Europe's hypocrisy concerning terrorism and Iraq

[Mill]

We've all heard the attacks from Europe and other countries for our government's "War on Terror" illegally detaining prisoners and other breaches of "International Law." What gets me is how 10-20 years ago, Europe did much of the same when they themselves were the targets of Organized terrorists. How quickly we have forgotten that Mitterrand authorized the assassinations of Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, and also other suspected terrorists(some were not confirmed). Mitterrand did this behind closed doors while portraying himself as a social liberal and helped rid France of the death penalty. I find it hard to believe someone can authorize assassinations on terrorists while prohibiting the death penalty in their own country. It reeks of hypocrisy, but it also goes to show that the US is a bit less two-faced. We've been VERY open concerning most of what we are doing to combat terrorism. I'm sure the first quasi-salient point used to attack this post will be about Guantanamo Bay. Let me point out that the US has been unwavering in its declaration that these are military prisoners. Much like how Carlos the Jackal and Abu Nidal were deemed terrorists and the French secret services were given permission to murder them.

The US has been painted as barbaric for having the death penalty, but it hasn't been that long that Europe has abolished it. It also hasn't been that long that Europe was the constant target of terrorist attacks(they still are), but has anyone noticed they have lessoned? It seems the new wave of Arab terrorists and other extremists are eager to attack the US instead, but why is that? Could it be our support of Israel? Well certainly it is. Not too many decades ago, Europe was pretty supportive of Israel, and much less supportive of the Palestinians. Over time Europe has become much harsher on the Israelis while slowing increasing their "indignity" over Israel's methods. Methods by chance, that they used not too long ago when combating terrorists in their own countries. What has changed since then? Well, Israel, no matter how narrow of a brush you use, is a sovereign nation, and has not attacked Europe with terror attacks, harbored, aided, abetted or sponsored them like Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.

All those countries gave temporary asylum or other shelter to terrorists like Carlos the Jackal. Why is this largely being ignored now? Because it was in the past? Because Europe wants to forgive and forget so that it prevents attack on its own soil? We are being taken for a ride people. Europe's objection to the Iraq war and our seemingly endless violations of human rights regarding the Gitmo prisoners is largely hypocritical. Sure, I believe some of the citizens actually believe they have the moral high-ground, but France is the one who chastised Iraq for harboring Carlos, yet now says that Saddam's prior terror links were overstated. So it is ok for him to support terror against the US(not saying he was linked to Al-Qaida, but Saddam has given plenty of money and training to those who wanted to attack the US), but not to support terror against France. Now this not a France bashing post or a Europe hating post. I have nothing against Europe or the Middle East(other than their hypocrisy and support of terrorism). I truly believe that people that post in P&N have good intentions. They believe that the US is wrong and they believe that their government is better and more moral. What everyone is missing is the big picture. The US is doing exactly what Europe did one to two decades ago, yet we are met with protests and condemnation. Did the US condemn them back then? No. Is most of Europe much safer against terrorists attacks now? Yes.

Why is Europe safer now? Because they did exactly what we are doing now. Can anyone prove that they didn't? The only difference is that they couldn't commit to it because of the outcry of their citizenry. They didn't have the heart and they didn't have the will. They ended up giving multitudes of concessions to the terrorists(just about every hostage situation was resolved by letting the attackers go free)and soon withdrew a lot of their support from Israel, while giving more of a nod to Palestine. The US was left to help Israel survive and now we are the object of attacks.

What can be done? Betray Israel? Give Palestine a state? Extremists will always exist, but I don't see how doing what Europe did made the "world" safer. It just caused the terrorists to shift their attacks to a new target. Too bad the US is playing hardball, because we haven't been giving any concessions yet. I consider myself a moderate and I was fairly critical of Bush but lately I've been doing a lot of thinking. I'm not jingoistic or interested in a burst of nationalism; I just want the people of other countries to understand why we are doing what we have done. Europe tried their diplomatic approach and it largely failed. Europe is safer but the US and Asia are not.

Force is not always the answer and diplomacy can work, but sometimes an underlying problem keeps coming back. It's fine to me if you have a personal moral objection to what the US is doing, but NEVER ever say again that Europe has the high ground here. Your personal morality is just that, but to say the politicians in Europe care about what they are doing is crap. They want to get re-elected like everyone else. They took the sentiment of their people and turned it into Foreign Policy. Bush is doing much of the same. Time will only tell who's sentiment was correct.

Here's a link about Carlos and his activities.

Go ahead and deride me and personally attack me. I would like to see a little debate instead. I'm not another Dari; I don't have a personal problem with Europe or their decisions. I just think some things can be a bit hypocritical.

Edit- BTW, if you ask for Cliff Notes I'll be forced to beat your ass.

 

[sandorski]

Reaching for a point?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Reaching for a point?

The point is that what the US is doing is much more permanent solution than allowing the terrorists to find a new target. We're being aggressive instead of appeasing. Diplomacy doesn't work on the illogical and the extreme.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski
Reaching for a point?

The point is that what the US is doing is much more permanent solution than allowing the terrorists to find a new target. We're being aggressive instead of appeasing. Diplomacy doesn't work on the illogical and the extreme.

while agree on a lot of your points I don't agree with your conclusion

violence is not the solution against terrorism.
for every Osama that you take out, there are 10 replacements ...


Afghanistan is still a hell hole and it's getting worse by the month
Attacks against coalitian troops continue in Iraq.
Israël can not defeat the Palestinians even when they have one of the best armies in the world.

The only solution for these conflicts is a political solution

btw you disgard the previous US administrations

support for tirans has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy since WW2.

Iran, Zaire, Chili, Argentina ...

and it's still going on today

S-A anyone ??

What has changed since then? Well, Israel, no matter how narrow of a brush you use, is a sovereign nation, and has not attacked Europe with terror attacks, harbored, aided, abetted or sponsored them like Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.

Iraq was also a sovereign nation and did not attack the USA. Strange logic you are using here ...

 

[gaga38]

Originally posted by: Mill
The point is that what the US is doing is much more permanent solution than allowing the terrorists to find a new target. We're being aggressive instead of appeasing. Diplomacy doesn't work on the illogical and the extreme.

yes it is true but the reasons given by bush are all false
where are the wmd, the involvment of saddam in 9/11, the risk for the usa
if the us wanted to make this world safer, they would have attacked syria, S.A, all these countries who help a lot terrorism
iraq never was a training camp for terrorist
but yes iraq is a lstrategic place with strategic ressources
and for the diplomacy, look at the situation with nk and libya
why arent the us attacking these country who are as threatening as iraq

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski
Reaching for a point?

The point is that what the US is doing is much more permanent solution than allowing the terrorists to find a new target. We're being aggressive instead of appeasing. Diplomacy doesn't work on the illogical and the extreme.

while agree on a lot of your points I don't agree with your conclusion

violence is not the solution against terrorism.
for every Osama that you take out, there are 10 replacements ...


Afghanistan is still a hell hole and it's getting worse by the month
Attacks against coalitian troops continue in Iraq.
Israël can not defeat the Palestinians even when they have one of the best armies in the world.

The only solution for these conflicts is a political solution

btw you disgard the previous US administrations

support for tirans has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy since WW2.

Iran, Zaire, Chili, Argentina ...

and it's still going on today

S-A anyone ??

What has changed since then? Well, Israel, no matter how narrow of a brush you use, is a sovereign nation, and has not attacked Europe with terror attacks, harbored, aided, abetted or sponsored them like Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.

Iraq was also a sovereign nation and did not attack the USA. Strange logic you are using here ...

It's like this... do you keep putting criminals in jail or do you just give them new places to commit crime? There will always be more terrorists, but if we get serious about stopping them then we can reduce their numbers and prevent future attacks. Maybe one day society will be civilized enough that people will realize terror is not the answer. Iraq was a Sovereign nation, but Saddam was also a brutal man who had tried in the past to get WMDs. Whether or not he still was is the subject of much debate. Yes, the US has supported regimes that were politically expedient(such as Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war), but they did it for a particular interest. We supported some countries because they were lessor evils or we supported some because we were dependent on their nation at least being stable. I'm not saying it was right, but it was all about stability, less evil, and what ideals we had at the time. We've always moved toward a goal of creating a harmony in the world, but we certainly look out for our best interests as well. All countries do.

Israel could defeat the Palestinians in a day, but world opinion certainly wouldn't allow it and it wouldn't solve anything. I agree about Afghanistan, but Iraq is getting better and so will Afghanistan one day. Did the European solution of appeasement actually stop terrorism? It just shifted it. Europe gave in to much of what they wanted and is no longer the power they once were. With the EU getting stronger Europe will have to deal with terrorism once again soon.

 

[Colt45]

you can kill a terrorist with weapons, but you can't kill the cause with weapons.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: gaga38

Originally posted by: Mill
The point is that what the US is doing is much more permanent solution than allowing the terrorists to find a new target. We're being aggressive instead of appeasing. Diplomacy doesn't work on the illogical and the extreme.

yes it is true but the reasons given by bush are all false
where are the wmd, the involvment of saddam in 9/11, the risk for the usa
if the us wanted to make this world safer, they would have attacked syria, S.A, all these countries who help a lot terrorism
iraq never was a training camp for terrorist
but yes iraq is a lstrategic place with strategic ressources
and for the diplomacy, look at the situation with nk and libya
why arent the us attacking these country who are as threatening as iraq

Iraq was a country torn by the conditions created by Saddam. I would imagine that Syria might almost be the same, but they have a much better military and have not faced economic sanctions in recent history as much as Iraq has. They would be a much tougher opponent. Saudi Arabia would defintely be a much tougher opponent because of their wealth and our current relationship. You can't do everything at once. You have to piecemeal it together to ever get the big picture to work out. Libya has been worked out with diplomacy, but it has a lot to do with Iraq IMO. We had intel supposedly and we showed it to Ghadaffi. He read between the lines and decided he'd rather stay in power. Saddam was not the same way. NK is such a beast that is better to let Kim Jong just get old and die. At least Iraq was weak enough that it didn't create TOO much bloodshed. I don't believe the specificity of 9-11 should have been the justification for an attack on Iraq. Saddam did have ties with numerous terrorists such as Carlos, but it's anyone's guess if he had anything specific to do with 9-11. I think his general support of terrorists did aid Al-Qaida however.

You have to take it a bit at a time. You can't get everyone at once and you usually choose the weakest and set an example. Don't you think the Mid-East is noticing the US's new muscle in the region? What about the recent drug interdiction over there. When did we do that before? Much of the hatred toward the US stems from support of Israel as we all know. If the US stopped supporting Israel then they would be slighty less diplomatic toward the Arabs don't you think? Think Big Picture here. If we can give the Palestinians a state and remove the bastards from power in some of these countries then the world would be a lot more peaceful. I think people have to give it some time. Has the world ever regressed in progress? Some say the World Wars were regressions, but we sure learned a lot from them didn't we?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Colt45
you can kill a terrorist with weapons, but you can't kill the cause with weapons.

Well the cause is Israel and our way of life. No real way to change that now is there? Seems to me that it is illogical for the Western World to change their society for some crackpot terrorist. It should be the other way around. Israel has legitimate claims as well although they haven't gone about it very well since Sharon came to power.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: gaga38

Originally posted by: Mill
The point is that what the US is doing is much more permanent solution than allowing the terrorists to find a new target. We're being aggressive instead of appeasing. Diplomacy doesn't work on the illogical and the extreme.

yes it is true but the reasons given by bush are all false
where are the wmd, the involvment of saddam in 9/11, the risk for the usa
if the us wanted to make this world safer, they would have attacked syria, S.A, all these countries who help a lot terrorism
iraq never was a training camp for terrorist
but yes iraq is a lstrategic place with strategic ressources
and for the diplomacy, look at the situation with nk and libya
why arent the us attacking these country who are as threatening as iraq

Iraq was a country torn by the conditions created by Saddam. I would imagine that Syria might almost be the same, but they have a much better military and have not faced economic sanctions in recent history as much as Iraq has.

I don't think Syria even comes close to Iraqs former military prowess. Iraq's Army was funded by Billions of Dollars from Oil Revenue. Their Military wasn't hurt as much by the sanctions as was their population. Of course Saddam could have used those funds for the common Iraqi but he chose to use for his Military. Syria's Military on the other hand is just an Fly in the ointment, no more potent than Libyia


They would be a much tougher opponent. Saudi Arabia would defintely be a much tougher opponent because of their wealth and our current relationship. You can't do everything at once. You have to piecemeal it together to ever get the big picture to work out. Libya has been worked out with diplomacy, but it has a lot to do with Iraq IMO. We had intel supposedly and we showed it to Ghadaffi. He read between the lines and decided he'd rather stay in power. Saddam was not the same way. NK is such a beast that is better to let Kim Jong just get old and die. At least Iraq was weak enough that it didn't create TOO much bloodshed. I don't believe the specificity of 9-11 should have been the justification for an attack on Iraq. Saddam did have ties with numerous terrorists such as Carlos, but it's anyone's guess if he had anything specific to do with 9-11. I think his general support of terrorists did aid Al-Qaida however.

You have to take it a bit at a time. You can't get everyone at once and you usually choose the weakest and set an example.

On the contary, besides Israel Iraq probably had the most ptent Military in the Middle East. Of course like all Arag Militaries it wasn't/wouldn't be very effective against the better trained Western Armies.

Don't you think the Mid-East is noticing the US's new muscle in the region? What about the recent drug interdiction over there. When did we do that before? Much of the hatred toward the US stems from support of Israel as we all know. If the US stopped supporting Israel then they would be slighty less diplomatic toward the Arabs don't you think? Think Big Picture here. If we can give the Palestinians a state and remove the bastards from power in some of these countries then the world would be a lot more peaceful. I think people have to give it some time. Has the world ever regressed in progress? Some say the World Wars were regressions, but we sure learned a lot from them didn't we?

It's not the Arabs states that are the threat, it's the stateless terrorist like Al Qaeda that are the greatest threat

 

[gaga38]

Originally posted by: Mill
Iraq was a country torn by the conditions created by Saddam. I would imagine that Syria might almost be the same, but they have a much better military and have not faced economic sanctions in recent history as much as Iraq has. They would be a much tougher opponent. Saudi Arabia would defintely be a much tougher opponent because of their wealth and our current relationship. You can't do everything at once.

the syria army is not strong at all
even french army could conquer it
syria is one of the main pb in the aera because it is from there terrorist attacks on israel are
And the condition of ppl in SA is quite bad too
I agree something has to be done with this but unilateral decisions always lead to opposition

Libya has been worked out with diplomacy, but it has a lot to do with Iraq IMO. We had intel supposedly and we showed it to Ghadaffi. He read between the lines and decided he'd rather stay in power. Saddam was not the same way. NK is such a beast that is better to let Kim Jong just get old and die.

I dont think that libya was quite a pb related to wmd. Their programs were always "theoric".
I think the pb qith nk is more important because kim jong may still live for a long time and who knows what he will do when aged and mentally disturbed?

the relationship between saddam and al qaida was not so simple because they hate each other (saddam was never a "believer")
their only common point was their hate of the us
proof of direct help from iraq to al qaida must still be given at the time

If we can give the Palestinians a state and remove the bastards from power in some of these countries then the world would be a lot more peaceful. I think people have to give it some time. Has the world ever regressed in progress? Some say the World Wars were regressions, but we sure learned a lot from them didn't we?

agreed but i dont think it will be so easy because religion has always been a bad counselor and neither palestinian or israel is ready to let their holy place in the hands of the other
but it would be great

 

[Mardeth]

The presidents, prime ministers... Pretty much everbody who had something to do with those things that happened 20 years ago arent in power anymore. You cant judge the son by his father... We seem to be 20 years a head of you. The fact that we did it doesnt give you the right to do it.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Colt45
you can kill a terrorist with weapons, but you can't kill the cause with weapons.

Well the cause is Israel and our way of life. No real way to change that now is there? Seems to me that it is illogical for the Western World to change their society for some crackpot terrorist. It should be the other way around. Israel has legitimate claims as well although they haven't gone about it very well since Sharon came to power.

The terrorists live in a different society to the western world, but it is not only terrorists who lived there. The reason that there are "crackpot terrorists" is because they don't like the western way, and to solve this, you are trying to force the western way on them, furthuring their cause.

 

[maluckey]

Some really good points in this thread.

My dislike of hypocrisy (and France) aside, I see that violence is always a temporary solution. You cannot apease a violent person and expect him to suddenly become peaceful forever. If this were the case, then police departments would be unnecessary, and prisons worthless and empty. Violence and force speak volumes to those lacking good temperament and mildness.

What can be done to stop violence is to eliminate the education of hate and intolereance through teaching children how to live in peace. Gradually, you can end the cycle. It requires the so-called adults to set aside their personal views, and teach the children how to make tolerant, non-violent choices however. Good luck in some cultures.

In the meantime you have violent persons still wishing you harm. All the hugs and good in the world won't amount to squat if they truly wish you dead.

 

[gaga38]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Some really good points in this thread.

My dislike of hypocrisy (and France) aside, I see that violence is always a temporary solution. You cannot apease a violent person and expect him to suddenly become peaceful forever. If this were the case, then police departments would be unnecessary, and prisons worthless and empty. Violence and force speak volumes to those lacking good temperament and mildness.

What can be done to stop violence is to eliminate the education of hate and intolereance through teaching children how to live in peace. Gradually, you can end the cycle. It requires the so-called adults to set aside their personal views, and teach the children how to make tolerant, non-violent choices however. Good luck in some cultures.

In the meantime you have violent persons still wishing you harm. All the hugs and good in the world won't amount to squat if they truly wish you dead.

you should apply this solution in domestic policy because the violence rate in the us is the highest of the so called developped countries no?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: gaga38

Originally posted by: maluckey
Some really good points in this thread.

My dislike of hypocrisy (and France) aside, I see that violence is always a temporary solution. You cannot apease a violent person and expect him to suddenly become peaceful forever. If this were the case, then police departments would be unnecessary, and prisons worthless and empty. Violence and force speak volumes to those lacking good temperament and mildness.

What can be done to stop violence is to eliminate the education of hate and intolereance through teaching children how to live in peace. Gradually, you can end the cycle. It requires the so-called adults to set aside their personal views, and teach the children how to make tolerant, non-violent choices however. Good luck in some cultures.

In the meantime you have violent persons still wishing you harm. All the hugs and good in the world won't amount to squat if they truly wish you dead.

you should apply this solution in domestic policy because the violence rate in the us is the highest of the so called developped countries no?

No, actually, it is not. Do you have something that states the contrary?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: gaga38

Originally posted by: Mill
Iraq was a country torn by the conditions created by Saddam. I would imagine that Syria might almost be the same, but they have a much better military and have not faced economic sanctions in recent history as much as Iraq has. They would be a much tougher opponent. Saudi Arabia would defintely be a much tougher opponent because of their wealth and our current relationship. You can't do everything at once.

the syria army is not strong at all
even french army could conquer it
syria is one of the main pb in the aera because it is from there terrorist attacks on israel are
And the condition of ppl in SA is quite bad too
I agree something has to be done with this but unilateral decisions always lead to opposition

Libya has been worked out with diplomacy, but it has a lot to do with Iraq IMO. We had intel supposedly and we showed it to Ghadaffi. He read between the lines and decided he'd rather stay in power. Saddam was not the same way. NK is such a beast that is better to let Kim Jong just get old and die.

I dont think that libya was quite a pb related to wmd. Their programs were always "theoric".
I think the pb qith nk is more important because kim jong may still live for a long time and who knows what he will do when aged and mentally disturbed?

the relationship between saddam and al qaida was not so simple because they hate each other (saddam was never a "believer")
their only common point was their hate of the us
proof of direct help from iraq to al qaida must still be given at the time

If we can give the Palestinians a state and remove the bastards from power in some of these countries then the world would be a lot more peaceful. I think people have to give it some time. Has the world ever regressed in progress? Some say the World Wars were regressions, but we sure learned a lot from them didn't we?

agreed but i dont think it will be so easy because religion has always been a bad counselor and neither palestinian or israel is ready to let their holy place in the hands of the other
but it would be great

Iraq's military expenditures

Syria(assumes figure is understated)

They spend similar amounts of money on their military, and their people don't want change as much as the Iraqis did. As I said, I think they would be a tougher opponent especially with all the terrorists they have hanging out there.

I've heard intel showed that we seized some documents or a truck that proved Libya was developing WMDs. Not sure of the veracity of it.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: gaga38

Originally posted by: Mill
The point is that what the US is doing is much more permanent solution than allowing the terrorists to find a new target. We're being aggressive instead of appeasing. Diplomacy doesn't work on the illogical and the extreme.

yes it is true but the reasons given by bush are all false
where are the wmd, the involvment of saddam in 9/11, the risk for the usa
if the us wanted to make this world safer, they would have attacked syria, S.A, all these countries who help a lot terrorism
iraq never was a training camp for terrorist
but yes iraq is a lstrategic place with strategic ressources
and for the diplomacy, look at the situation with nk and libya
why arent the us attacking these country who are as threatening as iraq

Iraq was a country torn by the conditions created by Saddam. I would imagine that Syria might almost be the same, but they have a much better military and have not faced economic sanctions in recent history as much as Iraq has.

I don't think Syria even comes close to Iraqs former military prowess. Iraq's Army was funded by Billions of Dollars from Oil Revenue. Their Military wasn't hurt as much by the sanctions as was their population. Of course Saddam could have used those funds for the common Iraqi but he chose to use for his Military. Syria's Military on the other hand is just an Fly in the ointment, no more potent than Libyia


They would be a much tougher opponent. Saudi Arabia would defintely be a much tougher opponent because of their wealth and our current relationship. You can't do everything at once. You have to piecemeal it together to ever get the big picture to work out. Libya has been worked out with diplomacy, but it has a lot to do with Iraq IMO. We had intel supposedly and we showed it to Ghadaffi. He read between the lines and decided he'd rather stay in power. Saddam was not the same way. NK is such a beast that is better to let Kim Jong just get old and die. At least Iraq was weak enough that it didn't create TOO much bloodshed. I don't believe the specificity of 9-11 should have been the justification for an attack on Iraq. Saddam did have ties with numerous terrorists such as Carlos, but it's anyone's guess if he had anything specific to do with 9-11. I think his general support of terrorists did aid Al-Qaida however.

You have to take it a bit at a time. You can't get everyone at once and you usually choose the weakest and set an example.

On the contary, besides Israel Iraq probably had the most ptent Military in the Middle East. Of course like all Arag Militaries it wasn't/wouldn't be very effective against the better trained Western Armies.

Don't you think the Mid-East is noticing the US's new muscle in the region? What about the recent drug interdiction over there. When did we do that before? Much of the hatred toward the US stems from support of Israel as we all know. If the US stopped supporting Israel then they would be slighty less diplomatic toward the Arabs don't you think? Think Big Picture here. If we can give the Palestinians a state and remove the bastards from power in some of these countries then the world would be a lot more peaceful. I think people have to give it some time. Has the world ever regressed in progress? Some say the World Wars were regressions, but we sure learned a lot from them didn't we?

It's not the Arabs states that are the threat, it's the stateless terrorist like Al Qaeda that are the greatest threat

Iran spends 9 times what Iraq did, has a much larger population, isn't under sanctions, and has a more modern economy and government.

Saudi Arabia spend 18 times what Iraq did and they have modern technology and more people. Plus, they have been unaffected by sanctions.

Iraq was a lot weaker than we thought. They had a standing army but we rolled through pretty quick. Sanctions still hurt them obtaining arms, and their oil sales on the black market were not enough to keep up with their neighbors. Iraq was a much easier target than Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Plus, the we have fairly good diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia and Iran... Iraq we didn't.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

OK, to those who think that Iraq was a "Sovereign Nation," one little point: The ONLY valid form of government is one whose purpose is to serve and protect the rights of the people. Iraq's previous government had NO such charter and followed only the whims of its brutal dictator. Iraq was NOT a sovereign nation any more than North Korea with its slave-labor camps is a sovereign nation. Governments that brutalize their own people are NOT valid and should NEVER be recognized as such.

For the anti-violence crowd...you know, we all know that war sucks and innocent people die, but the guilty parties here are not the ones who use retaliatory force to remove terrorists from the face of the earth, the guilty parties are the terrorists themselves, those who INITIATE the use of force and violence both against their own people and against the people of other nations. Yes, violence and war sucks, but the fact is that it's the ONLY method that can have a chance against people like bin Laden and even Hussein (who I think was less ofa threat to the US than Bush claimed, but Hussein's crimes against the people of Iraq are MORE than justification enough for his removal from power.)

In the long term we have to destroy those who seek to enslave and oppress the human race, and establish governments that are designed to protect the rights of their people against violence and breach of contract. In many cases this WILL mean the significant alteration of cultural norms, but frankly the world will be better off without cultural abuse and murder of women or religious minorities at the hands of whoever happens to be in power.

Jason

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
OK, to those who think that Iraq was a "Sovereign Nation," one little point: The ONLY valid form of government is one whose purpose is to serve and protect the rights of the people. Iraq's previous government had NO such charter and followed only the whims of its brutal dictator. Iraq was NOT a sovereign nation any more than North Korea with its slave-labor camps is a sovereign nation. Governments that brutalize their own people are NOT valid and should NEVER be recognized as such.

For the anti-violence crowd...you know, we all know that war sucks and innocent people die, but the guilty parties here are not the ones who use retaliatory force to remove terrorists from the face of the earth, the guilty parties are the terrorists themselves, those who INITIATE the use of force and violence both against their own people and against the people of other nations. Yes, violence and war sucks, but the fact is that it's the ONLY method that can have a chance against people like bin Laden and even Hussein (who I think was less ofa threat to the US than Bush claimed, but Hussein's crimes against the people of Iraq are MORE than justification enough for his removal from power.)

In the long term we have to destroy those who seek to enslave and oppress the human race, and establish governments that are designed to protect the rights of their people against violence and breach of contract. In many cases this WILL mean the significant alteration of cultural norms, but frankly the world will be better off without cultural abuse and murder of women or religious minorities at the hands of whoever happens to be in power.

Jason

Well I agree minus the part saying NK and Iraq are not Sovereign nations. Sovereign doesn't mean they are nice to their people, it means that they are their own power and are not forced to rely on a mother country for military and economic protection.