• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

American Moral Supremacy

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Any government that does not derive its authority from the consent of the people it governs is not a legitimate government. It is a prolonged hostage situation. Like all hostage situations, the thugs who run these dictatorships are temporary; they cannot sustain power beyond what they can force, because the people are not with them; they were meant to be taken down by morally superior forces.

Neither Western civilization, nor America specifically has all the answers or a perfectly ideal government, but we understand liberty and the legitimacy of power derived from consent rather than from force. We are the only country in history who has bombed a nation's government (the Taliban) and immediately had planes behind them dropping food and supplies for the civilians consequently left without a government. We take out foreign threats, and then we rebuild them under a system that protects basic human rights.

Our militarily unrivaled nation stands for liberty and we use our superior forces to take down those who threaten us, and those tyrants who hold nations hostage.

We are morally superior.

We are also the only ones with the capability (both physically and testically) to police the world, and 9/11 has proved that we must be on top of rogue regimes and terror-sponsors if we are to prevent further devastation.


In addition to our inherent moral authority to remove illegitimate dictators, the removal of Saddam was further justified by the terrorist threat he had regularly chose to pose to us and to our allies. In a post-9/11 world, Democrats asked us to continue their policy of doing nothing about a bloody dictator who:

-tried to have a U.S. president assassinated.

-funded terrorism.

-Defied the U.N. for more than a decade.

-sheltered terrorists like Abbu Abbas and had loose ties to Bin Laden according to the 9/11 Commission*.

-used WMD to commit genocide, proving both that he had them and that he was willing to use them.

-aggressively sought WMD and discussed how to use them to attack Washington D.C. (see the Saddam tapes).

-routinely fired off missiles into the city streets of at a nuclear power and our ally, Israel.

-attacked Iran without provocation.

-attacked Kuwait without provocation.

-attacked Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the most honest and accurate account I have seen on this site of how we ended up in Iraq can be found here:

(post #2)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=8107



*From Statement #15 of the 9/11 Commission report:

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons but Iraq apparently never responded."

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan..."
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
8,351
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Does consent gained through fraud or misrespresentation count toward legitimacy?
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,417
Reaction score
12,666
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Any government that does not derive its authority from the consent of the people it governs is not a legitimate government. It is a prolonged hostage situation. Like all hostage situations, the thugs who run these dictatorships are temporary;
Three cheers for term limits!! Hip-hip-horray!
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Does consent gained through fraud or misrespresentation count toward legitimacy?

We're not talking about Bill Clinton here. We're talking about taking out terror-sponsoring, genocidal war-mongers in a post-911 world.

If you are referring to WMD, keep in mind that we WATCHED him use some of them to commit genocide, which should be your first clue that he had them and that he was a threat with them.

Your second clue should be the repeated expulsion of U.N. inspectors every time they came too close to certain sites.

And keep in mind that we gave him months to get rid of/hide the WMD in Syria while we publicly debated his still unaccounted for remaining stockpiles.

When you and the left operate on presumption and baselessly use words like, "fraud" to describe Bush's common sense assertions (which nearly everyone else at the time made as well) it doesn't add up with the facts.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
8,351
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aquapub said:
... it doesn't add up with the facts.
So is that a yes or a no?
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by aquapub
...and then we rebuild them under a system that protects basic human rights.
Don't give me this crap with GITMO and Abu Grhaib still on the map. Next time you decide to say something, let me know ahead of time so I can pull up my pant legs. I don't want to get them dirty when you speak.
 

Synch

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
564
Reaction score
16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Your post... was absolute propoganda... anyone who has cared enough to research the events you've listed knows your writing pov is extremely biased...

It's good enough to convince some people though.:lol:
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We are morally superior.
Well you weren't the morally superior one in the past and its very doubtful you are the one in the present. over-throwning of latin american countries using the CIA to enstall dictators, Iran-contra etc etc etc
We are also the only ones with the capability (both physically and testically) to police the world,
please please please...we don't want the US policeing the world..please no!
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Many neocon's are some of the most immoral people on the planet who are mentally unfit to be near any position of an elected official.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Synch
Your post... was absolute propoganda... anyone who has cared enough to research the events you've listed knows your writing pov is extremely biased...

It's good enough to convince some people though.
Who are you talking too?
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Originally Posted by aquapub
...and then we rebuild them under a system that protects basic human rights.


Billo_Really said:
Don't give me this crap with GITMO and Abu Grhaib still on the map. Next time you decide to say something, let me know ahead of time so I can pull up my pant legs. I don't want to get them dirty when you speak.

Lame, hysterical idiocy as always, Bill. :roll:

Just because our government dares to care more about preventing mass murder than playing softball with terror suspects does not mean the constitutional system enacted in Iraq doesn't grant Iraqis with basic human rights. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Remove head from rectum, then debate.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Synch said:
Your post... was absolute propoganda... anyone who has cared enough to research the events you've listed knows your writing pov is extremely biasedQUOTE]

I backed up my arguments...the ones that weren't on CNN for the entire world to see..you...well, when making baseless assertions, I guess there's no reason to even bother, right?

I think we both know why you failed to provide a single specific on the matter. ;)
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Willoughby said:
1 Well you weren't the morally superior one in the past and its very doubtful you are the one in the present. over-throwning of latin american countries using the CIA to enstall dictators, Iran-contra etc etc etc


2 please please please...we don't want the US policeing the world..please no!

1 Providing guns to a small fry thug to take on a greater thug isn't immoral-especially when it is NECESSARY because the DEMOCRAT Congress stripped you of all funding to remove bloody dictators or promote freedom. Creative ways to circumvent the visionless left had to be innovated.

2 Um..we are already policing the world. Open a paper sometime.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Many neocon's are some of the most immoral people on the planet who are mentally unfit to be near any position of an elected official.
Baseless assertion. No names or evidence? What a shock.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
I think his propaganda is total BS.

Of course, the only problem with this is that my assertions are based in fact and provable, while you assert that Guantanamo Bay "abuses" somehow mean that Iraqis aren't getting basic human rights.

YOUR propaganda has been repeatedly disproved. All you have come up with against my assertions from thread to thread is lame conspiracy theories and "apples and oranges" arguments like the one above.

Spare me the crying about spin. :roll:
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course, the only problem with this is that my assertions are based in fact and provable, while you assert that Guantanamo Bay "abuses" somehow mean that Iraqis aren't getting basic human rights.
ok prove them then

YOUR propaganda has been repeatedly disproved. All you have come up with against my assertions from thread to thread is lame conspiracy theories and "apples and oranges" arguments like the one above.
Amnesty:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140052006
US Government:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41722.htm
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Willoughby said:
1 ok prove them then



2 Amnesty:

1) Prove what? That Saddam sponsored terror? That he invaded Kuwait without provocation? Name anything and I will give you any evidence you need. All these things were all over the news when they happened.

2) :rofl I think I've figured out your problem: you consider such a radical, partisan, anti-American group like Amnesty International a sensible basis for facts. I cannot make fun of this enough.

I've been to their idiotic campus "lectures." They are a freaking joke! You might as well be citing Move On.
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
Any government that does not derive its authority from the consent of the people it governs is not a legitimate government. It is a prolonged hostage situation. Like all hostage situations, the thugs who run these dictatorships are temporary; they cannot sustain power beyond what they can force, because the people are not with them; they were meant to be taken down by morally superior forces.

Neither Western civilization, nor America specifically has all the answers or a perfectly ideal government, but we understand liberty and the legitimacy of power derived from consent rather than from force. We are the only country in history who has bombed a nation's government (the Taliban) and immediately had planes behind them dropping food and supplies for the civilians consequently left without a government. We take out foreign threats, and then we rebuild them under a system that protects basic human rights.

Our militarily unrivaled nation stands for liberty and we use our superior forces to take down those who threaten us, and those tyrants who hold nations hostage.

We are morally superior.

We are also the only ones with the capability (both physically and testically) to police the world, and 9/11 has proved that we must be on top of rogue regimes and terror-sponsors if we are to prevent further devastation.


In addition to our inherent moral authority to remove illegitimate dictators, the removal of Saddam was further justified by the terrorist threat he had regularly chose to pose to us and to our allies. In a post-9/11 world, Democrats asked us to continue their policy of doing nothing about a bloody dictator who:

-tried to have a U.S. president assassinated.

-funded terrorism.

-Defied the U.N. for more than a decade.

-sheltered terrorists like Abbu Abbas and had loose ties to Bin Laden according to the 9/11 Commission*.

-used WMD to commit genocide, proving both that he had them and that he was willing to use them.

-aggressively sought WMD and discussed how to use them to attack Washington D.C. (see the Saddam tapes).

-routinely fired off missiles into the city streets of at a nuclear power and our ally, Israel.

-attacked Iran without provocation.

-attacked Kuwait without provocation.

-attacked Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the most honest and accurate account I have seen on this site of how we ended up in Iraq can be found here:

(post #2)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=8107



*From Statement #15 of the 9/11 Commission report:

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons but Iraq apparently never responded."

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan..."

1) We understand liberty but promote detention without trial - surely a contradiction? i.e We THINK you may be a terrorist so we'll just lock you up for x years without bringing you to trial or offering you any opportunity to prove us wrong - not my definition of liberty or presumption of innocence.

2) After Germany was bombed to death there was a mass of food and supplies given to the survivors - not really an important point but just thought I'd tell you.

3) Arming, training and supplying Islamic fighters to wage war against the Soviets and install an Islamic govt (Taleban) in Afghanistan helped to build a system that protected human right?? Reality check required I think. Some of the worlds worst human rights abuses were committed here.

4) There are a mutliple of tyrants/dictators around the world. When they are pro-US i.e S.Arabia, Pakistan, Kazikstan (even Iraq prior to 1990s and Taleban prior to 2001) they go unchecked, when they are anti-US we take action. So much for promotion of liberty and democracy. If we really cared about that we would take action against them all.

5) Morally superior?? Our President believes he should be allowed to authorise torture yet we condem Saddam etc for all the acts of torture he committed. If its so wrong why do we think its ok for us to do it? Double-Standards doesn't normally equate to superior morals.

6) We are the only nation with the power to police the world....only problem is the world doesn't want us to police them. This runs contrary to your very first point. If your authority is not derived from the consent of the people (ie the rest of the world) it is not legitimate. We cannot force ourselves upon the rest of the world as a 'police force' - if we do so without their permission its not legitimate - your arguement not mine - but I agree.

7) Pre 9/11 exactly what was Bush/Republicans doing about rogue regimes and terrorists? I'll tell you..they were inviting the Taleban (yes those state sponsors of terrorism from Afghanistan and personal friends of Osama) over to the Whitehouse to make oil deals. Tough on terror?? Once the horse had bolted maybe but certainly not prior to 9/11

8) Do you think there were more terrorists in Iraq before or after the war? Progress, I think not.

9) We know he HAD WMD, heck we sold him the stuff so of course we know this, in the past. None was found after the war but lets not go back to that arguement.

10) He routinely fired missles at Israel we routinely fired missles at him - your point is?

11) He attacked Iran - we backed him.

12) He attacked Kuwait - most Iraqis believe Kuwait belongs to Iraq (although how many hundreds/thousands of years this belief goes back I don't know) - he actually had public support for this.

13) He attacked S.Arabia - the centre of global terrorism - the country which gave the world Osama (and many more like him) + Al-Q - a complete dictatorship - a country of public stonings and amputations - a country which teaches Islamc terrrorism (and funds most of it). You know there are plenty of arguements for US attacking S Arabia but they are all defeated by a pro-US leadership which will sell us as much oil as we want. How does that fit in with 'morally superior' and 'liberty'??

14) What exactly do all these references to Saddam have to do with us being morally superior??

If we can't be morally superior to someone like Saddam then who the heck can we be superior to??

Whats you point?
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Prove what? That Saddam sponsored terror? That he invaded Kuwait without provocation? Name anything and I will give you any evidence you need. All these things were all over the news when they happened.
i think that you missed the bit about how human rights abuses have continued under the american occupation of iraq
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by aquapub
Lame, hysterical idiocy as always, Bill.

Just because our government dares to care more about preventing mass murder than playing softball with terror suspects does not mean the constitutional system enacted in Iraq doesn't grant Iraqis with basic human rights. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Remove head from rectum, then debate.
O contrare' Mr. pub, human rights abuses are still taking place in Iraq.


Abuse of Prisoners Still Seen in Iraq, Report Says
From Associated Press March, 6 2006


LONDON — Detainees in Iraq are still being tortured, receiving electric shocks and beatings with plastic cables, a report by Amnesty International said today.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ry?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
G-Man said:
We THINK you may be a terrorist so we'll just lock you up for x years without bringing you to trial or offering you any opportunity to prove us wrong
You need to read up a bit more on the procedures in place at Guantanamo. A good place to start might be this article at CNN today.

Read about how the detainees are appearing before the military tribunal. about how many have been sent home or released, about how some are seeking asylum in the US for fear of reprisals if they return home, about how many the US has announced will be released in the near future, etc.

Arming, training and supplying Islamic fighters to wage war against the Soviets and install an Islamic govt (Taleban) in Afghanistan helped to build a system that protected human right?? Reality check required I think.
Your absolutely right that a reality check is required - by you. The Taliban gov't resulted from a division and clash between and the radical Islamists elements aligned with Mullah Omar and other less radical elements of the mujadheen, principally the Northern Alliance, following the ouster of the Russians from Afghanistan. Mullah Omar and his followers were successful; the other warlords went back home to their own regions and continued to fight the Taliban.
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
G-Man said:
We understand liberty but promote detention without trial - surely a contradiction?
US Constitution : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;


You want to give the captured enemy more rights, than the Constitution gives to Americans. Therefore you are on the enemy side.

G-Man said:
3) Arming, training and supplying Islamic fighters to wage war against the Soviets and install an Islamic govt (Taleban) in Afghanistan helped to build a system that protected human right?? Reality check required I think. Some of the worlds worst human rights abuses were committed here.
Get real – that was one of the ways to fight the Soviets, our enemy. You did not want to fight Soviets. You were on the enemy side.

G-Man said:
4) There are a mutliple of tyrants/dictators around the world. When they are pro-US i.e S.Arabia, Pakistan, Kazikstan (even Iraq prior to 1990s and Taleban prior to 2001) they go unchecked, when they are anti-US we take action. So much for promotion of liberty and democracy. If we really cared about that we would take action against them all.
SySgt told you many times they do not go unchecked. You just have no clue about the right way to check them. It is called politics. You are showing yourself like an elephant in a China store.

G-Man said:
5) Our President believes he should be allowed to authorise torture yet we condem Saddam etc for all the acts of torture he committed. If its so wrong why do we think its ok for us to do it? Double-Standards doesn't normally equate to superior morals.
Did our President confessed to you about his believes? Are you reading his mind? Are you out of you mind?

G-Man said:
6) We are the only nation with the power to police the world....only problem is the world doesn't want us to police them.
You established the fact that we have power. We are a powerful nation. You want us to loose the power? If it is so, you are anti-American. If you want us to keep the power – police and don’t ask. Unless you are meaning your mutliple of tyrants/dictators around the world --- you flip flapped your tyrants again.

G-Man said:
If your authority is not derived from the consent of the people (ie the rest of the world)
===B/S. The wording was applied to people of a nation, not a bunch of a ‘’mutliple of tyrants/dictators around the world’’ === you flip flap the tyrans to fit your agenda to attack America, represented by an elected President, whatever is his name.

G-Man said:
7) Pre 9/11 exactly what was Bush/Republicans doing about rogue regimes and terrorists? I'll tell you..they were inviting the Taleban
What were Dems doing pre 9/11?? – they were saints….?. Sy Sgt nailed your rhetoric ---you’re trying to revive it. Intellectually not fair. It is an intellectual failure.

G-Man said:
8) Do you think there were more terrorists in Iraq before or after the war? Progress, I think not.
Do you think there were more terrorists before the picture in the Danish paper or after it was published?????? You think not.

G-Man said:
9) We know he HAD WMD, heck we sold him the stuff so of course we know this, in the past. None was found after the war but lets not go back to that arguement.
Go back, reread what you said and bite your tale.

G-Man said:
10) He routinely fired missles at Israel we routinely fired missles at him - your point is?
Your point is? The cause of your routine is different from ours? It is clear.

G-Man said:
12) He attacked Kuwait - most Iraqis believe Kuwait belongs to Iraq (although how many hundreds/thousands of years this belief goes back I don't know) - he actually had public support for this.
You are the part of that kind of public, if you believe. You just complained about not following international laws, and you flip flapping your own point. Am I speaking to Mr. Kerry?


G-Man said:
If we can't be morally superior to someone like Saddam then who the heck can we be superior to??
If you cannot be morally superior to someone like Saddam it is your problem, you don’t have to go around bragging about it. As weel as about your intellectual superiority
 
Top Bottom