| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Guess who is Protesting the War in Iraq?; She is at it again! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 27 2005, 08:30 AM (1,384 Views) | |
| Dr. Noah | Jul 28 2005, 09:04 AM Post #16 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
What if one supports the position that we should obey international law and only invade a country if they attack us first or pose an imminent threat? You are wrong to equate the disagreement of the invasion with the support of Hussein. As a matter of fact, it was George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan who built the Hussein regime. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Jul 28 2005, 09:28 AM Post #17 |
|
psyfi
|
IF I am for position A and as a result of position A, brutality untold ensues, then it is right and proper to tie me into the consequences of the position I advocate. This is the one thing that "supporters of international law" NEVER discuss or bother to think about. Had the UN (not international law) been listened to, the mass graves would be expanding, the oil for food scandal would still be going on, people would still be used as experimental 'animals' for biowarfare, and sooo much more. This is what those on the side of international law were asking for and supporting. International law that ignores liberating people under such circumstances is not law at all; it is chaos. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jul 28 2005, 09:38 AM Post #18 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Allowing any single nation to decide they have the right to invade another sovreignty is chaos. It is what we risk if we decide to continue this path. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Jul 28 2005, 10:15 AM Post #19 |
|
psyfi
|
Your way is chaos PLUS continuing death and brutality. Why is that okay with you? Why can you say to yourself, "Better six guys in the security counsel decide what to do than 25 million have a chance to live democratically?" What benefit outweighs putting a tyrant and killer of hundreds upon hundreds of thousand out of power?" |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jul 28 2005, 10:18 AM Post #20 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
There are many tyrants and dictators in the world, some of which were put into power by the United States themselves, including Saddam Hussein. It is not for one nation to arbitrarily decide what sovreignty should be invaded and destroyed. Only a body of nations has the legitimacy to make such a decision. Giving that power to any single nation risks absolute power corrupting. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jul 28 2005, 10:29 AM Post #21 |
|
Unregistered
|
Agreed. Also, I think we should be using all of our resources to fight the WOT and not allocating such a large chunk of it on a distraction like Iraq which may have done more to increase the terrorist threat than to decrease it. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| psyfi | Jul 28 2005, 11:43 AM Post #22 |
|
psyfi
|
I am talking millions of people being brutalized and murdered. You are talking sociopolitical principles. All I can say is that no principle, no ideal, no ideology, no philosophy is worth one person continuing on in pain when it can be stopped. As to the principle you mention, people have died throughout history that they may as a collective have their own damn say in how to protect themselves. If you want to, you can live in a country that feels they need to get the okay from Guatemala or Panama or Switzerland or anybody else before their leaders take action to protect those they are responsible for protecting. I would rather not. PLUS, Bush did have a UN resolution that he went in under. The only reason the UN squawked, the one and only reason, is that his doing so was stopping them from continuing to gather monies for all sorts of illegal deals. If you think that corruption cannot occur in an international body of people, you are wrong. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jul 28 2005, 12:16 PM Post #23 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
What I am talking about is the fact that no single nation has the legitimacy to decide to invade another sovreign body. That is the entire basis of international law. I stated nowhere that I believe an international body is incapable of corruption. There are atrocities that have and will continue to happen, some of which are supported by the United States themselves. One single nation cannot have that kind of power it is too easily corruptable. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jul 28 2005, 01:03 PM Post #24 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I think you are misinterpreting Franko's comments. He was not saying that all people against the war were aiding and abetting Hussien. I believe that he was satirically recalling Jane Fonda's visit to Viet Nam during that conflict. He is describing what she wore then and recalling her embraces with Communist leaders at that time. His comments were about Jane, and Jane alone. Not all who opposed that war or this one. I am always disappointed when someone takes someone elses comments out of context and assumes what they believe. It's obviously wholly untrue and illustrates a total lack of understanding. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Jul 28 2005, 01:51 PM Post #25 |
|
psyfi
|
Noah, here is something I learned when I minored in philosophy. There are precious few principles on earth that are absolute. The idea that one country has no right to invade another is crazy. There can often be good and solid reasons for invading another country. The act of invasion is not, in and of itself, a mortal sin; nor is the decision solely by one country to invade another. Sometimes circumstances warrant it and the benefits that occur are so numerous that it is not only completely justified but also the right and moral thing to do. Indeed, sometimes circumstances are such that listening to an international body NOT to invade can be the immoral and wrong thing to do, leading to suffering untold as of course it would have been in Iraq. Also, if those who represent a large body of governments can be as corrupt as any leader or administration of a given country, why in the world would anybody want to listen to what they have to say? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| who | Jul 28 2005, 01:58 PM Post #26 |
|
Have light saber. Will travel.
|
As I have stated before, Iraq under Saddam was in violation of international law and faced the consequences. He signed a peace treaty after the Kuwait invasion and was in violation of that peace treaty. The Afganistan war might be considered an illegal war since the government of Afganistan did not attack the US or anyone else. They simply refused to turn over OBL. Since we had no extradition treaty with them they were in their rights to do so. I think international law is not well developed. I think most agree with the Afganistan war but the Iraq war is in question even though the Iraq war was, I think, in accordance with international law. Strange, isn't it? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jul 28 2005, 02:01 PM Post #27 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
There are two reasons a nation has the right to invade another. 1. They have first been attacked (in which case the war in Afghanistan is justified as it was determined that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and the Taliban harbored them) 2. They pose an imminent threat. Iraq fits neither description. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jul 28 2005, 02:23 PM Post #28 |
|
Admiral
|
What's the problem? Seriously. Why the need to rake her over the coals about this? Why do we care one way or the other? If that's how she wants to spend her time, who cares? In this country, it's her constitutional right to do so. Would you prefer we didn't have free speech? What is it you're afraid of? So anyone who dares open their mouth to say things that are unpopular is now an "attention whore"??? If nothing else, I admire her courage to openly and publicly stand by her convictions instead of becoming a mindless sheep like so many. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Jul 28 2005, 03:22 PM Post #29 |
|
Admiral
|
IE, Yes, this is what I was alluding to when I wrote that she was consistent with regard to her convictions. For my own part, my agreeing or disagreeing with her actions is irrelevant. Hi, BTW.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jul 28 2005, 03:41 PM Post #30 |
|
Admiral
|
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:08 PM Jul 11