|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 05/11/2002 : 17:38:01 [Permalink]
|
Oh sorry. I guess I should have done a search. I did use the word once. The context, however, shows how you misused my single use of the word to fit your needs.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2002 : 05:03:02 [Permalink]
|
Actually, you've used it at least one more time, but that's not important. I'm just giving you a hard time to show you how little you pay attention.
As to the China thing, I have that wrong. I don't think it was so much China, but the rest of Asia. If you'll recall, the U.S. did not get into the war because of anything Hitler did. The problem was the U.S. relationship with Japan. It was Japan's bombing of a U.S. colony that brought the U.S. into the war, not Germany's invasion of Poland or Germany's mistreatment of the Jews. Certainly, the U.S. had invaded other countries and mistreated their own. The rest is public record, of course. I don't need to "prove" anything. Look it up.
You tell me I'm not fair and that you agree with me, then you tell me that I'm fair and that you agree with me. You need to make up your mind. Either it's okay for everyone to commit crimes or it's okay for no one. If it's okay for the U.S. to bomb Afghanistan for harboring Osama bin Laden, then it's okay for Haiti to bomb the U.S. for harboring Emmanuel Constant. If it's okay for the U.S. to invade Panama or even Iraq, then it's okay for Iraq to invade Kuwait. All of these are criminal actions. You see that as being overly critical of the U.S., but you can see that I'm critical of all that behave in this way. It's you that wants to make excuses for one.
"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 - 05/12/2002 : 05:55:20 [Permalink]
|
Atomic> “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.”
So you admit that the US is capable of committing warcrimes?
“I am simply, for the last time, telling you how things work in reality regardless of my personal feelings on it.”
We're discussing sanctions against Iraq, and whether or not they're wrong or right. If this is not a place to debate but just list “facts”, then what is the point?
“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?”
When you drop that heavy amount of bombs on civilian areas, you know they will kill civilians. That is deliberately killing civilians. Which is what you wanted me to give you evidence of. I have. I was not arguing, I was giving you proof.
“You need to read some books about warfare and how war really is.” May I suggest you do the same. And stick to the topic. You wanted proof that civilians were deliberately targeted during the war against Iraq. We're not discussing the hows and whens of warfare. We're dealing with a specific topic. The bombing of Iraq and whether or not civilians were deliberately targeted.
“You might see that civilians have died in all wars throughout history.” We're not talking about other wars. We're talking about the US-lead war against Iraq.
“You are unfair to single out the US alone and say it is a criminal any time it engages in warfare.” I'm not singling out anything. We are talking about a single war here. The US-lead war against Iraq. I am being UN-FAIR? Why is it unfair to give you proof that civilians were deliberately targeted during the second Gulf War?
Why is it, that when I show you that the US is capable of warcrimes (just like any other country), then I am being unfair and singling out the US? When it is the US and Iraq we're talking about?
“I will not be so unfair as to claim that all US military acts are crimes.” Did I say that? No. We're talking about ONE specific war. But in your reasoning, THAT is unfair too, because I am then singling out the US. Where is the logic and scepticism in that?
“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.”
Good to hear that Europe is not the responsibility of the US government. Then why does the US intervene? You believe it is impossible that there were ulterior motives, too?
Why was Vietnam the responsibility of the US? Korea? And… Kuwait?
“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 we liberated.”
So because the Allies won WW II, it is forbidden to critizise the US?
Let me see: I claim the sanctions against Iraq are wrong. You say it is ok, because Iraq invaded Kuwait. I point out that the US has invaded countries, so using an invasion to justify the sanctions is not correct. Then you pull out WW II, to justify US interventions in other countries as if it is impossible for the US to commit warcrimes. And claim no civilians were deliberately targeted during the Gulf War against Iraq. You want proof. I give you statistics to show you. Then you complain over the statistics. Then you accuse me of saying it was a crime that the US entered WW II. Where did I say it was a criminal act for the US to enter WW II?
Then it's the civilians own fault if they can't get out of the way. Civilian targets are then renamed military targets, and that somehow makes it okay. Then it is the way wars go. Then it is how wars are conducted. I am proving to you, that civilians were deliberately targeted during the war against Iraq. Why do you change the subject?
The CIA had offices in the WTC. Should I just rename the WTC as a military target?????
Why is it so hard for you to acc |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2002 : 08:23:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why is it so hard for you to accept, that the US is capable of a warcrime?
I have sad repeatedly that the US is capable of warcimes. I just need proof and I do not do things like call the winner of a war guilt of war crimes just because they won etc. I simply don't agree with how you decide what is and what is not a war crime. I am done repeating myself on this topic. You and Gorgo can go on. I am going to talk about something interesting.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2002 : 19:57:42 [Permalink]
|
Here's my summary of the argument, along with my own comments:
Sanctions: they seem to do more harm then good. We should probably stop them, but we have no better ideas.
Bombing civilians: happens. Civilians are not intentionally targeted, but not avoided either. The strategic target is more important to the military than the lives of civilians. This is a terrible thing, but necessary for war.
War crimes: what are they? Are these crimes against humanity? Where is the distinction between standard acts of war and war crimes?
The US: does bad things. We have been doing bad things since we got here, and will most likely continue to do bad things. Are we then wrong for trying to protect other countries? I can understand if people say that we are protecting other countries in a wrong manner, but what, then, should be done? If we cannot think of a better, more humane way to stop atrocities, should we then let them continue? The US does not have the resources to aid every country in need, so we usually help those who can help us in return. Is this wrong?
Please understand these are questions I have been asking myself since I joined the Navy. I am still unable to adequately answer them, so if somebody could help, I would appreciate it.
-me. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 00:21:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am done repeating myself on this topic. You and Gorgo can go on. I am going to talk about something interesting.
Good effort @tomic!
It is unfortunately futile to debate true believers with selective hearing.
Kind of surreal to be called close minded when you don't fully accept their view of an issue.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 03:15:55 [Permalink]
|
Bombing people is not necessarily a war crime. To me, war itself is a crime, but that's another thread. The reason that what the U.S. did in the war is a war crime is that it violated the UN Charter. There were no negotiations. No attempt to let sanctions work. Bush wanted war. There are those that suggest that there is more to it than that. There are those that suggest that the U.S. encouraged Kuwait to goad Iraq into war, with April Glaspie giving a phony go-ahead to Saddam. I haven't reached that conclusion. Despite the way @tomic twists what I said, I didn't say that bombing was a war crime, or that pilots deliberately bombed hospitals. That is ridiculous and he knows it. Like a few others here, he is incapable of reasonable conversation. However, those that order the bombing of heavily populated areas for 42 days from 40,000 feet know that that is what will happen.
It's clear that the U.S. knew they were damaging water treatment plants, sewage plants, hospitals, etc. Then the sanctions continued, not allowing items that were needed to fix the problems that U.S. bombing caused. This was done deliberately to murder and terrorize civilians. That much is documented. Then the bombing continued on a regular, on the average, more than weekly basis. The intent there might not have been terror, but the effect was the same and that was known.
The sanctions as they are wrecked the economy and put Saddam Hussein more firmly in charge. Then, the U.S. encouraged rebellion, but turned its back on the rebels.
The U.S. is aware of all the effects of its actions, so after 11 years, we have to say that the intent was terror and genocide.
I encourage you to visit the web site of the War Resister's League, at http://www.warresisters.org for your questions about why war solves nothing.
quote:
Here's my summary of the argument, along with my own comments:
"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 - 05/13/2002 : 03:40:30 [Permalink]
|
I think if the U.S. wishes to protect other countries, it shouldn't illegally attack countries, it should go through the same channels that it wants others to go through.
Haiti has gone through channels to get Emmanuel Constant extradited, but the U.S. refuses to turn him over. The U.S. told Afghan leaders that they would either turn over Osama bin Laden or their people would be bombed. Should Haiti do the same?
Should allies of Panama bomb U.S. cities for 42 days because the U.S. illegally invaded Panama, killing probably more people than Iraq killed in Kuwait, installing their own puppet government, the same way Iraq did in Kuwait?
quote:
The US: does bad things. We have been doing bad things since we got here, and will most likely continue to do bad things. Are we then wrong for trying to protect other countries? I can understand if people say that we are protecting other countries in a wrong manner, but what, then, should be done? If we cannot think of a better, more humane way to stop atrocities, should we then let them continue? The US does not have the resources to aid every country in need, so we usually help those who can help us in return. Is this wrong?
"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 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 11:06:07 [Permalink]
|
This topic has been locked because it has become too long. ideally topics should be locked after about 10 pages and this one is double that. This is just a performance issue. Anyone that wants to start another topic to continue this subject is free to do so.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
