The American Bar Association says Bush's warrantless wire tapping is unconstitutional
Political DiscussionA place to hold political debates and general discussion. Please remember to always respect the opinions of other members and above all else, be civil.
You figure that by invading 2 different nations in only 10 years of his reign, and mass murdering thousands upon thousands upon thousands of others and dumping them into mass graves....
And then you figure upon 2k American soldiers being killed, then what, around 30k civilians, Iraqi army, Iraqi insurgents and foriegn insurgents... wasn't that the rough estimate?
You do the math. Don't be a dolt. Lives have been saved, and what is the price of freedom to the millions of Iraqi men and women that now enjoy it?
That's beyond math. Just takes a little bit of thinking...
Seriously, Zap, you think that what we give to the World is the best thing since sliced bread. Some cultures do not want a society such as ours. It is up to them to decide that, not us. To them, maybe freedom means freedom from nations invading them and telling them that Theocracies are bad. Maybe they want to live under states that make them obey the laws of their Qu'ran.
BTW, the estimated deaths in Iraq, as of two months ago, were about 50.000 since our invasion (that's the conservative estimate). Some have calculated upwards of 250.000 (that's the figure presented by the extreme left). The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, maybe 100.000 to 125.000 Iraqis killed since 2002. Yeah, we're really saving lives there, huh? That's probably more people than Saddam ever killed in his 30 years as dictator.
Seriously, Zap, you think that what we give to the World is the best thing since sliced bread.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, maybe 100.000 to 125.000 Iraqis killed since 2002. Yeah, we're really saving lives there, huh? That's probably more people than Saddam ever killed in his 30 years as dictator.
You're right that maybe the world doesn't want the freedom that we have. Granted. However do you have the stance that they don't want to LIVE? I find it hard that you could stand by and watch someone getting killed and just dismiss it as "well maybe they want to die". Mass murders, genocide, warmongering dictators... maybe it's not our job to stop it. The problem is that this nation is not full of people that are so selfish that they will just stand by and watch evil things happen.
You argue that we are not the global policemen... and if we are, then we shouldn't be. Live and let die. But I don't think that this nation is to that point yet. "Who are we to judge, it's their own business".
Maybe it's just the knight in me, but when I see wrongdoing, I want to stop it. That includes the rape going on, or the mugger mugging old people. In fact, if I just see a fire, I want to rescue people and put it out. How is it that we are global enough to aid earthquake victims and save their lives all over the world but we aren't allowed to save the lives of people that are being systematically butchered? Sudan, Iraq, Uganda, wherever.
As to the estimate of 150k people killed by this recent war... that's more than a bit high. Most all the Iraqi army surrendered before they got involved in serious fighting. There were only 400k total of the Iraqi army. The war itself was very cheap. Civilians weren't targeted, and the widely publicized but few bombs that landed off course didn't kill anything in the 5 figure territory.
Look at Hussain. His war with Iran cost somewhere between 450k and 900k people ALONE. He murdered est. 33k Kuwaitis alone during his invasion of Kuwait, much less the numbers of battle casualties. That alone dwarfs the number of losses it has cost to take him out of power. How many more lives will be saved now that he is gone and out of power?
And I'm not even adding the numbers of his own people that he gassed, dropped acid on, shot or "disappeared".
Granted that they may not like or want freedom. But do they not like or want their own lives? Regardless of whether we gave them freedom, we gave them life. And continue to do so.
You mean like the facts that Kuwait was slant drilling? Or were you talking about the fact that Kuwait was flooding the market with oil, some of which they didnt have mineral rights to? Maybe you are talking about the facts that Saudi Arabia and Iran gave the nod to Iraq to invade Iraq? I am guessing you are talking about the fact that before Iraq invaded Kuwait for attempting to bring down the regions economy, Iraq went to the U.N. and told them what they were going to do, America and the rest of the Security Coucil said they wouldnt do anything to stop them? If not those facts you must be talking about the facts about all those people who stood in front of the world and talked about the rapes and baby murders that the Iraqis were commiting later admitted to making it up to get the world to act? Or is it the idea that sadam shipped his most effective weapons to another country, when he could see a war was about to break out with the strongest military in the universe that he had no chance of surviving personally?
Last edited by nick95673 : 02-17-2006 at 02:55 PM.
Fine, you're right, Kuwait deserved to be the 19th province of Iraq. They should have been invaded. And their population deserved to be raped and executed, which was carefully documented.
Furthermore, the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia ALL gave Saddam the green light to invade.
"can't talk to a psycho like a normal human being"
You argue that we are not the global policemen... and if we are, then we shouldn't be. Live and let die. But I don't think that this nation is to that point yet. "Who are we to judge, it's their own business".
Maybe it's just the knight in me, but when I see wrongdoing, I want to stop it. That includes the rape going on, or the mugger mugging old people. In fact, if I just see a fire, I want to rescue people and put it out. How is it that we are global enough to aid earthquake victims and save their lives all over the world but we aren't allowed to save the lives of people that are being systematically butchered? Sudan, Iraq, Uganda, wherever.
No, not live and let die, live and let live. We do not have the right to tell people how to live any more than they have the right to tell us how to live. You get mad because Mexicans are becoming a majority and, soon, they will be pushing their agenda in those states where they have the majority of the votes. That is Democracy, yet you cry about it (you and others).
The difference between Iraq and other people we held (earthquake victims, flood victims, tsunami victims) is that we go into those sovereign nations with approval of the government. Just as we have laws, the international community has laws. You cannot go breaking into someone's house just because you think they are going to steal your lawnmower. Just the same, you cannot invade a sovereign country because you think there might be a threat or because you just don't like them. That is why we have international law and the United Nations. We went into places like Kosovo and Somalia as U.N. peacekeepers, not to invade them and depose their government.
So, to answer your question, we are not allowed to save the lives of those who are being systematically butchered unless we have the U.N. and international law on our side. Just as you cannot go breaking into your neighbor's house because you heard someone scream, no nation can invade another just because there are rummors of people being killed, tortured, or otherwise mistreated unless the U.N. authorizes it (you would need to call the police to go into your neighbors house, right? That's what the U.N. is). If you think we ought to go into Suddan or Sierra Leon, you petition your Congressmen to ask the U.N. to intervene. That is the law and rule of law is the only thing that keeps our societies stable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
As to the estimate of 150k people killed by this recent war... that's more than a bit high. Most all the Iraqi army surrendered before they got involved in serious fighting. There were only 400k total of the Iraqi army. The war itself was very cheap. Civilians weren't targeted, and the widely publicized but few bombs that landed off course didn't kill anything in the 5 figure territory.
Bush admitted to 35.000 Iraqi citizens being killed in a speach he gave back in October. That was believed, at the time, to be the lowest figure publicly available (and it very well was, so Bush ran with it). Let's say the lowest figure was right, just for the sake of argument. That means the U.S. had killed 35.000 Iraqi citizens in just over 3 years. That includes their armed forces, insurgents, and innocent civilians alike. Look it up.
You say the war was cheap. The loss of one life is expensive. Do you not value life? Have the teachings of Christ not taught you that killing is wrong, no matter what the reason? I doubt Christ would ever hurt a mosquito, even if it gave him Malaria, much less kill a human being. Every life if valuable, as those who support the Pro-Life movement will attest. Therefore, even the killing of one person in the war is a tragedy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
Regardless of whether we gave them freedom, we gave them life. And continue to do so.
We gave life to whom? To the people Saddam would've killed? Yes, but at what price? We took the lives of innocent people in the process. Is that acceptable? Is it OK for us to kill 300 innocent people if, in so doing, we save 300 people from being killed by Saddam? What's the difference? Oh, the blood is on our hands and we're morally supperior to Saddam so that makes it OK, right?
You mention the Kuwaiti people who died. Did you know that what Kuwait was doing to Iraq was really an act of war as defined in international law? To slant-drill, as Kuwait was doing, is considered invasive on a sovereign nations territory. But, since Kuwait was selling oil cheaply to the U.S., Russia, France, Britain, and others, we chose to not acknowledge that fact and, instead, claim that Saddam's invasion (even though provoked by the lack of action by the U.N.) was illegal. I'm not saying his invasion was legal, merely that it was provoked and, were the U.S. in the same position, we would've went to war, too (also illegally, a la invasion of Iraq three years ago).
Fine, you're right, Kuwait deserved to be the 19th province of Iraq. They should have been invaded. And their population deserved to be raped and executed, which was carefully documented.
Did you know that Kuwait was a part of Iraq until the British decided to separate it and make it it's own Emirate right after WWI? Prior to that, what is now Kuwait (as well as the disputed territories that caused the Persian War between Iran and Iraq) were all Iraq but the British thought they knew what they were doing so they made the Middle East look like what they thought it should look like.
Not surprisingly, when you lump people together under one government, you get trouble (Yugoslavia, Kashmir, and Taiwan are perfect examples).
back to topic. who here thinks someone will actaully impeach the moron?
I hope he doesn't get impeached because then we get Cheney to be our President. That's even worse.
BTW, to get back on topic, if the terrorists are smart, and they usually are, they are using VoIP (Voice over IP) to communicate because it is virtually impossible to track or even listen in on these conversations. When you send packets over the Internet, they go the path of least resistance and hop router to router. Every voice packet will take a different route and, even if you manage to capture some of them, you will not be able to piece them together.
That is why we are having such a hard time getting SIGINT (Signal Intelligence) from China. Not only do they use VoIPs, they also use Fiber Optics which are notoriously difficult (almost impossible) to tap into.
Hell, even if they use Skype, they can encrypt their data and nobody will ever crack it, even if they capture the packets.
Oh, but openly discussing this is giving the terrorists an edge. We need to shut up and not say a word or we risk empowering and emboldening the enemy. SHHHHHH
He wont be impeached. He will last full term, and then some other jackass puppet will be put into office. I just hope that instead of spending all of the nations money on war, he puts it into education, science, and future technology to save the envoirnment.
Or were you talking about the fact that Kuwait was flooding the market with oil, some of which they didnt have mineral rights to? Maybe you are talking about the facts that Saudi Arabia and Iran gave the nod to Iraq to invade Iraq? I am guessing you are talking about the fact that before Iraq invaded Kuwait for attempting to bring down the regions economy, Iraq went to the U.N. and told them what they were going to do, America and the rest of the Security Coucil said they wouldnt do anything to stop them? If not those facts you must be talking about the facts about all those people who stood in front of the world and talked about the rapes and baby murders that the Iraqis were commiting later admitted to making it up to get the world to act? Or is it the idea that sadam shipped his most effective weapons to another country, when he could see a war was about to break out with the strongest military in the universe that he had no chance of surviving personally?
