Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice....served ? Or still hungry for vengence ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Justice....served ? Or still hungry for vengence ?

    Can anyone explain, justly, why the arrest and indefinate detention of al Qaeda suspects is not good enough for the US administration. Why a war ?

    I think it prudent to remind our viewers that no weapons of mass destruction were used on September the 11th and no Iraqi's or Afghans were involved. It was 19 Saudi nationals armed with box cutters.

  • #2
    Are you talking about the war in Afghanistan? That is the one that had to do with Al Qaeda and 9/11. The reason for that war is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan refused to hand over the Al Qaeda and close the training camps. They were clearly state supporters of exactly the terrorism in question. It remains to be seen whether the end result of that war will have been an overall benefit to Afghanistan or not. I think the general feeling that it was/will be is part of why so many Americans feel that invading Iraq will be OK. We are a feel-good society and it feels good to rid the world of woman-oppressing, Buddhist statue-exploding, terrorist-supporting, stadium-executing, drug-depriving regimes
    ...a man that can stand up for a principle and sit down on his own stool.
    -the Firesign Theatre

    Comment


    • #3
      Can anyone explain, justly, why the arrest and indefinate detention of al Qaeda suspects is not good enough for the US administration. Why a war ?
      I don't think their detention will be indefinite. The Al-Qaeda suspects is a dangerous situation. We can't just turn them back out into the streets. That would threaten national security. Personally, I believe the best COA would be to have them face a military tribunal. Another option would be to detain the suspects until the new government in Afghanistan can adopt laws on terrorism. Then we can go from there.

      The war in Afghanistan, and against Al-Qaeda is far from over. Until that changes, we should detain the suspects, particuarly those who admit they are members of the organization, or refuse to provide information that could determine who they were fighting for.

      I think it prudent to remind our viewers that no weapons of mass destruction were used on September the 11th and no Iraqi's or Afghans were involved. It was 19 Saudi nationals armed with box cutters.
      First, I don't believe Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I want Saddam for a number of issues too complicated for a bunch of religious yo-yo's to understand. Bin Laden has a small brain, with large *alls. Saddam is smart, heartless, and have a larger of set df *alls, which he enjoys squeezing. I'm more worried about Saddam than I am Bin Laden.

      Secondly, Afghanistan was openingly being used as a Base of Operation for Al-Qaeda. Routing Al-Qaeda required the support of the govenment. Bush gave the Taliban an opportunity to resolve the matter without bloodshed (at least their blood). They refused, and Bush attacked.

      It would seem that many Europeans don't understand just how serious we took the 9/11 attack. This was not some simple bombing. Most of the country saw what happened live. It was more than terrorism. The damage caused, the fear, the lost of prestige, even if for a moment, propelled what happened in that one hour span beyond the intent of the terrorists.

      Bush made the right decision. There were those who wanted to respond immediately. Most people thought we rushed to judgement on Afghanistan. The reality is we had been preparing for the war we fought there for some time. I believe Clinton got the ball rolling in 1999. So we didn't just role the dice and let it fall on Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda made it their home base, and we knew it. Furthermore, we also knew the Taliban would not support any effort to dismantle Al-Qaeda. So war was the only option available.
      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

      Comment


      • #4
        Marko

        Marko,

        You may be surprised, but I don't necessarily support Joh Aschoft's efforts to increase the policing powers here in America.

        Having said this, I don't think the current Iraq crisis has to do anything with terrorism at all. I believe it is about WMDs and political stability of Middle East.

        How can any war be about justice and humanitarian issues? I'll be blunt with you, Marko, I don't think wars have to be about justice and humanitarian issues.

        I mean look at Kosvo Conflict, I believe NATO got involved because of concerns to stability of Europe, after all, nobody cared that Sloan Milo started five wars until he attacked the UN haven at Serberica, I think, which had both Dutch and French (?) troops stationed there.

        I may be misinformed, but I don't really want a war that is about justice and liberty for all, simply because it's too hypocritical.

        The war with Iraq is about WMDs and threatening USA's national security. The war with Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan is about going on offensive after being attacked by a bunch of religious fundamentalists. It is about hunting down those who are responsible for killing 3,000 people and planning renewed attacks on America again.

        Justice? No way, in fact, I don't we'll ever see a real fair justice in real world. Especially that involves more than one country.

        Dan
        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

        "Aim small, miss small."

        Comment


        • #5
          The war hasn't even started and there are civilian casualties already !! So what can we expect in the future ?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tiberius
            Are you talking about the war in Afghanistan? That is the one that had to do with Al Qaeda and 9/11. The reason for that war is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan refused to hand over the Al Qaeda and close the training camps. They were clearly state supporters of exactly the terrorism in question. It remains to be seen whether the end result of that war will have been an overall benefit to Afghanistan or not. I think the general feeling that it was/will be is part of why so many Americans feel that invading Iraq will be OK. We are a feel-good society and it feels good to rid the world of woman-oppressing, Buddhist statue-exploding, terrorist-supporting, stadium-executing, drug-depriving regimes
            WMD's are directly linked to the war on terror. The destruction of the WMD's is a priority for Bush due to the ugly possibility of them falling into terrorist hands.

            Comment


            • #7

              I mean look at Kosvo Conflict, I believe NATO got involved because of concerns to stability of Europe, after all, nobody cared that Sloan Milo started five wars until he attacked the UN haven at Serberica, I think, which had both Dutch and French (?) troops stationed there.
              Good point Cheetah772.


              The war with Iraq is about WMDs and threatening USA's national security. The war with Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan is about going on offensive after being attacked by a bunch of religious fundamentalists. It is about hunting down those who are responsible for killing 3,000 people and planning renewed attacks on America again.
              We should be more concerned about domestic terrorists launching WMD attacks on the US than a foreign entity. Iraq's Weapons of mass destruction arsenals greatest strength is the ability to influence regional politics. Instability in the Middle East is going to continue to rise with or without an US invasion of Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction could place Saddam in position to dictate policies, and expand his power admist the chaos most people saw as inevitable long before 9/11.

              We can loose little or loose big. Invading Iraq might accelerate the Middle East's descent into Chaos. However, I believe removing Saddam and Iraq's WMD arsenal from the equation could improve our position when all hell does break loose.
              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Deltapooh


                Good point Cheetah772.



                We should be more concerned about domestic terrorists launching WMD attacks on the US than a foreign entity. Iraq's Weapons of mass destruction arsenals greatest strength is the ability to influence regional politics. Instability in the Middle East is going to continue to rise with or without an US invasion of Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction could place Saddam in position to dictate policies, and expand his power admist the chaos most people saw as inevitable long before 9/11.

                We can loose little or loose big. Invading Iraq might accelerate the Middle East's descent into Chaos. However, I believe removing Saddam and Iraq's WMD arsenal from the equation could improve our position when all hell does break loose.
                You see that is the point - I actually do not care about the US position in the Middle East, I care about death and suffering just a little bit more.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Marko


                  You see that is the point - I actually do not care about the US position in the Middle East, I care about death and suffering just a little bit more.
                  Who's death and suffering are you more concerned about Marko? The Iraqis? Americans? Your country's?

                  As I've stated in past, your ideal of waiting until Saddam does something could actually lead to more deaths than if you just took the SOB out now.

                  The way I see it, the arguments are all selfish. We are more concerned with our own feelings than those of others. That's how disputes start. American don't care about European and Iraqis. Europeans care about themselves. No one has a good ideal because each has a dab of vanity involved. Soldiers are sent into battle to protect their country or it's interest, not those of others.
                  "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Deltapooh


                    Who's death and suffering are you more concerned about Marko? The Iraqis? Americans? Your country's?

                    As I've stated in past, your ideal of waiting until Saddam does something could actually lead to more deaths than if you just took the SOB out now.

                    The way I see it, the arguments are all selfish. We are more concerned with our own feelings than those of others. That's how disputes start. American don't care about European and Iraqis. Europeans care about themselves. No one has a good ideal because each has a dab of vanity involved. Soldiers are sent into battle to protect their country or it's interest, not those of others.
                    Hhhmm...? Whose deaths ?

                    And I am concerned about anyone dying, US, Iraqi, British, Kurd - anyone who dosen't deserve to die. Saddam needs to be terminated, not his people.

                    I also realise all nations have selfish agenda's - ou know it too, christ we all know it. But I still like moaning about it, that's the beauty of freedom.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Marko

                      Saddam needs to be terminated, not his people.

                      So do you agree with state sponsored assassination?
                      Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        State-sponsored assassinations?

                        Hello,

                        State-sponsored assassinations?

                        You know, back in 1993, I'm not sure about the year, but CIA sponsored some groups inside Iraq to overthrow Saddam by revolting against his rule. However, Saddam got the gist of the plan, and immediately crushed the rebellion in the northern Iraq. It was a great embarrassment to CIA and Clinton after taking the office.

                        Never again would CIA gain the support needed in Iraq because the support needed was completely non-existent. At least, we tried to do that without starting a war with Iraq, eh, Marko? Now, you can't accuse us of not doing that.

                        So what if CIA screwed this up? At least we tried, and it didn't work out very well, now, did that? A war is only a sure bet to get Saddam out of his power and disarm Iraq of WMDs.

                        Would you prefer us to go again with new state-sponsored assassination attempts on Saddam? How will that solve the problem if Saddam comes out alive? You saw when Saddam came out alive, he killed thousands of Kurdish people in northern Iraq, and what kind of good did it come out?

                        You say you would like to see Saddam go with indirect means without causing greater suffering to his own people, but what would be the consequences of using such indirect means? Strangely enough, you accuse of us being unconcerned with civilian casualties if a war were to break out, but well, look at what got us by using indirect means!

                        So what's the right solution to Saddam? Continued UN inspections? Come on, that can't last very long, even France and Germany would agree to that. Containment policy? Again, it can't last that long, USA does not have resources nor patience to drag it out for very long. It's very expensive, hell, Cold War was the most expensive war ever fought without firing a bullet! Lifting sanctions? No, Saddam will reap more money and uninterrupted access to WMD programs and material needed to produce them. Embargoes? A majority of people are against that. UN peacekeepers? Saddam would rather commit genocide than allowing them to patrol in Iraq.

                        No, a war will solve the problem, at least, in short term. Whatever it will bring out long-term problems, it remains to be seen. I still think it's the best bet to keep WMDs out of Saddam's hands and allow Iraq to have a real democratic government as a part of nation-building process.

                        Dan
                        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                        "Aim small, miss small."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: State-sponsored assassinations?

                          Originally posted by Cheetah772
                          Hello,

                          State-sponsored assassinations?

                          You know, back in 1993, I'm not sure about the year, but CIA sponsored some groups inside Iraq to overthrow Saddam by revolting against his rule. However, Saddam got the gist of the plan, and immediately crushed the rebellion in the northern Iraq. It was a great embarrassment to CIA and Clinton after taking the office.

                          Never again would CIA gain the support needed in Iraq because the support needed was completely non-existent. At least, we tried to do that without starting a war with Iraq, eh, Marko? Now, you can't accuse us of not doing that.

                          So what if CIA screwed this up? At least we tried, and it didn't work out very well, now, did that? A war is only a sure bet to get Saddam out of his power and disarm Iraq of WMDs.

                          Would you prefer us to go again with new state-sponsored assassination attempts on Saddam? How will that solve the problem if Saddam comes out alive? You saw when Saddam came out alive, he killed thousands of Kurdish people in northern Iraq, and what kind of good did it come out?

                          You say you would like to see Saddam go with indirect means without causing greater suffering to his own people, but what would be the consequences of using such indirect means? Strangely enough, you accuse of us being unconcerned with civilian casualties if a war were to break out, but well, look at what got us by using indirect means!

                          So what's the right solution to Saddam? Continued UN inspections? Come on, that can't last very long, even France and Germany would agree to that. Containment policy? Again, it can't last that long, USA does not have resources nor patience to drag it out for very long. It's very expensive, hell, Cold War was the most expensive war ever fought without firing a bullet! Lifting sanctions? No, Saddam will reap more money and uninterrupted access to WMD programs and material needed to produce them. Embargoes? A majority of people are against that. UN peacekeepers? Saddam would rather commit genocide than allowing them to patrol in Iraq.

                          No, a war will solve the problem, at least, in short term. Whatever it will bring out long-term problems, it remains to be seen. I still think it's the best bet to keep WMDs out of Saddam's hands and allow Iraq to have a real democratic government as a part of nation-building process.

                          Dan
                          Well why not hire a team that were capable of doing it ? Like the A-team ?

                          BA kicks arse.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            State-sponsored assassinations?

                            You know, back in 1993, I'm not sure about the year, but CIA sponsored some groups inside Iraq to overthrow Saddam by revolting against his rule. However, Saddam got the gist of the plan, and immediately crushed the rebellion in the northern Iraq. It was a great embarrassment to CIA and Clinton after taking the office.

                            Never again would CIA gain the support needed in Iraq because the support needed was completely non-existent. At least, we tried to do that without starting a war with Iraq, eh, Marko? Now, you can't accuse us of not doing that.

                            So what if CIA screwed this up? At least we tried, and it didn't work out very well, now, did that? A war is only a sure bet to get Saddam out of his power and disarm Iraq of WMDs.
                            Actually, I don't recall it being too much of an embarrassment. In fact, the Clinton Administration stepped up it's efforts to overthrow Saddam in the late 1990's.

                            Killing Saddam would not be easy. He's extremely paranoid, and trust no one. Few people know of his whereabouts. Saddam knows the game and how to survive.

                            State-sponsored assassination and coups are always risky. More often than not, the people required to successfully execute the plan is as dangerous, if not more so, than the person we're trying to kill. Chaos and instability often follow the operation, and the sponsoring government is rarely in position to establish control.

                            I would not support such action in Iraq. Saudi Arabia and a few other Arab states have been exploring the possibility of mounting a coup in Iraq for several weeks now. The US should do all it can to discourage it. Even though we are in position to rapidly respond, our level of control in how the events unfold would be seriously degraded.

                            If the United States want to overthrow Saddam, we should do so with our military forces. That way the transformation process is controlled.
                            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Are the A-team still around ? Is Murdoch in an institution and is CVolonel Decker still after the team. If all US special forces are like the A-team then the Iraqi's have got their hands full. I wonder what they will build ?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X