I agree with Arkh's last sentence, but nothing either of those guys did has lead to "peace." If anything, what they did lead to the unnecessary deaths of more of our service men and women. There is a right way to go about securing information that the government wants to keep secret, and what they did isn't it.
no peace in the strict sense, but to change the attitudes of people and stop abusive behavior by the government, what sometimes wikilieks is good about call attention of people around the world for the disrespec about human rights.
I agree with Arkh's last sentence, but nothing either of those guys did has lead to "peace." If anything, what they did lead to the unnecessary deaths of more of our service men and women. There is a right way to go about securing information that the government wants to keep secret, and what they did isn't it.
Here is the thing you don't understand: even if you think you are the "good guys", even if you are, your nation started the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So anything done to lessen your impact is a step toward peace.
I agree the Nobel prize for peace is given to anyone for any reason, but having a grudge against Manning or Assange for releasing things which should have always been accessible to the public like Tas does is something I don't like (you can breeze now).
I'm for the light being shined on shady things the Government does. To put out information about a war or war(s) we are currently holding operations in is pretty stupid. It puts lives even more at risk than already are being risked. If the war had been over and we were no longer there, fine release it. But to do that WHILE we are still active in military operations isn't right.
ASDF...do not get me started. Wrong Arkh, period and end of story, wrong. Manning needs to be DEAD. I personnal would enjoy being the hammer. He put American lives in danger and I do not care what the reason is for doing so, right, honorable, whatever.
For his outstanding courage and bravery in exposing war crimes, we the undersigned nominate Bradley Manning, Private First Class of the U.S. Army for the Nobel Peace Prize of 2011. We recognize that throughout history states, organizations and people fearing reprisals are reluctant to confront powerful, militarized states that commit war crimes. But a young man, Bradley Manning, acted on his conscience when others could not or would not do so.
A 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst, Pfc. Manning faces decades in prison for allegedly leaking a video of a US helicopter attack that killed at least eleven Iraqi civilians to the website Wikileaks. Among the dead were two working Reuters reporters. Two children were also severely wounded in the attack.
Bradley Manning, acted in accordance with the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice under which it is his duty to obey lawful orders but likewise he must refuse to obey orders that are in direct violation of the US Constitution. The leaks document war crimes.
Its only a war crime if those civilians were TARGETED knowing they were civilians. I don't believe that was the case for one single fucking second. Our soldiers don't do things like that and then have it covered up by their superiors. If they do things like that then they get sent to Leavenworth.
I still disagree Arkh. Putting the soldiers fighting to protect my freedom in harm's way so you can get some headlines is ALWAYS unacceptable. If you have a problem with the wars there is a way to fix that without putting soldiers lives more at risk. VOTE OUT THE FUCKS THAT SENT US THERE!
The world owes the accused Wikileaks whistleblower, Bradley Manning, a debt of gratitude for his contribution to world peace at grave risk to himself. Awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize will be a way of establishing that no nation-state, regardless of its military might, is above international humanitarian law. We thank him for his courage in bringing the truth to the people of the world.
The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan violate Article 2 of the United Nations Charter as neither Iraq nor Afghanistan presented an acute and imminent threat of war to the United States, the only legally valid basis for war. The illegal wars waged by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan have cost the lives of thousands of U.S. military personnel, the lives of unknown numbers that are estimated by reliable researchers to total well over a million of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and squandered U.S. treasury, in vain, that could have been used for human needs.
Signatories Kathleen Barry, Ph.D. Professor Emerita of Pennsylvania State University
The world owes the accused Wikileaks whistleblower, Bradley Manning, a debt of gratitude for his contribution to world peace at grave risk to himself. Awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize will be a way of establishing that no nation-state, regardless of its military might, is above international humanitarian law. We thank him for his courage in bringing the truth to the people of the world.
The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan violate Article 2 of the United Nations Charter as neither Iraq nor Afghanistan presented an acute and imminent threat of war to the United States, the only legally valid basis for war. The illegal wars waged by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan have cost the lives of thousands of U.S. military personnel, the lives of unknown numbers that are estimated by reliable researchers to total well over a million of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and squandered U.S. treasury, in vain, that could have been used for human needs.
Signatories Kathleen Barry, Ph.D. Professor Emerita of Pennsylvania State University
Are you inciting my rage, or just posting what she said hoping to get a reaction. If you agree with her, that is your entitlement. It does not mean I do. I spent 22 years in the military and I guarantee those things did not happen ON PURPOSE. But his treasonous act put more lives in danger and that wikileaks bastage is as wrong. The ends do not justify the means, and two wrongs do not make a right. I hope he gets life and then some at least, and it would be better if they just found him guilty, gave him 30 minutes to say bye to his Mom and then hung him in the compound square.
For his outstanding courage and bravery in exposing war crimes, we the undersigned nominate Bradley Manning, Private First Class of the U.S. Army for the Nobel Peace Prize of 2011. We recognize that throughout history states, organizations and people fearing reprisals are reluctant to confront powerful, militarized states that commit war crimes. But a young man, Bradley Manning, acted on his conscience when others could not or would not do so.
A 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst, Pfc. Manning faces decades in prison for allegedly leaking a video of a US helicopter attack that killed at least eleven Iraqi civilians to the website Wikileaks. Among the dead were two working Reuters reporters. Two children were also severely wounded in the attack.
Bradley Manning, acted in accordance with the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice under which it is his duty to obey lawful orders but likewise he must refuse to obey orders that are in direct violation of the US Constitution. The leaks document war crimes.
Quote:
Wikileaks doesn’t identify its source for the logs. Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, who’s being held on charges of leaking some classified material to Wikileaks, claimed in online chats to have leaked a much larger database from the war in Iraq, covering a half-a-million events from 2004 through 2009.
Like the Afghan database, the Iraq database purportedly contains latitude-and-longitude information, timestamps and casualty figures, according to the description Manning gave ex-hacker Adrian Lamo
The Information highlighted ALONE could give an enemy very valuable information of how,when,where and time to attack. Wikileaks gave Classified information. If Manning didn't think it was right to do his job, he should have said so. He would have been removed end of story. He put lives at risk, by leaking this BEFORE the war was over.
This is all a bullshit scam with the Nobel PEACE prize. Give the fucking peace prize to the men in Seal Team Six that killed Bin Laden, they did more for peace than this Manning kid could ever do.
Are you inciting my rage, or just posting what she said hoping to get a reaction.
calm down old man, I'm just posting to see what are the arguments, I didnt know nothing about that until you guys post about it.
Barbara Williams says:
Thank you, Professor Barry, for nominating Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize. If the allegations against him are true, he is undoubtedly a true patriot and one of the greatest heros our country has produced. He deserves to be freed from solitary confinement and released or brought to trial. The Obama Administration is denying Manning his constitutional rights.
Mithus is right about one thing, the way Manning is being treated is COMPLETELY FUCKED UP. I dont care what you THINK he did, hes an American who is already in custody and deserves his timely trial.
If he actually commited the crimes and was not just blowing smoke to some asshat in a chat room, and if the whole thing wasnt conjured out of thin air int eh first place - HOLD THE FUCKING TRIAL, PROVE HE IS GUILTY then SENTENCE HIM.
Abusing the shit out of him, and denying him his rights as a citizen because some asshole prosecutor simply ACCUSES him of a very unpopular crime is utter bullshit. This bullshit of govt holding US citizens for years without trial is a much much bigger problem and threat to our country than all the leaks in the past half century combined.
No. You should always be able to know what your tax dollars are used for, any secret for the government (even if they promise to release them in 50 years) goes against this principle.
Originally Posted By: Derid
Abusing the shit out of him, and denying him his rights as a citizen because some asshole prosecutor simply ACCUSES him of a very unpopular crime is utter bullshit. This bullshit of govt holding US citizens for years without trial is a much much bigger problem and threat to our country than all the leaks in the past half century combined.
That's what dictatorship usually do. Detaining political opponents like in China, North Korea, whateveristan etc.
No Arkh, sorry, but in the case of secrets with respect to military activities that are on-going and current, no way, no how. After the fact, perhaps. He is not a political opponent, he is a member of the military who released secrets. Big difference.
Derid, sorry, but I disagree. First, he is a member of the US Military, and when hhe signed up and took the oath, he also did so understanding that he was subject to the UCMJ, not the code of law of the United States. Treason is plain and simply a crime punishable by death.
Sorry Vuldan, until he gets his courts-martial everything you are saying about him is moot... because he has not been convicted of anything.
Soldier or not, the govt does not have the right to hold him in solitary confinement and abuse the shit out of him for all of eternity without a trial.
You keep talking about punishment, but you do not even know he is guilty of anything. A supposed chat log, and the word of one douchebag. Oh, and a big media smear blitz.... thats all you know about the guy.
Sorry Vuldan, until he gets his courts-martial everything you are saying about him is moot... because he has not been convicted of anything.
Soldier or not, the govt does not have the right to hold him in solitary confinement and abuse the shit out of him for all of eternity without a trial.
You keep talking about punishment, but you do not even know he is guilty of anything. A supposed chat log, and the word of one douchebag. Oh, and a big media smear blitz.... thats all you know about the guy.
Well, yes and no. There is a fine line about your right to exercise your rights in the military. I am no lawyer and I am certain there are arguements to both sides, but you contractually agree to abide by a new set of rules and laws when you join. Additionally, treasonous acts are really tricky. Your implied meaning is that since there has been no trial, he can not be detained. That is incorrect. I am not 100% sure of the specifics, but this site outlines and explains much;
I am fairly confident that this would not have reached the level it has without some proof in the first place, and Assange deserves nothing but a swift bullet to the back of the head because like all crusaders, he thinks his actions are justified no matter the consequence.
Assange deserves nothing but a swift bullet to the back of the head because like all crusaders, he thinks his actions are justified no matter the consequence.
[quote=Derid]Assange deserves nothing but a swift bullet to the back of the head because like all crusaders, he thinks his actions are justified no matter the consequence.
Disagreed.
But don't come crying about socialism and big governments when you think attacking other countries is normal and creates special rules.
[quote=Derid]Assange deserves nothing but a swift bullet to the back of the head because like all crusaders, he thinks his actions are justified no matter the consequence.
Disagreed.
But don't come crying about socialism and big governments when you think attacking other countries is normal and creates special rules.
I am not crying about socialism Arkh. I believe every socialist governnment should be destroyed. Period. I am not sure what you mean by creating special rules. Military actions which are directed by the commander in chief are, in my eyes, exempt from your rules of free knowledge. Any action by any reporter, news source or other which puts the lives of American Fighting men and women, or their allies, in needless danger, is not a good thing, but a thing which merits ruthless and quick removal from the gene pool of the human race.
I do not subscribe to some misguided belief that there are not governmental actions which are not on the up and up. I also do not subscribe to the naive belief that there is a guilt free government on the planet. I do however subscribe to the belief that thus far, in modern history, there are very few governments which have better merit than a democratic one, actually, scratch that, there are none.
You are sadly mistaken if you believe that America has any need to bend to the will of any country on the planet. We are weakened each and every time we allow the ridiculous notion that we are somehow going to take all the evil bullshit the world throws at us and shrug it off since we are all about freedom of speech and action, religion and the pursuit of happiness. Personally, it would not even bother my sleep pattern if Iran became a glass parking lot from border to border tomorrow, swiftly followed by Pakistan, and then any other country which houses radical terrorists and petty anarchists, regardless of what religious dogma they hide behind to justify their cause.
Simply stated, the entire rest of the world can kiss my royal ass when it comes to the lives of Americans in harms way, versus some radical's belief that the world deserves to know bullshit. Your belief that the world deserves to know will never stack up against even one life of a service member (American or ally) who was put in harms way, regardles of the wrongness or rightness of the governmental cause that put them there. I hope the distinction is clear. It's not about the politics for me, it's about the service men and women. Sorry if that disrupts someone's ideology about right and wrong.
[quote=Derid]Assange deserves nothing but a swift bullet to the back of the head because like all crusaders, he thinks his actions are justified no matter the consequence.
Disagreed.
But don't come crying about socialism and big governments when you think attacking other countries is normal and creates special rules.
I am not crying about socialism Arkh. I believe every socialist governnment should be destroyed. Period. I am not sure what you mean by creating special rules. Military actions which are directed by the commander in chief are, in my eyes, exempt from your rules of free knowledge. Any action by any reporter, news source or other which puts the lives of American Fighting men and women, or their allies, in needless danger, is not a good thing, but a thing which merits ruthless and quick removal from the gene pool of the human race.
I do not subscribe to some misguided belief that there are not governmental actions which are not on the up and up. I also do not subscribe to the naive belief that there is a guilt free government on the planet. I do however subscribe to the belief that thus far, in modern history, there are very few governments which have better merit than a democratic one, actually, scratch that, there are none.
You are sadly mistaken if you believe that America has any need to bend to the will of any country on the planet. We are weakened each and every time we allow the ridiculous notion that we are somehow going to take all the evil bullshit the world throws at us and shrug it off since we are all about freedom of speech and action, religion and the pursuit of happiness. Personally, it would not even bother my sleep pattern if Iran became a glass parking lot from border to border tomorrow, swiftly followed by Pakistan, and then any other country which houses radical terrorists and petty anarchists, regardless of what religious dogma they hide behind to justify their cause.
Simply stated, the entire rest of the world can kiss my royal ass when it comes to the lives of Americans in harms way, versus some radical's belief that the world deserves to know bullshit. Your belief that the world deserves to know will never stack up against even one life of a service member (American or ally) who was put in harms way, regardles of the wrongness or rightness of the governmental cause that put them there. I hope the distinction is clear. It's not about the politics for me, it's about the service men and women. Sorry if that disrupts someone's ideology about right and wrong.
Replace american by afghan or iraqi in your text. Then remember who attacked there.
And then, open an history book about the roman empire.
BAH..you did not read. Your belief that the world deserves to know will never stack up against even one life of a service member (American or ally) who was put in harms way, regardles of the wrongness or rightness of the governmental cause that put them there. I hope the distinction is clear. It's not about the politics for me, it's about the service men and women. Sorry if that disrupts someone's ideology about right and wrong.
Was there some part of this that was not clear. Or is your point that Americans are no different than those other countries? And what has Rome to do with it. The longest surviving democracy? It was not a socilist government, it was a benevolent republic at times, an absolute dictatorship at others..America has never been the latter.
In terms of this discussion, we were discussing the rightness or wrongness of Manning and Assande, not the political focus of the countries involved. I am confused.
I think Arkh is comparing ancient Rome as unquestionable power, to USA how is it today, as was France with Napoleon and England before USA, and etc over centuries.
Also like the domain by the strongest, like the lie about the weapon of masses destruction owned by Iraqi, and let's attack them before them hypotetically attack us as just factoid to people believe(internal public suport) and allow the strategic control of oil etc, etc.
So I believe Arkh is comparing USA today to Rome, no country has the power to match USA on military power, so like Rome did before and others Country also did when they have the power.
BAH..you did not read. Your belief that the world deserves to know will never stack up against even one life of a service member (American or ally) who was put in harms way, regardles of the wrongness or rightness of the governmental cause that put them there. I hope the distinction is clear. It's not about the politics for me, it's about the service men and women. Sorry if that disrupts someone's ideology about right and wrong.
Was there some part of this that was not clear. Or is your point that Americans are no different than those other countries? And what has Rome to do with it. The longest surviving democracy? It was not a socilist government, it was a benevolent republic at times, an absolute dictatorship at others..America has never been the latter.
In terms of this discussion, we were discussing the rightness or wrongness of Manning and Assande, not the political focus of the countries involved. I am confused.
So, what did Manning allegedly leak which put American soldiers in danger? It seems all the shit is about things done 2 or 3 years before the leaks appeared on wikileaks. Not like he gave things about an operation while it was going on.
Now about Assange: sorry but he's not American so not under your country jurisdiction. And the Nobel association is not American also so if you're not happy with whoever they give prize to, well your nation should start one.
like the lie about the weapon of masses destruction owned by Iraqi, and let's attack them before them hypotetically attack us
I'm enjoying this debate so I don't want to derail it but I have to point out the complete fallacy of this statement.
Mithus, this is like saying, "the fact that you have video tape of me robbing the bank doesn't mean I did it unless you can find the money in my house." The reason this analogy is right is, regardless of what the U.N. inspectors (read - worthless bribe taking pieces of human trash who look the other way while atrocities are committed under their watch) found or didn't find, we KNOW that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction because HE USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE - REPEATEDLY!
Also, the fear was not so much that they would attack us, but that they would provide those weapons to the terrorists we know would attack us with them.
I'm enjoying this debate so I don't want to derail it but I have to point out the complete fallacy of this statement.
Amazing how years after the fact, and rest of the world arguing the contrary, everybody knows, that there is so many countries with conditions to do the same as you spoke, like the weapons falling in wrong hands. Also I do not think it is hard to happen this now that was at Saddam time, like the possiblity to get some cold war nuclear weapon from the USSR or some biological weapon in hands of some fanatic terrorist like happened in the movie 7 monkeys where a terrorist that spread a biological virus that killed almost world population. So in the end is all bulshit argument, and who will pay the price? the general population that have to pay taxes, and the population of the invaded country, and the rich people that have any business with war and oil will get richer.
The story just keep repeting itself.. since rome invading egypt to get Marcus Antonios saying some bulshit to USA nowdays, and so many other arguments from the current country that have the power in some time of history..
About falacy.. the rest of world had a clear picture that was not about mass of weapon destruction falling in the wrong hands, is amazing how some of you americans keep believing that and will keep believe in another factoids that can lead to another wars.. That's not impress me.. the power ends up creating an air of superiority and arrogance, doing some rough analogy, we are like barbarians to USA, like Rome.
ps: To people that think I do not like USA, i think right now the "Power" to be in USA is better than with any another country.
BAH..you did not read. Your belief that the world deserves to know will never stack up against even one life of a service member (American or ally) who was put in harms way, regardles of the wrongness or rightness of the governmental cause that put them there. I hope the distinction is clear. It's not about the politics for me, it's about the service men and women. Sorry if that disrupts someone's ideology about right and wrong.
Was there some part of this that was not clear. Or is your point that Americans are no different than those other countries? And what has Rome to do with it. The longest surviving democracy? It was not a socilist government, it was a benevolent republic at times, an absolute dictatorship at others..America has never been the latter.
In terms of this discussion, we were discussing the rightness or wrongness of Manning and Assande, not the political focus of the countries involved. I am confused.
So, what did Manning allegedly leak which put American soldiers in danger? It seems all the shit is about things done 2 or 3 years before the leaks appeared on wikileaks. Not like he gave things about an operation while it was going on.
Now about Assange: sorry but he's not American so not under your country jurisdiction. And the Nobel association is not American also so if you're not happy with whoever they give prize to, well your nation should start one.
Ah..so now we get to it. Well, if we are going to have a "your nation, my nation" discussion, you might better pick some other point of view, since sour grapes over the power of the United States to impose it's will on the world coming from someone who resides in the most conquered country on the planet is a pretty weak arguement. The fact that Assange is not American has nothing to do with his being a worthless and repulsive example of just one more anti-american who thinks the end justifies the means.
Manning, and I will concede that there does need to be deeper investigation as to whether he is truly the guilty party, although current evidence suggests he is, leaked more than 90,000 classified documents, and video of an attack by US Helicopters allegedly killed civilians. Through these actions, he endangers lives by needlessly and possibly falsely, inciting anger in others, as apparently has been done by all this for you. THAT, along with the fact that he BROKE THE LAW by releasing these things is why he merits no consideration.
Ah..so now we get to it. Well, if we are going to have a "your nation, my nation" discussion, you might better pick some other point of view, since sour grapes over the power of the United States to impose it's will on the world coming from someone who resides in the most conquered country on the planet is a pretty weak arguement. The fact that Assange is not American has nothing to do with his being a worthless and repulsive example of just one more anti-american who thinks the end justifies the means.
I had to lawl.
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
Manning, and I will concede that there does need to be deeper investigation as to whether he is truly the guilty party, although current evidence suggests he is, leaked more than 90,000 classified documents, and video of an attack by US Helicopters allegedly killed civilians. Through these actions, he endangers lives by needlessly and possibly falsely, inciting anger in others, as apparently has been done by all this for you. THAT, along with the fact that he BROKE THE LAW by releasing these things is why he merits no consideration.
Not really, those documents are just "another leak" for which I usually don't care: we know governments are corrupt these days. But how the US handled all this is baffling.
Locking people for months w/o trial? Launching smear campaigns at the tax payer expense? (check the HBGary story).
But let's give a Nobel prize to a team of hired killers as Wolfgang proposed. "America Fuck Yeah".
Amazing how years after the fact, and rest of the world arguing the contrary, everybody knows, that there is so many countries with conditions to do the same as you spoke, like the weapons falling in wrong hands. Also I do not think it is hard to happen this now that was at Saddam time, like the possiblity to get some cold war nuclear weapon from the USSR or some biological weapon in hands of some fanatic terrorist like happened in the movie 7 monkeys where a terrorist that spread a biological virus that killed almost world population. So in the end is all bulshit argument, and who will pay the price? the general population that have to pay taxes, and the population of the invaded country, and the rich people that have any business with war and oil will get richer.
The story just keep repeting itself.. since rome invading egypt to get Marcus Antonios saying some bulshit to USA nowdays, and so many other arguments from the current country that have the power in some time of history..
About falacy.. the rest of world had a clear picture that was not about mass of weapon destruction falling in the wrong hands, is amazing how some of you americans keep believing that and will keep believe in another factoids that can lead to another wars.. That's not impress me.. the power ends up creating an air of superiority and arrogance, doing some rough analogy, we are like barbarians to USA, like Rome.
ps: To people that think I do not like USA, i think right now the "Power" to be in USA is better than with any another country.
You completely missed my point. I wasn't arguing that the invasion of Iraq was good, bad or indifferent. I was merely pointing out that everyone likes to through that particular falsehood around as though we're a bunch of liars. I hate dishonesty so I point it out when I can. I assume that as a normal moral human you don't want to go around spreading lies so, I was simply pointing out the hole in your argument. Its not just you Mithus and its nothing personal. I just cannot stand for people I consider to be my friends to sound ignorant so I feel compelled to say something when I see something.
I hate dishonesty so I point it out when I can. I assume that as a normal moral human you don't want to go around spreading lies so.... I consider to be my friends to sound ignorant so I feel compelled to say something when I see something.
I sound ignorant and disonest
I have to assume you are joking, that is it..
Jetstar can you give your opinion about the Weapon of Mass Desctruction on Iraqi, i think Vuldan and others have the same opinion as Kaotic is saying, maybe even Arkh. Do you think was the real reason behind the invasion of the Iraqi, were some of the Political Science PHDs around the world ignorant and disonhest also, telling about how public opnion on USA was manipulated to support the war on Iraqi?
Not really, those documents are just "another leak" for which I usually don't care: we know governments are corrupt these days. But how the US handled all this is baffling.
Locking people for months w/o trial? Launching smear campaigns at the tax payer expense? (check the HBGary story).
But let's give a Nobel prize to a team of hired killers as Wolfgang proposed. "America Fuck Yeah".
Not sure which part of this is the funniest. Your lawling for? Lets get some things straight. Seal Team Six are not hired killers. They are an elite team of very successful military members who have probably contributed to many important endeavors on behalf of many countries. Taking out the low life piece of shit Osama Bin Laden was just the latest in successful and wonderful actions they took on behalf of the rest of the world.
The way you are talking makes me think you somehow have some issue, and that you indeed agree with or sympathize with, the forces of the Taliban or any number of other terrorist agencies.
I hate dishonesty so I point it out when I can. I assume that as a normal moral human you don't want to go around spreading lies so.... I consider to be my friends to sound ignorant so I feel compelled to say something when I see something.
I sound ignorant and disonest
I have to assume you are joking, that is it..
Jetstar can you give your opinion about the Weapon of Mass Desctruction on Iraqi, i think Vuldan and others have the same opinion as Kaotic is saying, maybe even Arkh. Do you think was the real reason behind the invasion of the Iraqi, were some of the Political Science PHDs around the world ignorant and disonhest also, telling about how public opnion on USA was manipulated to support the war on Iraqi?
He was not saying you were Mithus, he was trying to tell you that like so many others who were duped by the liberal media into believing that NO weapons of mass destruction existed were fooled by a dishonest media. There were obviously weapons of mass destruction, since we know he used them on his own people before all of US involvement.
Saddam didnt have WMD to hand, and even if he did so what? There was also no reason to believe he would use them against the USA. He was more worried about Iran.
So, 100k+ dead Iraqi civilians, trillions of dollars and thousands of US servicemen lives lost later... we have effectively handed control of Iraq to Iran.
I can even be found on record here on the Oracle before the war even started saying what a retarded idea it was, that there were likely no or few WMDs, that tens of thousands would die ( more died than even I thought) and that Iran would be the beneficiary when we left. I also predicted that we would not be hailed as great liberators, and that Iraq would be a shit hole for the foreseeable future.
A great genius is not and was not required to reach those conclusions, they were all patently obvious when the drums of war started to be beaten. Then and now.
Now the war drums are starting to beat regarding Iran... and it makes me very worried.
He was not saying you were Mithus, he was trying to tell you that like so many others who were duped by the liberal media into believing that NO weapons of mass destruction existed were fooled by a dishonest media. There were obviously weapons of mass destruction, since we know he used them on his own people before all of US involvement.
This is exactly right.
I wasn't making a comment on the validity of our invasion of Iraq. I was merely pointing out that rebutting the WMD claim is silly. Make the case against the invasion. I'll likely back you, but just don't pull out the "no WMDs" line because its wrong.
Originally Posted By: Derid
Saddam didnt have WMD to hand, and even if he did so what? There was also no reason to believe he would use them against the USA. He was more worried about Iran.
So, 100k+ dead Iraqi civilians, trillions of dollars and thousands of US servicemen lives lost later... we have effectively handed control of Iraq to Iran.
I can even be found on record here on the Oracle before the war even started saying what a retarded idea it was, that there were likely no or few WMDs, that tens of thousands would die ( more died than even I thought) and that Iran would be the beneficiary when we left. I also predicted that we would not be hailed as great liberators, and that Iraq would be a shit hole for the foreseeable future.
A great genius is not and was not required to reach those conclusions, they were all patently obvious when the drums of war started to be beaten. Then and now.
Now the war drums are starting to beat regarding Iran... and it makes me very worried.
Sans the first sentence, this too is exactly right. It is not hard at all to make the case that our opportunist government saw an opening, while we were in Afghanistan, to go into Iraq to try to make the region where much of our fuel comes from more secure. Bad move. The problem with trying to "free a people" is the same problem with government hand outs. If a person doesn't have to work for something, typically they don't appreciate it nearly as much as the guy who did work for it. The folks in Iraq do not appreciate the "gift" they've been given because, by in large, they were/are not ready for it. A people has to be completely oppressed and willing to sacrifice their own lives to rise up and do something about it before any sort of beneficial reform can happen i.e. our founding fathers. The simple truth is most of the populace in Iraq wasn't ready for that, and since Iran has had their sights set on certain parts of Iraq for the better part of a century, they will take the opportunity (just like we did) to take it as soon as its politically/militarily convenient. They are obviously planning something fairly soon or they wouldn't be sending warships to hang out around Cuba...
ps. I didnt take personaly any disqualifying comment.
You guys were too much brainwashed by propaganda, is a waste of time arguing
It's not difficult to just follow the comment, lets take advantage of 9/11 fear on population and attack Iraqi, we do not like Saddam that controls too much oil and oil has too much strategic importance, lets take them out and put someone that is aligned with USA, the rest is rest...
Not sure which part of this is the funniest. Your lawling for?
The part about the most invaded country. Coming from people living in a 300 year old country stolen from some savages makes me laugh.
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
Lets get some things straight. Seal Team Six are not hired killers. They are an elite team of very successful military members who have probably contributed to many important endeavors on behalf of many countries. Taking out the low life piece of shit Osama Bin Laden was just the latest in successful and wonderful actions they took on behalf of the rest of the world.
They get a salary and their job is to kill people. So anyway your sugar-coat it, they are hired killers. I'm just saying it at the level of "Manning leaked top secret document so he is a traitor".
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
The way you are talking makes me think you somehow have some issue, and that you indeed agree with or sympathize with, the forces of the Taliban or any number of other terrorist agencies.
I don't. But I know that history is written by the victors: what for us are terrorists is for some other members of the Resistance. I think the best way to fight terrorism is not by invading random countries by force, but invading by your culture: get them education and the means to get out of the shit they are in so they can enjoy the western lifestyle in two or three generations and terrorism won't be a problem. Have we got any indian, brazilian, chinese or taiwanese terrorist bomber for the past 30 years? That's because their nations are driven by the perspective of progress instead of jealousy.
Not sure which part of this is the funniest. Your lawling for?
The part about the most invaded country. Coming from people living in a 300 year old country stolen from some savages makes me laugh.
I didn't say invaded, I said conquered. The most conquered country in history I believe. And while America is a young country in relative terms to yours, or any European, I am fairly confident there are many who are glad America exists. They may indeed be older than you, with a very clear memory of your ability to speak German being their reality if it had not been for America and Americans. Hate on our actions all you want.
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
Lets get some things straight. Seal Team Six are not hired killers. They are an elite team of very successful military members who have probably contributed to many important endeavors on behalf of many countries. Taking out the low life piece of shit Osama Bin Laden was just the latest in successful and wonderful actions they took on behalf of the rest of the world.
They get a salary and their job is to kill people. So anyway your sugar-coat it, they are hired killers. I'm just saying it at the level of "Manning leaked top secret document so he is a traitor". That does not pass the common sense test Arkh. Your saying that because Manning is a traiter, which by military law he is regardless of the moralistic view you are trying to attach to his actions, that Seal Team Six are then hired killers. Interesting and rather immature response I would not expect from you. You are entitled to your opinions to be sure, and I am entitled to be insulted by them.
Originally Posted By: Vuldan
The way you are talking makes me think you somehow have some issue, and that you indeed agree with or sympathize with, the forces of the Taliban or any number of other terrorist agencies.
I don't. But I know that history is written by the victors: what for us are terrorists is for some other members of the Resistance. I think the best way to fight terrorism is not by invading random countries by force, but invading by your culture: get them education and the means to get out of the shit they are in so they can enjoy the western lifestyle in two or three generations and terrorism won't be a problem. Have we got any indian, brazilian, chinese or taiwanese terrorist bomber for the past 30 years? That's because their nations are driven by the perspective of progress instead of jealousy.
History is indeed written by the victors and the actions which brought them victory. There is only one way to fight terrorism, and radical religion. Excise it. You are dealing with a culture which is 400 years behind. AND MANY who have been there will tell you, no matter all the education in the world, they do not wannt to change. Do I think it would have been better to have stayed out, yes. I said when we went to Afghanistan it was a bad move, not because it was a wrong move, but because the culture and ideology was such that we were in for a long, brutal and costly fight. To tack Iraq onto that was foolish. If I had my way, Afghanistan would be that glass parking lot I spoke of. And you would look in horror and be shocked at the death of so many innocents. And as was the case with every country France fought in its empire days, there are no innocents, only future antagonists. The only way to deal with terrorists is to ensure they understand that actions taken by them will result in far worse repercussions. You can not replace their ideology in a school house. They bomb an embassy, take out a city. It's that simple. You will have to educate me, I have never heard of a Chinese or Taiwanese terrorist. I know that there are plenty of muslim cells in indonesia perhaps? Not sure.
ps. I didnt take personaly any disqualifying comment.
Good!
Originally Posted By: Mithus
It's not difficult to just follow the comment, lets take advantage of 9/11 fear on population and attack Iraqi, we do not like Saddam that controls too much oil and oil has too much strategic importance, lets take them out and put someone that is aligned with USA, the rest is rest...
Stolen from the savages from countrys like Spain,France,Italy........
/poor gasoline
In point of fact, where I live now in southern Louisiana many of the folks who live here still speak a bastardized version of French.
Yes, but that section of the country was not "stolen" from the French, they sold it to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase, which pretty much covererd much of the midwest.
Yes, but that section of the country was not "stolen" from the French, they sold it to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase, which pretty much covererd much of the midwest.
Right, but Helemoto was making the point that it wasn't just the Brits who took the land from the Indians, but the French et. al. who then sold it.
Not my point. My point was that everyone says the Americans stole the land from the natives. This is not totally true. The Europeans stole the land. They also brought in the slaves and made a economy that was at least in the south dependent on the slave trade and had to be stopped with the Republican President. You don't see the black population trying to get reperation from the Dutch or England or France or Italy, but from the American government.
I am a publicly schooled American with no college education so I can not put into words as well as most, but I do know that American was not founded when the colonies started and started the slow demise of the natives.
Through out history natives have been displaced and taken over by a stronger population. Just look at South America, I am pretty sure they didn't speak Spanish before the Spanish showed up.
I get tired of the whole Americans beat up the poor old indians. Granted in todays mentality it was wrong but not much we can do about it now.
Jetstar can you give your opinion about the Weapon of Mass Desctruction on Iraqi, i think Vuldan and others have the same opinion as Kaotic is saying, maybe even Arkh.
Originally Posted By: JetStar
I am officially going recuse myself of further comment / involvement in these types of issues. I consider it a conflict of interest, and could easily lead some to believe that my RL political views could in some way taint KGB or it's mission.
As much as I would like to chime in Mithus, I think its better if I remain silent. Sorry to leave you all by yourself with the Neocons.
I'm not sure Jet even knows what a Neocon is, it's a word he heard Olberman spew out of his worthless mouth.
Let me correct you. Neocon is not necessarily a derogatory term. Olberman did not coin the term. I hope this makes you a little better informed about your own political stance.
Quote:
In contemporary usage, the term "neoconservative" was used in 1973 to criticize American liberals and social democrats who had criticized the ambitions and outcomes of the Great Society's welfare programs. Although neoconservatives favor free-market policies in economics, they accept a role for the national government in fighting poverty and promoting the public good, like traditional conservatives in Europe and Canada and unlike most American conservatives, influenced by libertarian and states' rights traditions.[1][2] During the 1970s, "neoconservative" was applied to Democrats who had favored a negotiated settlement rather than an immediate withdrawal to end the Vietnam War and who criticized the foreign policy of President Jimmy Carter, particularly his support of detente and criticism of anticommunism. Several neoconservatives were approached by the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan, which criticized the detente of the Carter Administration; a few neoconservatives like Jeanne Kirkpatrick served in the Reagan Administration. During the late 1970s through 1983, neoconservatives like Kirkpatrick criticized Carter's human rights policies, arguing that they had facilitated the rise of the Sandistas in Nicaragua and risked helping other Marxist-Leninist movements come to power. Neoconservatives were initially skeptical about the AFL-CIO's support of the Polish labor-union Solidarity, but came to support the National Endowment for Democracy's aid to movements for liberalization and democratization in the former Soviet Union. After the fall of Soviet communism, American politics featured less discussion of neoconservativism in the 1990s. Most neoconservatives supported a military response against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and many supported liberating Iraq from Sadam Hussein, although some have made criticisms of the scope and conduct of both wars.
"Nebraska Republican U.S. senator Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush administration's adoption of neoconservative ideology in his book America: Our Next Chapter, writes, "So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice. . . . They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil."
Neocon as it is commonly used today means the ideology of the Rumsfeld/Kristol/Feith/etc clique that advocates America taking a heavy hand in "policing" the world and aggressively using military intervention to advance our interests.
Hagel was my Senator and all he wanted was the limelight to try and make a name for himself to run for President.
He was useless.
Neocon is a term for the Democrats to use to make Republicans sound bad to the population that doesn't know what what it means. The first time I heard it I thought they were calling them neonazis
calm down old man, I'm just posting to see what are the arguments, I didnt know nothing about that until you guys post about it.
