Afghan civilians die in U.S. attack

[CSM]

The US only needs authorization if international law is to be obeyed. It clearly is not to be obeyed. So, I agree. However, why not respond to Afghanistan's request for evidence (since the case was a slam dunk) and avoid the war?



Muddy the waters? Did you read what you just wrote? Not the Afghan governments operation and the hijackers mostly were from anoter nation... seems pretty important facts when launching a war.



Plain and simple, okay. So, any nation in the US's circumstance has the very same rights, no? As I posted elsewhere, Haiti can begin a counter-terorism war against the US anytime now. So can Nicaraugua, Cuba... and that's not anit-anything, except 'anti-special treatment'.

I surely hope they do...all those countries need to become US protectorates.

 

[gabosaurus]

MMM = any media that does not kowtow to the policies of the Bush administration.
The function of the media is to act as a watchdog. Their job entails questioning authority and protecting the public.
Their function is NOT to act as a lapdog, which is what Fox is. You let outlets like the NY Post and conservative bloggers kneel at the throne and swallow.

The notion that U.S. policy that govern every state in the world is utterly ridiculous. The world is a mixture of cultures and beliefs. They should not be subject to Bush meglomania.

 

[sitarro]

MMM = any media that does not kowtow to the policies of the Bush administration.
The function of the media is to act as a watchdog. Their job entails questioning authority and protecting the public.
Their function is NOT to act as a lapdog, which is what Fox is. You let outlets like the NY Post and conservative bloggers kneel at the throne and swallow.

The notion that U.S. policy that govern every state in the world is utterly ridiculous. The world is a mixture of cultures and beliefs. They should not be subject to Bush meglomania.

You do realize that Clinton invaded Haiti, Bosnia, and fired many cruize missles at Iraq and Sudan right? His administration also took on a group of Americans in their own country and burned them alive, remember that?

 

[Gurdari]

Try getting some of your information from somewhere other than the MMM and maybe you will understand what is really happening. (talk to a soldier)

Do you even know anyone personally in the military to be able to talk to them about what they are doing over there. .

What's MMM? I mentioned actions by US military that run contrary to 'bringing freedom' which you claim is what is going on. So, support that claim. Or practice what you preach and talk to a soldier (for a balanced view of a conflict he/she is in the middle of?) then support the claim.

Most of the "fighters" are fom Iran and Syria they aren't even from Iraq. So they have no more right by your reasoning to be there than we do. The difference is now we are trying to stop the insurgents if they would go back to their cappy little countries than we could get out....

Do you honostly believe that if we were to just walk away the Iraqi people would be safe and secure.

Two points. 1st - Most of the fighters? Is that a figure out of thin air, or do you have any source for the percentage of foreign vs local insurgents?
Nice twist of my argument to include Syria/Iran - you are right, they have as much right to be there as US.

Lastly, Do I honestly believe if coalition walked away Iraq would be safe and secure? Since we are changing the subject from the 'right' to invade, etc to the consequences of pulling out, I would have to guess. Predicting the future is tough, but I would say the bloodbath is already horrible, and taking away one of the main reasons people are violently upset (occupying army) would help more than it would hinder. Easier to recruit pissed of people to jihad against an armed invasion than to recruit against fellow Muslims and neighbors... not impossible to recruit against fellow Iraqis, just harder to do.

SO, yes. I think they would all be safer and more secure based on my prediction of the future.

 

[Gurdari]

You do realize that Clinton invaded Haiti, Bosnia, and fired many cruize missles at Iraq and Sudan right? His administration also took on a group of Americans in their own country and burned them alive, remember that?

Excellent post. It really doesn't matter which party gets elected... same goals, same results...

 

[sitarro]

Excellent post. It really doesn't matter which party gets elected... same goals, same results...

Yea, sure. What bastion of free will and prosperity for all are you from Gurdari? Or are you allowed to say?

 

[Gurdari]

Yea, sure. What bastion of free will and prosperity for all are you from Gurdari? Or are you allowed to say?

What? Uh, well I'm in the bastion of Canada right now... and here you can say almost anything you like... in fact since we do not have bullshit concepts like 'anti-Canadian' you can say anything about the government, or war, whatever. That's all I'm allowed to say right now.
Except my government minder insists I close with: God bless Canada. And The Right Honourable Stephen Harper.

 

[Gurdari]

Yea, sure. What bastion of free will and prosperity for all are you from Gurdari? Or are you allowed to say?

Also, there's more democracy here. If you care about that stuff.

 

[Trigg]

You do realize that Clinton invaded Haiti, Bosnia, and fired many cruize missles at Iraq and Sudan right? His administration also took on a group of Americans in their own country and burned them alive, remember that?

Love that you brought this up so I thought I'd get gabosaurus some other info. Though I doubt he will respond since it doesn't fit into his agenda.

p.s. Gabo, FYI I disagree with Bush invading Iraq. But, lets not pretend he's the only president who has ever done something like this.

On March 24, 1999, President Clinton ordered air strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)1 after that nation's repression of Albanian Kosovars reached alarmingly high levels. The immediate catalyst of the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission was Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's refusal to accept Western-backed settlement proposals, as well as his failure to keep Serbian police and paramilitary forces within previously agreed upon limits.2 The air war lasted until June 10, 1999, at which time President Milosevic agreed to remove his forces from Kosovo and accept a NATO-led peacekeeping operation.3 The United States obtained a "victory" in Operation Allied Force, but this fact obscures a vital issue: Was the President authorized to conduct an eleven-week air war against the FRY? President Clinton was not constitutionally authorized to order air strikes against the FRY on March 24, 1999. He did not have prior congressional approval from both houses of Congress.

With direct U.S. military intervention in Haiti almost
a certainty, the American Civil Liberties Union today sent letters to
President Clinton and Congressional leaders insisting that any use of
force by the United States in Haiti must be first authorized by Congress.

While taking no position on the use of U.S. military forces in Haiti,
the ACLU said that the U.S. Constitution requires prior congressional
authorization for the President to deploy U.S. forces if they will be
authorized to use force other than in self-defense.

 

[Gurdari]

On March 24, 1999, President Clinton ordered air strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

The United States obtained a "victory" in Operation Allied Force, but this fact obscures a vital issue: Was the President authorized to conduct an eleven-week air war against the FRY? President Clinton was not constitutionally authorized to order air strikes against the FRY on March 24, 1999. He did not have prior congressional approval from both houses of Congress.

With direct U.S. military intervention in Haiti almost
a certainty, the American Civil Liberties Union today sent letters to
President Clinton and Congressional leaders insisting that any use of
force by the United States in Haiti must be first authorized by Congress.

While taking no position on the use of U.S. military forces in Haiti,
the ACLU said that the U.S. Constitution requires prior congressional
authorization for the President to deploy U.S. forces if they will be
authorized to use force other than in self-defense.

Excellent post. The last paragraph is great. ACLU, Democrats, Congress, all they do is debate the cost, or tactics involved - as opposed to whether or not it's okay to bomb the shit out of people or interfere with their governments.

 

[nukeman]

Excellent post. The last paragraph is great. ACLU, Democrats, Congress, all they do is debate the cost, or tactics involved - as opposed to whether or not it's okay to bomb the shit out of people or interfere with their governments.

So should we just build a huge f***ing wall and become isolationist???

That is what it appears you are suggesting in all of your post.

I will some up all your post in a couple of sentences

1. The US is an oppresive war mongering elitest country.
2. The US should butt out of the rest of the world and let it slide into shit.
3. The US should not try to better anyones lives..

You know what, I have to agree on that the US should just sit back and let the rest of the world go to shit and than we can go collect whatever is left. If anylthing is left that is useful.

 

[Gurdari]

So should we just build a huge f***ing wall and become isolationist???

That is what it appears you are suggesting in all of your post.

I will some up all your post in a couple of sentences

1. The US is an oppresive war mongering elitest country.
2. The US should butt out of the rest of the world and let it slide into shit.
3. The US should not try to better anyones lives..

You know what, I have to agree on that the US should just sit back and let the rest of the world go to shit and than we can go collect whatever is left. If anylthing is left that is useful.

yes. stop 'helping' so much... really, research the help you guys gave the central american countries during the first 'war on terror'. Check out the help you gave South Vietnam - the help you gave Iraqis fighting for democracy and against Saddam in the 90s...

Now as to my posts being summed up, sum up your 'side' as well.
US is defender of freedom and the only hope of earth.
US acts with nobility in the face of hostile hordes of unthinking aggressors.
US is a victim of terror in the grand sceme of things, not a terrorist.

Suming up opposing arguments (as I just did) is unfair and lessens the solid arguing many do here. Reducing things to simple points is Bush's job.

Honestly?

I think MOST Americans do not want to take over the world, or bomb people, or fuck with other nation's governments, etc. They just want what I want. What Iranians want. What Russians want. To have a safe, peaceful life where you can raise a family and work and all that other great stuff... but the people who RUN the governments of many nations (not just the US) do not act in a way that promotes the life most citizens wish for.
Even though many polls will show that Britain's government disrespects the wishes of the people, or that most Americans opposed Reagan's policies, or that the media limits discussion and what is heard so the public has trouble making informed decisions, all those things happen, they happen all over the place.
The US is a lightning rod more so because of the sheer size of the military and economic power, and because the level of aggression that many nations exhibit is writ larger. Plus, the list of UN vetoes says a lot.

 

[sitarro]

yes. stop 'helping' so much... really, research the help you guys gave the central american countries during the first 'war on terror'. Check out the help you gave South Vietnam - the help you gave Iraqis fighting for democracy and against Saddam in the 90s...

Now as to my posts being summed up, sum up your 'side' as well.
US is defender of freedom and the only hope of earth.
US acts with nobility in the face of hostile hordes of unthinking aggressors.
US is a victim of terror in the grand sceme of things, not a terrorist.

Suming up opposing arguments (as I just did) is unfair and lessens the solid arguing many do here. Reducing things to simple points is Bush's job.

Honestly?

I think MOST Americans do not want to take over the world, or bomb people, or fuck with other nation's governments, etc. They just want what I want. What Iranians want. What Russians want. To have a safe, peaceful life where you can raise a family and work and all that other great stuff... but the people who RUN the governments of many nations (not just the US) do not act in a way that promotes the life most citizens wish for.
Even though many polls will show that Britain's government disrespects the wishes of the people, or that most Americans opposed Reagan's policies, or that the media limits discussion and what is heard so the public has trouble making informed decisions, all those things happen, they happen all over the place.
The US is a lightning rod more so because of the sheer size of the military and economic power, and because the level of aggression that many nations exhibit is writ larger. Plus, the list of UN vetoes says a lot.

Ya know Gurdari,

The world just isn't as simple as you, a typical blind utopian dreamer, thinks it is. There is always a piece of shit oppressing the people, disrupting commerce, picking on his neighbors,screwing with mankind in general.....not to mention the destruction of the environment. Who will do something about that piece of garbage, Canada???? The UN??? Other low life countries doing business with him?

Nobody was going to do anything about that piece of Camel shit Saddam so our country had to get a few others that weren't the cheap ass chicken shits you are so familiar with, and take his ass out. We were asked by exhiled Iraqis to help, the Kurds asked for help. The UN was getting bribed by him. Russia, Germany and France were in his pocket, they didn't want to take him out.
This asshole set over 700 oilwells on fire creating the world's worst man made ecological disaster of all time. He drained the marshlands of Southern Iraq that provided the Marsh Arabs with food for centuries because they didn't do what he wanted. He and his wonderful sons killed at least a million people many tortured to death. He took the money that was allowed through the UN "Oil for Food" program and bribed, bought weapons, built 35 palace campuses for himself and pocketed the rest while his people starved. He was producing chemical and biological weapons and was trying to get nukes that he could sell to others that are enemies of the West. He broke the terms of his treaty by shooting at coalition aircraft in the no fly zone and he tried to assasinate a former U.S.President. And the faggots *whimps not homosexuals*of the world allowed it. The U.S. stepped up once again and did what nobody else had the balls to do, kicked his ass.
Any country that messes with our friends(even those jerks to the north of us), screws with businesses of our country, citizens of our country is going to have a problem with the United States, it's that simple. We can't, for our safety, our friends safety or the safety of the world, allow uncivilized nut cases to possess weapons of mass destruction. That in itself is reason to go to war because nobody else will. They will just sit back with blinders on and pretend nothing will happen to them if they don't get involved(Canada's idea of defense). It will only be a matter of time before you are a target of those that would truely like to take what isn't theirs....what will you do then, try to talk them out of it? You best hope we are always there to protect your ungrateful ass.

 

[Gurdari]

Ya know Gurdari,

The world just isn't as simple as you, a typical blind utopian dreamer, thinks it is. There is always a piece of shit oppressing the people, disrupting commerce, picking on his neighbors,screwing with mankind in general.....not to mention the destruction of the environment. Who will do something about that piece of garbage, Canada???? The UN??? Other low life countries doing business with him?

I don't think the world is simple. In fact I argue that it is more complext than US foreign policy seems to. I don't think you can institute real change for the better (ostensibly the goal) by using force. That is a simple, blunt tactic. The real world, requires a far more well-rounded plan, and as a non-"faggotCanadianchickenshit" you already know that.
As for the fact that there will always be assholes in the world, thanks I get it. I just think SUPPORTING, and ARMING those assholes is counterproductive.
Destroying the environment? IS the US a champion of saving the planet?
Give me a fucking break.

Nobody was going to do anything about that piece of Camel shit Saddam so our country had to... We were asked by exhiled Iraqis to help, the Kurds asked for help. (edited by Gurdari)

You were asked for help many times, in the 90s, by Iraqi democratic movements, even Shiites who rebelled - the US postion then?
"Good luck, Hope you made out a will."

This asshole set over 700 oilwells on fire creating the world's worst man made ecological disaster of all time. He drained the marshlands of Southern Iraq that provided the Marsh Arabs with food for centuries because they didn't do what he wanted. He and his wonderful sons killed at least a million people many tortured to death. He took the money that was allowed through the UN "Oil for Food" program and bribed, bought weapons, built 35 palace campuses for himself and pocketed the rest while his people starved. He was producing chemical and biological weapons and was trying to get nukes that he could sell to others that are enemies of the West. He broke the terms of his treaty by shooting at coalition aircraft in the no fly zone and he tried to assasinate a former U.S.President. And the faggots *whimps not homosexuals*of the world allowed it. The U.S. stepped up once again and did what nobody else had the balls to do, kicked his ass.

Everyone is in agreement that Saddam was a piece of shit. Even the 'terrorists' hated him for being secular and a host of other reasons. He was not popular. That really has nothing to do with military action, unless the US has secretly 'regime changed' many other nations for the same, or more grievous reasons. I'll ask while I'm on the point - why did US regime change Haiti? Were they a hostile state bent on nuking the US?

Any country that messes with our friends (even those jerks to the north of us), screws with businesses of our country, citizens of our country is going to have a problem with the United States, it's that simple. We can't, for our safety, our friends safety or the safety of the world, allow uncivilized nut cases to possess weapons of mass destruction. That in itself is reason to go to war because nobody else will.

So create a need for WMD by showing those nations WITHOUT WMD get invaded and occupied... good plan. The most telling statement is "Any country that messes with our friends, screws with businesses of our country, citizens of our country is going to have a problem with the United States".

SOunds great unless American goals aren't the only important factor on the planet. Imagine a police force that only rsponded to their friends, interests... it would be condemned as corrupt and unlawful. When US ignores laws and acts in its own interest - it invites criticism from those who belief in one standard for all. Especially when US uses the law as a reason to attack another country! Eith ignore the law entirely - or obey it.

They will just sit back with blinders on and pretend nothing will happen to them if they don't get involved(Canada's idea of defense). It will only be a matter of time before you are a target of those that would truely like to take what isn't theirs....what will you do then, try to talk them out of it? You best hope we are always there to protect your ungrateful ass.

Canada's idea of defense? We are inviting some retaliation by killing people in Afghanistan (oops, we're not involved - I forgot). And the nation most likely to take what isn't theirs we have NO DEFENSE AGAINST... namely, The United States. Luckily, we give everything away so no bloodshed is necessary... but imagine for a moment we cut off all relations, how long before it was 'in your national interest' to acquire fresh water, or oil, or whatever from you hostile neighbour to the north? By any means necessary?
It's business, not personal. You'd get it one way or another...