|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2002 : 10:19:41 [Permalink]
|
At least be fair Gorgo, you take the position that anything the US does is evil. That mirror image is just as ridiculous.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2002 : 10:38:55 [Permalink]
|
Again, how you can blow up what I said into that kind of characterization can only be credited to an amazing propanda job. Any criticism of the U.S. is saying that everything they do is "evil" yet saying that everything everyone else does is "evil" and everything the U.S. does is a miracle from above is reasonable behavior. I just don't understand.
quote:
At least be fair Gorgo, you take the position that anything the US does is evil. That mirror image is just as ridiculous.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2002 : 10:59:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I just don't understand
You have made that abundantly clear.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2002 : 17:20:48 [Permalink]
|
Badger> “Omega, it's my opinion that that what is brought to a country as a result of US intervention benefits that country more than the status quo would have been.”
How was Pinochet better than Allende?
I'm not asking you or anyone here to apologise. What the American government does has nothing to do with its population. You do not make the laws or decide upon war.
How come interventions are so… random? Why did no one intervene during South African Apartheid? During Israels six-day war against its neighbours?
What gives the US the right to intervene? The size of its army?
First the US supported Iraq during its war against Iran. Then Iraq was the enemy. It is exactly because of the ulterior motives and that some regimes go free, while others are suddenly the “demon-states” that I strongly object to the so-called “rightfulness” of sanctions against Iraq.
Atomic> “Did you ever consider that a bridge can be used to transport military supplies and vehicles? If civilians also use these that's unfortunate. War is unfortunate.”
That is my point. Non-military targets can and will be targeted during war. On purpose. Which is what I think is Gorgos point.
And what do I expect of a war? This is not the point I am trying to make. I'm saying that bombing civilians is a crime. That the point of the Us-lead war against Iraq was indeed oil, but that other countries have invaded their neighbours, and there was no Us-lead war and no sanctions. The sanctions in Iraq hurt the wrong people. Which is why they are wrong.
“The US has the right, technically, because no one is there to stop it.”
Do you agree with this right? If no-one is there to stop me, do I technically have the right to steal my neighbours cat?
“I thought what the US did in Chile was horrible.” Can we then agree, that the US should not just be allowed to intervene wherever the government sees fit?
Needless to say, I'm happy the allies beat the axis-powers during WW II. But have you ever considered why the US intervened?
“One way to look at it is that the US fixed a problem it had caused.” So as long as the US-government “fixes problems” it's okay that it interferes with other countries? You can't fix the killing of thousands of civilians.
Not all totalitarian regimes are targeted. Why not? And why are those that are targets?
Gorgo has a point. Why is it okay for the US to make failures, but no other country has that right? Why is the US-intentions always inherently good? It's okay for the US to remove Chiles elected leader, Allenede, but not okay for Iraq to invade Kuwait?
Gorgo> I'm curious. You're the most sceptic American against America foreign policies I've ever met. May I mail you?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2002 : 17:54:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That is my point. Non-military targets can and will be targeted during war. On purpose. Which is what I think is Gorgos point.
And what do I expect of a war? This is not the point I am trying to make. I'm saying that bombing civilians is a crime. That the point of the Us-lead war against Iraq was indeed oil, but that other countries have invaded their neighbours, and there was no Us-lead war and no sanctions. The sanctions in Iraq hurt the wrong people. Which is why they are wrong.
Gorgo has no point beyond "Whatever the US is bad" and you call that skeptical????
Whatever turns you on.
Bombing of civilians "may" be a crime. Might not be as well. As I said, if a government places military targets in a civilian building, that building is no longer civilian. Bombing a bridge, whether it's used by civilians or not, is hardly bombing civilians! Give me a break! No need to stretch a truth so far it's no longer even in sight of the truth. Bridges and communications and power generation facilities are without a doubt military targets. I bet that back in the 40s when Denmark was occupied the Danes were not saying "Oh, please spare the German bridges. Civilians use those." I bet if you ask around you come up with zero(0) that took that stance. It's real easy to criticize an armies acts when your own troops are not at risk. I'm talking about the Gulf War here not WWII. Civilians were not deliberately bombed and i dare you to come up with a single shred of evidence to support a claim that they were. That's a skeptical way to go about it.
quote:
“The US has the right, technically, because no one is there to stop it.”
Do you agree with this right? If no-one is there to stop me, do I technically have the right to steal my neighbours cat?
I have said several times that I do not necessarily think it's right. Each situation should be judged individually don't you think?
quote:
“I thought what the US did in Chile was horrible.” Can we then agree, that the US should not just be allowed to intervene wherever the government sees fit?
Needless to say, I'm happy the allies beat the axis-powers during WW II. But have you ever considered why the US intervened?
So you are saying that the US should not have intervened in WWII and you'd be speaking German now? I think a country should intervene in certain situations. We didn't have to intervene in the Gulf War but then again it was our responsibility to fix the stupidity of past US policy. The same applies to Noriega. If US hostages are taken i have no problem with the US going in, on its own, and rescuing them. If the World Trade Center is attacked I have absolutely no problem with the US destroying the group that did it. I would prefer it if no civilians die but if they are stupid enough to be standing too close then that's their problem. If the choice is to hang back and bite our fingernails while an enemy sends out wave after wave of attackers or to go ahead and hit a target even if some civilians are going to die....too bad civilians. C'est la vie as they say. The civilians need to get out of the way. If the enemy makes it so that the civilians can't leave then the ENEMY IS THE WAR CRIMINAL. I am all for the army going ahead and bombing or whatever if it's them or me. You doubtless would feel the same way if it |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 05:20:58 [Permalink]
|
This sums up your inability to grasp certain simple concepts. If someone does something that you don't like, they are "evil." I don't think that simplistically. I try to understand why they do what they do without injecting evil spirits into the mix.
quote:
Gorgo has no point beyond "Whatever the US is bad" and you call that skeptical????
Whatever turns you on.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 08:54:22 [Permalink]
|
Atomic> You refuse to accept that non-military targets will be bombed. Then I take a bridge as an example. You then conviniently say, that if a soldier goes onto the bridge, then that bridge is now a military target. Isn't that convinient?
What about a hospital? And how can we be sure there were soldiers hiding in the basement?
It seems to me, that you keep switching between your own opinions and what is technically the law. The death-sentence is legal in certain American states. Does that make it right? Stoning raped women is legal in certain African states. Does that make it right?
“No need to stretch a truth so far it's no longer even in sight of the truth.” When every civilian target is conviniently renamed a military target, who is stretching the truth?
“I'm talking about the Gulf War here not WWII” Then why do you constantly bring up WWII as a way of justifying warcrimes against civilians?
“Civilians were not deliberately bombed and i dare you to come up with a single shred of evidence to support a claim that they were. That's a skeptical way to go about it.”
First, between January 16 and February 27, 1991, some 88,000 tons of bombs–the equivalent of seven Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs–were dropped on Iraq. As author Geoff Simons observed, "For the period of the war, Iraq was subjected to the equivalent of one atomic bomb a week; a scale of destruction that has no parallels in the history of warfare." (Geoff Simons, The Scourging of Iraq (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996), p. 4.)
Second, between 100,000 and 200,000 Iraqis were killed during the more than six weeks of carpet bombing, with 300,000 to 700,000 injured, according to British MP Paul Flynn, writing in the Guardian in 1991. (Geoff Simons, The Scourging of Iraq (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996), p. 15-16)
Third, U.S. bombs missed their targets nearly 75 percent of the time; even the much-touted "smart" bombs hit their targets only about 60 percent of the time.
Fourth, the U.S.-led forces deliberately destroyed the entirety of Iraq's infrastructure, having a "near apocalyptic impact" on the country. (Mark Crispin Miller, "The perfect storm," Feed magazine, August 23, 2000, available online at feedmag.com. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, "The 1991 Gulf massacre: The historical and strategic context of Western terrorism in the Gulf," Media Monitors Network, October 2, 2001.)
When the U.S. bombed a civilian air-raid shelter on February 13, killing 1,500 civilians, many of them women and children, the U.S. claimed the shelter was a cover for a military outpost–which the media obediently gave plenty of spin. (Norman Solomon, "Slaughter is something other countries do," EXTRA, May—June 1991, available on the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Web site at www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/slaughter-not-us.html.)
Dropping that amount of bombs and ruining the infrastructure is still NOT deliberately killing civilians? Why is slaughter only something other nations are capable of?
Why are dyingh Iraqi children called “propaganda points for Saddam”, while U.S. missile strikes are called “pinpricks”?
We keep hearing that Saddam Hussein "ejected" UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspectors at the end of 1998 (presumably to hide a renewed buildup of weapons of mass destruction). In reality, UNSCOM head Richard Butler removed the inspectors because President Clinton told him to days before the U.S. and Britain began the Desert Fox bombing of Iraq on December 16, 1998. Saddam Hussein had ejected the weapons inspectors in August 1998, accusing them of spying on behalf of U.S. intelligence and demanding an end to U.S.-imposed sanctions, but Iraq accepted inspectors back unconditionally in mid-November and cooperated fully thereafter. (Amin Tarzi, "Contradictions in U.S. policy on Iraq and its consequences," Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, March 2000.)
As it turned out, Iraq's claims of UNSCOM espionage were proven true. Although t |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 10:46:40 [Permalink]
|
The U.S. got into WWII because it wanted to rape China in the same way that Japan was, but Japan wanted to give them a hard time about it. Hitler was an afterthought.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 11:10:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Again, how you can blow up what I said into that kind of characterization can only be credited to an amazing propanda job. Any criticism of the U.S. is saying that everything they do is "evil" yet saying that everything everyone else does is "evil" and everything the U.S. does is a miracle from above is reasonable behavior. I just don't understand.
No Gorgo, You do criticize the US in a totally non-thinking, one-sided way and call it fair. I call you unfair and wrong. I have never said everything the US does is right. You attempt to put those words into my mouth but fortunately these topics are here in their entirety to show how ridiculous that is.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 11:26:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Atomic> You refuse to accept that non-military targets will be bombed. Then I take a bridge as an example. You then conviniently say, that if a soldier goes onto the bridge, then that bridge is now a military target. Isn't that convinient?
What about a hospital? And how can we be sure there were soldiers hiding in the basement?
It seems to me, that you keep switching between your own opinions and what is technically the law. The death-sentence is legal in certain American states. Does that make it right? Stoning raped women is legal in certain African states. Does that make it right?
No Omega, you miss the point I was making completely. it's not that a soldier needs to step onto the bridge. it's that an army could use the bridge to move troops and supplies. This is common practice to any army in ANY war....ever. It's not something the US made up to kill civilians. It's a fact of war. It's not right in peacetime but in war it is necessary. Call it a crime if you want. I really don't care. I just use WWII as an example because what applied then applies now. War then is war now. The rules have not changed. Just the weapons. The sad truth is, in war there are no rules at all. After the war the winners can get together and hang enemy leaders after convicting them of war crimes and the war crimes committed by the winners are swept under the carpet. I have at no point called that right, though you seem to think I am for some unknown reason. I am simply, for the last time, telling you how things work in reality regardless of my personal feelings on it.
All those statistics you gave about tons of bombs dropped etc were to say what? Gee the US dropped a lot of bombs therefore it's a crime? That's not much of an argument. It was a war. Bombs were dropped, lots of them. The fact is that if your country was at war they would drop as many bombs as they could to save their soldiers. You might not like it but that's the way it goes in war.
quote:
“I would prefer it if no civilians die but if they are stupid enough to be standing too close then that's their problem.”
I suppose that next ALL civilians who die during US-interventions will be dubbed “stupid” next? So the civilians who die had it coming?? Where is the spectical approach in that?
You suppose but you suppose incorrectly. The fact is, civilians die in war. You need to read some books about warfare and how war really is. You might see that civilians have died in all wars throughout history. You are unfair to single out the US alone and say it is a criminal any time it engages in warfare. I at least will look at any specific war or event in a war to see if there might have been a crime. I will not be so unfair as to claim that all US military acts are crimes.
quote:
Well, ce' la vie? Geographically speaking, germany is not a small European nation, but that is ok. Why didn't the US react when Hitler invaded Poland?
Poland was not a US ally. Europe is not and never has been the responsibility of the people of the US yet twice sent its kids to die by the tens of thousands in wars that it didn't start. Sorry the US didn't jump in soon enough to make you happy. I guess we should have stayed at home that decade so we wouldn't have to suffer claims that we were criminals to enter WWII by the very people w |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 11:28:36 [Permalink]
|
Dunno where you go that thing about China Gorgo. I am guessing you drank too much while reading Chomsky. No idea how that comment fits into reality but if you have some tiny shred of proof to support that claim I will read it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 16:38:50 [Permalink]
|
I can understand how you think asking the U.S. to act as it wants others to act would be unfair. That's certainly one-sided, since to see both sides in your mind is "evil."
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 16:40:15 [Permalink]
|
I think you've shown you're not interested in reason or proof, Larry. You're just interested in arguing. You ask a question, it gets answered, and then you act like another question was asked.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 17:07:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can understand how you think asking the U.S. to act as it wants others to act would be unfair. That's certainly one-sided, since to see both sides in your mind is "evil."
I never said anything of the sort. I, for one, have never used the word evil in any of these posts. Nor have I said that the US should not act as it wants others to act. You have completely made that up. Now how is that fair? You cannot win an argument by making an outright lie.
And yes you answered my question. With a ridiculous claim that I asked you to back up. You didn't because you can't. Because you made that bit about China up. If no evidence is needed then all claims are valid. If this is the case then I can easily say that in all of history the US has never, ever committed a single atrocity. That's as valid as anything you have said if proof is unnesessary.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2002 : 17:16:28 [Permalink]
|
I think someone else is using your account. Here is someone with your name using the word 'evil.' Why would you lie about a thing like that?
quote:
At least be fair Gorgo, you take the position that anything the US does is evil. That mirror image is just as ridiculous.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
