DescentBB

Pandora wrote:To deny American cultural influence on Europe might be economic suicide, simply because nowadays cultural influence pretty much equates to economic influence.

I don't mean to say that American influence a bad thing. It's just that I don't see that we have much choice in allowing it. And lack of choice creates resentments...

I don't doubt that but the resentment is misplaced in my estimation. The free market and a free people are the reasons certain things and cultural influences get purchased and adopted. If one country seems to be the dominant one it is the result of the choices of the recieving countries more than the producing nation.

One day we may see a european influence take the dominant role here in the states and no doubt some kid will complain that europeans have invaded his culture.
I can just hear it now, little Johnny complaining on an internet BB: "Football used to be football and soccer used to be soccer. Now soccer is football and football is 'american football' What's next crepes instead of pancakes?!"

EDIT: as to the lack of choice on the war...
They had gone way past a choice, the votes in the U.N. were the cumulative choices of all nations involved! The choice had been made and the course of action voted on...
If Schroeder(sp) didn't need the anti-war vote I don't think you would have seen so much made of it in Germany. It's one thing to have war protesters it's quite another to have your leader join them. Why didn't he protest his own countries vote in the U.N...perhaps because he didn't think it interfered with his re-election chances then.

Will Robinson wrote: Repeat that while looking in the mirror and it will be the first thing you did right in this debate.

Negative. Btw, I proved my point. You don't. So you do not discuss, you simply provoke. Obviously that's all that can be expected from you.

Dedman wrote:

Krom wrote:

bash wrote:I'll be forever baffled why foreigners are so obsessed with McDonalds.

word

I was in a London Pub a few years ago enjoying a very fine pint of ale with some American friends when I saw a group of locals drinking Budweiser. I asked them how could drink that swill. They replied that it was an import and very tasty.

I didn't have the heart to tell them it was only an import because we refuse to drink it in the US. They were also paying more for it than I was paying for mine. Go figure.

I only drink German beer, and I never eat at McDonalds.

Ok, I admit, there is a very nice Brewery in the French Alps brewing the best beer I've ever drunk. I drink that if I am there in vacation.

Will Robinson wrote:

Diedel wrote:This Nazi crap is the most stupid non-argument Americans (and Brits) resort to when they lack the the knowledge to put up any intelligent and civilized argumentation.

If the Nazis hadn't existed, you would have invented them.

Yawn.

Why don't you shove this decade old crap up yer ...

The only mention I made of Nazi's was to point out that here in America we have a relatively peaceful coexistance with people of all races, religions and political leanings. We have arabs and jews who aren't killing each other and we have communists and nazi's who are free to practice their politics.

That is in contrast to the nonpeaceful conditions those same people live in outside america.

Why you want to ignore what I really said and instead characterize it as something else so you can complain about something I didn't say is unknown to me...but I'll bet it's because you just skimmed my post looking for an argument instead of entertaining the substance of my point with an open mind.
One has to really try to be that wrong. Why the effort to aspire to such belligerent ignorance?

It's characteristic and too much that somebody had to bring in this Nazi crap here at all. It can only be understood as a side blow.

Diedel wrote:... Btw, I proved my point...

Are you going to share this proof with us or just claim to have acomplished it, because it seems to be missing from this thread.

Diedel wrote:It's characteristic and too much that somebody had to bring in this Nazi crap here at all. It can only be understood as a side blow.

So weak! Are you saying I can't even mention the word nazi in any context without completely disrupting your ability to think straight?!?
You sir have the thinnest skin ever concieved!

I don't care about "American" influence as long as I can decide what I want to take and what I don't want. The things that are here are here because the people here like it. So what?

Unfortunately, what the U.S. is doing in the Middle and Far East doesn't leave a choice to the nations there.

Btw, I appreciate that the European Nations had as much of an economic interest in S.Hussein staying as the U.S. had in removing him.

I also did not outrightly resent the war against Iraq.

What I resent is the whole way the U.S. treats their allies, pursues their interest no matter what, and by ignoring their own standards have provoked the moslem countries in an irrepairable way.

The scandals around the officially supported American torture practise has ruined your country's credibility for me.

You go in with a big axe and then blame Europe for all the broken porcelaine and tell us to pay it? Stuff it.

Btw, the EU is an economic force than cannot be ignored by anybody in the world, even the U.S. And economic dependencies are so strong that deeply harming the European economy would mightily damage the U.S. economy. I do not say this to boast with Europe's economy, this is simply a matter of fact.

Will Robinson wrote:

Diedel wrote:It's characteristic and too much that somebody had to bring in this Nazi crap here at all. It can only be understood as a side blow.

So weak! Are you saying I can't even mention the word nazi in any context without completely disrupting your ability to think straight?!?
You sir have the thinnest skin ever concieved!

I wonder whether you will ever manage to make a post here not containing an insult in one or the other way.

Will Robinson wrote:

Diedel wrote:... Btw, I proved my point...

Are you going to share this proof with us or just claim to have acomplished it, because it seems to be missing from this thread.

Why don't you just thouroughly read what I wrote already and take your time to understand it?

Diedel wrote:The scandals around the officially supported American torture practise has ruined your country's credibility for me.

You said previously about us: "a real problem with measuring yourself with the same measure you measure others."

Should you be judged then by your own standards? Should we look at 'officially supported german torture practices' to determine your countries credibility?

Oh that's right I'm not allowed to use the "N" word...hmmm...well then, how about 'ovens'...'gas chambers' can we compare torture practices now?

Or should we both be mature and consider the intent of the countries policy and not delve into the failings of a few bad men?

Will Robinson wrote:

Diedel wrote:The scandals around the officially supported American torture practise has ruined your country's credibility for me.

You said previously about us: "a real problem with measuring yourself with the same measure you measure others."

Should you be judged then by your own standards? Should we look at 'officially supported german torture practices' to determine your countries credibility?

Oh that's right I'm not allowed to use the "N" word...hmmm...well then, how about 'ovens'...'gas chambers' can we compare torture practices now?

Or should we both be mature and consider the intent of the countries policy and not delve into the failings of a few bad men?

Listen, Will it's really simple:

One of the reasons the U.S. removed S.Hussein is for oppressing his people, which very much includes torturing many of them.

Now the U.S. has an officially sanctioned torture practise.

The difference is that S.Hussein never seriously or believeably claimed to be the hoard of democracy and civil rights. The U.S. does however, putting the mantle of righteousness on all their deeds. Germany does not do this, and we have no torture practise, less an officially sanctioned one. We do not even have the death penalty. We do have strict anti-hate speech laws, anti-Nazi laws, anti-terror laws and we are willing to pursue them - within the confines of our constitutional state. From all I know it looks like the U.S. currently ignores such limits.

Btw, I knew where you were heading with this Nazi crap, and your last post is proof. German atrocities lie 60 years in the past. Germany has paid for, repented and turned from these things very much. U.S. atrocities are happening right now, and they are not the deeds of a few bad men. They are officially sanctioned by high ranking military and U.S. ministers.

Dude, you can stuff this Nazi bulls up yer behind till it comes out of your mouth again.

Btw, I would like to clarify this:

I am not against the U.S. I am against how the U.S. is behaving right now.

If it would not have been about the torture scandal, I would have approved to what the U.S. is doing in Iraq, regardless of all the lies your government presented to the world and their own boss: i.e. the American people, to justify it.

Diedel wrote:This is too stupid to reply to. A provocative non-argument.

Personally, I am rather conservative.

American citizens were held in prison w/o trial etc. as I wrote. I remember that Intel engineer (was it Intel)?

The U.S. authorities abused a law for this that was meant to deal with important crime witnesses.

Some of your security measures remind of a police state. Personally, I will not visit the U.S. any more if I get treated like a criminal at the airport (the finger print story, you know?) "Welcome" to America, hah hah.

About the "detainees": You are breaking your own standards and laws as well as international ones you have agreed to with the treatment of e.g. the prisoners in Guantamo Bay. Period. I couldn't care less about what they have done. The western democracies used to distinguish themselves from the dictatorial states of this planet by their democratic, legislative and humanistic standards. You don't. You violate exactly what you pretend to defend, and you don't see or admit it. In my eyes you are lying to yourselves and the world.

I did not say guarding public buildings is violating the U.S. constitution. I said that it is intimidating your population, and that is felt by Americans too. I read this in a New York Times article. Pretty American source, if you ask me.

I also did not say that America is a police state.

You seem to have read things into my posts I did not say or think. Deliberately or not I don't know: You are twisting my statements in an illegitimate way.

As far as the (should I say "usual") arrogant insults at the beginning and end of your post go: Shove them up yer booty. (I'd be willing to do that personally if I was close enough.)

Twisting your statements? Hardly. Your original post had a great deal of insinuation in it, at least how I read it. "The US is turning into a police state, it's denying basic human rights, and its president is a conniving overlord." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I got out of it.

Intel engineer? I've never even heard of this story. Get me a source, and I'll take a look at it, but for the time being, I see this as a non-issue. The only American "citizens" being held outside of Constitutional law are those at Guantanamo, and they were acting in the roles of enemy combatants. Hardly very citizen-like, if you ask me. However, as I said, this case is before the Supreme Court, and as I said, I personally think that they should be formally charged. Most likely, they will be. However, what they did removes any sympathy I have for them, and I don't really care how long they're held there. Spare me your blanket generalizations about the ethics of the US based on actions against a few prisoners. Once again, you're trying to paint my country in a bad light. We are not compromising our principles. By rights, these detainees have no standards of treatment. They are not declared combatants in an enemy army, they are terrorists using guerrilla tactics. However, this is one case where I'm more than happy to let the Supreme Court sort it out. Suffice it to say that you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Regarding security at airports: what else do you really expect? Our country was hurt, and hurt bad, by September 11. A response was necessary, and our response was to tighten airport security. Longer wait times and a little more inconvenience seem fair tradeoffs to avoid another hijacking. I'm sorry if being fingerprinted offends you, or that you don't want to come over here any more. If you did, you'd see how many of your statements are false. As for the fingerprinting, if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? I wouldn't mind it myself, and that's the truth.

By the way, very few people see the New York Times as a reputable source, as evidenced by several of its writers fabricating information in the past. I wouldn't believe anything printed in it myself. At any rate, it has a pretty leftward slant, and I wouldn't go by the opinions of those in it.

Diedel, regarding my arrogant insults, I'm sorry if I offended you, but after reading your response, I'm not sorry I wrote them. I'm getting sick and tired of the whole "American arrogance" complaint. Let me make what may be a very shocking statement: I'm proud to be an arrogant American. America has the right to be arrogant. We are the best nation on this planet, and like it or not, we've done more to help other nations than any other country. Take that how you may, but I'm tired of this constant European criticism. It's no wonder I've lost much of my respect for Europe as a whole. Of course, that EU thing you've got going on has helped, too. But if you want to give up your seemingly undervalued national sovereignty to some continental system of government, that's your choice. You asked why the US doesn't recognize the authority of the ICC? It's because we don't need to listen to international "governing" bodies. We have our own sovereign law, and that's what we go by.

I know I've just reinforced your negative opinion of me, but at this point, I don't really care. I share the opinion of other people on this board: Europe really has lost relevance in today's world, and their constant criticism is getting more and more meaningless.

How's that for "shoving it up the booty"?

Ugh, cant we just kill them? Kill them all? Lets destroy the whole dammed planet.

Top Gun,

you are twisting and simplifying my statements into things I neither thought nor wrote, deliberately as I see now.

About the engineer: He was arrested because he had supported a moslem organization in the U.S. who was suspected or found to support terrorist activities later on. It had camouflaged as a relief organization though. The case and official action was very suspicious.

You think the New York Times is not credible because one or two of their writers fabricated stories simply is another proof to your overly simplistic approach to life.

Btw, the security measures I referred to were not at airports, but at public buildings in N.Y. city.

Let me make what may be a very shocking statement: I'm proud to be an arrogant American. America has the right to be arrogant. We are the best nation on this planet, and like it or not, we've done more to help other nations than any other country.

This is a very foolish statement. Pride comes before the fall (guess who says that). You're begging for it.

If it would not have been about the torture scandal, I would have approved to what the U.S. is doing in Iraq

So, the whole effort gains your disapproval because 7 stupid Americans pointed at arab weiners, laid them in naked piles and put women's underwear on their heads? In case you need a refresher about real torture and Saddam Husseins legacy, take a look at these pictures.

Now, tell me what Germany did about it.

index_html wrote:

If it would not have been about the torture scandal, I would have approved to what the U.S. is doing in Iraq

So, the whole effort gains your disapproval because 7 stupid Americans pointed at arab weiners, laid them in naked piles and put women's underwear on their heads? In case you need a refresher about real torture and Saddam Husseins legacy, take a look at these pictures.

Now, tell me what Germany did about it.

There has happened way more than that.

Iraqis have been tortured to death by U.S. personnel in several cases. Iraqi medical personnel was not allowed to examine corpses of prisoners handed to them by the U.S. but to accept the cause of death the U.S. told them, although from simply viewing the bodies it was clear that the cause of death was torture.

Torture in Iraqi prisons (and in Guantanamo Bay and other extra-U.S. American prisons) is officially sanctioned. A U.S. general knew about the torture in Iraqi prisons and had approved to it.

One of your ministers (afaik Rumsfeld) had indirectly given order to torture prisoners if that was a means to get information from them ("do everything necessary ...").

There has been an official expertise that people who have tortured cannot be sued for it if the president of the U.S. had ordered it.

I really wonder why you try so desperately to talk the U.S. out of things that are out of question.

Do you think because Hussein did things far worse American torture practise is justified? You really have not understood at all what this is about.

You are making a fool of yourself with your statement.

Guys, you're basically trying to outsmart one another with examples, sources and references. In a discussion like this, it's crap. So far, there hasn't been an example in this discussion that hasn't been refuted by the opposite side. Index_html blamed Belgium for the Rwanda genocide, turns out after a little research that the US were partly to blame as well. I tried to illustrate this "influence" with american movies and McDonalds, but Will pretty much thrashed that as well.

The problem with bringing examples in a discussion (not limited to this particular discussion) is that they are almost always brought in as reproaches. I was talking about the US and bam, all of the sudden someone blames Belgium (not part of the subject) for a genocide that happened ten years ago in Africa. That was purely to distract the conversation from the subject at hand.
Will also said that Belgium would be speaking german if it wasn't for the US. This didn't have anything to do with the conversation.
Even though the quote I posted turned out to be from the WWII era, it was clearly intended towards current events in US foreign policy.
An example is always biased. An example is used to illustrate an abstract concept from which said example is an instantiation of. However, there is no such thing as a perfect instantiation, because there are always connotation, feelings and differences in personal reference frames involved. As such, examples are flawed and are to be avoided.

I would like to invite everyone in this conversation to move up one level of abstraction, and stop trying to throw examples in each other's faces.

I'd like to write a reaction on Will's obvious zero-tolerance attitude towards pretty much the rest of the world. Will would like to see everyone in the way of the US eliminated, especially those who differ most on religious or cultural grounds. I already explained that neither one's opinion, nor the government's opinion, is the only absolute truth. One should act accordingly.

Also, to set off on this higher level of abstraction. Doesn't the fact that there is so much protest (in various parts of the world including Europe, England, Spain and the US itself) against the US attitude, leave the slightest trace of a doubt in your mind? If so many people are not thinking the US is doing a good job, isn't it possible that there is truth there? Accordingly, if the US was doing a good job, there wouldn't be so much protesting, would there?
This is a contradiction you should try to explain before you continue argueing in this topic, in my opinion.

Do you think because Hussein did things far worse American torture practise is justified?

Nope, I don't. Do you think that Germans sitting around staring at their navels and whining about how bad the situation in Iraq is without raising a finger to help is justified?

Index_html blamed Belgium for the Rwanda genocide

My point wasn't that Belgium was soley responsible for Rwanda, it was that your foreign policy isn't always right like you implied. And you know that's what I meant.

Iraqis have been tortured to death by U.S. personnel in several cases.

Please provide some documentation regarding these torture deaths.

Torture in Iraqi prisons (and in Guantanamo Bay and other extra-U.S. American prisons) is officially sanctioned.

In December 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld approved a series of harsh questioning methods for use at the Guantanamo Bay base. According to the Wall Street Journal, these included the removal of clothing, the use of "stress positions," hooding, "fear of dogs," and "mild non-injurious physical contact."

Not exactly Marquis de Sade material.

Everybody, back off on the flames. And also, try to make your responses *COHERENT*, and respond with a single coherent post instead of 5 or 6 little posts that repeat material and answer random points.

If you're going to answer me, answer my whole argument -- don't just give piecemeal responses to 2 or 3 things I said.

Anyway... there are two core questions here:
1) Was the US justified in invading Iraq, even over the objections of other nations?
2) Has the US behaved itself in a generally moral way in the invasion and related actions?

With respect to the first, I present the following:

Diedel wrote:

Lothar wrote:

President Bush wrote:Saddam Hussein's regime continues to support terrorist groups and to oppress its civilian population. It refuses to account for missing Gulf War personnel, or to end illicit trade outside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. And although the regime agreed in 1991 to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, it has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

1) Saddam *did* support terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda and Palestinian suicide bombers
2) Saddam *did* oppress the civilian population
3) Saddam *did not* account for missing Gulf War personnel
4) Saddam *did not* stop selling oil outside of the Oil-for-food program (not to mention the amount of corruption that actually went on within Oil-for-food.)
5) Saddam *did not* prove (as he was REQUIRED TO PROVE) that he dismantled his WMD and the programs to develop them
6) Saddam *did* continue to attempt to get his hands on WMD
7) Saddam *did* have or attempt to develop long-range missiles such as the Al Samoud Warhead, chemical weapons, and some items for his nuclear program

1) S.Hussein did not support Al Qaida
3) Was that ever an issue?
4) Huh?
6) Not true
7) Not true

1) I say he did, you say he didn't. I'll let this go because I don't have a source right off and I don't feel like googling for it...
3) You'll notice I included a more complete quotation than you did. Recall that I wrote my list in response to a quote directly from a Bush speech. So yes, apparently it *was* an issue.
4) I don't see what your "huh" is about. Saddam traded outside of oil-for-food, and he also built palaces with revenues he skimmed off from oil-for-food. What's the question?
6) What do you mean "not true"? Do you mean Saddam had stopped trying to get his hands on WMD?
7) Again, what do you mean "not true"? Did you follow the links I gave? Do you mean that Saddam really didn't try to develop the Al Samoud missile?

Here's the deal: the vast majority of the justification Bush gave for invading Iraq was true -- and none have successfully disputed any of it, aside from the WMD angle, and even that was pretty bogus. We haven't found great stockpiles of WMD, but that in and of itself does not nullify the justifications.

With respect to the second question, let's do a little mind exercise:
Imagine the US had acted mostly immorally in Iraq. How do you suppose that would look?

Answer that honestly, for yourself. Then think -- is that was the US's action actually looks like?

There are definitely a few immoral things the US has done with respect to this war. The key word here is "few".

Tom, you're playing tricks here.

So I will follow you and ask this:
There are plenty of other nations that fulfill your listed description. Does that mean you actually support the idea that each single one of those should be invaded, it's dictator eliminated or emprisoned, and democracy instored by force (all of this by the US against the judgement of most of the rest of the world)?
Do you share Will's radical view that each and every one of those should be eradicated like weed in a garden, as soon as it shows up?

Because mind, every time you have a go at a nation you can rely on experience from the previous conquest, you can only get better at it.

So, answer that honestly, for yourself. Then think -- is that what the US is supposed to do?
If there's a doubt in your mind, there should be a doubt about invading Iraq in the first place as well.

Tricord wrote:There are plenty of other nations that fulfill your listed description.

Lothar wrote:

President Bush wrote:Saddam Hussein's regime continues to support terrorist groups and to oppress its civilian population. It refuses to account for missing Gulf War personnel, or to end illicit trade outside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. And although the regime agreed in 1991 to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, it has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

1) Saddam *did* support terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda and Palestinian suicide bombers
2) Saddam *did* oppress the civilian population
3) Saddam *did not* account for missing Gulf War personnel
4) Saddam *did not* stop selling oil outside of the Oil-for-food program (not to mention the amount of corruption that actually went on within Oil-for-food.)
5) Saddam *did not* prove (as he was REQUIRED TO PROVE) that he dismantled his WMD and the programs to develop them
6) Saddam *did* continue to attempt to get his hands on WMD
7) Saddam *did* have or attempt to develop long-range missiles such as the Al Samoud Warhead, chemical weapons, and some items for his nuclear program

1) yes, other nations meet this
2) yes
3) no (though there are a few who have failed to account for POW's from older wars.)
4) no other nations are required to keep their oil sales within that program
5) no other nations are required to prove the destruction of their WMD
6) yes, but what nations have UN resolutions requiring them not to?
7) yes, as in #6

So at most, other nations meet about 60% of my description, and even then, they only meet 6 and 7 in a limited sense, as the UN has not required each of those nations to stop seeking WMD, etc.

Does that mean you actually support the idea that (1) each single one of those should be invaded, (2) it's dictator eliminated or emprisoned, and (3) democracy instored by force ( (4) all of this by the US against the judgement of most of the rest of the world)?

(1) No. Each nation that meets a significant number of the above criteria should be dealt with appropriately, some via invasion, some via economic pressure, and some via other methods. For example, North Korea (which meets 2, 3 for Vietnam, and 6 and 7 in the limited way) should be forced into complete economic collapse. I don't know how to deal best with Iran (1, 2, and limited 6 and 7.) There are other nations that can be listed, and again, each should be dealt with as appropriate.
(2) If the dictator can be charged with crimes, then yes, he should be imprisoned and/or eliminated.
(3) Democracy cannot be forced on anybody. I refer you my earlier post, which went largely ignored:

Lothar wrote:

Tricord wrote:you can't spread western norms, values and democracy if the people do not support it. If they do things differently, forcing them to adapt will only bring violence.
How much I despise the islam and their norms and values, if they think it works for them, let them be until they are ready by themselves to evolve.

"The people", for the most part, actually do support democracy. Did you know the Palestinians are starting to cry out for Democracy, and that they would prefer a Democracy like Israel's? They may not support western values and norms, but most people want freedom and most people want democracy. The few who don't are the ones who would lose power because of it.

It's silly to say we "try to force democracy on [people]"... how do you "force" a democracy on someone? Hold a gun to their head and make them vote? That's one of the beauties of democracy -- it can't be forced on anyone. If they don't like it, they can choose not to participate. I suppose we can "force" a democracy on those who are already in power -- force them to earn votes to stay in power -- but you can't force a democracy on citizens. You can only present it as an option to them and allow them to choose it.

I do support the removal of certain governments by force, and I also support keeping troops in place while the people of those nations create for themselves a democracy (as in Germany, Japan, and Iraq). But do not say that this is democracy being installed by force -- it is, rather, a dictator being removed by force, and democracy being allowed to flourish under the protection of the force already in place. To me, once the dictatorship is eliminated, fostering the creation of a democracy is the only reasonable response -- don't simply kill the dictator and leave; take out the government and then put in place a government that will not end up as the previous one did.

(4) it's irrelevant as to how many people are for or against a particular action. What's relevant is how sound their judgement is. The judgement of those you refer to concerning Iraq was not sound judgement (I again refer you to my original list) and therefore it's irrelevant how many people hold that judgement.

Do you share Will's radical view that each and every one of those should be eradicated like weed in a garden, as soon as it shows up?

Are you asking if I think that each and every time a government becomes oppressive and sponsors terrorism, it should be eliminated? I wouldn't mind that, though military force is not always necessary. However, we already have oppressive, terror-sponsoring governments to deal with, and as I said before, they should be dealt with appropriately.

I think you're being unfair by saying Will has a "radical view", and I don't think you're properly understanding his view. But I'll leave it to him to respond to that particular point.

is that what the US is supposed to do?

Are you suggesting "promoting freedom and democracy" is something the US shouldn't do?

If there's a doubt in your mind, there should be a doubt about invading Iraq in the first place as well.

That doesn't necessarily follow. There can be doubt about a general rule without doubt about a specific case. For example, some have doubts as to whether or not the death penalty should be given to all murderers -- but does that mean those people have to have doubts as to whether or not the death penalty should be given to Timothy McVeigh? No -- their judgement may be that in the specific case it's warranted, but that in the general case it may or may not be.

Lothar,

the course of time has proved that Iraq did neither have nor develop weapons of mass destruction. There were no middle or long range rockets, only scrap. Even your Minister of Defense admitted that.

I will take a more general approach.

In the 1990s, the people who now form the Bush administration developed a new doctrine of American foreign policy. Basically it was about ensuring American predominance in every part of the world by economic and military means. Part of that concept was to pick "allies" from any nation willing to support the U.S. on a varying base. This implies ignoring nations that had been faithful allies and supporters for long.

Basically, it's a new doctrine of world wide American hegemonia.

The Bush government has been working hard on putting this into effect. Conquering Iraq is part of this plan, as well as actions against Afghanistan and Iran.

While I do not agree with all the U.N. do, I also do not agree with the U.S. breaking international laws and treaties and ignoring loyal allies every way they see fit.

In an interview with a big German news magazine, an American scientist had put it this way: "If you're together with an 800 pound gorilla and he sees something he'd like to have he will simply take it." He was referring to the U.S. as the gorilla.

Now I believe that a civilized, democratic nation (the "best nation in the world", as had been claimed here) should have a better standard than the behaviour of a gorilla. Unfortunately, you don't seem to.

It is a proven fact by now that many of the "proofs" against S.Hussein had been fabricated. So your "Christian" president had been lying to his people and the world. Nice.

Yet on the one hand I believe it was a good thing to remove S.Hussein for the sake of the Iraqi people. On the other hand I wonder whether it was. Some people say it would have been the Iraqis' task to get rid of him. What the U.S. has achieved is not political stability in Iraq, but chaos. I wonder whether the Iraqi people will be better off in the near future when they will be left to themselves again. I wonder whether another brutal guy will seize power in Iraq soon (maybe the fundamentalist fanatic Sadr?)

Above that, with their absolutely stupid torturing of Iraqi prisoners, the Americans have upset the whole muslim world, achieving the exact opposite of what they tried to achieve in their fight against terrorism. You have driven hoards of new supporters into the arms of the muslim terrorists and fanaticized the muslim world.

Similar things go true for Afghanistan, which is said to be the most unrulable country in the world.

The short sighted, stupid, arrogant and selfish actions of your nation are leashing back on everybody associated with what you claim to be standing for, i.e. on all western democratic countries.

And you still have the cheek to praise yourselves for this. OMG.

Lothar wrote:

If there's a doubt in your mind, there should be a doubt about invading Iraq in the first place as well.

That doesn't necessarily follow. There can be doubt about a general rule without doubt about a specific case. For example, some have doubts as to whether or not the death penalty should be given to all murderers -- but does that mean those people have to have doubts as to whether or not the death penalty should be given to Timothy McVeigh? No -- their judgement may be that in the specific case it's warranted, but that in the general case it may or may not be.

Well, that pretty much undermined anything consequent you wrote until now.

You understand what I meant with the list of "crimes". Not all dictatorial countries have oil, and each case differs. Again, if you're going to nitpick on examples this won't lead us anywhere.
The nations I refer to are much like Iraq. At least, they are if you deny that the war in Iraq was about something else than freeing the oppressed iraqis, and thus toppling over a dictatorial government. It could of course be about the oil, about a personal grudge because Bush Jr. wanted to teach Iraq what his dad didn't teach them, or whatever.

However, if you uphold the fact that terrorism should be eliminated, that oppressed people should be freed, and that everyone has a right for democracy (which is basically the justification Bush gave for this war, aside from the whole WMD shebang), you find the US in a nasty position. It went through great lengths to free the iraqi people, but it wouldn't help other nations that suffer from oppression from religious or other dictators?

I've said it before and I say it again. The actual reasons why the US went to war are almost more important than the war itself. The reasons were either misguided, proven false afterwards, or lead to believe the US will free other nations as well (universal rights and freedom etc.)
The fact that this war gives certain positive byproducts must not be used in it's justification, because they weren't known at the time Bush justified this war.

I attach more importance to what brought the US to waging war rather than what the war changed in Iraq itself. I had the feeling it wasn't Iraq we should be afraid of, but the United States of America.

Please try to think in more general terms instead of holding desperately to examples, lists and numbers. I feel like discussing with a friggin' machine here. I still don't know what you think. Or maybe you don't want to admit what you think.. Like 1/4 of the flemish population who voted extremist-right for the flemish government last sunday. They won't admit any of the issues either. We too, it seems, are going straight to hell

index_html wrote:Nope, I don't. Do you think that Germans sitting around staring at their navels and whining about how bad the situation in Iraq is without raising a finger to help is justified?

Do you think Germany will let the U.S. ignore and humiliate them and then jump in to "help" (whatever that help should be in your opinion) when the U.S. snaps their fingers? W/o being allowed any influence on what is going on in Iraq?

That's pretty stupid, if you ask me.

You have no clue of the German position and action in this. You also don't seem to know that German laws forbid Germany to take part in any armed conflict unless it is to defend itself or a NATO ally who is being attacked. We have this law for a good reason, and we take it serious. You know why. At least you should.

There was no reason to attack Iraq, as we now all know. I have explained the real reasons in my post above.

As far as death due to torture in Al Ghureib goes: Read the media. Try google. Get your head out of your butt.

There was no reason to attack Iraq, as we now all know.

Okay, have it your way, Iraq was just great under Ba'athist control and the hundreds of thousands of mass graves just make the grass pretty. The German plan for Iraq -- screw 'em, not our problem. At least the Huns are consistent.

Oh, but wait, you also said ...

Yet on the one hand I believe it was a good thing to remove S.Hussein for the sake of the Iraqi people.

Who the hell knows what you think. You're all over the place. I think you're just in love with the sound of your own voice.

index_html wrote:

There was no reason to attack Iraq, as we now all know.

Okay, have it your way, Iraq was just great under Ba'athist control and the hundreds of thousands of mass graves just make the grass pretty. The German plan for Iraq -- screw 'em, not our problem. At least the Huns are consistent.

Oh, but wait, you also said ...

Yet on the one hand I believe it was a good thing to remove S.Hussein for the sake of the Iraqi people.

Who the hell knows what you think. You're all over the place. I think you're just in love with the sound of your own voice.

I think you cannot read and understand more than 1 or 2 consecutive sentences. So much less think through complicated issues and ponder on an alternative, or even two. It's typical for people your intellectual level to resort to insults if they lack arguments because they lack understanding.

Or are you going to tell me the U.S. masterplan for Iraq and fighting terrorism world-wide has worked out? LMAO. You have screwed up. It's still very uncertain whether your war on Iraq will prove to be beneficial for Iraq in the long run; that's what I tried to express. I will take into account that you obviously cannot think from 12 o'clock 'till noon in the future.

The least important thing for the U.S. was to liberate the Iraqi people, I am pretty certain of that.

It's typical for people your intellectual level to resort to insults if they lack arguments because they lack understanding.

So, telling me to take my head out my butt makes you a genius? Gotcha Adolf.

index_html wrote:

It's typical for people your intellectual level to resort to insults if they lack arguments because they lack understanding.

So, telling me to take my head out my butt makes you a genius? Gotcha Adolf.

I just tried a language you should understand, given the intellectual level you are displaying so far. Rest assured: Being twice as smart as you wouldn't make anybody a genius. Not even 10 times as smart.

I will ignore you from now on. Actually, I do not need an ignore feature for that, although it's helpful.

Being twice as smart as you wouldn't make anybody a genius. Not even 10 times as smart.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... and your dad's bigger than my dad.

Diedel wrote:the course of time has proved that Iraq did neither have nor develop weapons of mass destruction.

That's not relevant. It doesn't matter whether or not Saddam actually *had* WMD.

What my post says -- and what the justification Bush gave was -- is that Saddam *tried to get* and *tried to develop* WMD, and *failed to document* that he had gotten rid of all of his WMD. None of those statements are contingent on whether or not Saddam actually succeeded in getting WMD, or had any in his posession at the time of gulf war II. It's completely and totally irrelevant as to whether or not he had them -- it's only relevant that he continued to seek them, and did not prove that he'd gotten rid of the ones he was known to have 13 years ago (the burden of proof was on him.)

However, just FYI, Saddam both *had* WMD (for example, the Sarin shell) and *developed* banned weapons (for example, the Al Samoud missile). Even though it's not relevant... I notice you haven't even tried to touch these questions. You keep saying Saddam didn't have these things and didn't develop these things -- but you haven't even tried to deal with the links I posted about them.

I also do not agree with the U.S. breaking international laws and treaties and ignoring loyal allies every way they see fit.

Which international laws or treaties did the US break, as a matter of policy? (References to one-time incidents such as Abu Ghraib don't count.) Name the international laws or treaties, and name the US action that broke them.

Which allies are being ignored? The fact that we don't do what you want doesn't mean you're being ignored -- just that we don't find your arguments compelling. Similarly, you and Tricord aren't being ignored, even though I don't change my mind -- I just don't think your positions are compelling.

with their absolutely stupid torturing of Iraqi prisoners, the Americans have upset the whole muslim world

How often do you read what people in the Muslim world are saying? When's the last time you read an Iraqi blog?

It seems the "torture" in Abu Ghraib is being played up far more in our media than in theirs. The West can't seem to quit referencing this, but the Muslim world has pretty much left it behind. There is no mass drive toward becoming terrorists in the Muslim world because of Abu Ghraib. There's a mass drive toward self-loathing in the US, and condemnation from Europe, but Muslims have pretty much left this behind.

Tricord wrote:

Lothar wrote:

If there's a doubt in your mind, there should be a doubt about invading Iraq in the first place as well.

That doesn't necessarily follow.

Well, that pretty much undermined anything consequent you wrote until now. You understand what I meant with the list of "crimes"...

Yes, I do. Do you understand what I mean by "you have to deal with each case individually"?

You say that if I don't support overthrowing *every* dictator *right now* that I must have doubt about Iraq. But that simply doesn't follow. There are some dictators that need dealt with differently. There is doubt in my mind that the US should overthrow all dictators by military force -- because not all dictators are the same (and also because, frankly, the rest of the world should be participating.) But there is not doubt in my mind that the US should have taken out Saddam Hussein.

The nations I refer to are much like Iraq. At least, they are if you deny that the war in Iraq was about something else than freeing the oppressed iraqis, and thus toppling over a dictatorial government....

First: Name the nations. I know you're trying to avoid specific examples, but by doing so, you make it impossible to respond -- what am I supposed to say with respect to a hypothetical nation we're not invading? That doesn't even make sense. Name the nations you think are "just like Iraq", and then we can talk. In particular, we can address what critical differences they might have with Iraq that make it such that invading them would not be the best idea.

Second: I already said the war was about more than freeing oppressed Iraqis and toppling a dictatorial government. Didn't you read my list? You've covered item #2 -- what about #1 and #3-#7? Saddam was overthrown not simply because Saddam oppressed his own people, but because Saddam was a threat to others, and because Saddam sought to become a bigger threat. Saddam was also overthrown because he *could be* overthrown with a military attack without much collateral damage (contrast with North Korea.)

if you uphold the fact that terrorism should be eliminated, that oppressed people should be freed, and that everyone has a right for democracy (which is basically the justification Bush gave for this war, aside from the whole WMD shebang), you find the US in a nasty position. It went through great lengths to free the iraqi people, but it wouldn't help other nations that suffer from oppression from religious or other dictators?

What makes you think it won't? The fact that the US isn't simultaneously invading 30 countries does not mean the US isn't working toward freedom for the whole world -- just that the US is being strategically sound in its work.

Seriously, what alternative do you propose? The US should attack every dictatorship in the world, simultaneously, and then set up democracies in each? That's not viable.

The actual reasons why the US went to war are almost more important than the war itself. The reasons were either misguided, proven false afterwards, or lead to believe the US will free other nations as well (universal rights and freedom etc.)

You say the reasons are important... Then why do you keep misrepresenting the reasons? If the reasons are that important, why don't you *get them right*?

You keep saying "let's talk in generalities" -- but you can't talk in generalities if you want to talk about the reasons the US gave for war with Iraq, because those reasons were *specific*. You say "let's talk in generalities" and then you say the reasons for war were misguided, proven false, or make it sound like the US is going to free other nations -- but you don't deal with the reasons given for war!

There is a time and place for abstraction. The question as to whether a *specific* action is justified, though, is not the place for abstraction -- we're dealing with a *specific* action in a *specific* situation with *specific* justifications, so you have to deal with specifics in order to make rational conclusions. You can't go flying off into generalities and then say a specific situation was unjustified -- you have to deal with the specific situation.

I've given the list of reasons. Instead of dealing with that, you say "let's talk in generalities" and then you say things about general reasons that nobody ever actually gave. Deal with the list; deal with the specifics.

Diedel wrote:Btw, I knew where you were heading with this Nazi crap, and your last post is proof.

Lets get this straight right now.
You accused me of using the word 'nazi' to 'strike a blow' at you when I merely listed them as one of many diverse inhabitants of our country.
Anyone who reads the initial post where I mentioned them can plainly see they were mentioned to illustrate the diverse makeup of people, often enemies with one another, who enjoy freedom in america without trying to kill each other.

That is the context of my statement, that is all I meant by it, and I am the supreme authority on what I meant. Your paranoia is your problem.

Here is the original post I made with n-a-z-i in it:
In america however we have a common foundation that was put in place by the will of the people, not a dictator, and there is room for nazi's, communists, jews, muslims, agnostics and even lesbians for free tea and books!

Trust me, I had no idea you were so sensitive to the word 'nazi' that the mere use of the word even in such a benign context could possibly offend you!

Now, subsequent to your being wounded by the sight of n-a-z-i in print, and then declaring it a cheap shot to use n-a-z-i, you made a statement with the following:

...officially supported American torture practise has ruined your country's credibility for me."

Well I find that to quite convenient for you.

First you declare the mere mention of the Germans responsible for the most heinous, pure evil, 'officially supported torture practices' known to mankind to be off limits in this discussion.
Then you turn around and claim the torture performed by a handfull of U.S. personel has 'ruined my country's credibility'!

You didn't see where I was heading, you were too busy looking for something to cry about.
/me bites tongue and deletes the insult you deserve here

Now lets look at one of your most recent lies:

Diedel wrote:..the course of time has proved that Iraq did neither have nor develop weapons of mass destruction. There were no middle or long range rockets, only scrap. Even your Minister of Defense admitted that.

If you won't believe me how about the precious U.N.:

"The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles.

The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags."

From here

I know you want to just call it scrap metal but the truth is, before it was dismantled into scrap in Iraq we all called them "missiles". Some of them were found with the damn U.N. tags still attached...some of them weren't even dismantled...but you can call it scrap anyway if it makes your lie easier to swallow.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at you trying to alter reality to make your claims bear up under scrutiny.





****************************************

Tricord wrote:Will also said that Belgium would be speaking german if it wasn't for the US. This didn't have anything to do with the conversation.

No, I didn't!

Tricord wrote:Will would like to see everyone in the way of the US eliminated, especially those who differ most on religious or cultural grounds.

No, I never said that, I never identified an enemy simply by their culture or religion so why do you say that? Why leave out the most defining characteristic of what I call 'the enemy'?

Why distort and make a strawman of my argument, did it pose too much of an obstacle for you in it's original form?

I identify our enemies first as those who attack us or those who give the enemy material support or sanctuary. Whether they do it for religious reasons or not is irrelavent to me. Blow up my fellow citizens for god or money or thrills....any way you slice it I'm looking to kill you before you strike again. If I can get you locked up instead I'll go with that, I have no lust for blood just termination of the threat.

For someone who begs for rational discussion you sure don't give much as example.

Well, I'm sorry. I'm more of an antropologist than an archeologist, so you will excuse me if I don't bother to dig up nice and jucy facts.

This thread has been a "did not" "did too" "did not" "did too" girlfight ever since I said we had reached maximum depth along on page three.

I gave everyone an invitation to discuss a little more intelligently, about ethics, about principles and about laws, instead of googling around for facts and rambling on and on about it. Apparently, this invitation was rejected.

So, one last try to move up. Tom, we both live in a country where the law instores order. One of the basic principles is that the law applies to everybody. Laws are usually quite clear too, unless they are poorly written. You mentioned the death penalty. As far as I'm concerned, either the law allows it and there is no problem (from juridic point of view), or else the law forbids it and there is no problem either. The problem arises when the law is adapted according to whom it is applied to. It is absolutely neccessary to separate law from ethical judgement. If you "feel" this guy should be executed but others not, you undermine the very foundations upon which the judicial system works. It's like saying Saddam doesn't diserve a trial just because he's Saddam. Fact is, he diserves a trial just as much as anyone else who did what he did.

You are aware of the Dutroux trial that ended here in Belgium. Dutroux is a psycho who kidnapped several little girls, abused them sexually, emprisoned them in his basement and then killed them and buried them in his garden. Dutroux is about the most horrible and deranged person who walks the face of the earth right now, according to many people. However, he got a fair trial, and will be convicted by the jury, according to the law. When Dutroux is transported, he is protected by a police escort and wears bullet proof jackets, in case someone would take justice in his own hands and try to kill him.
Dutroux cannot be executed. He can only be emprisoned. It is the governments duty to make sure Dutroux stays safe at all times. Which is what we'll do. Regardless of how mad or how dangerous someone is, or regardless of what happens, the law has to be upheld. Even if the law is flawed. It should be upheld until the government passes another law to replace it. That's how it works.

In this view, there is absolutely no case-by-case approach. Without applying this to anything in particular, do you agree with this? Or do you feel exceptions should be possible, as you previously stated?

Will Robinson wrote:That is the context of my statement, that is all I meant by it, and I am the supreme authority on what I meant. Your paranoia is your problem.

Sorry, you are not. Communication is what is understood. If I follow your reasoning, none of you should have bashed me for posting that quote in the first place, because I didn't intend it the way most of you guys took it.

Will Robinson wrote:Trust me, I had no idea you were so sensitive to the word 'nazi' that the mere use of the word even in such a benign context could possibly offend you!

Neither did I when I started this thread! However, it is up to the poster of a message to make sure it cannot be interpreted in a way that wasn't intended. I made the mistake, and was harshly put back in check. Now you make the same mistake, and we're going round in circles.

Will Robinson wrote:

Tricord wrote:Will also said that Belgium would be speaking german if it wasn't for the US. This didn't have anything to do with the conversation.

No, I didn't!

I stand corrected, it was Flabby Chick who wrote that. Sorry if I mistook you for him

About your extreme views on dealing with terrorism. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if harmless arabic citizens are killed in the process of eleminating terrorists. It's an affordable price to pay, you probably think. Better them than us, you probably think. The purpose justifies the means, you probably think. Well, I still disagree. Deal with the terrorists who attack you. Leave the rest of the citizens to their devices. Give them time to evolve morally. Time that was available to your socity, why wouldn't it be granted to theirs as well?

Lothar wrote:That's not relevant. It doesn't matter whether or not Saddam actually *had* WMD.

What my post says -- and what the justification Bush gave was -- is that Saddam *tried to get* and *tried to develop* WMD, and *failed to document* that he had gotten rid of all of his WMD.

He hadn't tried that, and I believe that whatever proof he would have delivered, the U.S. wouldn't have believed him. It wouldn't had fitted their middle-east plans. It's absolutely relevant - it's exactly the point! It's not about what you believe, it's about what is fact!

Lothar wrote:However, just FYI, Saddam both *had* WMD (for example, the Sarin shell) and *developed* banned weapons (for example, the Al Samoud missile). Even though it's not relevant... I notice you haven't even tried to touch these questions. You keep saying Saddam didn't have these things and didn't develop these things -- but you haven't even tried to deal with the links I posted about them.

After the 2nd gulf war, inspectors couldn't find poisonous gas or other chemical or biological warfare substances, nor could they find working middle range rockets or even working test beds or development facilities.

Lothar wrote:Which international laws or treaties did the US break, as a matter of policy? (References to one-time incidents such as Abu Ghraib don't count.) Name the international laws or treaties, and name the US action that broke them.

You have short memories. The war against Iraq was against international law.

Lothar wrote:Which allies are being ignored? The fact that we don't do what you want doesn't mean you're being ignored -- just that we don't find your arguments compelling. Similarly, you and Tricord aren't being ignored, even though I don't change my mind -- I just don't think your positions are compelling.

Lothar wrote:It seems the "torture" in Abu Ghraib is being played up far more in our media than in theirs. The West can't seem to quit referencing this, but the Muslim world has pretty much left it behind. There is no mass drive toward becoming terrorists in the Muslim world because of Abu Ghraib. There's a mass drive toward self-loathing in the US, and condemnation from Europe, but Muslims have pretty much left this behind.

That's pretty ridiculous. What the U.S. did here is both a massive humiliation for muslims as abandoning their own standards of humanity and civilization.

Lothar wrote:Second: I already said the war was about more than freeing oppressed Iraqis and toppling a dictatorial government.

This is pretty naive. I have outlined the true reasons for the 2nd gulf war in a post further above. If you had followed the discussion around this for the last few years, you knew better.

Tricord is right. Either you have a moral and legislative standard and follow it, or you don't. Our standards distinguish us from non-democratic, dictatorial countries. At least they should. If you start treating every body "case by case" you will inevitably soften and eventually leave your standards.

In other words: It is a hallmark of civilization not to behave like wild beasts, and to even treat those who do according to our standard and not theirs. If you let them pull you down to their level, you end up being just the same.

This is something many of the Americans posting here seem to overlook.

"9/11 panel: No Iraq-al-Qaida link"

(found today on MSNBC)

Lothar wrote:If you're going to answer me, answer my whole argument -- don't just give piecemeal responses to 2 or 3 things I said.

I will only reply to interesting, non-covered points.

Lothar wrote:Anyway... there are two core questions here:
1) Was the US justified in invading Iraq, even over the objections of other nations?
2) Has the US behaved itself in a generally moral way in the invasion and related actions?[/b]

(1) Given their true motives, and the means they used to get the U.S. of A. into this war: No.
(2) Given (1), and the officially sanctioned torture practise as well as numerous incidents even with western people in Iraq, No.

President Bush wrote:Saddam Hussein's regime continues to support terrorist groups and to oppress its civilian population. It refuses to account for missing Gulf War personnel, or to end illicit trade outside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. And although the regime agreed in 1991 to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, it has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

Mr. Bush is not a reliable source. It's a known fact by now that many of the informations he gave to the American public in regard of Iraq were exaggerated or simply untrue.

Diedel, you still haven't presented much to address many of the specifics others have tried to nail down. I see alot of smoke and mirrors and that becomes abundantly clear when you dodge the tough questions and supply either a flippant psuedo-answer or a personal insult in response to a legitimate examination of your position (that's what this forum is here for, btw, not as your personal soapbox). You're welcome to your hostile opinion of America but when you try to pass it off as based on fact without anything substantial to bear it you're just looking like another sour grape Euro that misses the *good old days*. Both you and Tricord are flitting all over the map regurgitating half-truths and tired bigotries which we've all heard countless times before. When the tough questions come you're off somewhere else apparently trying to stay one step ahead of an actual debate. Don't think that it's going unnoticed.

I don't need to fill you in on material on Bush's misleading statements about Iraq, or abuse of American laws against Americans, or official sanctioning American torture practise, or about America's new doctrine of world wide predominance.

There has been enough coverage of that in the media, and if you have never bothered following it and can't be bothered searching for it now, don't make it my problem.

I have posted a lot about this, and you fail to counter a single point of it. I don't remember exact exact links though, some of these issues are a year old and older. I remember the contents though. It's a case of "knowing what's in the bible, but not exactly knowing where." That does not invalidate my statements. Just because you do not (or pretend not to) know about doesn't mean it isn't there. Search it out yourself or leave it.

I believe however that you prefer to ignore such evidence.

As far as personal insults go: I have been insulted here in a worse way, and I didn't start insulting others here.

Is it typical for you always to blame others?

I am so fed up with smacktards not being able to stay with the truth and conduct a well-founded and educated discussion.

I am losing my patience here now. It's pretty useless to try to discuss issues with people who cannot or refuse to understand and properly evaluate the arguments of the opposite side. And that's happening here a lot.

Basically you Americans simply want to be right whatever you do.

I am however not going to clap your shoulder or applaude to your nation's current selfish and arrogant actions in the word.

Pride comes before the fall. Bring it on.