Jump to content

Bush changes justification for invasion of Iraq...


Judge Hades

Recommended Posts

Please spare me your patronizing and your ad nauseum use of emoticons.  I don't need you giving me advice or frowning on me because you think I'm in an 'us vs them' mentality.  You'll also note I never said that Muslims and Arabs as a whole are our enemies.  So don't try to put words in my mouth.  I read about what happens overseas.  I read about what we do and what they do, and I look at past events as well as future events.  And I know enough to know who the 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are in this situation.  So please take your self-righteous attitude and put it where the sun doesn't shine.  I call it like I see it, and in almost all topics dealing with issues like this, you have repeatedly and rather blatantly seemed to make the west look like the ones at fault for everything that's going wrong in the ME while ignoring the wrongs committed by our enemies.  The bias you show is almost laughable.  I figured you could use a little perspective on the situation before you go pointing fingers.  After all, the truth is out there, right?  Thought you might like some for yourself.  :)

 

If we didn't interfere in those countries in the first place back after world war 2, maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please spare me your patronizing and your ad nauseum use of emoticons.  I don't need you giving me advice or frowning on me because you think I'm in an 'us vs them' mentality.  You'll also note I never said that Muslims and Arabs as a whole are our enemies.  So don't try to put words in my mouth.  I read about what happens overseas.  I read about what we do and what they do, and I look at past events as well as future events.  And I know enough to know who the 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are in this situation.  So please take your self-righteous attitude and put it where the sun doesn't shine.  I call it like I see it, and in almost all topics dealing with issues like this, you have repeatedly and rather blatantly seemed to make the west look like the ones at fault for everything that's going wrong in the ME while ignoring the wrongs committed by our enemies.  The bias you show is almost laughable.  I figured you could use a little perspective on the situation before you go pointing fingers.  After all, the truth is out there, right?  Thought you might like some for yourself.  :)

 

If we didn't interfere in those countries in the first place back after world war 2, maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

 

And what should we have done with the jews? Throw them down a well?

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

 

- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

 

"I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be wrong with that?

 

I would take the northern part of Italy, half of Austria, and up into Germany so that the border will be that southern river. Yes, Venice and Munich would be part of my version of Israel.

Edited by Judge Hades
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, it was the Jewish lobbyists in US that had the biggest impact.

 

Nobody stopped to consider the Palestines, I still say they should have made one in Russia. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, those dastardly jews, just ruining our perfectly fine global politics for their own gain.

 

It all makes sense, eh?

 

:rolleyes: As a thread grows longer, the likelihood someone will mention the great crime of the creation of the state of Israel approaches 1. This is an internets law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colrom *was* rude, but that does not destroy his argument entirely.

 

I have every respect for those who volunteer to do something I don't foresee myself having the courage to do; and even if I do this does not make them, individually, any less salutory. And with all that respect in mind, I believe that a soldier's perspective has great value in a discussion about any war thanks to information and perspective only they can offer; but that is exactly and only that. That should not mean a soldier's perspective influences as emotionally in such judgments, or they have more bearing on a principally political matter than anybody eldse's. And I don't believe letsryde wanted to exert that sort of unfair influence, but rather simply express what she felt from her situation.

 

Is us saying the war was wrong, or the war should have never happened, detrimental to soldiers? I don't believe so. If we say 'well it's our soldiers in there now, we have to support the war' then it is a logical fallacy, it is unfair on the soldiers and it is dangerous. To say that a death sentence should never have happened, and to oppose the judge's ruling, is not to trivialise or undermine the sufferings of that dead innocent; to say that Katrina aid efforts were ill coordinated (or whatever disaster) is no disrespect to the individual people's efforts at aid. It is a comment aimed at the managerial level and is perfectly valid and respectful.

 

That said, let me enter the current discussion at hand. We've got the death toll coming up again. Does it really matter if it's 600,000 or 200,000? Sadly, it does to the wider world - but should we individually let that matter? Should even three thousand innocent Iraqis have died? No. And the question is not even 'it's better than people dying under Saddam's regime'. The moment a powerful nation such as America illegally, callously and without wide international backing forcibly destroy a nation's sovereignty we allow ourselves to be faced with a powerful conundrum; will we become like those who are so blind in their own sense of right or wrong we seek to superimpose it on everyone else - will we become like fanatical evangelists or madmen, or cultists or whatnot, but with more power? Or will we become theoretically consistent but practically intolerable, allowing what we see as depravities to continue? Both are bad choices; but for the US, the choice was made without public consent, and for the world, without any consent.

 

Why, yes, George Bush was diplomatically elected. But in 2000 he was saying things on TV like "nation-building is wrong", US shouldnt meddle in other nations' affairs, and pretty much the antithesis of everything he said after 9/11. That's the man, who piggybacked the Mission of God stuff, americans voted. They could not have counted for what happened after 9/11, a slow, creeping development of military involvement. Nothing was sudden. I cried expletives as soon as Bush's first speeches regarding the specific elimination of Al Qaeda were expressed, and feared the destruction of at least one nation's infrastructure under Ameircan 'liberator' troops. Not all American troops are bad; perhaps none are bad; and certainly by our standards they've done a lot of good as well as bad. American troops, mostly, are not bloodthirsty or 'evil'. But my point stands, and I hope we can see that. People who cried foul such as I so early were seen as simply over-reacting, and perhaps that might have been true had things happenedd a little differently. As it is now... would Bush have been elected in 2003, if he advocated war on Iraq even without UN sanctions? I doubt it. So who's really in control in this democratic world we claim to build in Iraq?

 

I am not surprised how John Howard is remarkably similar in his politics as Dubya, John Howard went against the views of the public and the UN. It is starting to appear that he also created evidence side with America.

This is the same person that thinks illegal immigrants are terrorists, lied to the public saying "children were thrown overboard", and there was something about turning a sinking ship back to Indonesia.... that I don't remember because we seem to forget about the bad and vote for "economic stability and National security".

After all if they want to be a part of this great country they should try to assimilate more, and comply with the ideal of being Australian...whatever that means. But I don't have to worry the government will protect me from those muslims, I am white after all and I haven't converted to Islam. So I should be fine. I could try to find a picture of him so you all could see how much of a Toad he resembles. ;) I forgot about the anti-sedition laws so I probably should shut up. :lol:

S.A.S.I.S.P.G.M.D.G.S.M.B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...