finish this thing --- can using DU rounds be justified? - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
June 27th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Let me get this straight, your position is that the UN is infallible and is the only source of morality in international affiars?



By the way forum members, please disregard this fool, he is a fanatic and does not abide by the rules of an intellectual forum, that being logical and open discussion of important topics. His disposition as a fantic was shown by his reaction to my previous post. When I addressed the overarching questions underpinning this man's bombthrowing demeanor he was unable to assimilate the information, chosing instead to dismiss my post and merely restate his position. The mark of a fanatic is the dismissal of multilateral logical discource in favor of bilateral preprogrammed talking points.
June 27th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
under an UN resolutin , a military action is legal because an UN resolution is ony passed when majority of security council ( the forum of international discussion) agrees with it,

if majority of nations agree on this military action (like in 1991 gulf war, UN authorizes coliation forces to repel Sadam's invasion), this military action is justified and supported by international society.

and could u tell me the example of an UN authorized, reasonless, illogical (like saying there is WMD ,but in fact there is not, or there is connection with terriosts, but in fact not) military action?

as far as I know,

UN authorized coliation forces to go help South korea, go to help Kwait and go stop geonocide in many places in the world
You don't deserve an answer because you will not comprehend it, but I will explain it for you regardless out of the goodness of my heart. The reason the United States invaded Iraq was because she felt threatened by the middle east after having thousands of her citizens ruthlessly murdered on her own soil, the first time in over a half a centry. The ruling administration of the United States was 100% sure that Saddam had weapons capable of causing great harm to her. When George Bush asked CIA directior Tennent how sure he was about wheather Saddam had the illiegal weapons Tennent told the president, "it's a slam dunk." Acting on the best intelligence available to him by his 12 intelligence brances and independently verified by the Brittish intelligence, the Russian intelligence, and the Israli intelligence services, President Bush decided that America could not risk having a hostile nation like Saddam's Iraq in posession of such powerful weapons at a time when America felt more vulnerable than she had in 55 years.

The Iraqi insurgent fighters are mistaken if they truely believe they are repelling a foreign invasion. The American philosophy has been to get the Iraqis self-governing as soon as possible and to remove the American troops from Iraq. The question as to what degree the new Iraqi government would truely be independent of American influence remains to be seen but one thing is for sure. The life of every Iraqi citizen under a peaceful new Iraqi democracy would be unquestionably better than was suffered under Saddam Hussein. Therefore even for pesimisstic Iraqis it is worthwhile to give the new government a chance before going to kill and die over it.

In my humble opinion the real evil people in the middle east are the Clerics who, whether through fear or ambition, desire to defend their own personal power by manipulating the most uneducated of the Iraqi citizenry to fight and die for them. Interviews with the insurgents have shown their makeup to be primarily lower class iraqis and foreign "holy warriors" who are as ignorant as the WW1 doughboys marching into a machinegun nest. These are not the intellectual college students or middle class of Iraqi society with socio-political moral objections who are doing the fighting and dying.
June 27th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Let me get this straight, your position is that the UN is infallible and is the only source of morality in international affiars?



By the way forum members, please disregard this fool, he is a fanatic and does not abide by the rules of an intellectual forum, that being logical and open discussion of important topics. His disposition as a fantic was shown by his reaction to my previous post. When I addressed the overarching questions underpinning this man's bombthrowing demeanor he was unable to assimilate the information, chosing instead to dismiss my post and merely restate his position. The mark of a fanatic is the dismissal of multilateral logical discource in favor of bilateral preprogrammed talking points.

a typical american AGRROgant answer for others' different opinion

that is why americans are hated and killed all over the world, because people like you, who disregard others' voice with craps without any facts to back it up


so are you telling me that you invade Iraq just because your little Georgie BUshie does not like Saddam for no apparent or any direct fact to back up..

or any evidence to prove that Saddam had connection with terriosts

and your "liberating iraq craps" again, using force to change other ppl's lives is not the way of well behaving in this world my friend, your defination of freedom and rights are different from muslims, so you better not just spit on others' belief and use force to change it

1700 ameican death is the warning for people like you, your effort in iraq is not welcomed and your aggresive and irresponsible (talking about lack of planning, that is the real cause that iraq becoms chaotic after invasion) must be changed
--
Boots
June 27th, 2005  
Arclight
 

Topic: Re: finish this thing --- can using DU rounds be justified?


I am disregarding the motivations for the war at the moment because that will only convolute this horribly organized and presented discussion/argument even further. I would normally point out that the U.S. made a grave mistake in going to war and agree with you, but the lack of organization and serious concern to establish a platform from which the community can voice their opinions on made me do otherwise.

For future reference, you need to put more time into each one of your posts. The lack of organization, correct grammar or spelling (a few incorrect spellings and grammatical issues are fine and usually expected - we aren't perfect), and a well thought out, presentable agrument really degrades the thread to a point where people do not wish to participate. I, for one, almost didn't respond.

Now to the subject of this thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
than I 'd say Iraqi insurgant are freedom fighters who want to kick invaders out of Iraq,

freedom fighters ---- fight against invaders and invaders' cooperators (traitors).

it seems iraqi insurgents can justify their action pretty well
Freedom fighters? Is that what you call people who fight the people responsible for freeing them from a cruel and oppressive dictator? Your logic is flawed. Freedom fighters are those people who fight against an oppressive and unjust organization/government. We, the U.S., and people of Iraq fought against Saddam's oppressive regime and brought freedom to the nation. And now we are in the process of helping to create a stable and just government of the people that will hopefully prosper in peace.

These "freedom fighters" are insurgents and terrorists, plain and simple. They want to do nothing more than wreak havoc and topple what government there already is for reasons I am not familiar with, though they can not be good reasons I'm sure. We are creating a government of the people and these insurgents could have joined in and had their say in a peaceful manner.
June 27th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
sorry about spelling errors and grammar mistakes as i am working hard to be a sophisicated English speaker


talking about those insurgents, the reason they fight americans is that U.S goes into there in the first place for no direct fact or evidence to back up U.S' military action,

in fact, america's own commission says there is no evidence to say that Saddam had any link with terriosts group.

and U.S' action didn't have the approval of global community, as it didn't even have the authorization of UN

that is why I define U.S' military action as invasion

and here you tell me those people are just "terriosts, who just want to create a mess for no reason and topple a government" (correct me if i am wrong)

let me tell you something, it is not easy for people to have the courage of stand up to a much strong and superior enemy and fight to death, those people believe in their faith and they refuse to bow down their heads to let americans do whatever they want (change their culture, or take away their oil) to them.

in the moive "Patriot" showing a bunch of americans who use hit-and-run tactics to fight against British for independence, despite their brutal tactics, they are still hailed as freedom fighters...

i dont see a point why these insurgents who fought for their OWN VALUE OF FREEDOM and fight against invaders are denounced by americans, who are now shown no better (look at the treatment of prisoners in Gitmo, dont tell me americans have the moral ground to denounce others)
June 27th, 2005  
Arclight
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Let me get this straight, your position is that the UN is infallible and is the only source of morality in international affiars?



By the way forum members, please disregard this fool, he is a fanatic and does not abide by the rules of an intellectual forum, that being logical and open discussion of important topics. His disposition as a fantic was shown by his reaction to my previous post. When I addressed the overarching questions underpinning this man's bombthrowing demeanor he was unable to assimilate the information, chosing instead to dismiss my post and merely restate his position. The mark of a fanatic is the dismissal of multilateral logical discource in favor of bilateral preprogrammed talking points.

a typical american AGRROgant answer for others' different opinion

that is why americans are hated and killed all over the world, because people like you, who disregard others' voice with craps without any facts to back it up


so are you telling me that you invade Iraq just because your little Georgie BUshie does not like Saddam for no apparent or any direct fact to back up..

or any evidence to prove that Saddam had connection with terriosts

and your "liberating iraq craps" again, using force to change other ppl's lives is not the way of well behaving in this world my friend, your defination of freedom and rights are different from muslims, so you better not just spit on others' belief and use force to change it

1700 ameican death is the warning for people like you, your effort in iraq is not welcomed and your aggresive and irresponsible (talking about lack of planning, that is the real cause that iraq becoms chaotic after invasion) must be changed
Even if I did know where to start in directly responding to the stuff (I'm not sure what else to call it, aside from expletives) in your post, it wouldn't make any difference, as outlined above in another post by Whispering Death.
June 27th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
sigh....

calling others' names without facts to back it up...


are you telling me this is the American Attitude to the rest of the world,

like you invade Iraq without reasons to back up your military action?

i am just shocked that how much damage Bush has done to the conscience of american people here.
June 27th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
A great deal of the Iraqi insurgency is not composed of Iraqis, it's composed of Sunni muslims from other countries who want to establish a Sunni theocracy in Iraq.

The insurgency isn't like the soldiers from the American revolution. The current Iraqi insurgency kills civilians wantonly, even those with no connection to coalition forces. They bomb Shiite mosques in order to anger the shiites. What they want is a civil war between Shiite and Sunni muslims in Iraq. The insurgency bombs mosques, hospitals, and other buildings completely unrelated to the occupation.

If you want to see the ****** will of the Iraqi people, consider that despite the horrendous casaulties suffered by the Iraqi national guard and police, they continue to line up and both organizations have more recruits then they can possibly handle.

The Insurgency isn't composed of freedom fighters, it's composed of monsters who will kill innocent men, women and children so they can establish a theocratic state over a people who don't want one.
June 27th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
no doubt about that iraqi insurgents are basterds


but who made them there in iraq, if U.S didn't enter there and start this crappy war, would there be 50 iraqis killed each day?
June 27th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
If the foriegn insurgents didn't wantonly kill civilians so they could establish a totalitarian regime would there be nearly as many casaulties at all?