Saddam's sons killed!!!!!!!!

Z-man, for your analogy to be spot on you’r have to kill one of the (innocent) children in the process while you save them from the evil tyrant. And I don’t mean Saddam son’s but the innocents that get caught in the way of the imperialistic killing machine.

Bill Clinton, a few days ago, on Larry King Live on CNN:

KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?

CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.

First of all, the White House said – Mr. Fleischer said – that on balance they probably shouldn’t have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn’t have put it in.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn’t know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we’re all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there’s a difference between British – British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don’t know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn’t have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That’s what I think.
KING: What do you do, Mr. President, with what’s put in front of you?

CLINTON: Well, here’s what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it’s some important issue – and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 – then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech.

I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks…

… of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back in there….

And what I think – again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what’s the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?

We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way. But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence. Then they said on balance they shouldn’t have done it. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can’t make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That’s what I think.

Thanks for showing exactly no evidence to support your argument against me. Please read all of my posts. Trust me, you won’t find anything REMOTELY resembling what you accuse me of. Oh well, I guess you are just another dumbass with no argument. By the way, throwing out those accusations without evidence is the mark of a coward.
Welcome to the bad guys!!! It seems you and restless will get along well. You both are unbelievably anti-American and so jealous I can feel your envy from here.
Just in case you were wondering, we are still losing American lives in order to create Democracy in Iraq. How’s that for putting our blood and money where are mouths are. If we were restless’ Portugal (until 1974, at least) we would have taken over the country and stolen all the resources without so much as a fare-thee-well. If a Democratic movement would have sprung up, we would have squashed it immediately. Please look up the wars of colonialism in Africa fought by Portugal. It makes me laugh that this guy has the gall to accuse ANYONE OF IMPERIALISM. The Europeans invented the freakin’ word!!!

Hahaha. Z-Man completely dominated this thread.

US=GG. Saying that Z-Man doesn’t have arguments doesn’t make it true that he doesn’t have arguments.

I’ll tell you what is wrong with Z-man’s arguments, and with everyone’s arguments who thinks that only some form of “international law” can be the basis of action in a given situation. International law is based solely on various agreements by national sovereignties. Unless there is some agreement of which I am unaware by which the U.S. gave up its right, under its national sovereignty, to both define its own interests and to act in its own defense, then the U.S. was perfectly legal in defining the threat and taking the action it took. National sovereignties do not need international agreement to make their actions legally legitimate.

US=GG, you have not said you don’t agree with Ashcroft, Coulter, Graham or Falwell.

It’s really too bad Americans are losing there lives. Who asked you to go in in the first place? I feel for the soldiers, because they have been put into a situation that they did not sign up for. Too bad they get killed, but they are masters in someone elses home, and it is time for them to leave! The casualties on the other side are multiple times higher, but those people don’t matter to you. Why? Because you see them as less human than Americans. That is racism. You don’t say it, but it drips from every facet of American foriegn policy in Middle Eastern, African, or Asian countries. How do you justify 2 million dead in Vietnam, and countless more in Laos and Cambodia? How to you justify supporting the Shah of Iran from 1953 to 1979, whose SAVAK made the SS look like boy scouts. The CIA trained SAVAK used to grind up dead prisoners and feed them to other inmates. This was a government that the US established in the 1953 coup of an elected prime minister. History of Iran: A short account of 1953 Coup

You are obtuse enough to actually believe that the reason the US invaded Iraq is to establish democracy. What if the Iraqi people want an Islamic government? Will the US allow that? Absolutely not! Tell me, where is the democracy in Afghanistan? What made Iraq any worse than North Korea? Oil! Saudi is a dictatorship as well, why not invade there? Oh yeah, King Fahd and Prince Abdullah will jump through hoops for the US. I personally know people who have ‘disappeared’ is Saudi Arabia. As long as a dictatorship is in your pocket, you turn a blind eye to their crimes. What gives you the right to decide how other countries run themselves?

You can’t even defend against the facts I gave you. Prior to 1991, the American government loved Saddam Hussein. Why did they not do anything about Halabja in 1988?

And who’s the coward? Why aren’t you over there in uniform standing up for what you believe in? Atleast then I could respect you. You aren’t even man enough not to hide behind your alias. I think you and coercix would get along just great.

Put my olive skinned ass at the top of your list. I’m happy to be there.

If you want to call me a coward again, say it to my face. You know where to find me.

“The government of the United States does not, in its policies, express the decency of its people.”
– Jerry Fresia, author of Toward an American Revolution

There was no imminent threat to the United States, as proven by the lack of WMD found. Also, the UN inspections were working, again as demonstrated by the lack of WMD found. So I don’t get your point.

And the UN has potential, but the veto has to be removed. Unfortunately, the US does not like to abide by any international laws or principles anyway.

US is one of only 47 countries that have not signed the the Ottawa treaty banning the use of anti-personnel mines. It enjoys the company of wonderful countries such as North Korea and Iraq.

Many victims of anti-personnel mines are children.

The US also backed out of supporting the world court so that American soldiers can comit war crimes without facing any consequences.

The foreign policy appears to be driven more by greed, fear, paranoia, and megalomania rather than compassion or a concern for the welfare of humanity.

If anything, the invasion of Iraq has further alienated the Muslim populace and created an even more dangerous world for Americans. Why do you think Bush tried to implement a ‘roadmap’ to peace in Palestine? It was not out of the goodness of his heart, but to pacify the populations of countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, who are all ripe for revolution. And be assured, when revolution comes, and it will, the resulting governments will not be pro US.

Even Nelson Mandela opposed the war. I think he’s a pretty cool guy.

Thanks for the rambling hate filled invective. I must say you do yourself no credit by lumping totally disparite conflicts and situations together. In the words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, you are “manipulating the facts to suit your theory.”
You forget our involvment in Kosovo. How about our two World Wars where we fought Germans? How about fighting Italians? How about our two wars against England? How about the Spanish-American War? How about our Civil War? Plenty of Christian, Caucasians involved. If you are trying to prove we are racist, you are going to have to explain to me what group or ethnicity we are racist against.
I’m not going to get into a “tough guy” mode on the internet. However, it does delight my imagination thinking about meeting such a rabid anti-American.
Mr./Mrs. “not hiding behind alias” zman, I do not wish to disclose my service. However, I will indicate that your assumptions about me are wrong. Rest assured, I have done and am doing my part.
However, I do not want your respect. In fact, I am done responding to you. Your hatred of my country is nearly palpable. There is virtually no way that I could get you to even think about things from an American perspective.
We know why certain groups (aka…taliban) hate us. It is because of what we stand for. They cannot maintain their oppressive regimes if even one of their people get on the internet. When they see that we encourage people of all sexes and races to improve themselves to the best of their ability, their male-dominated, repressive regimes will be destroyed. We see the pictures of people being beaten, tortured, raped, and killed for showing their faces. We know that we stand as a beacon of freedom to the world. Unfortunately, there are peoples of the world that want to limit freedom for their own self-aggrandizement.
Remember this also, if bad guys attack us, they are making a monumental mistake. We will defend ourselves. We will fight the bad ideas with better ideas. If you lead attacks against our people, you will end up like manueal noriega or uday/quasy hussein. Therefore as my final message: Hate us if you will, but do not dare to attack us.

So much hate…

I dont know if its just the testosterone speaking here, but im sick of all the pussies that sit there and whine about what America is doing, especially movie stars, when there are our American brothers and sisters fighting for our freedom and many have died in the process. We should be proud of who we are, and what we stand for and remember that even if we dont believe in the war, we must support our troops, at least to show respect for what the do for alllllllll of us. I dont know if anyone else feels like ripping out a movie stars (too many to name just one) tongue and stick it up their ass, after hearing them criticize the US for what they do, but i F’ing do.

So U.S. KILLem ALL, and Let GOD sort them all.
Proud to be an American.

Z-Man, you are wrong on this one. US=GG has not displayed racism in this thread. To say that he values American lives over Iraqi lives is not a racist argument, it is a nationalist argument. First, there is no such race as “Iraqi”, any more than there is a race that is “American”. Go through any major city and you will find people of all creeds and colors, including, I believe, people as olive skinned as you, and as yellow skinned as me. As for the specious argument that we should have taken the sons of Saddam alive, and that killing them is evidence of some conspiracy, that is stretching belief. I don’t care how much firepower you have, trying to subdue someone who is trying to kill you is an expensive proposition. The commander on the ground made the appropriate choice. Do not risk the lives of the men under your command in a mission that they are not suited to. Even if you sent in counter-terror teams, they would not stand good odds. They are trained to kill people with weapons, and save those who don’t have them.

As for the rest of the arguments presented here … it’s pointless. Look, let me spell it out for everyone. Each nation, be it the U.S. or North Korea is going to pursue foreign policy that is in it’s best interest. Can this policy come back and haunt us 50 years later? Sure, but the lessons of history are best learned after falling flat on your face. The United States, regardless of international opinion, will pursue its’ own best interest. Why did we not sign the Kyoto accords? Because it was not in our best interest to do so. Why did the rest of the world scream and yell? Because it was in their best interest that we do so. And that’s what scares everyone. Because we will continue to act in ways that serve our best interest. The rest of the world, and probably even the participants on this forum, would have had no problem with our invasion of Iraq, had the U.N. sanctioned it. But it didn’t, so now they’re concerned that next time, it might be them. The only thing that they have to rely on is our good intentions. And let’s face it, our history doesn’t always give much hope of that. But guess what? Neither does theirs. What you see on this thread isn’t jealousy, it’s resentment. Resentment of our economic power, resentment of our military power, resentment of our cultural power. And resentment of the fact that we won’t take their concerns into consideration. And the bottom line is, we don’t, and we shouldn’t. We are not responsible for the well-being of the rest of the world, we are responsible for our own, just the way everyone else is responsible for their own well being. Go onto the training forum and say that you want certain goals, and that it is the duty of someone else to help you achieve them. You’d be laughed off the board, but somehow, when it comes to politics, it’s perfectly acceptable to say that we should be responsible for someone elses well-being. My father didn’t come to America so that someone else could be responsible for him, he came here so that he could be responsible for himself. It works in economics, and it works in politics,too. So give it a rest guys, this topic is just repeating itself under different arguments.

"So U.S. KILLem ALL, and Let GOD sort them all.
Proud to be an American. "

ahhhh…We have a new US=NF in the house. So you get a kick out of the deaths of innocents? Your country killed at least 3 000 000 of them to this point, you must be one happy man.

Proud of NOT being an American.

I have one question for you Americans that seem to be a little more informed than the majority. Do you get taught in school about the consequences past military actions had in terms of foreign civilian casualties and about the motives behind them? Does it even get a mention or do you get sold things like vietnam like a brave and heroic action by your part? I suspect you don’t and this is why most of you seem to be so ignorant. It would also explain things like US=NF. Am I right?

Mr. Victor Davis Hansen, rebutting two propositions put forth by Z-man:

“We have done lasting damage to international alliances and institutions.”

Careful scrutiny reveals just the opposite: the U.N., NATO, the EU, South Korea, and other bodies and nations are reexamining their own, not our, behavior.

The U.N. is not debating leaving the United States or expelling us from the Security Council, but in fact is reviewing its entire constitution: from the exclusion of powerful nations like Japan, Germany, and India from the Security Council to the nature of odious regimes that participate on important commissions — such as that paragon of human rights, Libya.

The Belgians are worried about curtailing, not empowering their lunatic courts. They want NATO headquarters to remain, not be moved to Warsaw. Except for the temporary rise of the euro, the news from the EU is of confusion, not lockstep anger at the United States. North versus South, East versus West, Britain versus the Continent — all that reveals intrinsic European fault lines not of our own making.

For all the present calumny, Mr. Blair still enjoys far more prestige and admiration abroad than do Messrs. Chirac, Schroeder, Villepin, or Fischer. And among the English-speaking nations, it is just as likely that Canada will move closer to the Australian position vis-?-vis the United States than vice versa. South Korea is keeping silent about its “sunshine policy” — and suddenly quite worried about its anti-American demonstrations — as we ponder our evolving new relationship.

In short, a new honesty and maturity are the real dividends of American actions.

“In a drive for global hegemony, America is crafting a new imperialism to rule the world.”

The trendy notion of America as a “hyperpower” is largely an artifact of the aftermath of the Cold War. True, we enjoy unmatched military strength. Sure, we spend more on defense than do the next ten or so nations collectively. But that imbalance is not a reflection of a wish to dominate the globe, but mostly due to the abject collapse of an empire that failed to do precisely that — and the cleanup of the resulting detritus of Soviet interventions and clients, from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq.

In terms of percentages of GNP, we are spending no more on our military budget than we did through most years of the Cold War. Both at home and abroad, the real story is just as often the abandonment, not the construction, of military bases.

Our sin was mostly that we won the Cold War, kept active in NATO, and did not disarm after the fall of the Berlin Wall. When one of two superpowers is still standing, then ipso facto the survivor usually enjoys twice its former relative power.

The fact is that we have been consistent in a predictable 60-year commitment to national security, while our friends and former enemies — by intent or default — have followed different paths since 1989. We stayed mostly the same as they became hypopowers that, to take a small example, would and could do nothing should a madman in Korea wish to kill millions.

Without 9/11, remember, we would not now be in either Iraq or Afghanistan — the two points of departure for most of the recent critiques of America as the new Rome.

–Restless, I will reply to the assumptions in your post later. BB

Somewhere during World War 2 the US lost it’s morality. Perhaps it was the realization that they could incinerate hundreds of thousands at will. In terms of foreign policy, Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem to have been the turning point. I still wonder why both were dropped on Japan, obviously one would have been enough.

Serbia/Kosovo was an anomaly. Kudos to the US on that one. I’m not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but I think he got this one thing right.

With that one exception, US foreign policy has been extremely harmful to other countries, especially Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Paul, you have it right, the US is definitely in it for their own interests. What is sickening though, is that this imperialism is masked in a facade of deception, lies and manipulation. I’d rather they just say they were taking Iraq for the oil and to establish a stronger regional presence. That can be respected. It would still be wrong, but we wouldn;t be forced to cut through the bullshit spewed by Bush Co. Outright agression and hatred is easier to deal with. It’s the candy coated poison that is hard to swallow.

US=GG still won’t say that he disagrees with Coulter, Falwell and company. That is like a skinhead saying he agrees with Hitler but does not hate Jews. The neo-conservatives in the US are just that, neo-conservatives. Their policies are morally questionable and ethically unsound. US=GG cannot defend logically the actions of the US in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Nor can he explain why the US toppled an elected government in Iran and replaced it with a dictatorship. I haven’t even mentioned South and Central America. Remember Pinochet? Look up Kissinger and Pinochet on google and read alittle about that. I would love to see some explanation form US=GG over that one.

And I couldn’t care less if the sons were taken alive, beaten to death, shot, or stuffed with bacon and ham until they pooped their pants. I’m pretty happy they are dead. Now Saddam Hussein can feel what others felt when he killed their loved ones (Mostly prior to 1990, when he was a US ally). Nor can he defend why the US still supports the Saudi dictatorship, who are nearly as brutal as Saddam Hussein.

Paul, I’m not sure what country your parents are from, but what if they were to become the targets of US aggression. How would you feel? You have relatives there? Cousins? What if a few died and many lost limbs and were badly burned?

Amnesty International, 1996 from “Human Rights and USA Security Assistance”:
“Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed or ‘disappeared’, at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame.”

BostonBarrister. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, although 51% of americans believe that Iraq was involved.

z-man, about bombs on japan, please show me where japan surrendered to the usa in that 3 day period between the bombs?
BTW, to the usa, not the russians. I would like to see it.

Amnesty is pretty funny also. They somehow rail long and hard about things that govts like the usa do, but say almost nothing about iraq, iran, yemen, libya, syria… Odd how that works.

Japan was going to surrender, if the bomns had been dropped or not. Any objective WW2 historian knows this.

July 1, 1946
United States Strategic Bombing Survey states: “The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the navy minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms.” The Survey also states: “On 10 July [1945] the Emperor again urged haste in the moves to mediate through Russia, but Potsdam intervened. While the government still awaited a Russian answer, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August.” The Survey concluded: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Go to the website and do a search on any of the countries you mentionad. It brings up a huge list of greivances.

Here’s my question, and maybe someone can enlighten me. When Iraq showed images of dead POWs, we said that they violated international agreements about not showing dead soldiers in ‘degrading’ ways, etc… basically, that they couldn’t do it at all. It just wasn’t right. But now we can show not only pictures of them being dead, but video footage of them after they’ve been reconstructed by morticians? I’m genuinely curious, why are we exempt from the rules on this one?

I honestly think it goes to credibility. The people of Iraq need to see that the Americans have killed them rather than whisked them away to the Bahamas or something. I think showing the dead bodies was necessary to assure the Iraqi public. Very few Iraqis trust the US.

Plus, these were not just random dead soldiers, they were an integral part of the Saddam terror machine.