would have resulted in more damage to the military and less damage to the civillian population?
2. Once again, they've done everything imaginable to make sure that doesn't happen. It still happened, but it's not like they were going after civillians on purpose, as opposed to every single Middle-Eastern nation that deliberately targets them in any given war. On top of all that, these countries you speak of were ruled by people who deliberately placed their key structures around hospitals and stored weapons in mosques. So when the're literally lining themselves under enemy fire, what did you think was gonna happen?
3. The US doesn't take POWs because they've got nothing better to do. They take POWs because these people are threats to them, as well as to us. There were countless terrorists among the detainees in Guantanamo Bay and to let them go would be suicide. Literally. Once again, what would you have done? Set them free? Ask them to play nice and tell the truth? You're blaming the Americans for making the wrong choices in situations where they didn't really have an alternative. If those people turned around, planned and carried out another terrorist attack on the USA, what would you say then?
Look, to set the record straight on the USA, i agree that they're bullies. And they've made some horrible mistakes, such as Vietnam. But in the end of the day, i feel that they've done more good than bad. Even though they only get in wars to benefit themselves and only help civillians of those countries to make themselves look better, their actions still resulted in more overall good to humanity. |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
Countries don't spend billions on munitions, soldiers, and equipment for a "moral imperitve", or to "do good".
2cents. |
|
|
| Provitex |
| What the hell is the point of starting these type of threads to begin with? The least thing you could do is stay on the same disturbing topic you've chosen. You have a lot of issues man |
|
|
| disko-kandi |
| quote: | Originally posted by d!abolic
1. What's wrong with pre-emptive strikes? Yes, there were civillians killed in the process, but we do have the most accurate munitions on Earth, and far more civillians would have died if we just rolled in there with tanks. If you had to fight that war, what have you done instead of pre-emptive strikes that would have resulted in more damage to the military and less damage to the civillian population?
2. Once again, they've done everything imaginable to make sure that doesn't happen. It still happened, but it's not like they were going after civillians on purpose, as opposed to every single Middle-Eastern nation that deliberately targets them in any given war. On top of all that, these countries you speak of were ruled by people who deliberately placed their key structures around hospitals and stored weapons in mosques. So when the're literally lining themselves under enemy fire, what did you think was gonna happen?
3. The US doesn't take POWs because they've got nothing better to do. They take POWs because these people are threats to them, as well as to us. There were countless terrorists among the detainees in Guantanamo Bay and to let them go would be suicide. Literally. Once again, what would you have done? Set them free? Ask them to play nice and tell the truth? You're blaming the Americans for making the wrong choices in situations where they didn't really have an alternative. If those people turned around, planned and carried out another terrorist attack on the USA, what would you say then?
Look, to set the record straight on the USA, i agree that they're bullies. And they've made some horrible mistakes, such as Vietnam. But in the end of the day, i feel that they've done more good than bad. Even though they only get in wars to benefit themselves and only help civillians of those countries to make themselves look better, their actions still resulted in more overall good to humanity. |
look, i can't keep up with this deranged non-sense.
i'm checking out of this discussion.
thanks for your views, but you're fooling yourself! do me a favour and do some research first before you start arguing, and then we'll continue with an informed & constructive discussion! cheers! |
|
|
| Ortemy |
| quote: | Originally posted by disko-kandi
i'm a GIRL!!! :p |
OMG H2U !!!!! :crazy:
:haha: :tongue3 :stongue:
What's up, Silke? :) |
|
|
|
|
