Due Process? What constitutes due process for military action? Nations do what is in their best interests and to expect anything else is naive.
Printable View
Due Process? What constitutes due process for military action? Nations do what is in their best interests and to expect anything else is naive.
That was in response to Miles, I gather.
KILL LISTS, ındefınıte detentıon, ıncarceratıon wıthout trıal, warrantless wıretappıng, NDAA, suspensıon of Habeus Corpus, dismissal of Posse Comıtatus, ınvadıng Lıbya wıthout Congressıonal approval, ınvadıng Iraq despıte 3 out of 5 members of UN Sec Councıl votıng agaınst the ınvasıon, "goıng ıt alone", etc etc.
The United States has to be willing to "go it alone" because in some situations it is needed, HOWEVER, we should pick our battles more carefully. As soon as we got involved in Egypt & more so with Libya and we made 0 attempt to help the Green Revolution in Iran it showed weakness on our part and we came off as meddlers.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
The "reasons" we got involved so heavily in Libya is due to our Allies Italy & France who get oil from Libya and who gets called out for intervening??? The United States as per usual.
Egypt was fucking disgusting. I don't give a flying fuck what Mubarak did in his country all I know is that the guy kept the peace with Israel and that made our job all the easier for the past 30 years. And now we have the Muslim Brotherhood in power....oh, what a refreshing progressive change :rolleyes: ....I'm sure they won't call for the destruction of Israel, I mean it's only part of their agenda to destroy "Zionism".
The warning I would give people is that the people "behind the curtain" of Islam in politics are counting on the good intentions of the socialists/leftists in America and elsewhere around the world. Sure they'll promise to be more advanced in their politics and be nicer to women and prisoners and so on, but once they get enough power they'll turn on those lefties and only the hardcore no drinking no dancing no fun Islamists will be around and well it's going to dishearten quite a few liberal idealists who thought "things would be different". You side with such groups at your own peril, the Gigi Ibrahim's (one of the "famous" bloggers of the Tahir Square demostrations) of the world will find out the truth about who they support and what they think of "Women's Rights" soon enough.
Pakistan Parents Killed Daughter for Eyeing Boy - ABC News
".....Oooooh how Progressive of them, gee I wish my country could be more like that" - said nobody ever
You don't have to take any action to overthrow dictators, you just have to stop sending them billions of dollars of weapons and "domestic security" equipment and letting the dictators violently repress, torture and imprison hundreds of millions of people while still literally holding their hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongThe US has had friends that get a bit too comfortable in power, it's true but what would you have the US do Mr. Charts & Graphs? We could help overthrow the "dictator" but that's meddling....Well we could stop trading with them and levee sanctions against them, but that "hurts their citizens", we could let them vote and if that "vote" turns out to support the guy who has been in charge forever then what should we do? If we take action we're meddling if we don't take action then we're heartless, so Kirkland (and you are the PERFECT person to ask) how does the United States win in such a situation? Given your view I don't see a "winning scenario" but I also know that's exactly what your kind wants because for some reason you think perhaps the world would be better off without the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Did I dodge your question? Will you continue barking at me in attempt to gain further insights on this topic or are you mollified? I certainly hope you got what you wanted out of this answer because I'm done reading your bullshit because here's the deal you want me to take 100% of what you post as the Gospel truth and yet I supply facts and statistics and ask questions and you don't believe my facts, pooh pooh my statistics, and never answer my questions.....so I'm done debating you.
http://www.popular-pics.com/PPImages...ding-hands.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-mu6dW4pra...nd+mubarak.jpg
But then if you did that maybe these guys would do oil deals with Chinese and Russian companies instead of American ones. So obviously America is going to do what's best for its oil companies and other companies with big business deals paid for by oil money. But don't try and dress that up as wanting to "help" people because it's offensive nonsense. You're literally holding hands with mass-murdering tyrants so your corporations can make big profits.
So Obama has changed that???? I mean why else show pictures of only W unless you're some sort of hyper partisan jackass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Yes Lyle... excellent. Good to hear you agree on that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
But here's my point. Let Italy and France fight their own battles. If it's Italy's and France's oil at stake, and they feel like invading or fighting Libya..... let them. This is where the U.S. needs to stay out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Yes, you might be right on all counts. No one is turning a blind eye on civil right atrocities in some sectors of the Islamic world. However... the U.S. cannot take upon itself the role of policeman for the rest of the world. Let the global community condemn these acts. Let them take the lead. If and only if the global community requests help from the U.S.... THEN we can act. Again, it's a fine line to walk.
No, Obama hasn't changed that at all. It's just that since guys like the one in the bottom picture started getting overthrown by popular uprisings and imprisoned he's been careful to avoid getting his photograph taken with any of the remaining ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
But there is a good reason for using the Bush photographs. Bush was this guy -- from his second inauguration speech on the White House lawn :
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.
and, hilariously,
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
and so on.
So you agree America should change its policy of propping these scumbags up in order to make money?
Tito,
I couldn't agree more we should have told France to go it alone but basically the called in their favor. We pulled the NATO mutual defense card for Afghanistan and they basically said you owe us on this one. The really glaring part about the whole thing is US military strength has basically allowed our NATO partners to become practically useless for any real combined effort. I'm not saying a British Para is a watered down version of our 82nd or Rangers but the fact that NATO couldn't handle Libya w/o us (our technology) is very telling. If it were up to me I'd pack up our shit and bring it home then tell the world they can go it alone for a while.
Oh well that's nice to read at least you're not in denial over that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
I think we're homing in on the root cause, Victor. The smart thing for the U.S. to do would be to address the NATO in the following manner:
"Look guys, for whatever reason, we're always seen as the meddling bad guys in conflicts across the globe. The whole purpose of NATO is to have a unified global power precisely for the resolution of conflicts in different parts of the world that could potentially spill over and affect other nations. Right now, you're (NATO) a bunch of wimps, basically depending on us, big bad U.S.A., to come running over and put out whatever fires flare up across the world. And for our troubles, we're hated by most of the Arab world, and a few other countries. This, in turn, helps fuel the acts of terrorism against our citizens, both in our own country and abroad.
We can't go back and undo the past. But we ask... no... we demand that NATO implements an action plan to strengthen its forces sooner rather than later, so we can go back to concentrating on our own affairs, and take a break from this bad guy image we've gotten. We're tired of getting shit all over us every time we're asked (or not) to come to the rescue. That is not our job exclusively. All other allied nations have to stop leaning on us, knowing we'll do the dirty work and get shit on in return."
Regards,
Uncle Sam
....I like to dream too
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Which basically confirms the fact that the U.S. would rather keep its "ace up the sleeve".... meddling in handpicked foreign affairs that suit a particular political and/or economic agenda.... while crying about getting hated for having to be the world's "policeman".
;)
Hey, don't complain to me, complain to Obama, HE thought it was a great idea....though I'm betting when Benghazi went down he wanted a do-over
He thought WHAT was a good idea?? We're talking U.S. foreign policy here. Can you put your anti-Obama rants aside for just a minute? Or are you implying that all the U.S.'s problems abroad are Obama's fault also?
What the US needs is a defined foreign policy. A set standard of protocols that lead to military action (define what types and when they are used), diplomatic engagement, introduction of UN resolutions etc.
Obama is Commander in Chief and he had the option of saying "OK we'll help you out France & Italy" or "Sorry fellas we're kind of tied up at the moment" and he chose to help out. And what do we have to show for it? Sure Moamar Qudaffi is dead & gone, but now we have a Libya that's split in two and half of it is of the "Let's burn down the West even if it means we will destroy the entire world" variety of government and by government I mean insane mob of Militant Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
But hey we're supposed to re-elect Barry aren't we? I mean that cat has done such a bang up job from everything to unemployment (higher than when he was first elected) to foreign policy (we're being attacked by terrorists again) am I right? So who's ready for 4 more years???
Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongObama is Commander in Chief and he had the option of saying "OK we'll help you out France & Italy" or "Sorry fellas we're kind of tied up at the moment" and he chose to help out. And what do we have to show for it? Sure Moamar Qudaffi is dead & gone, but now we have a Libya that's split in two and half of it is of the "Let's burn down the West even if it means we will destroy the entire world" variety of government and by government I mean insane mob of Militant Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
But hey we're supposed to re-elect Barry aren't we? I mean that cat has done such a bang up job from everything to unemployment (higher than when he was first elected) to foreign policy (we're being attacked by terrorists again) am I right? So who's ready for 4 more years???
Yes... that damn Obama. He's ruined all the good will that George W. had meticulously and skillfully built up with the rest of the world throughout his 8 years as President.
:vd:
People like to paint W as some sort of gun slinging cowboy and so I would like to ask "Would W have allowed our men to get massacred in Banghazi?"...I mean if W was the "Shoot first ask questions later" leader everyone seems to believe he was then you've got to figure he would have handled it in a manner that would have at the very least had our Armed Forces ATTEMPT to rescue those men.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
And Fort Hood? That's still strictly a case of "workplace violence", nevermind what the guy said about Allah.
also Benghazi happened because of a VIDEO on YOUTUBE ;)
Again I strongly disagree with you Tito. You falsely trumpet the naive and indoctrinated belief that the USA has some kind of pursuit of nobility on its mind, when most of the evidence points in quite the opposite direction. Do your research on Reagan and his covert operations in central America in the 1980's. Keeping it in modern times alone just look at which nation has most tried to restrict due international process in the UN with the veto. The US is the guilty partner by far. Russia tails far down in the list. Then if the US gets angry with France for vetoing Iraq they get angry and say 'do it our way or you will suffer' offering incentives for the likes of Russia to commit terrorist acts in Chechnya just as long as they support it. These are mafia tactics and this is America.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
America didn't give a shit about the people of Iraq whatsoever. It was just another in the grand imperial design. First you have manifest destiny and wipe out the natives, and then you embark it on a global scale and have military bases spread throughout the empire. It is no trick of the imagination. Iraq was an illegal war based on Nuremburg Principles and furthermore it had little international support. Most in the world were against it and regarded America as a menace. Other 100, 000 deaths, continued torture, bombings and uncertainty are testament to how immoral it all was. And let's not forget how poor the US made Iraq with sanctions which only really affected the general population. America has never cared about the people of Iraq.
It isn't a system designed to care. It is a psychopathic war machine that has to justify that ridiculous military spending in some way. And Romney thinks it needs more!
International consensus, not commiting acts of aggression. Iraq was a grab for oil and it failed. It was an obvious breach of international law and Bush and Blair are still yet to be held account for their crimes. They are obvious crimes. Fabricating evidence, war of aggression, acts of terror and torture etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Nations should do what is in their own interests, but force has no relevance to such an argument. That is criminal and abusive.
Everybody has gone mad.
Lyle You can't seriously blame Obama for Benghazi and then fail to mention the fact that he hunted down and killed the uber cunt Bin Laden, something W never quite managed. And TitoFan You can't moan about America being stretched and NATO being wimps whilst neglecting to mention the fact that in 90% of conflicts defending democracy the little old UK is first to help whilst the rest of the UN and NATO sit on their hands. Kirkland you seem to think that everything in the world is America and the UK's fault and that without them we would all be eating candyfloss. Miles you go on and on about the horror whilst flippantly comparing your haircut to an auschwitz Jew, well that is all very witty and all that but most Jews did not have the privilege of leaving the shower afterwards.
Miles ,Brockton, TitoFan and Kirkland do you think that the Chemical weapons that Saddam used to massacre the Kurds were just figments of the dead's imagination?
The truth is the world is not run by one great conspiracy and dressed up as a fight for freedom by Evil men, propping up others, just as it is not run by incorruptible eunuchs with only the happiness of mandkind filling their hearts. It is a mess but all hope is not lost and people muddle along because we are a young species, struggling to live together in a globalised world, full of disparate values. Whilst things in retrospect could always have been done with more care and efficiency, I can not in good conscience focus on drones killing terrorists in Pakistan without acknowledging the "horror" of Taliban edicts that are responsible for shooting young girls in the face for attending school or hanging people for the "crime" of being raped.
"Should we just look away and cover are ears?"
America can be dumb and Britain can be arrogant but that is not the same as Evil. Doing nothing is collaboration.
Greenbeanz, and how long was America a good friend of Sadaam's while content in the knowledge of what acts Saddam was commiting upon his own people? The hypocrisy is astounding. However, leaving aside that observation and heading towards the so called reason for war, was that Saddam posessed WMD and posed an iminent threat. Now that was a lie and we know that there simply was not such a threat. We commited a war of agression on an impoverished state, with next to no self defense, and yet interestingly, is in possession of significant supplies of oil. We went to war to war without the backing of the UN and America threatened weaker states to garner support and even encouraged Russia to murder in Chechnya to get them on side. France nobly said no to this nonsense and we all know how the US media reacted to that one. Let's put aside that the US is the largest vetoer in the UN and that US media only ever puts that in a minor paragraph on page 24.
It is no coincidence that America working for its cartels has spread misery, murder and backed dictatorship and torture around the globe for nigh on half a century. It is no conspiracy, it is huge and evidence overwhelming. The polls show that it isn't a conspiracy, but more popular opinion than anything else.
Lyle, the Nazi's restricted freedom and commited wars of agression. America is now restricting freedom and commiting acts of agression. With the support of Israel America also supports the Gaza concentration camp. It is quite fascistic, just more subtle with the two party dictatorship.
Miles you are blinded by your hatred. You are puffed up with the pride of feeling righteous indignation but we both know that you are simply cherry picking the same tired old arguments to align yourself with what you feel ironically is the cause of freedom and the downtrodden. Saddam was for over 20 years a totalitarian madman much more like Hitler and the Nazi racists in his widespread genocidal atrocities than the U.S or the U.K. You use the UN as leverage in your argument and yet you do not even agree with them. You pretend to be on the side of the powerless and oppressed and yet your ethos would leave the very same to be raped,tortured, imprisoned, and murdered by the dictators you accuse America and Britain of supporting. Should your ideas hold water then the Muslims would have been wiped out in Bosnia whilst the British and US watched and wrung their hands. Pacifism in the face of Evil is not a real world option, it was no more noble when the French let the Nazis take their Jews,gypsys,gays and disabled away than it was to ignore the people of Libya. It dishonors the noble martyrs of the French resistance and the civilians who suffered at the hands of Ghadaffi.
International consensus? You are truly naive but hey if you got mob rule anything is cool. There is no international law governing when a military action is allowed or not. Obviously force has a lot relevance considering history.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfInternational consensus, not commiting acts of aggression. Iraq was a grab for oil and it failed. It was an obvious breach of international law and Bush and Blair are still yet to be held account for their crimes. They are obvious crimes. Fabricating evidence, war of aggression, acts of terror and torture etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Nations should do what is in their own interests, but force has no relevance to such an argument. That is criminal and abusive.
GB is just killing it tonight.
:appl::bowdown::rocks::beerchug:
Greenbeanz, you are wrong. I have hatred for nobody and use only the influence of highly regarded scholars to make my claims. In the Nazi Germany/US similarities, there are marked similarities. Preventive war is preventive war and these are the crimes that Nazi Germany commited. The US dismisses the UN and Nazi Germany dismissed the League of Nations. These are nations beyond law and reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
You are insane if you think Saddam was more like Hitler than someone like Bush. Saddam did not invade two independant countries and wipe out hundreds of thousands and injure millions. Saddam killed thousands and likewise tortured, but Bush and Hitler were on a far greater scale. It is nuts to say Hitler was more like Saddam than Bush.
Who is to say that I don't agree with the UN? On the whole I certainly do. Infallible no, but the closest we have to coherance. Even then still it has been grotesquely abused by the US and its strongarm mafia tactics. Sanctions on Iraq for how long despite it harming hundreds of thousands, 'but it was worth it' I read one high level spokesperson saying. Now sanctions on Iran. It exists for no other purpose than to demoralise and weaken before the inevitable assault. America will only attack if it thinks the opponent has no teeth. North Korea is quite safe in that regard.
I don't defend oppresion, but I don't think randomly picking a country and having our wicked way with it is a viable alternative either. Democracy, but only the party we want in place is not a credible means to an end either. Hamas was elected in Palestine and thus was forced to pay the penalty for not choosing the Amercan option. Sorry, but being labelled a terrorist by the worlds leading proponent of state terror really doesn't have any meaning.
In the case of Libya, well sure, get involved but don't decide it on your own in The White House. And then don't ignore Syria and say we cannot get involved. Don't ignore Bahrain. Don't continue to be best mates with the brutal Saudi regime. It is hypocrisy and unfortunately because of the clever forms of indoctrination we have in Britain and America, we are not supposed to think outside of the history winners mindset. Our nations are appalling and it doesn't take hatred to say as much. It is an entirely reasoned and rational point of view. We are power abusers and bullies and deserve a bloody good kick in the balls.
Saddam attacked both Iran and Kuwait.
Saddam attacked Iran with the backing of whom exactly? Several billion dollars in aid and the means to produce WMD which was later used as the justification to invade Iraq despite a decade of crippling sanctions and military dismantling.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Just a little bit of hypocrisy, methinks. Do you guys really believe any of this stuff you come up with?
You said "Saddam did not invade two independant countries"
I responded pointing out your were wrong. You know those facts you like to debate with? That wasn't one of them. Now I have to get back to reading Mein Kampf.
I have selective amnesia. That's pretty cool, Saddam was very much like Bush and even had the backing of Daddy one time. Rather nifty.
America dropped depleted uranıum all over Iraq and babıes are beıng born wıth deformıtıes because of thıs. Whats the dıff between that and Saddams gassıng the Kurds? Nothıng. POt callıng kettle black. The US ıs ın no posıtıon at all ın any way ımagıneable to preach tot he rest of the world about rıghts and human protectıon. Recently the Pentagon admıtted to gassıng people ın Bıloxı Mıssıssıppı and St Louıs Mıssourı ın 1961 to test out a new fangled vaccıne agaınst certaın deadly pathogens.
Greenbeanz and lyle--do youthınk thıs doesnt count for anythıng ın the arguments Gnadlaf and I are makıng then? How about delıberately ınjectıng 312 Guatemalans ın the 40s and 50s wıth syphılıs and typhoıd just to test out a brand new vaccıne? Oh no that ısnt evıl ıs ıt? Its Red Whıte and Blue!
The Reptilian overlords made us do it
yes Lyle youre rıght about that one, but the Americans should have resısted those bastards. Copy/paste these headlines ınto Yahoo fopr example.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
U.S. Admits Bio-Weapons Tests - CBS News
PENTAGON ADMITS SPRAYING SAN FRANCISCO CAL
U.S. Admits Bio-Weapons Tests - CBS News - Breaking News
US admits to 50 secret tests of bio weapons on troops
Don't forget the LSD they gave to the CIA spooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Image Detail for - acid blotter art - group picture, image by tag - keywordpictures.com
Elevator Music?Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
That is some awesome blotter art.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Image Detail for - acid blotter art - group picture, image by tag - keywordpictures.com