• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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?



Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
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

it is amazing how you can write so much justone and yet say nothing of substance
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Willoughby said:
it is amazing how you can write so much justone and yet say nothing of substance

Nothing about your substance.

One of your VIPs ( don’t remember the name) said: Great Britain does not have enemies, Great Britain does not have friends, it has only it’s interests.

I guess since that time you’re a$$es were kicked quite a bit. Don’t complain to me.

US, thanks God, hasa lot more problems on hand than your country does. And we are working on the problems. In difference from you – you have no problems – you’re just relaxing like a piece of crap in the middle of the road. Working out, we get strong. You just smell. What a substance!
 

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:
i think that you missed the bit about how human rights abuses have continued under the american occupation of iraq

Are you talking about Abu Ghirab? If so, I hope you're not serious. That was a deviation that was punished. There is individual and group misconduct in every war. It is asinine to base your decision on whether or not to engage in war on whether or not someone might act inappropriately.
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willoughby
i think that you missed the bit about how human rights abuses have continued under the american occupation of iraq


Are you talking about Abu Ghirab? If so, I hope you're not serious. That was a deviation that was punished. There is individual and group misconduct in every war. It is asinine to base your decision on whether or not to engage in war on whether or not someone might act inappropriately.

look at the two reports that i cited
 

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
G-Man said:
We understand liberty but promote detention without trial - surely a contradiction?

If it prevents another 9/11, yes, locking up terror suspects without immediate due process is necessary and not a violation of their human rights. To suggest otherwise is hysterical and grossly misinformed-much like the rest of your points here.
 

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:
look at the two reports that i cited

I'll take your propaganda from Amnesty International seriously and base my opinions on it when you do the same for Rush Limbaugh. Find a source with a shred of credibility and I will bother.
 

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:
O contrare' Mr. pub, human rights abuses are still taking place in Iraq.

:rofl

And you are basing this on a partisan, ultra-left wing group like Amnesty International, hence it is crap.

Amnesty International screamed for years about the Taliban abuses (and Saddam's) on women and minorities. THE MOMENT America even started taking interest in doing anything about them their tone radically shifted to their classic, "defend the psychotic butcher" setting and they immediately began propagandizing against us.

Get a remotely objective source before you start stating things as facts.
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
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.

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.


So those being released from G Bay are innocent yes? Detained for x years without charge and then eventually released without charge. Thats my point? Unless of course we are releasing dangerous terrorists back into the world but I doubt it.

So our funding of Osama and his friends did not enable the Taleban to gain power? They would never have defeated the soviets without our help so we are part to blame. Moral responsibility for inflicting these criminals on the afghans. for decades?
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
justone said:
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.

Your right-wing rhetoric would be laughable if so much wasn't at stake but I fear your brainwashed mind is beyond repair. The British tried detention without trial against the IRA decades ago...the result....recruitment to the IRA went up in numbers previously unheard of and the British mainland was subjected to the most serious terrorist attacks it ever faced.

I want to see all terrorists arrested, brought to justice and punished accordingly...yes what an aide I am to the enemy side.

You want to see everyone who looks like a terrorist, has a name like a terrorist and perhaps even dresses like a terrrorist arrested, looked up and never released. If you opened your eyes for a minute and switched off the TV you would realise this only enrages the local population and makes MORE people take up arms against the US. Policies like this are against US interests and will probably lead to the downfall of the US. If anyone is helping the enemy I would say it was you by supporting policies which are doomed to failure.

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.

So you don't deny we helped to establish the Taleban in power? Coming back to reality if you have Islamic forces fighting soviet armies who is our enemy and who is our friend? Are you now saying the Taleban were our friends and I am aiding the enemy by saying we shouldn't have helped Osama and friends? Do you actually read the garbage you write down?

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.

Well S Arabia has been the largest safehaven for terrorists in the middle east for decades. Its where Al-Q has its roots and its where religious teachers brainwash students into hating and attacking the west.

If politics mean we allow this to continue so we have can have their oil then I suggest your politics are aiding the enemy by providing them a safehaven and funding for which to carry out their terrorist attacks.

Did our President confessed to you about his believes? Are you reading his mind? Are you out of you mind?

He confessed to all by asking for a personal exclusion from torture laws. Like I said, read some papers.

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.

Who are we goona lose the power to?? No nation will EVER have more miltary strength than us. Is it 'American' to want to imposs our ideologies and beliefs upon the world? You know we are supposed to be the home of the free. Its anti-american to argue for world domination....thats not what we are about.

===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.

I have no idea what you are rambling on about (nor do you I suggest) so I can't possibly reply.

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.

Well I ain't a Dem but if your arguement is - 'its OK to be completely useless at dealing with terrorist threats and the reasons behind them because the Dems are crap at it too' then again you are aiding the enemy by denying the American people a competent govt. who can bring an end to this terrorism.

Do you think there were more terrorists before the picture in the Danish paper or after it was published?????? You think not.

What?? Is there a method to your madness or is this just a lot of irrelevant mutterings? If you seriously think publishing the cartoons has created more terrorits than invading Iraq you need help.

Go back, reread what you said and bite your tale.

I've gone back, reread and reread your post again and I still can't make head nor tail out of it.

Your point is? The cause of your routine is different from ours? It is clear.

Well I want to see us tackle global terrorism properly and effectively in the hope of bringing it to an end. You support 'ideas' which clearly won't achieve this so yes we are different.

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?

Again, what??

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

I'm morally inferior to Saddam? I don't know whether to laugh or cry about that remark. As I don't take you seriously I'll laugh.

N.B Intellectually superior to whom - there are far more well informed and knowledgeable persons on DP than me. Unfortunatley your post does not convince me you are one of them.
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
If it prevents another 9/11, yes, locking up terror suspects without immediate due process is necessary and not a violation of their human rights. To suggest otherwise is hysterical and grossly misinformed-much like the rest of your points here.

Not really its been tried before in the UK and resulted in increased recruitment for the terrorists (IRA) and the largest wave of terrorist attacks suffered by the UK. There is no evidence to suggest G Bay is deterring persons from becoming terrorists but relatives of those detained in error will be far more likely to take up arms.

Can you provide me with one example of where detention without trial has had a positive effect and solved the problems?

Of course seeing how am I so misinformed perhaps you can show this did not happen and detention without trial succeeded in the UK?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
C'mon, G-Man, read up on this stuff a little before you start posting silly stuff!

Good ol' wikipedia is a good place to start:


After the fall of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1992, Afghanistan was thrown into civil war between competing warlords. The Taliban eventually emerged as a force capable of bringing order to the country. The rise of the Taliban helped the economy by eliminating the payments that warlords demanded from business people; it brought political benefits by reducing factional fighting (although the Taliban fought aggressively against their enemies, their relative hegemony reduced the number of factions) and brought relative stability by imposing a set of norms on a chaotic society. Although the radical ideology of the Taliban would later alienate many, several observers initially considered its emergence as a positive development.
[...]
After gaining power in and around Kandahar through a combination of military and diplomatic victories, the Taliban attacked, and eventually defeated, the forces of Ismail Khan in the west of the country, capturing Herat from him on September 5, 1995. That winter, the Taliban laid siege to the capital city Kabul, firing rockets into the city and blockading trade routes. In March, the Taliban's opponents, Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani and Gulbuddin Hikmatyar ceased fighting one another and formed a new anti-Taliban alliance. But on September 26, 1996 they quit the city of Kabul and retreated north, allowing the Taliban to capture the seat of government and establish the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

On May 20, 1997, brother Generals Abdul Malik Pehlawan and Mohammed Pehlawan mutinied from under Uzbek warlord Rashid Dostum's command and formed an alliance with the Taliban. Three days later, Dostum abandoned much of his army and fled from his base in Mazar-i Sharif into Uzbekistan. On May 25, Taliban forces, along with those of the mutinous generals, entered the undefended Mazar-i Sharif. That same day, Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, followed by recognition from Saudi Arabia the following day. However, on May 27, fierce street battles broke out between the Taliban and Malik's forces. The Taliban, unused to urban warfare, were soundly defeated, with thousands losing their lives either in battle or in mass executions afterward. Nearly fifteen months passed before the Taliban re-captured Mazar-i Sharif on August 8, 1998.

See any mention of Osama in there? Thats because he didn't show up in Afghanistan till 1996, though he had funneled money and arms into the Afghan war...

In 1996, Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan upon the invitation of the Northern Alliance leader Abdur Rabb ur Rasool Sayyaf. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections, which were formalized by a marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter.

Again, this from wikipedia...

Some argue that MAK was supported by the governments of Pakistan, the United States[12] and Saudi Arabia, and that the three countries channelled their supplies through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This account is vehemently denied by the U.S. government, which maintains that U.S. aid went only to Afghan fighters, and that Afghan Arabs had their own sources of funding, an account also supported by Al Qaeda itself. [13]. The State Department quotes CNN analyst Peter Bergen as saying:

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ***." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

While bin Laden and the Taliban eventually became quite close, bin Laden was a relative late-comer to the Taliban.
 

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
G-Man said:
1) Not really its been tried before in the UK and resulted in increased recruitment for the terrorists (IRA) and the largest wave of terrorist attacks suffered by the UK. There is no evidence to suggest G Bay is deterring persons from becoming terrorists but relatives of those detained in error will be far more likely to take up arms.

2) Can you provide me with one example of where detention without trial has had a positive effect and solved the problems?


1) Because everything was peachy between us and Islam before these detentions, right? Ever heard of 9/11? Guess what? they're going to organize against us whether we defend ourselves or not. Even if you had proof that IRA ranks swelled at times detentions like this were taking place (which such evidence is conspicuously absent), that still wouldn't prove that they were linked.

2) As soon as the government gives me top security clearance and starts including me in their operational briefings I will have some way of knowing how many terrorist attacks we are thwarting by detaining terror suspects the way we are. :roll:
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
1) Because everything was peachy between us and Islam before these detentions, right? Ever heard of 9/11? Guess what? they're going to organize against us whether we defend ourselves or not. Even if you had proof that IRA ranks swelled at times detentions like this were taking place (which such evidence is conspicuously absent), that still wouldn't prove that they were linked.

2) As soon as the government gives me top security clearance and starts including me in their operational briefings I will have some way of knowing how many terrorist attacks we are thwarting by detaining terror suspects the way we are. :roll:

1) No, things were not 'peachy' prior to the creation of G-Bay - but we still have to consider if it is a good or bad thing.

As regards the IRA, well the fact that the UK govt. abolished detention without trial BEFORE the end of the IRA's terrorist campaign I think this would clearly suggest they didn't believe it was working. You know we can learn from the mistakes of others before we have to commit the same mistakes ourselves.

2) Maybe you should also count the terrorist attacks attributable to our actions in this 'war' on terror?

You'll never be able to come up with an exact figure so I don't think this would prove anything either way.
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
C'mon, G-Man, read up on this stuff a little before you start posting silly stuff!

Good ol' wikipedia is a good place to start:

See any mention of Osama in there? Thats because he didn't show up in Afghanistan till 1996, though he had funneled money and arms into the Afghan war...

Again, this from wikipedia...

While bin Laden and the Taliban eventually became quite close, bin Laden was a relative late-comer to the Taliban.

Well I wasn't really posting a history of Afghanistan but your info. is appreciated Old and I stand corrected by some of your points.

However, I find it strange that you say there is no mention of Osama til 1996 but 'he had funneled mone and arms during the Afghan war'? If thats correct then clearly he was a 'player' prior to 1996.

Anyway, I have no intention or desire to argue over such minor issues.

I was only demonstrating that the US has provided support to many undesirable regimes throughout the middle east (and wider world) in the past. Our morals are often very questionable and to argue we always have the moral high ground is untrue.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
G-man said:
However, I find it strange that you say there is no mention of Osama til 1996 but 'he had funneled mone and arms during the Afghan war'? If thats correct then clearly he was a 'player' prior to 1996.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. Osama didn't physically relocate to Afghanistan until 1996, though he funneled money to selected Arab affiliates through an al Qaeda predecessor organization (the 'MEK').

G-Man said:
I was only demonstrating that the US has provided support to many undesirable regimes throughout the middle east (and wider world) in the past.

Thats quite true. In the past, we made decisions more on the basis of our perception of stability and trying to maintain 'balances of power' in regions, instead of the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a particular regime. Those policies now, in hindsight, seem misguided, but to the people that were making the decisions at the time, they seemed the right thing to do.

Thats not to say that we still don't do that somewhat, because we do, particularly where we have a strong strategic interest (e.g., Saudi Arabia). But we seem to be making an effort to change, to more aggresively promote democratic principles, especially in those failed or near-failing states that seem ripe for growing or sponsoring terrorism.

Will this succeed? Only time will tell. But (as you correctly noted), the old policy of supporting regimes based on stability alone has been a rather abject failure despite having been attempted over and over for the last two or three decades. Bush can be zinged for lots of stuff, but here I give him credit for at least making the effort to go in a new direction rather than staying with failed policies of the past.
 

justone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
G-Man said:
Your right-wing rhetoric would be laughable if so much wasn't at stake but I fear your brainwashed mind is beyond repair.

The only problem is I physically cannot be brainwashed. You may consider it is like a lack of brain in you understanding.

G-Man said:
The British tried detention without trial against the IRA decades ago...

So, they apparently did not do it right. May be they did not arrest enough. I cannot see a relation --- 2 totally different situations. I like Irish people more than I like British. My Irish friend always throws good St. Patrick parties. Though I often bring British beer,and listen only to British rock.

I guess you do not see who the enemy is. Experience of wars includes hundreds of thousands detained --- the right word is CAPTURED - without any involvement of lawyers. It is an established right of any side in a war – do capture enemy combatants and to detain them until the end of the war, and release them without justice or punishment, if they are not suspected to be criminals. It is all up to the military as long as the military follows some reasonable laws of war. Our military does. If I let our military fight the war I let it deal with POWs.

G-Man said:
I want to see all terrorists arrested, brought to justice and punished accordingly...yes what an aide I am to the enemy side.

2) No, you do a mistake because you require more rights to Muslims, than American soldiers and militia are granted by the Constitution in time of war.
1) Muslim terrorist are not local criminals chased by a bunch of cops. Not even Black Panthers, not even IRA. It is called –capturing enemy combatants fighting against you in war.

G-Man said:
You want to see everyone who looks like a terrorist, has a name like a terrorist and perhaps even dresses like a terrrorist arrested, looked up and never released.

Never said anything like this. It would be a real waste of resources. There may be more rational profiling.

G-Man said:
would realize this only enrages the local population and makes MORE people take up arms against the US. Policies like this are against US interests and will probably lead to the downfall of the US. If you seriously think publishing the cartoons has created more terrorits than invading Iraq you need help.


I already answered – Danish newspaper makes a large Muslim outrage too- I never counted more or less. It is the same meaning – we live with our newspapers and that causes Muslim outrage. Try to figure that out – we make Muslim terrorists just because we are who we are. We are not ideal but our way of life makes them mad. You cannot change America to bend to their wishes. Moral superiority is an American feeling. As well as they feel their moral superiority. Since you reject ours, you might be feeling for them.


G-Man said:
Well S Arabia has been the largest safehaven for terrorists

Do you see a better way to hit S.Arabia (and bunch of others), rather than establishing pro-American regime in Iraq? Suggest a better and REAL way to deal with your complains abut S.Arabia.

G-Man said:
If politics mean we allow this to continue so we have can have their oil

If we don’t get their oil there will be ones who will get it, and those ones will burn it with no regards to pollution in order to dominate over your. This is how the real world exists.

G-Man said:
Who are we goona lose the power to?? No nation will EVER have more military strength than us.

China is coming. And you have no idea what constitutes military strength. Otherwise you would start from including oil supply into military strenghth.

G-Man said:
Is it 'American' to want to imposs our ideologies and beliefs upon the world? You know we are supposed to be the home of the free.

If you want to live in the home of the free you have to fight furiously to protect your home. You cannot be free without a fight. Starting from a street fight and finishing with the science of warfare, the rule is – be the first to hit.

G-Man said:
Its anti-american to argue for world domination....thats not what we are about.-

No other ways of coexistence of nations has been observed. (except for your idealistic imagination -- but America cannot survive on your ideas). See China above. You have to follow the laws.

G-Man said:
Well I ain't a Dem but if your arguement is - 'its OK to be completely useless at dealing with terrorist threats and the reasons behind them because the Dems are crap at it too' then again you are aiding the enemy by denying the American people a competent govt. who can bring an end to this terrorism.

The competent govt in America by definition - is the one elected by the people, appointed by the President and all other reality you are living in. The constitutional procedure makes our govt competent by definition, even if I don’t like personally. We, the people --- we always make sure we have a competent govt. I don’t see you have a real world suggestion how bring the end to terrorism in any practical way.

G-Man said:
I'm morally inferior to Saddam? I don't know whether to laugh or cry about that remark. As I don't take you seriously I'll laugh

I did not say morally ----- I said “”Intellectually””. I do not underestimate the enemy (Sadam). It is another rule of warfare –don’t laugh – you may be just intentionally disinformed.

I was quite tired the last time, I apologize I was a kind of personal in my tone. May be that’s why you are coming again with the same statements, and I have to submit the same answers. [/QUOTE]
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Aquapub, where is the moral supremacy when America supported Pinnochet? The millitary juntas in Argintina, and Brazil?

Where is America's moral supremacy, when as a nation, your government turns a blind eye to the human rights abuses commited by Saudi Arabian government?

Interesting how human rights go out the window when dealing with the world's largest oil producer....

I believe that what America did in Iraq is the right thing, but I do not wear the same rose tinted glasses that you wear. America is not perfect, your government tries it best, but by no means is America some standard of international moral supremacy.:twocents:
 

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 you are basing this on a partisan, ultra-left wing group like Amnesty International, hence it is crap.

Amnesty International screamed for years about the Taliban abuses (and Saddam's) on women and minorities. THE MOMENT America even started taking interest in doing anything about them their tone radically shifted to their classic, "defend the psychotic butcher" setting and they immediately began propagandizing against us.

Get a remotely objective source before you start stating things as facts.
Care to suggest any that would meet with your approval?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GarzaUK said:
Fox News?? lol :spin:

That reminds me (though its off the topic, I'll ask anyway): I'm not a regular watcher of Fox (my wife often berates me for my constant surfing of the news channels), but is it my imagination, or has Fox been considerably more to the center of late? More regular Fox watchers, anyone?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
AussieLibertarian,

Like another poster, you seem too have a prediliction for judging the present based on the past. I responded to the other poster in part, as follows...

Taken as a whole, your rhetoric reminds me very much of Winston Churchill's admonition in 1940, as he was assembling his War Cabinet, "If the present tries to sit in judgment on the past, it will lose the future." ("The Second World War, Volume II: Their Finest Hour" , page 10).

You seem convinced that anything we did, any actions that we undertook in the past that now seem misguided, seemed equally misguided at the time those actions were undertaken, but nevertheless were undertaken anyway. That does a disservice to the people who made those decisions. You, we, weren't there. You, we, cannot know the full range of emotions, available facts, influences, etc. that contributed to those decisions. Decisions that seem poorly formed to us today may have seemed the only proper course at the time. (The Boston Red Sox thought they had made a great deal when they traded George Herman Ruth to the hated Yankees.)

You are doing what Churchill warned about, 'sit[ting] in judgment on the past'. In doing so, you are holding hostage to past mistakes any actions or policies that may be beneficial to our future.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But I am not holding America against the actions of the past....

Hear me out.

During the 80's Reagan's administration would have been full aware of what General Pinochet, and the other military juntas where up to in South America. Thing is that Washington accepted the military forces in these countries cracking down on communists, because it was all in the fight against communism.

As for the past, America, Europe and Australia still deal with the corrupt House of Saud, because we all need their oil. Infact so does any country on this planet that needs the black stuff.

Know my point is, that I support and will continue to support America's actions in Iraq, what I'm trying to say is that America is not the perfect little angel that aquapub is making to make your country out to be....

American foreign policy, has backed some nasty elements in the past, not because they didn't know, but rather that successive administrations have shown a tendency to win at all costs. Problem is that this method of thinking is incredibly short sighted. And has resulted in the mother of all blow back.

I.e, the Afghanistan mahujadeen that were sponsered by the Saudi's and the CIA via the Pakistani secret service.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that America isn't perfect like aquapub, claims it to be. That's all.....
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
People that attack sources for the most part do so because they have no valid arguement to debate the assertions made in a particular article. Or "Op-Ed" as people like to say. So anytime someone posts an article that says something someone doesn't like, you can almost predict the reaction. The source is "liberal biased", "far left", "partisan". Which may or may not be true. But to automatically treat it as nonsense, or left wing lies, or spin spin spin and then leave it at that without ever addressing the jist of the article speaks volumes as to the kind of person you are. And it's not good.

For all you people that like to do this, did you ever think how much of an a.s.s you just made yourself look like? Do you really think that any intellegent poster can't see this a mile away? Do you really think anyone buys your cowardly BS? For those who do this, everyone knows you ran from the arguement like a scared little bunny.

Remember this next time you decide to trash a source without ever addressing the actual issue that is presented.
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
justone said:
So, they apparently did not do it right. May be they did not arrest enough. I cannot see a relation --- 2 totally different situations. I like Irish people more than I like British. My Irish friend always throws good St. Patrick parties. Though I often bring British beer,and listen only to British rock.

No, it failed because they arrested too many people. The catholic community regarded this treatment as an attack against ALL catholics (probably a bit like the Muslims do now). This led to a vast increase in Catholics willing to take up arms against the UK army....not less. A bit like what is being repeated now in the middle east.

I guess you do not see who the enemy is. Experience of wars includes hundreds of thousands detained --- the right word is CAPTURED - without any involvement of lawyers. It is an established right of any side in a war – do capture enemy combatants and to detain them until the end of the war, and release them without justice or punishment, if they are not suspected to be criminals. It is all up to the military as long as the military follows some reasonable laws of war. Our military does. If I let our military fight the war I let it deal with POWs.

There ain't thousands at G-Bay..about 500 or so I think. Most were not CAPTURED by US foces..several were abducted from foreign countries (i.e Italy) but most have been handed over by the Pakistan forces and new Afghan govt. The fact of the matter is we know little, if anything ,about the majority of people detained - let alone if they are enemy combatants. Also, if these people have only attacked the Afghan or Iraqi govts (and not any US forces) then they are by no possible explanation enemy combatants against the US.

2) No, you do a mistake because you require more rights to Muslims, than American soldiers and militia are granted by the Constitution in time of war.
1) Muslim terrorist are not local criminals chased by a bunch of cops. Not even Black Panthers, not even IRA. It is called –capturing enemy combatants fighting against you in war.

Our constitution does not give any rights to our forces which are captured by the enemy. How could it possibly do so? Just because human rights abuses are prevailent throughout the middle east we don't need to stoop to those levels.

Terrorists are caught by intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies.
This is a far more effective method.

I already answered – Danish newspaper makes a large Muslim outrage too- I never counted more or less. It is the same meaning – we live with our newspapers and that causes Muslim outrage. Try to figure that out – we make Muslim terrorists just because we are who we are. We are not ideal but our way of life makes them mad. You cannot change America to bend to their wishes. Moral superiority is an American feeling. As well as they feel their moral superiority. Since you reject ours, you might be feeling for them.

No, we are not a target because of who we are but instead because of what we do. America and Americans can do what we please in the USA but when we start interfering in the lives of others (normally thousands of miles across the globe) they take objection.

Do you see a better way to hit S.Arabia (and bunch of others), rather than establishing pro-American regime in Iraq? Suggest a better and REAL way to deal with your complains abut S.Arabia.

S.Arabia is very pro-American. They sell us all the oil we want. Unfortunately the ruling authority have no intention of installing a democracy or giving up their fabulous wealth. A better way to deal with them? Well they have no intention of ever changing so we either try to destabilise the regime or threaten force. Something has to change but we continue to ignore this hot-bed of religious hatred.

N.B If you think they will change because of elections in Iraq you're mistaken.

If we don’t get their oil there will be ones who will get it, and those ones will burn it with no regards to pollution in order to dominate over your. This is how the real world exists.

Hmm we are the worlds largest polluter. No-one can do worse than we are in this field!! How about trying to find alternative energy sources - without asking the oil & gas industry to do it!

China is coming. And you have no idea what constitutes military strength. Otherwise you would start from including oil supply into military strenghth.

China is expanding yes but what does it matter if they could destroy the world 10 times whilst we could only do it 5 times?? We have all the military capability we will ever need (except maybe ground troops). Oil/Gas supplies are important (more so than they should be) thats why we are right in the middle of the mess in the middle east.

If you want to live in the home of the free you have to fight furiously to protect your home. You cannot be free without a fight. Starting from a street fight and finishing with the science of warfare, the rule is – be the first to hit.

We're not free if you can be arrested, detained and imprisoned for an indefinite period without allegations or proof of a crime.

No other ways of coexistence of nations has been observed. (except for your idealistic imagination -- but America cannot survive on your ideas). See China above. You have to follow the laws.

We don't follow the laws...maybe thats the problem??

The competent govt in America by definition - is the one elected by the people, appointed by the President and all other reality you are living in. The constitutional procedure makes our govt competent by definition, even if I don’t like personally. We, the people --- we always make sure we have a competent govt. I don’t see you have a real world suggestion how bring the end to terrorism in any practical way.

Their ability has no reflection to voting results and does anyone think G W is competent to be in charge of the US??

If you want to see the end of terrorism try tackling the reasons behind it. However, I personally feel it is impossible to end terrorism for ever - thats why this 'war' is impossible to win.

I was quite tired the last time, I apologize I was a kind of personal in my tone. May be that’s why you are coming again with the same statements, and I have to submit the same answers.

Well I possibly responded in kind so I apologize as well.

However, I feel the present US govt. has no idea how to deal with the threat (which is real) and is only making matters worse. We need new ideas and a new govt.
Rather than waiting for Iraq to burn to the ground and the Israel/Palestine crisis to blow up the time for action is now before its too late.
 
Top Bottom