| Do you believe that Bush's pre-emptive strike strategy is a good strategy in the long term for America and its future relationships with other countries? | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 15 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 765
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2004 6:02 pm Post subject: | |||||||||
From dictionary.com:
Slek wrote:
Prove to me, based on these definitions...that by condemning Iraq the United States is being hypocritical. |
|||||||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm Post subject: | |||||||
Footsoldier,
Try reading for a change. Your question has already been addressed. CCCs,
So, in a last ditch effort you want to argue semantics heh? Pretty silly but, whatever...
We'll stick with the UN resolution factor as you've already conceded it and it's all that's needed to demonstrate hypocrisy. Fact: Iraq has violated at least one UN resolution. Fact: The US has violated at least one UN resolution. Fact: The US has utilized UN Resolution violations as evidence for an adverse judgment against Iraq. The US, by citing UN Resolution violations as partial grounds for an adverse judgement against Iraq, has professed a belief in the inviolability of UN Resolutions. The US, having violated at least one UN Resolution themselves, has demonstrated that it does not hold, possess, or practice a belief in the inviolability of UN Resolutions. Thus, by using UN Resolution violations as evidence for an adverse judgement against Iraq, the US is acting hypocritically insofar as the belief in the inviolability of UN Resolutions is a belief that the US does not hold or possess. |
|||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 12:22 am Post subject: | |
|
Sounds to me like sleK's loyalty is to someone other than the United States.
Sounds to me like he's justifying Iraq's sadistic killing of its own people and rejecting our attempts to free those people . Appears to me that he wishes to be more supportive of the regime of Saddam Hussein than he is of the administration of George Bush. Keep in mind, the only reason we are there is because of the threat Saddam Hussein and his Army posed to the region and the world, and for the murderous treatment of his people. If Saddam Hussein treats his people in a humane way and had stopped being a threat to the world, we aren't there today. It is as simple as that. Now watch sleK attempt to make it much more complicated. Footsoldier |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 613
Location: New Frickin' Jersey
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:42 am Post subject: | |||
his loyalty IS to someone else...it is to canada |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 765
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 5:27 am Post subject: | |
|
Slek,
According to your petty definition of hypocrisy...the U.S. is acting hypocritically in it's condemnation of Iraq. However, this matters very little. Did Iraq violate U.N. resolutions at least 17 times? Yes. Did Saddam commit genocide and mass murder on his own people? Yes. Did Iraq harbor and train terrorists? Yes. Actions deeming a justifiable response from the United States coalition. Certainly. |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:29 am Post subject: | |||||||||
Sorry CCCs, I didn't define hypocrisy. I used the same definition you did. In fact, I used the one you posted. It's interesting, however, that you failed to comment on my response to your challenge. Any particular reason why? Might it simply be a matter of "the truth hurts sometimes"? If so, I'd have hoped that you'd have the common decency to acknowledge the truth of the proposition with the understanding that, in doing so, your allegiance to your nation need not diminish.
To you maybe, but to the rest of the reasonable world, hypocrisy (and preemptive strikes for that matter) is something we could all live without.
And, as pointed out previously, the US is guilty of much the same. Whether your fanaticism allows you to acknowledge it or not, your constant regurgitation of the same rationalizations are immaterial to the point.
Would you object to China, for example, citing the very same criteria as you (WmD, UN rez' violations, crimes against humanity), developing a coalition for an invasion of the US? I would think so. In fact, I would hope so. But, by your own reprehensible rationale, they'd have every right, and perhaps even an obligation, to do so. So, before your knee jerks up and smacks yet another debilitating blow to your faculty for reason, stop and consider the truth of the proposition. Oh! And Footsoldier, Imagine, if you've the capacity to do so (though all indicators suggest that you don't), a universe filled with 
|
|||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:42 am Post subject: | |||
I am still waiting for that! |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 765
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:20 am Post subject: | |||||
Please qualify this statement....who are you to judge what "the rest of the reasonable world" can live without. Maybe you can live without it...but the "rest of the reasonable world"?
This seems to be a personal attack...you had better be careful because people have been banned for this type of thing. I hear the moderator around here is pretty tough. 
We both have the right to our opinions. You look at the evidence and draw one conclusion...I look at the evidence and draw another. But I have never resorted to personal attacks such as this. |
|||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:02 am Post subject: | |||||
That's all you're going to address? Figures...
Being a member of the reasonable world, I'm quite qualified to speak on their behalf and I'm quite positive that reasonable people would prefer a world without hypocrisy. It's hardly a leap to apply negative connotations to hypocrisy.
Sorry CCCs but willful ignorance is worthy of much more scorn than even I can provide. |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 765
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:46 pm Post subject: | |
| You go ahead and fight the reasonable world's battle versus hypocrisy. Meanwhile, the U.S. will help lead the real world in the battle against terrorism. | |
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:46 pm Post subject: | |
|
CCC ... right on!!!
What sleK either doesn't realize or just fails to acknowledge is the United States of America is, in many ways, the only thing keeping this world from destroying itself. We're certainly not perfect and have wavered off the path from time to time, but the fact is we're just about the only country who "steps up" when a world crisis hits. We're easy targets from every corner of the world, even those who we call allies, but when the chips are down, there they are, even our critics, with their hands out. Who has committed BILLIONS of dollars to fight the AIDS war in Africa? Who turns around after bombing countries during wartimes such as Iraq and Japan, and spends billions rebuilding those countries? Who commits millions of dollars and thousands of troops to keep various "hot spots" around the world safe? Who feeds millions of starving citizens around the world? Who does just about everyone look to for help when a bully surfaces, threatening peace in their region? The answer is the same for each question. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Stick that in your unpatriotic pipe and smoke it sleK. Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:15 pm Post subject: | |
|
You still haven't addressed the hypocrisy CCCs.
You made the challenge, I answered. So, c'mon and put your money where your mouth is: The US, by citing UN Resolution violations as partial grounds for an adverse judgement against Iraq, has professed a belief in the inviolability of UN Resolutions. The US, having violated at least one UN Resolution themselves, has demonstrated that it does not hold, possess, or practice a belief in the inviolability of UN Resolutions. Thus, by using UN Resolution violations as evidence for an adverse judgement against Iraq, the US is acting hypocritically insofar as the belief in the inviolability of UN Resolutions is a belief that the US does not hold or possess. Hypocrisy: yes or no? |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 765
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:33 am Post subject: | |||||||
Slek wrote:
Upon further review, I respectfully take back my concession on the UN resolution factor. 1997/36 was a resolution asking for more information and hoping for action...it clearly was not a mandate....here are the conclusions:
The other DU link you provided is an opinion piece as well. This is what a UN security council resolution looks like...notice that they are not just asking for information...a decision has been made and a call to action is ordered. Slek wrote:
As the US did not violate a UN Resolution...my answer based on your assumptions is NO. |
|||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 765
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:36 am Post subject: | |
| A side note...even Canada has rejected calls for a ban on DU weapons. | |
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 3:36 pm Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||
Indeed. I concede the UN Resolution example (and urge everyone to read the UN's report). However, in its stead, I offer Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:
Article 51 of the same:
I'll add Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (both in relation to Guantanamo). Raise you Article 54 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) which states:
As evidence of the US's violation of the above article I offer a 1998 US Air Force document that states:
And throw Article 55 of the same Convention into the pot as well:
As a hint towards what "may be expected" from the continued use of depleted uranium weapons, I'll cite the UN's report (linked above):
So, while these examples may not be UN resolutions they each carry equal if not greater weight in the realm of international law. As such, along with the maintainence of my position regarding WmD's and crimes against humanity, they serve as fine examples of US hypocrisy as it relates to justification for the invasion of Iraq. Note again that I'm not judging the validity or necessity of the invasion solely on hypocrisy. The administrations reasoning, however, would be a lot easier to swallow if such justifications were avoided.
We have to recycle our beer cans* somehow. . . . . . * yes, it's true; the potency of Canadian beer requires nuclear cans. |
|||||||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 765
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:45 pm Post subject: | |||||||
Although presented as being stated by a US Air force document, the preceding excerpt is taken from a book by Richard G. Davis, who is not a member of the military. This passage was referenced by the US Air Force Document, but was not actually a part of the Document nor written by the Air Force. If one were to read just the points I have highlighted (which just happen to be the portion of the quote that you used as evidence of the U.S. violating article 1) you might believe that the purpose of the attack was to shut down the water treatment facilities of Iraq...however a full read proves otherwise. The treatment facilities impact was merely a by-product of attacking the electrical infrastructure...which was done to put the Iraqi Central Command into disarray. Article 1:
This Article of the Geneva Convention states that one cannot attack these objects for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value. That did not happen. As for the use of DU weapons, there is no consensus about their use and effects at this point. So the argument that their use is a violation of international law is not valid. Might it be at some time in the future, only time will tell...but they are not banned today.
Aww yes...Canadian Beer. Reminds me of one of my favorite movies from the 80's Strange Brew. "We found a mouse in our beer, eh....we told a cop about it....he said we could come here to the brewery and get some free beer, eh" |
|||||||