Is The U.S.A the most extreme Terrorist nation?

jackiebaron

gizmo wrote: »

Charming, throw in an insult when I disagree with you. :rolleyes:

If you can get over your blind hatred for the US, then perhaps you'll take the time to read about the Japanese War crimes which they committed, then tell me they deserved to be able to surrender under terms which they felt appropriate from a war which they started.


Having listened to the testimonies and stories of actual Iraqi people who escaped from under Hussein's rules as well as the reactions of those citizens who not only welcome the Coalition's troops arrival but also celebrated Hussein's downfall, I'd tend to disagree. The occupation after the liberation is a different story of course, however the initial move to depose him is one which I completely support.

Hmm, 12 years of brutal sanctions and air strikes to make sure they couldn't fight back when attacked, then an illegal invasion and 7 year reign of terror visited upon the Iraqi people leading to over 1 million dead, 4 million refugees, 1 in 4 Iraqis is now an orphan, horrific case of maimings and mutilations and cancers and birth defects and country basically wrecked, 3 trillion dollars squandered, 5000 Americans dead 50000 wounded and half a million insane from PTSD all to get rid of one man?

I'd bet the guy would have resigned for a billion....in fact he offered to on the eve of the invasion.

gizmo

jackiebaron wrote: »

Hmm, 12 years of brutal sanctions and air strikes to make sure they couldn't fight back when attacked, then an illegal invasion and 7 year reign of terror visited upon the Iraqi people leading to over 1 million dead, 4 million refugees, 1 in 4 Iraqis is now an orphan, horrific case of maimings and mutilations and cancers and birth defects and country basically wrecked, 3 trillion dollars squandered, 5000 Americans dead 50000 wounded and half a million insane from PTSD all to get rid of one man?

I'd bet the guy would have resigned for a billion....in fact he offered to on the eve of the invasion.

While I find some of the above language hyperbolic, I don't think you'll find many people who will disagree that the post-war plan has been nothing but a farce. The point I will disagree with is, in theory at least, that the deposing of a man who was nothing more than a tyrant should be frown upon.

FreudianSlippers

gizmo wrote: »

As opposed to life under Saddam Hussein?

What made that the US's business. I mean they're the ones that put him in there in the first place, but that's about it.

gizmo

OisinT wrote: »

What made that the US's business. I mean they're the ones that put him in there in the first place, but that's about it.

Well, in the words of Edmund Burke's oft misquoted line, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". The merits of the US invasion in that context can of course be debated but the core of the issue, peaceful nations helping the citizens of subjugated countries to depose of their evil dictators, is something I agree with. As I said above, the aftermath of the invasion was completely mishandled of course, which subsequently eliminated any goodwill the population had towards them for said removal.

Hitchen's deals with some of this in the following interview...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcjAsowr6sc

FreudianSlippers

gizmo wrote: »

Well, in the words of Edmund Burke's oft misquoted line, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". The merits of the US invasion in that context can of course be debated but the core of the issue, peaceful nations helping the citizens of subjugated countries to depose of their evil dictators, is something I agree with. As I said above, the aftermath of the invasion was completely mishandled of course, which subsequently eliminated any goodwill the population had towards them for said removal.

Hitchen's deals with some of this in the following interview...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcjAsowr6sc

At the end of the day this argument is used to justify a war in retrospect. I was living in the US at the time the war started and the justification used to go to war was twofold:
1) Iraq and the Hussein regime had close links to and supported Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda (another US created problem that they are now conveniently ignoring the facts surrounding his rise to power - I'll talk about this in a second)
2) Iraq had and/or were developing weapons of mass destruction and ways of getting said weapons to North America.

BOTH of those statements ended up being manifestly untrue. Ok, sure, Hussein was not a nice guy - and not a nice guy that the US put in power themselves. But to say that the US was simply a "peaceful nation helping the citizens of [a] subjugated countr[y] to depose their evil dictator" is a very nice way of justifying the war in retrospect.
This is also something I disagree with tbh. Who is the US to say what leaders get to stay and go? What will happen when China becomes the #1 and decides that we all are being oppressed by our Capitalistic leaders and we need to be under a free Communist regime - I'm sure we'll all be super thrilled about them invading our countries under the motto of "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"


Now, as for Bin Laden, the US put him in power in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, supplied him with weapons and training and, in fact, terrorist techniques to fight and defeat the Soviets.
Does this not qualify as terrorism itself on the part of the US?
I argue it does indeed.

Nodin

gizmo wrote: »

The merits of the US invasion in that context can of course be debated but the core of the issue, peaceful nations helping the citizens of subjugated countries to depose of their evil dictators, is something I agree with.

...a shame it didn't happen. The US invasion was nothing to do with the Iraqi people.

gizmo

OisinT wrote: »

At the end of the day this argument is used to justify a war in retrospect. I was living in the US at the time the war started and the justification used to go to war was twofold:
1) Iraq and the Hussein regime had close links to and supported Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda (another US created problem that they are now conveniently ignoring the facts surrounding his rise to power - I'll talk about this in a second)
2) Iraq had and/or were developing weapons of mass destruction and ways of getting said weapons to North America.

BOTH of those statements ended up being manifestly untrue. Ok, sure, Hussein was not a nice guy - and not a nice guy that the US put in power themselves. But to say that the US was simply a "peaceful nation helping the citizens of [a] subjugated countr[y] to depose their evil dictator" is a very nice way of justifying the war in retrospect.
This is also something I disagree with tbh. Who is the US to say what leaders get to stay and go? What will happen when China becomes the #1 and decides that we all are being oppressed by our Capitalistic leaders and we need to be under a free Communist regime - I'm sure we'll all be super thrilled about them invading our countries under the motto of "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"


Now, as for Bin Laden, the US put him in power in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, supplied him with weapons and training and, in fact, terrorist techniques to fight and defeat the Soviets.
Does this not qualify as terrorism itself on the part of the US?
I argue it does indeed.

On point 2, I do believe the issue of WMDs was completely exaggerated. Now, fair enough he had used them previously in chemical form however it was still used as a fear tactic by the Bush Administration in order to garner support for the war. As Hitchen's himself said they chose "to frighten people rather than persuade them", something I myself cannot condone.

Which brings me back to point 1. I wouldn't really regard these moves as excuses for the war in retrospect. Many people were making the point that he was a dictator who deserved to be removed from power regardless of whether he had the WMDs that some of the coalition governments were claiming he had. I, personally, held that same belief for instance, as I didn't particularly believe he would be able to run a large weapons program without US intelligence knowing about it.

The Chinese issue is an interesting one certainly however the example you gave is more like the situation which developed during World War II with the German expansion and we all know how that ended. Of course, one could look to the UN in cases like this but with both Russia and China using their veto rights to water down most resolutions to be nothing more than, in effect, strongly worded letters (see the situation in Darfur) it remains ineffective. So does this mean I think the US and her Allies should then have free reign in invading/liberating who they please? Most certainly not, but in this case I think the removal of Hussein was most certainly warranted.

Finally, regarding the training and arming of the Mujahideen against the Soviets? I wouldn't particularly class this as terrorism since they were fighting an occupying force. Their greatest failure there was in not helping the region avoid the civil war and internal turmoil that subsequently followed. Ironically, one could look at Iraq now and see that they are trying to avoid making the same mistake. As is quite evident though, that's not going so well.

Nodin wrote: »

...a shame it didn't happen. The US invasion was nothing to do with the Iraqi people.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I'd respectfully disagree. I certainly don't think it was the main reason, but it was a large one.

tim_holsters

Jakkass wrote: »

Let it get your goat then (I'm sure you can find plenty more!) :pac:

I don't think everything that causes fear would suffice the definition of terrorism. The intention is really the key between what we call terrorism or not.

As I said already, in wars, generally nations would regret the loss of civilians. In terrorist situations, generally they would laud the loss of civilians and consider it one step towards furthering ones cause. That is unless they plan to use them as bargaining chips. The intention of the latter is to induce fear by violence, the intention of the former actually isn't.

Even if this is true, civilian populations will still be terrorized by invading armies and their air forces even if they wish us to believe that their ultimate intentions are benevolent.

Nodin

gizmo wrote: »

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I'd respectfully disagree. I certainly don't think it was the main reason, but it was a large one.

You'll find policy documents from the PNAC and its associates advocating a strategic foothold on the Fulf from the late 1990's. You'll find other documentation showing an interest in replacing Saddam via a coup in order to access oil reserves. However only in the build up for war will you find 'concern' for Iraqis. Considering the careers of those involved - all strong supporters of Reagan and his policies in Latin America - the idea that this bunch suddenly developed a humanitarian streak is ludicrous.

Terry

Anyone have a date for the beginning of Operation Iranian Liberation?

philologos

tim_holsters wrote: »

Even if this is true, civilian populations will still be terrorized by invading armies and their air forces even if they wish us to believe that their ultimate intentions are benevolent.

So, anything that instils fear is essentially terrorism? I.E - All things, not just war, from a horror film, to the very worst that humans will see.

Where does terrorism start and end if we merely put the definition as any act that instils fear into a population (presumably of one or over).

I don't feel as if you're getting what I am saying!

A terrorist attack, is an act of violence with the clear intention of terrorising, a war is an act or a series of acts of violence with clear objectives and goals. Both can be about as brutal, but there is a difference nonetheless.

gizmo

Terry wrote: »

Anyone have a date for the beginning of Operation Iranian Liberation?

Not going to happen.

While the following interview deals with the issue mainly from an Israel vs. Iran point of view, his points regarding the US being held complicit in the outbreak of hostilities and increasing the scale of the conflict in the region to an unmanageable state are still relevant. Not to mention, of course, the closer ties between Iran and Russia in this instance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xat-C4SpBl4

Nodin wrote: »

You'll find policy documents from the PNAC and its associates advocating a strategic foothold on the Fulf from the late 1990's. You'll find other documentation showing an interest in replacing Saddam via a coup in order to access oil reserves. However only in the build up for war will you find 'concern' for Iraqis. Considering the careers of those involved - all strong supporters of Reagan and his policies in Latin America - the idea that this bunch suddenly developed a humanitarian streak is ludicrous.

Interesting point, while I was aware of the PNAC, I wasn't aware of the extent of their influence in Bush's administration. That being said, they did issue this statement closer to the conflict:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.

Oil aside, one could consider that as killing two birds with one stone perhaps? On one hand making the repercussions for such an attack on the US so severe that the idea of another attack becomes unthinkable and also, to affect regime change and stabilise the region in the long run?

Terry

Iraq had close ties with Russia. They were about to change oil trading from Dollars to Euros with the Russians.

Nodin

Terry wrote: »

Anyone have a date for the beginning of Operation Iranian Liberation?

I wouldn't say for at least two or three presidential terms maybe....8-12 years...

Nodin

gizmo wrote: »

Interesting point, while I was aware of the PNAC, I wasn't aware of the extent of their influence in Bush's administration.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and a number of more backroom posts.

gizmo wrote: »

That being said, they did issue this statement closer to the conflict:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.

And again, the false linkage - by implication - to Al Qaeda.

gizmo wrote: »

Oil aside, one could consider that as killing two birds with one stone perhaps? On one hand making the repercussions for such an attack on the US so severe that the idea of another attack becomes unthinkable and also, to affect regime change and stabilise the region in the long run?

What attack on the US by Iraq are you referring to.....?

ancapailldorcha

This is one tight poll. 2 votes!!

McDougal

Terry wrote: »

Anyone have a date for the beginning of Operation Iranian Liberation?

At least Cuba is out of sights for the evil empire for the present. I'm sure President Palin will attempt an invasion in 2014 or so.

gizmo

Nodin wrote: »

And again, the false linkage - by implication - to Al Qaeda.

They didn't specifically say to Al Qaeda, but to terrorism in general. On a sidenote however, I find it hard to believe that they weren't operating within Iraqi borders at some stage without the knowledge of Hussein.

Nodin wrote: »

What attack on the US by Iraq are you referring to.....?

Again, general terrorism, not specifically an attack carried out by Iraq.

McDougal wrote: »

At least Cuba is out of sights for the evil empire for the present. I'm sure President Palin will attempt an invasion in 2014 or so.

Don't even ****ing joke about that.

Also, she's not worried about Cuba, you can't see it from Alaska. :pac:

tim_holsters

Jakkass wrote: »

So, anything that instils fear is essentially terrorism? I.E - All things, not just war, from a horror film, to the very worst that humans will see.

Where does terrorism start and end if we merely put the definition as any act that instils fear into a population (presumably of one or over).

I don't feel as if you're getting what I am saying!

A terrorist attack, is an act of violence with the clear intention of terrorising, a war is an act or a series of acts of violence with clear objectives and goals. Both can be about as brutal, but there is a difference nonetheless.

Ok mate I do get what you're saying. The distinction you're making is valid but it's not going to make much difference to the poor unfortunates who are on the receiving end.

A war may be an act or series of acts of violence with clear objectives and goals.

Part of those objective's and goals is to terrorize.

Rumsfeld's "shock and awe", surely he wanted the Iraqi's civilian and otherwise to be terrified. Or else what was the point of his remark.

McDougal

Jakkass wrote: »

A terrorist attack, is an act of violence with the clear intention of terrorising, a war is an act or a series of acts of violence with clear objectives and goals. Both can be about as brutal, but there is a difference nonetheless.

One bomb is terrorism. 1000 bombs is political.

Is that what you're saying?

Nodin

gizmo wrote: »

They didn't specifically say to Al Qaeda, but to terrorism in general.

...which rather ignores the context of the time, and the fact that Iraq was a relatively minor player in what funds it did direct towards "terrorist" groups. A few bob promised to Palestinians was about the lot of it.

gizmo wrote: »

On a sidenote however, I find it hard to believe that they weren't operating within Iraqi borders at some stage without the knowledge of Hussein.

The only verified group was operating in the Kurdish autonomous region, which area was barred to Saddam by the allies.

gizmo wrote: »

Again, general terrorism, not specifically an attack carried out by Iraq.
.

...which again, given the context of the time and the rest of their guff, would be taken to mean al qaeda.

philologos

McDougal wrote: »

One bomb is terrorism. 1000 bombs is political.

Is that what you're saying?

Not at all. It's an assessment of mind, intention, and motive. When looking at this in consideration it becomes more clear as to what terrorism is and how it is different from a combat situation / war. There can be awful wars, but we call them wars, not terrorist attacks as more often than not they have other intentions apart from to terrorise.

Whether or not the US are the biggest war-criminals on the face of the earth would have been a much more fruitful discussion rather than asking whether or not they are terrorists.

Of course I don't think the US are war criminals on the same scale as any dictator has been. I won't argue though that the US has been perfectly clean of violations of international law.

A much more meaty position to start from.

Athlone_Bhoy

gizmo wrote: »

While I find some of the above language hyperbolic, I don't think you'll find many people who will disagree that the post-war plan has been nothing but a farce. The point I will disagree with is, in theory at least, that the deposing of a man who was nothing more than a tyrant should be frown upon.

Back in the days yes you're right he was an evil tyrant and should have been stopped.

It's just a shame he was America's tyrant.

McDougal

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. It's an assessment of mind, intention, and motive. When looking at this in consideration it becomes more clear as to what terrorism is and how it is different from a combat situation / war. There can be awful wars, but we call them wars, not terrorist attacks as more often than not they have other intentions apart from to terrorise.

Whether or not the US are the biggest war-criminals on the face of the earth would have been a much more fruitful discussion rather than asking whether or not they are terrorists.

Of course I don't think the US are war criminals on the same scale as any dictator has been. I won't argue though that the US has been perfectly clean of violations of international law.

A much more meaty position to start from.

And you think terrorist attacks have no political motives? Was Micheal Collins a terrorist?

The Highwayman

McDougal wrote: »

And you think terrorist attacks have no political motives? Was Micheal Collins a terrorist?

No more than Nelson Mandela

stephen_n

Dravokivich wrote: »

What is illegal about their wars?

That their recent wars within Afghanistan and Iraq weren't officially endorsed by the UN?

What does endorsement have to do with war?

Ok in that case the Talibans war on America and Britain is a legitimate war, glad we got that one cleared up.

McDougal

stephen_n wrote: »

Ok in that case the Talibans war on America and Britain is a legitimate war, glad we got that one cleared up.

The taliban have never attacked America or Britain. They are only defending themselves.

FreudianSlippers

A well thought out and articulated statement in its entirety. But this boils down the crux of this thread:

gizmo wrote: »

On point 2, I do believe the issue of WMDs was completely exaggerated. Now, fair enough he had used them previously in chemical form however it was still used as a fear tactic by the Bush Administration in order to garner support for the war. As Hitchen's himself said they chose "to frighten people rather than persuade them", something I myself cannot condone.

This is terrorism against its own people. OK, maybe the US isn't the MOST extreme terrorist nation, but are they in the top 3? I'd argue that the answer is yes. There are many reasons for this, the above quoted point being one of the many.

(don't have time to reply to the rest yet - read: I'm kind of drunk :P)

FreudianSlippers

Jakkass wrote: »

So, anything that instils fear is essentially terrorism? I.E - All things, not just war, from a horror film, to the very worst that humans will see.

Where does terrorism start and end if we merely put the definition as any act that instils fear into a population (presumably of one or over).

I don't feel as if you're getting what I am saying!

A terrorist attack, is an act of violence with the clear intention of terrorising, a war is an act or a series of acts of violence with clear objectives and goals. Both can be about as brutal, but there is a difference nonetheless.

Look, the dictionary definition of terrorism has been posted multiple times in this thread (around your own posts, so I'm sure you've read it)..

You may have your own definition, but lets make it clear that your definition is not that of the dictionary definition of terrorism. (or at least skewed from that definition)

sxt

gizmo wrote: »

Well, in the words of Edmund Burke's oft misquoted line, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". The merits of the US invasion in that context can of course be debated but the core of the issue, peaceful nations helping the citizens of subjugated countries to depose of their evil dictators, is something I agree with.

It is frightening that you actually believe the U.S is some kind of florence nightengale peaceful nation helping Iraq and other citizens around the world rid evil dictators , you do know The U.S put this dictator in his postion and supported his regime for almost 30 years...

What is even more scary was the amount of Americans that believed that Sadaam was responsibele for the 9/11 attacks . It is amazing how a corpoate media can influence people opinions so much

http://atlanticreview.org/archives/726-More-Americans-Believe-that-Saddam-Was-Directly-Involved-in-911.html


The Americans invaded Iraq in order to safequard access to cheap oil. They didn't do it for humantarian reasons no matter what you heard Bush and his brainwashing minions say in front of the media cameras .Iraq has been in humatarian crisis since the gulf war


NCCI and oxfam international report

■4 years after the 2003 U.S invasion.... "NCCI and oxfam international complied a study which reports that 70 percent of the population lacks proper access to water supplies. Only 20 percent of the population has proper sanitation. Almost 30 percent of children experience malnutrition. About 92 percent of children experience problems learning.



■17 percent of Iraqis who are over the age of 18 suffer from some sort of mental disorder; between 60 percent and 70 percent of Iraqi children were suffering from psychological damage as of mid-2007. http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=73258




When asked in 1996 if the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying, USA ambassador to the UN Madelyn Albright answered "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price...We think the price is worth it."




If you want to get rid of a dictatorship regime ,one in which you could have toppled a decade ago....


It is not neccessary to bombard the entire Iraq nation with bombs again ,destroying more vital infrastructures and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and making 4.7 millon people flee the countryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq



Sadam huseein led a luxurious lifeslyle thanks to America ,they helped put him into to power, They provided with with a huge arsenal of weapons, billions of dollars in finance, even gave him the agents to make chemical weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war#Chemical_and_Biological_exports



They remained allies for decades, and even when they knew that Sadam was gassing Iranians and his own people. They gave biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians and also his own citizens. The U.S supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Sadaam whens those plans included chemical warfare .. The U.S did not intervene in the 1988 gas attacks on the kurdish people ,instead they tried to diplomatically protect Sadam and his regime by pointing fingers at the Iranians

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/17iht-edjoost_ed3_.html


It was not Saddam's atrocities, his gassing of the Kurds, the use of chemicals against Iranians, his crimes against peace -that turned the U.S. against Iraq.



It was the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the consequences that would have on the price of oil. Iraq was a threat and they were dealt with in the most severest of manners ,and the whole nation have been subjugated to uinhumatarian conditions ever since

The U.S is not a peaceful nation . They will do anyjthing to maintain influence in the middle east and around the world. They will support any corrupt ,non democratic regime in order to ensure this

Manic Moran

McDougal wrote: »

Cambodia is the most bombed country in history. Bombed into the stone age by the USAF.

I always thought Cambodia's stone-ageism had a lot more to do with Pol Pot. Even with modern technology, US bombs can't seek out and kill the nation's intelligentia. Khmer Rouge killed people for wearing glasses. Bombs tend to be much more equal opportunity.

OisinT wrote: »

Look, the dictionary definition of terrorism has been posted multiple times in this thread (around your own posts, so I'm sure you've read it)..

You may have your own definition, but lets make it clear that your definition is not that of the dictionary definition of terrorism. (or at least skewed from that definition)

You mean 'a' dictionary definition of terrorism. There are several out there.

The US Army's definition is as follows, and I think it is more appropriate as it excludes legitimate fighters or guerillas, to include Collins. FM 7-98.

The DOD defines terrorism as "the unlawful use--or threat--of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." A terrorist's activities do not conform to rules or laws of warfare. His methods include hostage taking, hijacking, sabotage, assassination, arson, hoaxes, bombings, raids, seizures, use of NBC weapons, and so on. Victims are often noncombatants, symbolic persons and places, and political/military figures. Often the victims have no role in either causing or correcting a terrorist's grievance

The emphasis is on 'unlawful'. Terrorists do not abide by the Laws of War. Guerillas do.

NTM

Red Hand

"Laws of war" makes me laugh.:D

philologos

OisinT wrote: »

Look, the dictionary definition of terrorism has been posted multiple times in this thread (around your own posts, so I'm sure you've read it)..

You may have your own definition, but lets make it clear that your definition is not that of the dictionary definition of terrorism. (or at least skewed from that definition)

You've ignored some of my other posts admittedly:

At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism

The dictionary definition doesn't matter a damn, as I suspect it would differ between dictionaries given how contested the notion is. It's about finding a definition that's actually reasonable.

gizmo

OisinT wrote: »

This is terrorism against its own people. OK, maybe the US isn't the MOST extreme terrorist nation, but are they in the top 3? I'd argue that the answer is yes. There are many reasons for this, the above quoted point being one of the many.

To be honest, I'm simply loath to use the term terrorism in this context. I won't for one second deny he was using these fear tactics in order to garner support for the war but, whether it's simply an ideological thing or whether it's, as Jakkass also says, the hazy definition of the term terrorism, it just doesn't seem right to use it.

sxt wrote: »

It is frightening that you actually believe the U.S is some kind of florence nightengale peaceful nation helping Iraq and other citizens around the world rid evil dictators , you do know The U.S put this dictator in his postion and supported his regime for almost 30 years...

I didn't specifically say that's why they went in, I do certainly think it was a factor but I was commenting more of the idea of said nations helping subjugated countries.

sxt wrote: »

What is even more scary was the amount of Americans that believed that Sadaam was responsibele for the 9/11 attacks . It is amazing how a corpoate media can influence people opinions so much

People's ignorance is just as much to blame as the media unfortunately. While I don't subscribe to the idea of the "stupid American" in the slightest, I do still think there is a complete ignorance amongst a large percentage of the population when it comes to the world outside of their own borders.

The problem with removing him without going to war is that then you are resorting to what is nothing more than assassination, something which will be equally decried.

As for the rest of the post regarding Hussein, while the US may have helped him come to power, they could have had no idea of the monster he would turn into. It was initially a move designed to counter the spread of Communism in the Middle East (gotta love that excuse :rolleyes:) and later it was hoped his secular rule would stop the spread of more radical Islamic ideals in the region. Of course this pales in comparison to what he did in '88 however I'd see the the invasion of Kuwait more as the straw that broke the camels back rather than the sole reason the US decided to intervene.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

I always thought Cambodia's stone-ageism had a lot more to do with Pol Pot. Even with modern technology, US bombs can't seek out and kill the nation's intelligentia. Khmer Rouge killed people for wearing glasses. Bombs tend to be much more equal opportunity.

The bombing campaign preceded Pol Pots regime. He was an irrelevant figure trying to preach communism to illiterate subsistence farmers who used the barter system when the bombs started dropping. Certainly it made lecturing on the evils of capitalism somewhat easier.

Nodin

gizmo wrote: »

As for the rest of the post regarding Hussein, while the US may have helped him come to power, they could have had no idea of the monster he would turn into.
.

....you think they cared? Seriously, theres coffee needs sniffing.

gizmo wrote: »

It was initially a move designed to counter the spread of Communism in the Middle East (gotta love that excuse :rolleyes:) and later it was hoped his secular rule would stop the spread of more radical Islamic ideals in the region.
.

No, it was 'check Iran and reverse the revolution'.

gizmo

Nodin wrote: »

....you think they cared? Seriously, theres coffee needs sniffing.

Of course they would have cared, you think they wanted to get into two wars when they could have been avoided by putting a more sane leader in power?

Nodin wrote: »

No, it was 'check Iran and reverse the revolution'.

The Iranian situation was the one I was referring to when I mentioned "the spread of more radical Islamic ideals in the region."

Nodin

gizmo wrote: »

Of course they would have cared, you think they wanted to get into two wars when they could have been avoided by putting a more sane leader in power?."

Him not knowing to tow the line and him being a "monster" are two different things.

gizmo wrote: »

The Iranian situation was the one I was referring to when I mentioned "the spread of more radical Islamic ideals in the region."

As the Iranian regime is Shia, theres always a natural limit on their influence. Interestingly the Saudi regime is directly and indirectly far more responsible for the spread of conservative Islam due to their sponsorship of wahabi mosques and imams. Their government knows who to tug the forelock to, however.

gizmo

Nodin wrote: »

Him not knowing to tow the line and him being a "monster" are two different things.

As are him doing what he's told and him invading a neighbouring country.

stephen_n

McDougal wrote: »

The taliban have never attacked America or Britain. They are only defending themselves.

I think you may have missed the point of my post. I was questioning what defines a legitimate war over acts of terrorism. Countries are just as capeable of terrorism as organisations, just look at the zio-nazi state of Israel which have carried out more acts of terrorism than any so called prescribed organisation. American media gets to determine who are terrorists and who are freedom fighters and for the most part main stream European media follows suit. This however does not make it real.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US Army's definition is as follows, and I think it is more appropriate as it excludes legitimate fighters or guerillas, to include Collins. FM 7-98.

The emphasis is on 'unlawful'. Terrorists do not abide by the Laws of War. Guerillas do.

NTM

The same US army that has targeted civilian targets in both Iraq and Afghanistan? The same us army that has flouted the Geneva convention and used torture techniques on suspected enemy combatants? The same US army that has trained so called freedom fighters on 3 continents?

Yes they would be well placed to know terrorism alright and by their own defenition America is a terrorist state!

gizmo wrote: »

As for the rest of the post regarding Hussein, while the US may have helped him come to power, they could have had no idea of the monster he would turn into. It was initially a move designed to counter the spread of Communism in the Middle East (gotta love that excuse :rolleyes:) and later it was hoped his secular rule would stop the spread of more radical Islamic ideals in the region. Of course this pales in comparison to what he did in '88 however I'd see the the invasion of Kuwait more as the straw that broke the camels back rather than the sole reason the US decided to intervene.

You do realise that America gave Sadam the chemical weapons in the first place and also gave him the satellite information to target both Iranian soldiers and Kurdish insurgents with those weapons? So they gave him the gun and told him who to shoot but they didn't know he would be a monster? That is either naive or a very misinformed statement.

As for Americans being stupid, it is more that they are misinformed or simply don't care what happens outside of America. 98% of all Media in America is either directly or indirectly owned by 7 corporations and there is no real freedom of the press in that situation. Everything is edited to suit the needs of America inc so they simply do not have easy access to the information we are lucky enough to have, if we don't derive all our information from Sky news that is!

gizmo

stephen_n wrote: »

You do realise that America gave Sadam the chemical weapons in the first place and also gave him the satellite information to target both Iranian soldiers and Kurdish insurgents with those weapons?

That is just blatently untrue, the chemicals were purchases on the open market and sold to Huessin's regime for production. The manufacturers may have been US companies but that does not mean they were supplied by the US government. Frans van Anraat is currently serving prison time for his involvement in this transaction.

As for the exchange of satellite info, I've never heard this claim but would be happy to read over any evidence you have on the matter.

Also note, the attack on the Kurds occurred nearly 20 years after he had been helped to power by the US, they could hardly have seen that coming.

stephen_n wrote: »

As for Americans being stupid, it is more that they are misinformed or simply don't care what happens outside of America. 98% of all Media in America is either directly or indirectly owned by 7 corporations and there is no real freedom of the press in that situation. Everything is edited to suit the needs of America inc so they simply do not have easy access to the information we are lucky enough to have, if we don't derive all our information from Sky news that is!

So you're saying there's no difference between the content delivered by Fox News, CNN and MSNBC?

Jeboa Safari

sxt wrote: »

The Emperor was the human personification of the Japanese nation.If the Emperor ceased to exist ,so would Japan. It was not necessary for America to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, they were already on their knees militarily.

Yet they didn't surrender, and still occupied large parts of Asia at the time. Why was there an attempted coup against him so? Hitler was popular in Germany, should he have got to have peace on his terms?

FreudianSlippers

Manic Moran wrote: »

I always thought Cambodia's stone-ageism had a lot more to do with Pol Pot. Even with modern technology, US bombs can't seek out and kill the nation's intelligentia. Khmer Rouge killed people for wearing glasses. Bombs tend to be much more equal opportunity.



You mean 'a' dictionary definition of terrorism. There are several out there.

The US Army's definition is as follows, and I think it is more appropriate as it excludes legitimate fighters or guerillas, to include Collins. FM 7-98.



The emphasis is on 'unlawful'. Terrorists do not abide by the Laws of War. Guerillas do.

NTM

The US didn't abide by the "laws of war" in the bombing and invasion of Iraq.

FreudianSlippers

gizmo wrote: »

That is just blatently untrue, the chemicals were purchases on the open market and sold to Huessin's regime for production. The manufacturers may have been US companies but that does not mean they were supplied by the US government. Frans van Anraat is currently serving prison time for his involvement in this transaction.

The below is from the Chicago Sun Times and is sourced directly from CDC and congressional records from the 80s and 90s by congress itself.

An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran

stephen_n

gizmo wrote: »

That is just blatently untrue, the chemicals were purchases on the open market and sold to Huessin's regime for production. The manufacturers may have been US companies but that does not mean they were supplied by the US government. Frans van Anraat is currently serving prison time for his involvement in this transaction.

As for the exchange of satellite info, I've never heard this claim but would be happy to read over any evidence you have on the matter.

Also note, the attack on the Kurds occurred nearly 20 years after he had been helped to power by the US, they could hardly have seen that coming.


So you're saying there's no difference between the content delivered by Fox News, CNN and MSNBC?

Evidence of satellite information shared by the US state department in a meeting between Donald Rumsfeld in 1983 would be fairly hard to come by, but the meeting is a matter of public record. As was the the Americans change of direction on Iraq during the Iran Iraq war when the Americans removed Iraq from it list of states that supported terrorism (ironic)
Are you genuinely naive enough to think the Americans supported and propped up his government with weapons and money through there gulf alliance with Saudi but had no idea what he was doing to his own people? and further more had no sway over what he was doing. America is motivated by one thing and one thing only that is profit.

Are you really seriously going to try and make the argument that the American government were unaware that their companies were supplying chemical weapons?? any other fairy stories you'd like to share with the group?


As for Fox, CNN, MSNBC yes there may be a difference in how the message is delivered but what you are talking about is shades of gray, Propoganda was perfected by the Americans and British during the second world war and is now used against the citizens of those countries by the people who really control their governments. Try reading Noam Chomsky and you might get some idea how infomodities are used to control public perception. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist the only difference is the use of language.

FreudianSlippers

gizmo wrote: »

As for the exchange of satellite info, I've never heard this claim but would be happy to read over any evidence you have on the matter.

I believe what happened here was actually that CIA intelligence agents were actually sent to Baghdad to help interpret the raw satellite data. But White House records show that the agents were also helping direct troop movements.
I don't personally have or know how to access these White House records, but they were documented and sourced in a book by Alan Freedman

gizmo wrote: »

Also note, the attack on the Kurds occurred nearly 20 years after he had been helped to power by the US, they could hardly have seen that coming.

This may be true that it wasn't totally foreseeable that Iraq would have used the chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja, but following the attack the US State Department, the CIA and the Reagan administration itself tried to say that the attack was by Iran, even though they knew full well at this point that Iraq had done it.
I'm not saying they knew he was going to do it, but they certainly tried to cover it up when they did know.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/17iht-edjoost_ed3_.html)

gizmo wrote: »

So you're saying there's no difference between the content delivered by Fox News, CNN and MSNBC?

There is almost no difference in the style of delivery, but there is a difference in content.
Fox is far far far right.
MSNBC is far far far left.
CNN is somewhere in the middle, but still quite left.

The major difference is that FOX and MSNBC use fear, intimidation and sensationalism to deliver their messages, whereas CNN tends to report the news more neutrally, however, it would still seem to favour the left-wing point of view.

gizmo

OisinT wrote: »

The below is from the Chicago Sun Times and is sourced directly from CDC and congressional records from the 80s and 90s by congress itself.

Yes but a government licence to export certain chemicals is not the same as direct aid from the government. On top of that, the primary materials were still provided by Frans van Anraat who, as I said already, was only recently convicted of supplying them.

stephen_n wrote: »

Evidence of satellite information shared by the US state department in a meeting between Donald Rumsfeld in 1983 would be fairly hard to come by, but the meeting is a matter of public record.

So no evidence outside of a the public record of a meeting which took place. To counter your naive remark, is your hatred of the US so strong that you actually believe they would help Hussein deploy mustard and nerve gas against those people? As for the rest of your remark, try and debate like an adult and save the condescending remarks for someone else.

stephen_n wrote: »

As for Fox, CNN, MSNBC yes there may be a difference in how the message is delivered but what you are talking about is shades of gray, Propoganda was perfected by the Americans and British during the second world war and is now used against the citizens of those countries by the people who really control their governments. Try reading Noam Chomsky and you might get some idea how infomodities are used to control public perception. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist the only difference is the use of language.

If they are only shades of gray then find me one prominent political commentator on Fox who was against the war. What about Fox and their support of continued support of the Republicans even with Palin running on the Presidential ticket? Or what about their continued support for the Tea Party movement? Hardly shades of gray when the other stations don't show nearly as much bias.

OisinT wrote: »

This may be true that it wasn't totally foreseeable that Iraq would have used the chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja, but following the attack the US State Department, the CIA and the Reagan administration itself tried to say that the attack was by Iran, even though they knew full well at this point that Iraq had done it.
I'm not saying they knew he was going to do it, but they certainly tried to cover it up when they did know.

Oh there's certainly no doubt they tried to cover it up when they suited them, or at least shift the blame away from their allies in the war at the time. I still don't think that equates to foreknowledge, nor does it in any way indicate they helped them commit the attack.

Totally agree on the news station issue too by the way, I was specifically referring to stephen_n's assertion that the content was simply shades of gray which it is clearly not.

stephen_n

gizmo wrote: »

So no evidence outside of a the public record of a meeting which took place. To counter your naive remark, is your hatred of the US so strong that you actually believe they would help Hussein deploy mustard and nerve gas against those people? As for the rest of your remark, try and debate like an adult and save the condescending remarks for someone else.


If they are only shades of gray then find me one prominent political commentator on Fox who was against the war. What about Fox and their support of continued support of the Republicans even with Palin running on the Presidential ticket? Or what about their continued support for the Tea Party movement? Hardly shades of gray when the other stations don't show nearly as much bias.

Show me any criticism of American foreign policy and support for the Zio-Nazi state of Israel in main stream American media? Show me the footage of bombed out schools in Iraq or the bodies of children being pulled from houses in Gaza? American media does not in anyway show the other side of the coin, there editorial comment may differ from left of centre to extreme right but they DO NOT show the other side. So therefore the American public remain mis-informed. There is little or no difference between the policies of Democrat or Republicans in America and as such saying that the extreme right wing Fox and the slightly liberal MSNBC are really that different is a matter of shades and not an actual difference.

Does your love of America blind you from the truth of their hand in nearly every conflict on this planet in the last 60 years? Where is your evidence that America didn't know what Sadam was going to do?

Manic Moran

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

"Laws of war" makes me laugh.:D

Although I agree with you, we're probably in a minority and have to comply with them ayway.

The same US army that has targeted civilian targets in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Name five. I don't mean civilian targets that were hit unintentionally, or that at the time were believed to be legitimate, I mean five kown civilian targets that were specifically targetted despite having no military function. (So bridges, Ministry of Communications HQ etc are out).

The same us army that has flouted the Geneva convention and used torture techniques on suspected enemy combatants?

Unlawful enemy combatants, it should be noted.

The same US army that has trained so called freedom fighters on 3 continents?

If they're guerillas, what's the problem? They were not being trained to place bombs in market places to kill shoppers, were they?

OisinT wrote: »

The US didn't abide by the "laws of war" in the bombing and invasion of Iraq.

The Hague and Geneva conventions and protocols are available online and regulate the conduct of war. Which articles did they break, to substantiate your statement?

NTM

gizmo

stephen_n wrote: »

Show me any criticism of American foreign policy and support for the Zio-Nazi state of Israel in main stream American media?

So Keith Olbermann's numerous anti-war and anti-Bush rants on MSNBC never happened then?

stephen_n wrote: »

Show me the footage of bombed out schools in Iraq or the bodies of children being pulled from houses in Gaza? American media does not in anyway show the other side of the coin, there editorial comment may differ from left of centre to extreme right but they DO NOT show the other side. So therefore the American public remain mis-informed.

No country will ever show that kid of footage, whether it is America or not.

As for the American public remaining misinformed, how were you able to inform yourself? Are these American people not able to access the same information as you?

stephen_n wrote: »

There is little or no difference between the policies of Democrat or Republicans in America and as such saying that the extreme right wing Fox and the slightly liberal MSNBC are really that different is a matter of shades and not an actual difference.

Not only were the Democrats in one case divided (Senate) and in another opposed (House) to the war at the time but even those who voted for it have since come and admitted it was a mistake. You won't find that kind of thing happening on the Republican side. Then there was the issue of Universal Health Care, the economic stimulus package...all major issues where both parties were on opposite sides. Also, to call MSNBC "slightly" liberal is a joke right?

stephen_n wrote: »

Does your love of America blind you from the truth of their hand in nearly every conflict on this planet in the last 60 years? Where is your evidence that America didn't know what Sadam was going to do?

I have no love for America just in the same way I have no hate towards it, I just try and debate some of these issues rationally and assign blame when it was warranted as I have done so already when discussing issues with OisinT. If I've made a mistake then by all means correct me and supply some proof and I'll be glad to read over it.