USA -> Terrorists ?

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Terrorism is to a large extent in the mind of the beholder. One man's terrorism is another man's "freedom fighting" or "liberating". Now we can try to differentiate by pointing out that on, say 9/11, only civilians were killed, but think about it, a terrorist could argue that the targets were the Trade Centers and the 3000 dead were collateral dammage. Obviously I'm not saying that's right, I'm just suggesting that it could be a thought process used to justify an unjustifiable action. We may feel that 1000's of dead Iraqi civilians are acceptable if the greater cause is "liberating" Iraq. One has got to justify one's action's somehow, but don't act like others are unjustified in calling those actions "terrorism".

so how does the majority fo iraqi's that are glad he is gone fit into that equation? how much does their opinion count? terrorism is all about collateral damage(with a purpose)...hence the name. you may not have realized it, but you just outlined why moral relativism fails.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: conjur
What universal agreement? Seems the members of the U.N. were rather divided along that point, eh? Inspections were working and more time was required. Bush didn't want to wait because he knew once the inspections failed to find the WMDs that he *knew* existed. Blix and his team were begging for the intelligence information pointing to the location of the WMDs but none was ever provided.

inspections were working? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

the UN had intelligence info listing WMD saddam could not account for, saddam was still un-cooperitive in searches. he destoryed some then for *some* reason could not provide evidence of how much was destroyed...etc...etc.

Originally posted by: conjur
Blix and his team were begging for the intelligence information pointing to the location of the WMDs but none was ever provided

i thought that was the inspectors job...oh wait..they could not becaue they were kicked out, then when they came back everything was done to hinder their progress...AND mislead them. i wonder why?

 

[conjur]

What was done to hinder their progress?

Have you read Hans' report to the U.N.? From your statement, you obviously haven't.

 

[Sspidie99]

I believe the US does more for its own selfish reasons than the good of others. We pick and choose which countries to help and why. I think its funny that we now say we invaded Iraq to help its people and create a nation of democracy, while at the same time allowing Haiti back into the hands of murderous dictators. We should be more up front with the world and our own people.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sabbathian
Have anyone though about that idea ?

What do you think about it ? I mean.... sending a whole army into other country without any REAL or comfirmed reason ?
Killing people and destroying the country ..... I call that terrorism, and anybody who thinks that it is ok, is a bit too much
of a American. I don`t have anything against USA itself and against its citizens, but USAs politics really messed up....
It`s great to be big and powerfull and showing it to everybody, but then there will always be idiots who are ready
to get into the plane and crash it into the building.......

Every countries politics are screwed up. Take Croatia for instance. What kind of country would ally itself with Nazi Germany?

maybe Germany said "your either with us or with them."

 

[Fern]

Hey Conjur, you write:
"What universal agreement? Seems the members of the U.N. were rather divided along that point, eh? Inspections were working and more time was required. Bush didn't want to wait because he knew once the inspections failed to find the WMDs that he *knew* existed. Blix and his team were begging for the intelligence information pointing to the location of the WMDs but none was ever provided. "


I'm sticking with my statement that there was universal agreement that Saddam failed to meet the agreement. It's in a number of UN Resolutions. The disagreement was what to do about it: give him yet another chance, pass more resolutions or go to war

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Sspidie99
I believe the US does more for its own selfish reasons than the good of others. We pick and choose which countries to help and why. I think its funny that we now say we invaded Iraq to help its people and create a nation of democracy, while at the same time allowing Haiti back into the hands of murderous dictators. We should be more up front with the world and our own people.

What part should France play in this? Did the U.N. give us permission to enter Haiti previously? As you know, without the U.N., we shouldn't just haphazardly deploy troops to problem regions of the world...

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Piano Man
The US has done some very stupid things and continues to do so. The main thing to remember is that most of the people in the USA do not realize what their government is doing. Columbia, Cambodia, East Timor, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan. We've done our share of sh!t in this world, but instead of pointing fingers, we should just knock it off, and move on towards a more equal treatment of other countries/races/cultures. The reason that this is so hard is because many of these countries are seriously f*cked up themselves, so it makes it very difficult for people to trust one another. Loving one's enemy is the hardest thing to do. But until that happens, this cycle will continue, and quite frankley, I don't see an end to it anytime soon.

speaking of lebanon what about the syrian troops that have occupied it?

are you saying we should treat nations ruled by dictators and oligarchies that oppress the population"equally" thus legitimizing them? could said dictators and oligarchies be the reason they are as you put it..."seriously f*cked up"?

what should the UN do in situations where saying "now you better behave, that is a no-no" but they do not listen, keep on saying it and hope for the best?

what people need to realize is there are many others out there who want others dead for the simple reason they are different...they do not want to be your friend, they do not want to think like you, they will not return your "love"... they want you dead...PERIOD. and offering to hold hands and sing songs around the fire is not going to change anything except make you look weak in their eyes encouraging attack.

To answer your first question regarding countires with oppressive regimes in control, of course I don't want our government to help them. But, we do help some of them, and not others, and that unequal treatment of countries is bogus. However, we should try to help those countries, and by that I mean the people of those countries. But we never seem to really do a lot of that.

And like you said, there are so many factors that make things hard. Religous fanatacism, cultural differences, poverty, and so on. But instead of using these things as excuses to keep on treating others like crap, even though they may deserve it, why can't we be the big man and go in their with an open mind and seriously try to treat these people like human beings? Nothing else is working, why not give it a go? I bet the results would be pretty dramatic. The only problem is that there is so much ignorance and hate for each other that its going to take some serious time for the retaliatory attacks to stop.

 

[Sspidie99]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Sspidie99
I believe the US does more for its own selfish reasons than the good of others. We pick and choose which countries to help and why. I think its funny that we now say we invaded Iraq to help its people and create a nation of democracy, while at the same time allowing Haiti back into the hands of murderous dictators. We should be more up front with the world and our own people.

What part should France play in this? Did the U.N. give us permission to enter Haiti previously? As you know, without the U.N., we shouldn't just haphazardly deploy troops to problem regions of the world...

Thats nice to know. Maybe I should have realized that the US always asks the U.N. for permission.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur
What was done to hinder their progress?

Have you read Hans' report to the U.N.? From your statement, you obviously haven't.

I haven't read Hans' entire report, unfortunately. But I did talk to him privately last week... no joke He was actually pretty level headed about the WMD issue. As he put it "WMDs have not be found, but that does not mean they don't exist. It just means they are unaccounted for."

 

[ranmaniac]

Saddam was a puppet dictator, supported during the Iran-Iraq war thanks to Bush sr and his CIA cronies during the Reagan administration. Manuel Noriega(sp),Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden all have something in common, and that is they were given support from the CIA, who in turn became our enemies. It is clear that if the United States wants to maintain peace in the world, we must stop creating enemies.