Klaus
Refugee
Hello Sting,
There was a reason why i marked this stuff as "polemic" these points shouldn't become part of a discussion - it was just to ilustrate that sometimes it's dangerous to argue with short "facts" like these.
But two short statements:
Afik Bin Laden got money from various Official US organisations like the CIA up to 1999.
But the year isn't that important i just wanted to show that "we" also use Terrorists as alies (This guy was never a good one, the only reason that we liked him was that he hated the Russians)
G.W.Bush pointed out that Nuclear weapons are no more "Defense only" (which resulted in indignation here in Europe). Newertheless it would be interesting to define "Mass Destruction" I think you want to reference to "ABC" Weapons (Also in my mind most wapons are designed for "mass destruction" )
Maybee another interesting Topic we could call it "Conspiracy Theories" ;-)
Again you don't have to convince me that the US is a great country - as i mentioned before i love the USA.
I was just trying to show you the US with the eyes of one who dislikes the US like we dislike Sadam. And imho we should argue with a higher moral not just with some details - we could talk about details for years and compare the darkest episodes of our world. That wouldn't lead to much except: We shouldn't repeat historical mistakes.
As someone other pointed out the USSR fitted in there also quite well - and Stalin was one of the worst dictators ever.
Your President at that time decided not to start a war and that was verry wise.
And again there are some international laws that decides what Countries are alowed to do to each other. If the US starts to break these rules it's hard to tell some other countries why they should care about international contracts.
(I also pointed out how a invasion could be legal in international terms from my point of view)
It's like with the Police (you started that example ;-) if the Police stops to care about its own laws it destroyed the thing it should protect.
The US is one (the biggest and most important) member of the UN. But the UN is doing a good job also lots of coutries try to blackmail them - even the USA (remember at 2001 9/11 the US had debts of 2.000.000.000,00 $ by the UN. The UN was nearly Bancrupt and the US tried to force the UN to withdraw some of their (imho greatest) laws)
It's the UN job to decide international things like this because only by that way we can make sure that Invasions are not made because of Financial or Political reasons of single Countries.
Only the UN can help to prevent wars. Sometimes it takes longer than the way we all would prefer it but it's important, it's like a court. It takes longer than just lynching him - sometimes guilty persons might escape but it's a fundamental of our system and giving that up has a verry high price!
Not only Germany who bombed London. It was also the Alied over most of the huge German cities (also when there were no Factories or Millitary) one of the most obvious examples: Dresden.
It was (on both sides) to weaken morale of the enimy. It was a bad thing but wars are cruel.
Maybe we should start the Worldwars thread when i'm back (see end of the mail)
And for me some things like Toybombs (Russians in Afghanistan) or Daisy Cutters (as mentioned before) are a perfect example of unnecessary cruelness.
11 years are enough - but not if we ignored the problem for about 10 of these 11 years
I'm sorry i might have forgotten something over the years but for me Iraq attacked Kuwait without a mandate of the UN and because of that it was unlawful. But because of that the Iraq didn't attack the whole world and the USA.
So still the same argument from me:
Either America gets attacked from Iraq or it's business of the UN.
the USA as the (most important and biggest) member has the chance to discuss these points in the UN - they had time for almost 11 years.
A invasion of a country is a serious violation of a international war
The UN decides, the Armies of the members act and after all the Sadam should be judged by the ICC
No matter what we know and feel what to do we have to care about the law.s.
It's like a Policeman he's not allowed to kill the evil person because he has the proof that he's a guilty person. He has to show it to the Court and they decide.
Maybee you or me would decide different (invasion yes/no) but we should accept it like we accapt our laws and courts.
That what's (imho) the difference between civilization and barbarism
Klaus
U2Bama:
Comparisions like that are imho highly respectless, it's like comparing the US with the "third Reich" because they both hated the Communists.
Historical comparisions fail most of the time, especially comparisons to Hittler.
Comparing Hittler to anything like Sadam is belittling and therefore makes me feel like someone is making bad jokes about the victims of the thrid Reich.
If you want to learn more about Hittler and Europe at that time i can strongly recomend visiting "The Museum Of Tolerance" in LA or visit a former extermination camp like the mauthausen-memorial.
Sorry, i might be a little too sensitive on that subject.
Maybee we should really start a "Worldwars" Thread to discuss that...
I'm sorry that i can't join this discussion for a while i'm off for vacations at the Lake Of Constance and playing a little with my nephew.
I enjoyed talking with you - off course including the people that didn't share my ideas and the impulsive z edge ,-)
Klaus
p.s. Sorry i can't resist adding a picture of my cute nephew
There was a reason why i marked this stuff as "polemic" these points shouldn't become part of a discussion - it was just to ilustrate that sometimes it's dangerous to argue with short "facts" like these.
But two short statements:
STING2 said:In response to Klaus:
Quada. Both of these organizations came into existance after the USA had pulled out of Afghanistan economically, politically, and militaryly in 1989!!!!!
Afik Bin Laden got money from various Official US organisations like the CIA up to 1999.
But the year isn't that important i just wanted to show that "we" also use Terrorists as alies (This guy was never a good one, the only reason that we liked him was that he hated the Russians)
We do have weapons of mass destruction to deter their use against, not to be used against other countries though in an attack. That only happened in 1945 and was done in Japan because it was the best way to force a surrender of Japan there by saving millions of Japanese lives that would have died in a ground invasion.
G.W.Bush pointed out that Nuclear weapons are no more "Defense only" (which resulted in indignation here in Europe). Newertheless it would be interesting to define "Mass Destruction" I think you want to reference to "ABC" Weapons (Also in my mind most wapons are designed for "mass destruction" )
Sorry, a lone gun man killed the president, or yes if you listen to the liberals and Oliver Stone it was the government supported by space monkey's or something. Perhaps there was more than one gun man but that does not mean that the government or a corperation killed him. Jeez, total rubbish!
Maybee another interesting Topic we could call it "Conspiracy Theories" ;-)
President Bush was elected President under the laws and constitution of our country. The one who wins the most electoral votes wins the election. 99% of the time, the person with the most
...
Again you don't have to convince me that the US is a great country - as i mentioned before i love the USA.
I was just trying to show you the US with the eyes of one who dislikes the US like we dislike Sadam. And imho we should argue with a higher moral not just with some details - we could talk about details for years and compare the darkest episodes of our world. That wouldn't lead to much except: We shouldn't repeat historical mistakes.
My arguement only presents ONE country for possible regime change! Iraq is the only country who's behavior PLUS having weapons of mass destruction threatens the world. Most of your examples of other countries did not fit my conditions because the countries behavior was not like that of Iraq or they did not have weapons of mass destruction of both! AGAIN, its Behavior PLUS weapons of mass destruction that makes a country a candidate for regime change!
As someone other pointed out the USSR fitted in there also quite well - and Stalin was one of the worst dictators ever.
Your President at that time decided not to start a war and that was verry wise.
And again there are some international laws that decides what Countries are alowed to do to each other. If the US starts to break these rules it's hard to tell some other countries why they should care about international contracts.
(I also pointed out how a invasion could be legal in international terms from my point of view)
Sorry, were not shooting a shoplifter, were shooting at a one of the worst violators of international law, and butchers the world has ever known. No, were not going to stop and let people who commit terror get away! Nope no way!
It's like with the Police (you started that example ;-) if the Police stops to care about its own laws it destroyed the thing it should protect.
The UN is made up of several countries of which the USA is one and usually the only one out of 160 that enforces UN law and resolutions. If other countries or in fact the rest of the UN decides to ingnore its own laws and ceacefire resolutions that were passed, were not going to sit there be in violation as well. Were going to do what the UN resolution calls for and bring Iraq into compliance with the UN ceacefire agreements they signed and which the UN is called on to enforce. If the rest of the UN decides not to abide by its own rules, that is not going to stop us from doing what is right
The US is one (the biggest and most important) member of the UN. But the UN is doing a good job also lots of coutries try to blackmail them - even the USA (remember at 2001 9/11 the US had debts of 2.000.000.000,00 $ by the UN. The UN was nearly Bancrupt and the US tried to force the UN to withdraw some of their (imho greatest) laws)
It's the UN job to decide international things like this because only by that way we can make sure that Invasions are not made because of Financial or Political reasons of single Countries.
Only the UN can help to prevent wars. Sometimes it takes longer than the way we all would prefer it but it's important, it's like a court. It takes longer than just lynching him - sometimes guilty persons might escape but it's a fundamental of our system and giving that up has a verry high price!
World War II:
Not only Germany who bombed London. It was also the Alied over most of the huge German cities (also when there were no Factories or Millitary) one of the most obvious examples: Dresden.
It was (on both sides) to weaken morale of the enimy. It was a bad thing but wars are cruel.
Maybe we should start the Worldwars thread when i'm back (see end of the mail)
And for me some things like Toybombs (Russians in Afghanistan) or Daisy Cutters (as mentioned before) are a perfect example of unnecessary cruelness.
I'm sorry you think 11 years is long enough to change the law or a signed resolution but its not!
11 years are enough - but not if we ignored the problem for about 10 of these 11 years
The USA and the rest of the world was Attacked by Iraq when they invaded Kuwait
I'm sorry i might have forgotten something over the years but for me Iraq attacked Kuwait without a mandate of the UN and because of that it was unlawful. But because of that the Iraq didn't attack the whole world and the USA.
So still the same argument from me:
Either America gets attacked from Iraq or it's business of the UN.
the USA as the (most important and biggest) member has the chance to discuss these points in the UN - they had time for almost 11 years.
A invasion of a country is a serious violation of a international war
The UN decides, the Armies of the members act and after all the Sadam should be judged by the ICC
No matter what we know and feel what to do we have to care about the law.s.
It's like a Policeman he's not allowed to kill the evil person because he has the proof that he's a guilty person. He has to show it to the Court and they decide.
Maybee you or me would decide different (invasion yes/no) but we should accept it like we accapt our laws and courts.
That what's (imho) the difference between civilization and barbarism
Klaus
U2Bama:
Comparisions like that are imho highly respectless, it's like comparing the US with the "third Reich" because they both hated the Communists.
Historical comparisions fail most of the time, especially comparisons to Hittler.
Comparing Hittler to anything like Sadam is belittling and therefore makes me feel like someone is making bad jokes about the victims of the thrid Reich.
If you want to learn more about Hittler and Europe at that time i can strongly recomend visiting "The Museum Of Tolerance" in LA or visit a former extermination camp like the mauthausen-memorial.
Sorry, i might be a little too sensitive on that subject.
Maybee we should really start a "Worldwars" Thread to discuss that...
I'm sorry that i can't join this discussion for a while i'm off for vacations at the Lake Of Constance and playing a little with my nephew.
I enjoyed talking with you - off course including the people that didn't share my ideas and the impulsive z edge ,-)
Klaus
p.s. Sorry i can't resist adding a picture of my cute nephew
Last edited: