What are your views on environmental preservation and foreign invasion and involvement?

I don't think anybody is completely opposed to helping the enviroment, that's why Bush passed legislation helping the air and skies.

Foreign invasion/involvement is more or less a responsibility of the US. It's not like the United Nations is going to remove the dictators that they're getting money from, so somebody has to do it. (Like Saddam)

So you think it's our responsibility to invade other countries?  Interesting viewpoint.

involvement results in invasion if diplomacy doesn't work, which it didn't in Iraq for example.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg87361#msg87361 date=1099599988]
involvement results in invasion if diplomacy doesn't work, which it didn't in Iraq for example.
[/quote]
So what do you think gives us the authority to do this, since the UN clearly doesn't?

We've been a world power for a long time, and as such have helped to liberate oppressed people. The United Nations is corrupt (perhaps you should read the book 'Inside the Asylum,' it's rather good) and it's officials have been paid off by foreign dictators. If the rest of the world won't act, it's up to us to get involved or suffer foreign casualties. Peace can't be acheived without force, it's been proven throughout history.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg87364#msg87364 date=1099600537]
We've been a world power for a long time[/quote]Just because we've been a world power doesn't give us the right to invade other people.  That's called being a bully (at best).

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg87364#msg87364 date=1099600537], and as such have helped to liberate oppressed people. The United Nations is corrupt (perhaps you should read the book 'Inside the Asylum,' it's rather good) and it's officials have been paid off by foreign dictators.[/quote]Provide hard evidence of something if you are going to make such claims, please (this means independently verifiable facts and not opinions) -- and in a readily accessible form.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg87364#msg87364 date=1099600537] If the rest of the world won't act, it's up to us to get involved or suffer foreign casualties. Peace can't be acheived without force, it's been proven throughout history.
[/quote]
You still haven't answered the original question -- why it's up to us?

Its up to us because, unlike some who are totally concerned with self-preservation and are selfish bastards, we have the ability to do so. Its a moral obligation at the very least to help the oppressed.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg87367#msg87367 date=1099601802]
Its up to us because, unlike some who are totally concerned with self-preservation and are selfish bastards, we have the ability to do so. Its a moral obligation at the very least to help the oppressed.
[/quote]

Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?

No.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87374#msg87374 date=1099602380]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg87367#msg87367 date=1099601802]
Its up to us because, unlike some who are totally concerned with self-preservation and are selfish bastards, we have the ability to do so. Its a moral obligation at the very least to help the oppressed.
[/quote]

Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?
[/quote]

The Palestinian "oppression" by the Isrealis is subject to debate. For one, the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" or whatever its called is little better than al Qaeda, they're just terrorists. If the Israelis cross the line, I have no doubt that the US will move to stop it.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg87358#msg87358 date=1099599178]
I don't think anybody is completely opposed to helping the enviroment, that's why Bush passed legislation helping the air and skies.

Foreign invasion/involvement is more or less a responsibility of the US. It's not like the United Nations is going to remove the dictators that they're getting money from, so somebody has to do it. (Like Saddam)
[/quote]

Apparantly after 9-11 there was a lot of legislation passed that was harming the environment that the media never got a hold of people because they were all preoccupied with 9-11.  Also, I read in an article stating that the earth has about another 100 years remaining before it "dies" due to pollution, expansion, extinction, etc.  And with the republican majorities in congress and the new supreme court judge appointments, it'll be largely up to the republicans in theory to fix this.  I'm sure that'll go well.  :)

I don't see what future supreme court judges have to do with anything. Republicans have a 5-4 majority right now, and sure some judges are going to retire and Bush will appoint more. But he's vowed to not give a litmus test so it doesn't matter.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment; but if the the majority of the supreme court is conservative (which it will definitely be once Bush is through appointing), all issues that arise will lean towards a conservative point of view rather than a liberal, and that's not good if your opinions are opposed to conservative ideas.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9422.msg87444#msg87444 date=1099623120]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment; but if the the majority of the supreme court is conservative (which it will definitely be once Bush is through appointing), all issues that arise will lean towards a conservative point of view rather than a liberal, and that's not good if your opinions are opposed to conservative ideas.
[/quote]

Thats so stupid. Supreme Court justices rarely vote based on their own views. They do as they are sworn to do, which is to interpret the Constitution and the law to the best of their ability. Would it be better to have the court packed with liberals as opposed to conservatives? It wouldn't really matter if they did their job.

[quote author=Skywing link=topic=9422.msg87360#msg87360 date=1099599893]
So you think it's our responsibility to invade other countries?  Interesting viewpoint.
[/quote] I think it is our responsibility to make the world a safer place because the un is only good at writing nasty letters. If we have to take out a regime that sponsors terrorism then so be it. We should try ot solve it with diplomacy wherever possible, like libya for instance, of course, but that was not going to happen in afganistan or iraq.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87374#msg87374 date=1099602380]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg87367#msg87367 date=1099601802]
Its up to us because, unlike some who are totally concerned with self-preservation and are selfish bastards, we have the ability to do so. Its a moral obligation at the very least to help the oppressed.
[/quote]

Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?
[/quote] Israel is not oppressing the palestinians. Israel is not retaliating for terrorist attacks for pleasure either.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9422.msg87437#msg87437 date=1099619242]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg87358#msg87358 date=1099599178]
I don't think anybody is completely opposed to helping the enviroment, that's why Bush passed legislation helping the air and skies.

Foreign invasion/involvement is more or less a responsibility of the US. It's not like the United  (Like Saddam)
[/quote]

Apparantly after 9-11 there was a lot of legislation passed that was harming the environment that the media never got a hold of people because they were all preoccupied with 9-11.  Also, I read in an article stating that the earth has about another 100 years remaining before it "dies" due to pollution, expansion, extinction, etc.  And with the republican majorities in congress and the new supreme court judge appointments, it'll be largely up to the republicans in theory to fix this.  I'm sure that'll go well.  :)
[/quote] Personally I am for a pollution tax. Tax the company for x ammount of pollution to correct the negative externality. It creates an incentive to run cleaner but will not hurt the companies ability to exist like a magical ammount of smog you are allowed to create before the EPA busts in with machine guns blazing.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9422.msg87444#msg87444 date=1099623120]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment; but if the the majority of the supreme court is conservative (which it will definitely be once Bush is through appointing), all issues that arise will lean towards a conservative point of view rather than a liberal, and that's not good if your opinions are opposed to conservative ideas.
[/quote] No. I only know of one judge who is leaving and that is because he has cancer, he is conservative.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg87452#msg87452 date=1099624994]
Thats so stupid. Supreme Court justices rarely vote based on their own views. They do as they are sworn to do, which is to interpret the Constitution and the law to the best of their ability. Would it be better to have the court packed with liberals as opposed to conservatives? It wouldn't really matter if they did their job.
[/quote]

So interpreting the Constitution to the best of their ability doesn't imply opinion?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87455#msg87455 date=1099626158]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87374#msg87374 date=1099602380]
Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?
[/quote] Israel is not oppressing the palestinians. Israel is not retaliating for terrorist attacks for pleasure either.
[/quote]

Ah. Al Qaeda probably doesn't retaliate against America for pleasure either. It's probably more out of lust for revenge, hatred, sense of duty, all of those "noble" feelings. Much like Israel blowing up the house of the ancestors of a suicide bombers. I suppose they feel it's in the genes.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87476#msg87476 date=1099642553]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87455#msg87455 date=1099626158]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87374#msg87374 date=1099602380]
Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?
[/quote] Israel is not oppressing the palestinians. Israel is not retaliating for terrorist attacks for pleasure either.
[/quote]

Ah. Al Qaeda probably doesn't retaliate against America for pleasure either. It's probably more out of lust for revenge, hatred, sense of duty, all of those "noble" feelings. Much like Israel blowing up the house of the ancestors of a suicide bombers. I suppose they feel it's in the genes.
[/quote] Do you understand the difference between a country defending its self and terrorism? Terrorism in this case is not defence. If these terrorists were not blowing up busses Israel would not have to try to go after their organizations. However the terrorists are not attacking Israel because Israel puts missiles through their leaders' windows, they are attacking Israel because they hate the jews.

We did not prompt 9/11. Those terrorists hate our life style. So it is totally different from retaliation.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87476#msg87476 date=1099642553]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87455#msg87455 date=1099626158]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87374#msg87374 date=1099602380]
Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?
[/quote] Israel is not oppressing the palestinians. Israel is not retaliating for terrorist attacks for pleasure either.
[/quote]

Ah. Al Qaeda probably doesn't retaliate against America for pleasure either. It's probably more out of lust for revenge, hatred, sense of duty, all of those "noble" feelings. Much like Israel blowing up the house of the ancestors of a suicide bombers. I suppose they feel it's in the genes.
[/quote]

jihad.

[quote]Those terrorists hate our life style.[/quote]

Can it be that they hate the fact that Americans tend to stick their noses everywhere - which is exactly what you've been doing more since 9/11

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87484#msg87484 date=1099652814]
Do you understand the difference between a country defending its self and terrorism? Terrorism in this case is not defence. If these terrorists were not blowing up busses Israel would not have to try to go after their organizations. However the terrorists are not attacking Israel because Israel puts missiles through their leaders' windows, they are attacking Israel because they hate the jews.
[/quote]

There is not an opposition between countries defending themselves and terrorism. Terrorism can be a country's (or other group's) way of defending itself. Terrorism is about creating fear. What is Israel's blowing up houses of relatives to suicide-bombers supposed to do? I can't see any other possibility than that it's supposed to create fear. Fear Israel's revenge.

You can never punish a suicide bomber after the attack; he or she is dead and can't be hurt anymore.

The terrorists aren't attacking Israel because they hate the jews. If they did, why would there be more terrorist attacks after Israel kills some palestinians? It's all about revenge. A bloody circle going round and round, killing more and more.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87484#msg87484 date=1099652814]
We did not prompt 9/11. Those terrorists hate our life style. So it is totally different from retaliation.
[/quote]

I don't think they'd care about your life style if you stayed at home and closed your doors. It's the effect that you're having on them that is bothering them. The way you support their enemies, the ones who are killing them, and the way you are slowly creeping closer to them, your culture spreading across the world. They fear you, and they feel the need to strike back.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87454#msg87454 date=1099626068]
[quote author=Skywing link=topic=9422.msg87360#msg87360 date=1099599893]
So you think it's our responsibility to invade other countries?  Interesting viewpoint.
[/quote] I think it is our responsibility to make the world a safer place because the un is only good at writing nasty letters. If we have to take out a regime that sponsors terrorism then so be it. We should try ot solve it with diplomacy wherever possible, like libya for instance, of course, but that was not going to happen in afganistan or iraq.
[/quote]
You still haven't said what gives the US the authority to do this.  I don't see a majority (or even a very large minority, for that matter!) of the rest of the world approving our actions.  Doesn't that seem a little strange to you when we are trying to "make the world a safer place"?

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=9422.msg87473#msg87473 date=1099641132]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg87452#msg87452 date=1099624994]
Thats so stupid. Supreme Court justices rarely vote based on their own views. They do as they are sworn to do, which is to interpret the Constitution and the law to the best of their ability. Would it be better to have the court packed with liberals as opposed to conservatives? It wouldn't really matter if they did their job.
[/quote]

So interpreting the Constitution to the best of their ability doesn't imply opinion?
[/quote]

Interpretation of the Consitution is an opinion, however it is not based on Republican or Democratic views. They interpret the Constitution as it is written. It is their job to come to a conclusion on what the Constitution says on an issue, not what a party says on an issue.

[quote author=TangoFour link=topic=9422.msg87492#msg87492 date=1099659083]
[quote]Those terrorists hate our life style.[/quote]

Can it be that they hate the fact that Americans tend to stick their noses everywhere - which is exactly what you've been doing more since 9/11
[/quote]

We "stick our noses" everywhere because thats where they extend. Face it! The United States is involved in every single nation world wide regardless if they are friend, foe, or indifferent. So much of the world's stability is based on the stability of the United States. What happens when our economy slumps? The world's economy slumps.

[quote author=Skywing link=topic=9422.msg87498#msg87498 date=1099664726]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87454#msg87454 date=1099626068]
[quote author=Skywing link=topic=9422.msg87360#msg87360 date=1099599893]
So you think it's our responsibility to invade other countries?  Interesting viewpoint.
[/quote] I think it is our responsibility to make the world a safer place because the un is only good at writing nasty letters. If we have to take out a regime that sponsors terrorism then so be it. We should try ot solve it with diplomacy wherever possible, like libya for instance, of course, but that was not going to happen in afganistan or iraq.
[/quote]
You still haven't said what gives the US the authority to do this.  I don't see a majority (or even a very large minority, for that matter!) of the rest of the world approving our actions.  Doesn't that seem a little strange to you when we are trying to "make the world a safer place"?
[/quote]

The entire world never agrees on issues, and you know it.

The fact is that no explaination we give will be good enough for you because you already have a pre-concieved response or excuse to anything we might say.

The end all and be all of the situation is this:

Nothing personal against the following people but, thank God people like Skywing, Adron, dxoigmn, Mephisto, etc. don't call the shots in the real world. If they did, we'd all be royally fucked and thats all there is to it. You all live in this little dream world where people could all get along if we could hold hands and sing songs and on and on with the gumdrop fields and chocolate rivers blah blah blah. In the real world you have to make decisions, for better or worse, that effect lives. The US is forced into the position of having to do something. If we did nothing, you would curse us for not using our power to help others. When we take action, you ask what right we have to do so. A very hypocritical group who live more in the realm of theory and fantasy than in the world of reality. None of us are in a position to understand the way of all things, and to pretend that you are based on "logic" or whatever you want to base it on is ignorant. Welcome, Neo, to the real world.

I just don't think the world is that simple. I don't think there's only one solution to any given problem. I also don't think that the US is inherantly qualified to judge what is in the best interest of the world, which is why I think big decisions should be made by groups of countries cooperating, rather than one country acting unilaterally. For you to think that that is an impossibility (if you do) is as absurd as saying that groups of tribes could never have joined to form nations, or that groups of states could never unite for mutual benefit...

On the subject of the supreme court: To claim that judges are not influenced by their views is just silly. The very point of interpretation is to do that! If you take a thing, and say something subjective about it, you are viewing that thing in terms of your own life & experience. Someone else might see the same thing, but come up with a different conclusion. That's interpretation. That's why you see the 2nd amendment as granting the right to own a gun, and I see it as an outdated protection of states' rights. It is the job of a judge to do that - to determine not only the intent of the consitution, but to determine the 'best' (or perhaps, 'most constitutional') way to apply it in any given situation. There's no way that cannot be affected by someone's own world view. If it weren't affected by your viewpoint, then everyone would agree on it anyway, and there would be no need for a supreme court at all!

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87493#msg87493 date=1099659635]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87484#msg87484 date=1099652814]
Do you understand the difference between a country defending its self and terrorism? Terrorism in this case is not defence. If these terrorists were not blowing up busses Israel would not have to try to go after their organizations. However the terrorists are not attacking Israel because Israel puts missiles through their leaders' windows, they are attacking Israel because they hate the jews.
[/quote]

There is not an opposition between countries defending themselves and terrorism. Terrorism can be a country's (or other group's) way of defending itself. [/quote] Not in the case of the palestinians it isn't. Nor is it in the case of al quida.
[quote]Terrorism is about creating fear. What is Israel's blowing up houses of relatives to suicide-bombers supposed to do?[/quote] they aren't... they are trying to kill the operatives of the terrorist organizations themselves. Their goal is not to kill innocents.
[qupte]
You can never punish a suicide bomber after the attack; he or she is dead and can't be hurt anymore. [quote][/quote] But you can give their family 20,000... which is what saddam was doing.
[quote]
The terrorists aren't attacking Israel because they hate the jews. If they did, why would there be more terrorist attacks after Israel kills some palestinians? It's all about revenge. A bloody circle going round and round, killing more and more.[/quote] but where did it start? At the jews supposedly taking the land of the palestinians... when the palestinian people were never evicted, they were just forced to share with someone they had hated since they moved in from egypt back in the day.
[quote]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87484#msg87484 date=1099652814]
We did not prompt 9/11. Those terrorists hate our life style. So it is totally different from retaliation.
[/quote]

I don't think they'd care about your life style if you stayed at home and closed your doors. It's the effect that you're having on them that is bothering them. The way you support their enemies, the ones who are killing them, and the way you are slowly creeping closer to them, your culture spreading across the world. They fear you, and they feel the need to strike back.[/quote] They hate our culture would have been a better way to phrase it. They do not like the idea that one day their women might not have to cover their bodys completely and that one day their women might walk beside them.

Hazard, your comment about us liberal democrats (assumption) couldn't be more wrong about us believing that the world could be 100% peacefull by holding hands and not going to war, etc.  You obviously don't understand where we come from.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87529#msg87529 date=1099690679]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87493#msg87493 date=1099659635]
There is not an opposition between countries defending themselves and terrorism. Terrorism can be a country's (or other group's) way of defending itself. [/quote] Not in the case of the palestinians it isn't. Nor is it in the case of al quida.
[/quote]

Can we judge that? Perhaps it's better for them to take the fight to their enemy instead of trying to hold off coca-cola when it's on their doorstep? And what is Israel doing when getting revenge? Can it be anything other than terrorism?


[quote]
[quote]Terrorism is about creating fear. What is Israel's blowing up houses of relatives to suicide-bombers supposed to do?[/quote] they aren't... they are trying to kill the operatives of the terrorist organizations themselves. Their goal is not to kill innocents.
[/quote]

I didn't say they were killing innocents in this case, just blowing up houses:

[quote]
BOMBER'S HOME BLOWN UP


On Wednesday morning, soldiers blew up the first floor of a two-storey home where one of the bombers lived in the West Bank city of Hebron, witnesses said.


The family of the second bomber was told to move out their belongings, apparently in preparation for it to be destroyed as well, they added.


The Israeli army confirmed the home had been destroyed. A spokeswoman said the routine response to suicide bombings was a message "that anyone who is party to terrorism will pay a price."
[/quote]



[quote]
[quote]
You can never punish a suicide bomber after the attack; he or she is dead and can't be hurt anymore. [/quote] But you can give their family 20,000... which is what saddam was doing.
[/quote]

Which makes more sense: The family may have lost their sole supporter and may need the support. Not their fault their son/daughter/husband/wife blew up...


[quote]
[quote]
The terrorists aren't attacking Israel because they hate the jews. If they did, why would there be more terrorist attacks after Israel kills some palestinians? It's all about revenge. A bloody circle going round and round, killing more and more.[/quote] but where did it start? At the jews supposedly taking the land of the palestinians... when the palestinian people were never evicted, they were just forced to share with someone they had hated since they moved in from egypt back in the day.
[/quote]

Yeah, that whole thing was stupid. Doesn't change what we have now though.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87484#msg87484 date=1099652814]
We did not prompt 9/11. Those terrorists hate our life style. So it is totally different from retaliation.
[/quote]

I don't think they'd care about your life style if you stayed at home and closed your doors. It's the effect that you're having on them that is bothering them. The way you support their enemies, the ones who are killing them, and the way you are slowly creeping closer to them, your culture spreading across the world. They fear you, and they feel the need to strike back.[/quote] They hate our culture would have been a better way to phrase it. They do not like the idea that one day their women might not have to cover their bodys completely and that one day their women might walk beside them.
[/quote]

Probably. Just like anti-gay or anti-abortion. Anti-abortionists have killed for their views I think?

There's the other thing too: Your actual attacks on them. CIA operations, support to various groups, that kind of thing. It's not only a peaceful assimilation.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87561#msg87561 date=1099698173]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87529#msg87529 date=1099690679]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87493#msg87493 date=1099659635]
There is not an opposition between countries defending themselves and terrorism. Terrorism can be a country's (or other group's) way of defending itself. [/quote] Not in the case of the palestinians it isn't. Nor is it in the case of al quida.
[/quote]

Can we judge that? Perhaps it's better for them to take the fight to their enemy instead of trying to hold off coca-cola when it's on their doorstep? And what is Israel doing when getting revenge? Can it be anything other than terrorism?[/quote] who said Israel is getting revenge? Their tactics are geared to prevent terrorist attacks. Thats why they go after memebers of the terrorist organizations and their leaders, so that future attacks cannot be carried out.
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]Terrorism is about creating fear. What is Israel's blowing up houses of relatives to suicide-bombers supposed to do?[/quote] they aren't... they are trying to kill the operatives of the terrorist organizations themselves. Their goal is not to kill innocents.
[/quote]

I didn't say they were killing innocents in this case, just blowing up houses:

[quote]
BOMBER'S HOME BLOWN UP


On Wednesday morning, soldiers blew up the first floor of a two-storey home where one of the bombers lived in the West Bank city of Hebron, witnesses said.


The family of the second bomber was told to move out their belongings, apparently in preparation for it to be destroyed as well, they added.


The Israeli army confirmed the home had been destroyed. A spokeswoman said the routine response to suicide bombings was a message "that anyone who is party to terrorism will pay a price."
[/quote][/quote] Saddam's 20,000 to the family basically tells the bombers that if they do this their family will be taken care of. This is Israel's counter on that, saying no it does not work that way.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
You can never punish a suicide bomber after the attack; he or she is dead and can't be hurt anymore. [/quote] But you can give their family 20,000... which is what saddam was doing.
[/quote]

Which makes more sense: The family may have lost their sole supporter and may need the support. Not their fault their son/daughter/husband/wife blew up...[/quote] it adds incentive for him to blow himself up. It gets rid of the disencentive. It is a bad thing.
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
The terrorists aren't attacking Israel because they hate the jews. If they did, why would there be more terrorist attacks after Israel kills some palestinians? It's all about revenge. A bloody circle going round and round, killing more and more.[/quote] but where did it start? At the jews supposedly taking the land of the palestinians... when the palestinian people were never evicted, they were just forced to share with someone they had hated since they moved in from egypt back in the day.
[/quote]

Yeah, that whole thing was stupid. Doesn't change what we have now though.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87484#msg87484 date=1099652814]
We did not prompt 9/11. Those terrorists hate our life style. So it is totally different from retaliation.
[/quote]

I don't think they'd care about your life style if you stayed at home and closed your doors. It's the effect that you're having on them that is bothering them. The way you support their enemies, the ones who are killing them, and the way you are slowly creeping closer to them, your culture spreading across the world. They fear you, and they feel the need to strike back.[/quote] They hate our culture would have been a better way to phrase it. They do not like the idea that one day their women might not have to cover their bodys completely and that one day their women might walk beside them.
[/quote]

Probably. Just like anti-gay or anti-abortion. Anti-abortionists have killed for their views I think?[/quote] But the difference is, we prosecute people who do that. Whenever Israel tries to take action against terrorism the world pisses on them.
[quote]
There's the other thing too: Your actual attacks on them. CIA operations, support to various groups, that kind of thing. It's not only a peaceful assimilation.
[/quote] Examples?

All of this back and fourth quoting is getting very confusing.

Environment: Bush sucks. No denying that.

Foreign Affairs: It's a bit...unfair...that we stick our nose everywhere. However, it is our duty as the world superpower to ensure stability. To do this, we must stick our nose everywhere.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=9422.msg87548#msg87548 date=1099694679]
Hazard, your comment about us liberal democrats (assumption) couldn't be more wrong about us believing that the world could be 100% peacefull by holding hands and not going to war, etc.  You obviously don't understand where we come from.[/quote]

and such a terse post is not going to help anyone understand where you are coming from.  Perhaps you'd care to elaborate a bit?

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=9422.msg87712#msg87712 date=1099792004]
Environment: Bush sucks. No denying that..
[/quote] Not so sure about that, I have yet to see the environment get worse. I thought bush was proposing a hike or proposed a pollution tax or something.

He passed the 'Clean air and skies' legislation.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg87736#msg87736 date=1099806816]
He passed the 'Clean air and skies' legislation.
[/quote] which is? I could google it but I would probably come up with some bush bashing sites that say it is a smoke screen or bs or something.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87657#msg87657 date=1099764007]
who said Israel is getting revenge? Their tactics are geared to prevent terrorist attacks. Thats why they go after memebers of the terrorist organizations and their leaders, so that future attacks cannot be carried out.
[/quote]

Actually, most I see talk about Israel getting revenge after every suicide bombing. A quick oogle came up with "Israeli officials were deliberating this week about how to retaliate to a suicide bombing Tuesday", from Jewish Bulletin Online, which should be Israel-friendly enough?



[quote]
[quote]
BOMBER'S HOME BLOWN UP
[/quote] Saddam's 20,000 to the family basically tells the bombers that if they do this their family will be taken care of. This is Israel's counter on that, saying no it does not work that way.
[/quote]

It may be Israel's counter, but it's still an act against innocent people, intended to scare, i.e. terrorism. It's not punishment of the perpetrator, because the perpetrator is already dead and cannot be punished.



[quote]
[quote]
Which makes more sense: The family may have lost their sole supporter and may need the support. Not their fault their son/daughter/husband/wife blew up...[/quote] it adds incentive for him to blow himself up. It gets rid of the disencentive. It is a bad thing.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say it adds incentive, but yes, it gets rid of some disincentive. Which means it's bad for Israel. There are likely more terrorist attacks with it than without it. Still, it's support aimed at children. It's not like paying money to some terrorist organization.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
They hate our culture would have been a better way to phrase it. They do not like the idea that one day their women might not have to cover their bodys completely and that one day their women might walk beside them.
[/quote]

Probably. Just like anti-gay or anti-abortion. Anti-abortionists have killed for their views I think?[/quote] But the difference is, we prosecute people who do that. Whenever Israel tries to take action against terrorism the world pisses on them.
[/quote]

It depends on what action Israel takes. Currently, "the world" thinks Israel is hurting innocent palestinians as much as or more than the terrorist groups, which actually encourages terrorist strikes.


[quote][quote]
There's the other thing too: Your actual attacks on them. CIA operations, support to various groups, that kind of thing. It's not only a peaceful assimilation.
[/quote] Examples?

All of this back and fourth quoting is getting very confusing.
[/quote]

That wasn't intended to point at some particular event, more at the history of the USA as supporting underground movements in other countries, organizations working outside the legal system in those states. Something that could be very close to supporting terrorists, btw. What I meant was that a muslim state (that isn't friends with America) may have to worry about their internal enemies getting outside support.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg87736#msg87736 date=1099806816]
He passed the 'Clean air and skies' legislation.
[/quote]

It's a deceptive name:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=294154&category=OPINION&BCCode=&newsdate=10/12/2004

And here is his eviromental plan for the next four years:

[quote]Clear Skies Initiative: President Bush will work to secure passage of the Clear Skies Initiative to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury by 70 percent and help the states meet tougher new air quality standards.

Clean Air Interstate Rule: President Bush will complete the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which will require the steepest emissions cuts in over a decade.

Mercury Rule: President Bush is the first President to propose caps on emissions of mercury and he will finalize the rule that will cut mercury emissions from power plants by 70 percent. This rule will improve public health and protect children and pregnant women.

Farm Bill Conservation Programs: President Bush will aggressively implement programs that will dedicate a record $40 billion over a decade to restore millions of acres of wetlands, protect habitats, conserve water, and improve streams and rivers near working farms and ranches. This commitment will include early re-enrollment and contract extensions for the Conservation Reserve Program and expansion of quail and wetlands habitat.

Initiate Environmentally Safe Exploration: President Bush will seek to promote environmentally sound domestic oil production in just one percent of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which could provide up to 1 million barrels of oil a day for nearly 20 years.

Ensure Greater Electricity Reliability: President Bush will work to modernize our electricity grid, establish mandatory reliability standards, and encourage new transmission investment, in order to help prevent a repeat of last year’s blackout that affected 50 million people.

Encourage Use of Efficient Technologies: President Bush will provide incentives for deployment of efficient technologies for storage and transmission of energy, further contributing to the reliability of our electric grid.

Promote Conservation and Support Energy Technologies: The President’s plan will provide $4 billion in tax incentives to spur the use of energy technologies. [/quote]

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87756#msg87756 date=1099838161]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87657#msg87657 date=1099764007]
who said Israel is getting revenge? Their tactics are geared to prevent terrorist attacks. Thats why they go after memebers of the terrorist organizations and their leaders, so that future attacks cannot be carried out.
[/quote]

Actually, most I see talk about Israel getting revenge after every suicide bombing. A quick oogle came up with "Israeli officials were deliberating this week about how to retaliate to a suicide bombing Tuesday", from Jewish Bulletin Online, which should be Israel-friendly enough?[/quote] Israel's retaliation is most likely against the terrorist group that launched the attack. For instace putting a missile through the window of the Hamas leaders car.
[quote][/quote]


[quote]
[quote]
BOMBER'S HOME BLOWN UP
[/quote] Saddam's 20,000 to the family basically tells the bombers that if they do this their family will be taken care of. This is Israel's counter on that, saying no it does not work that way.
[/quote]
[
It may be Israel's counter, but it's still an act against innocent people, intended to scare, i.e. terrorism. It's not punishment of the perpetrator, because the perpetrator is already dead and cannot be punished. [quote][/quote] Who said it is always against innocent people? Its also meant to be a disincentive. If he knows this will happen he is not going to blow himself up in the first place.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Which makes more sense: The family may have lost their sole supporter and may need the support. Not their fault their son/daughter/husband/wife blew up...[/quote] it adds incentive for him to blow himself up. It gets rid of the disencentive. It is a bad thing.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say it adds incentive, but yes, it gets rid of some disincentive. Which means it's bad for Israel. There are likely more terrorist attacks with it than without it. Still, it's support aimed at children. It's not like paying money to some terrorist organization.[/quote] it is not a bad thing. How does it get rid of disincentive to blow ones self up? What I was referring to before adding incentive was the 20,000 given to families... did I miss something?

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
They hate our culture would have been a better way to phrase it. They do not like the idea that one day their women might not have to cover their bodys completely and that one day their women might walk beside them.
[/quote]

Probably. Just like anti-gay or anti-abortion. Anti-abortionists have killed for their views I think?[/quote] But the difference is, we prosecute people who do that. Whenever Israel tries to take action against terrorism the world pisses on them.
[/quote]

It depends on what action Israel takes. Currently, "the world" thinks Israel is hurting innocent palestinians as much as or more than the terrorist groups, which actually encourages terrorist strikes.[/quote] and this is where the UN in particular is wrong.

[quote]
[quote][quote]
There's the other thing too: Your actual attacks on them. CIA operations, support to various groups, that kind of thing. It's not only a peaceful assimilation.
[/quote] Examples?

All of this back and fourth quoting is getting very confusing.
[/quote]

That wasn't intended to point at some particular event, more at the history of the USA as supporting underground movements in other countries, organizations working outside the legal system in those states. Something that could be very close to supporting terrorists, btw. What I meant was that a muslim state (that isn't friends with America) may have to worry about their internal enemies getting outside support.

[/quote] We used tactics like this a lot against communism though. Not against terrorist groups. For example, supporting the rebels in afganistan.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87797#msg87797 date=1099854911]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg87756#msg87756 date=1099838161]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg87657#msg87657 date=1099764007]
who said Israel is getting revenge? Their tactics are geared to prevent terrorist attacks. Thats why they go after memebers of the terrorist organizations and their leaders, so that future attacks cannot be carried out.
[/quote]

Actually, most I see talk about Israel getting revenge after every suicide bombing. A quick oogle came up with "Israeli officials were deliberating this week about how to retaliate to a suicide bombing Tuesday", from Jewish Bulletin Online, which should be Israel-friendly enough?[/quote] Israel's retaliation is most likely against the terrorist group that launched the attack. For instace putting a missile through the window of the Hamas leaders car.
[/quote]

Sometimes it is that. All I wanted to say was that they seek revenge, not just justice or prevention.


[quote]
[quote]
It may be Israel's counter, but it's still an act against innocent people, intended to scare, i.e. terrorism. It's not punishment of the perpetrator, because the perpetrator is already dead and cannot be punished. [/quote] Who said it is always against innocent people? Its also meant to be a disincentive. If he knows this will happen he is not going to blow himself up in the first place.
[/quote]

Well, I didn't say it's always against innocent people. I was picking an example of what they typically do. Saying that Israel always killed innocent people would be like saying the palestinians have never killed an Israeli soldier. Hamas probably means their attacks also as a disincentive as well.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Which makes more sense: The family may have lost their sole supporter and may need the support. Not their fault their son/daughter/husband/wife blew up...[/quote] it adds incentive for him to blow himself up. It gets rid of the disencentive. It is a bad thing.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say it adds incentive, but yes, it gets rid of some disincentive. Which means it's bad for Israel. There are likely more terrorist attacks with it than without it. Still, it's support aimed at children. It's not like paying money to some terrorist organization.[/quote] it is not a bad thing. How does it get rid of disincentive to blow ones self up? What I was referring to before adding incentive was the 20,000 given to families... did I miss something?
[/quote]

I meant that you don't have the disincentive of worrying about how your family will survive after Israel destroys the house of those innocent people. It outweighs some of the evil that Israel is doing against the innocents.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Whenever Israel tries to take action against terrorism the world pisses on them.
[/quote]

It depends on what action Israel takes. Currently, "the world" thinks Israel is hurting innocent palestinians as much as or more than the terrorist groups, which actually encourages terrorist strikes.[/quote] and this is where the UN in particular is wrong.
[/quote]

That's opinion :)
I think the UN is right in that, and that Israel needs to cool down a bit. Luckily that might just be happening now.


[quote]
[quote]
That wasn't intended to point at some particular event, more at the history of the USA as supporting underground movements in other countries, organizations working outside the legal system in those states. Something that could be very close to supporting terrorists, btw. What I meant was that a muslim state (that isn't friends with America) may have to worry about their internal enemies getting outside support.
[/quote] We used tactics like this a lot against communism though. Not against terrorist groups. For example, supporting the rebels in afganistan.
[/quote]

Yes, those tactics are useful against legitimate governments that you don't want wage an open war against. And the reason it's used against legitimate goverments is more a question of definition. If used against a terrorist group, like perhaps ETA, or IRA, you can support the Spanish or British government openly. I suppose it can be seen as a general case of USA supporting whatever group it likes, be it legitimate government or illegitimate groups.

The fact is that if Israel did not threaten the families of the bombers there would have been more bombers because there would be a good finantial reason to bomb. Israel takes that away. Which is a good thing because it decreases the total number of attacks. This is a defencive method. I hate the fact that whenever Israel tries to defend its people the UN takes a leak on them. Israel does not go after innocents the majority of the time like you seem to have said. Israel goes after the terrorists themselves. The number of palestinian innocents that gets listed Is inflated I believe. This is because the palestinians want to paint Israel as being evil, a real bad guy. I am sure plenty of those people had ties to terrorism. Not all of them of course, but a fair amount I would be willing to bet. I just hate how you like to say that Israel goes after civilians Adron. The civilians are not a threat to them, its the militant people who plan on blowing up buses. Going after civilians intentionally would not be prudent for tons of reasons. For one it would spawn even more hate, there would be more bombing and the rest of the world would step in. You are just so anti Israel that you want to believe that the jews there are truely evil. I wonder what Yoni thinks.

Just want to let you know, that in many things I agree with you, except for small details and interpretations.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg88288#msg88288 date=1100127307]
The fact is that if Israel did not threaten the families of the bombers there would have been more bombers because there would be a good finantial reason to bomb. Israel takes that away. Which is a good thing because it decreases the total number of attacks. This is a defencive method.
[/quote]

OK, let's see here... Saddam isn't likely to be giving money anymore. Does that mean Israel has stopped blowing up houses? No.

I could see how someone might have bombed for financial reasons before, but I have never heard of anyone actually doing that. I don't think they need the financial reasons to attract people with what Israel's doing. And to be honest, I think having a father to support a family means much more than that money in the long run.

Perhaps what Israel is doing decreases the number of attacks. It's still not something I can agree with. Israel is strong, they should be better than that. Either it's war on civilians, or, as I'd like to see it, injustice in the legal system. They should be prosecuting terrorist leaders, not getting revenge on innocent families.

Side note: Didn't they do things like this in communist Soviet? If someone defected to the west, they'd exert punishment on relatives who remained, send them to a work camp or so? Did you agree with that?


[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg88288#msg88288 date=1100127307]
I hate the fact that whenever Israel tries to defend its people the UN takes a leak on them. Israel does not go after innocents the majority of the time like you seem to have said. Israel goes after the terrorists themselves.

The number of palestinian innocents that gets listed Is inflated I believe. This is because the palestinians want to paint Israel as being evil, a real bad guy. I am sure plenty of those people had ties to terrorism. Not all of them of course, but a fair amount I would be willing to bet. I just hate how you like to say that Israel goes after civilians Adron. The civilians are not a threat to them, its the militant people who plan on blowing up buses. Going after civilians intentionally would not be prudent for tons of reasons. For one it would spawn even more hate, there would be more bombing and the rest of the world would step in.
[/quote]

Well, there are more bombings, and the rest of the world is trying to step in... It wouldn't surprise me if all numbers are a bit inflated. Israel is still killing a lot of civilians, and ruining the lives of more.

What I think about Israel's acts against civilians is that for one, they officially don't care about the effects what they're doing is having on them any more than what the world complains. And for two, inofficially fundamentalist jews wouldn't mind killing civilian palestinians (or any other unfairness against civilian palestinians) (think of those who choose to build houses on occupied areas).

I think that official Israel will gladly do unfair things against civilian palestinians. There has to be limits to what you do to prevent terrorism, and I think Israel is being too hard.

Having said all that, Israel does go after terrorist organizations, albeit not in the way I'd like to see them do it. They should be capturing and prosecuting, instead of just acting as excutioners. And what I said in the preceding paragraphs applies: If killing a terrorist leader means you also kill or injure a lot of palestinian civilians, they'll still go ahead.

If there was a crime lord living with his family in an apartment in New York, the police knew he was in, and that he's guilty of ordering a recent murder: Would you think it OK for the police to throw in a bomb, killing him, his wife, his young children, and maiming his neighbours?


[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg88288#msg88288 date=1100127307]
You are just so anti Israel that you want to believe that the jews there are truely evil. I wonder what Yoni thinks.
[/quote]

Naa, I'm not really that anti-jews. Yoni is OK. I think all the jews who think like him (i.e. don't want to go to the palestinian areas to keep some ultra-religious settlers safe) are quite OK. I'm anti-any-religious-or-otherwise-emotionally-extremist. That includes anti-anti-abortionist, anti fundamental-christian/jew/muslim/..., anti-nazist, and so on.

I am also very anti- anyone who seems like a bully, which applies to Israel right now. If they were more humble, forgiving, and willing to give, I'm sure things could be solved much easier.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg88311#msg88311 date=1100132589]
Just want to let you know, that in many things I agree with you, except for small details and interpretations.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg88288#msg88288 date=1100127307]
The fact is that if Israel did not threaten the families of the bombers there would have been more bombers because there would be a good finantial reason to bomb. Israel takes that away. Which is a good thing because it decreases the total number of attacks. This is a defencive method.
[/quote]

OK, let's see here... Saddam isn't likely to be giving money anymore. Does that mean Israel has stopped blowing up houses? No.[/quote] why should they? It is still a deturrent force.
[quote]
I could see how someone might have bombed for financial reasons before, but I have never heard of anyone actually doing that. I don't think they need the financial reasons to attract people with what Israel's doing. And to be honest, I think having a father to support a family means much more than that money in the long run.[/quote] Maybe they did not blow up for the money, but that certainly encouraged it as it got rid of the what will happen to my family element.
[quote]
Perhaps what Israel is doing decreases the number of attacks. It's still not something I can agree with. Israel is strong, they should be better than that.[/quote] Like what?
[quote]Either it's war on civilians, or, as I'd like to see it, injustice in the legal system. They should be prosecuting terrorist leaders, not getting revenge on innocent families.[/quote] their primary objective is to go after the terrorists themsevles
[quote]
Side note: Didn't they do things like this in communist Soviet? If someone defected to the west, they'd exert punishment on relatives who remained, send them to a work camp or so? Did you agree with that?
[/quote] I didn't have any knowlege of this. But it is a different matter. I mean one or two people leaving is not the same as blowing up a bus full of civilians. I do agree with it though, if it keeps people from defecting then it is doing its job. I wonder how many people actually were put in camps.
[quote]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg88288#msg88288 date=1100127307]
I hate the fact that whenever Israel tries to defend its people the UN takes a leak on them. Israel does not go after innocents the majority of the time like you seem to have said. Israel goes after the terrorists themselves.

The number of palestinian innocents that gets listed Is inflated I believe. This is because the palestinians want to paint Israel as being evil, a real bad guy. I am sure plenty of those people had ties to terrorism. Not all of them of course, but a fair amount I would be willing to bet. I just hate how you like to say that Israel goes after civilians Adron. The civilians are not a threat to them, its the militant people who plan on blowing up buses. Going after civilians intentionally would not be prudent for tons of reasons. For one it would spawn even more hate, there would be more bombing and the rest of the world would step in.
[/quote]

Well, there are more bombings, and the rest of the world is trying to step in... It wouldn't surprise me if all numbers are a bit inflated. Israel is still killing a lot of civilians, and ruining the lives of more. [/quote] But I would be willing to bet that the palestinians have killed many more civilians then Israel has.
[quote]
What I think about Israel's acts against civilians is that for one, they officially don't care about the effects what they're doing is having on them any more than what the world complains. And for two, inofficially fundamentalist jews wouldn't mind killing civilian palestinians (or any other unfairness against civilian palestinians) (think of those who choose to build houses on occupied areas). [/quote] I would disagree with that completely. They care because the world bitches at them and because they know it is wrong. I would say Israel would rahter just evict them all. Not kill.
[quote]
I think that official Israel will gladly do unfair things against civilian palestinians. There has to be limits to what you do to prevent terrorism, and I think Israel is being too hard.[/quote] then you are being like the un and slapping Israels wrist for putting a missile through the Hamas leaders window. If you chain it up I do not think it will be effective. I think there is a limit and that is do not target civilians. Israel is not targetting civilians.
[quote]
If there was a crime lord living with his family in an apartment in New York, the police knew he was in, and that he's guilty of ordering a recent murder: Would you think it OK for the police to throw in a bomb, killing him, his wife, his young children, and maiming his neighbours?[/quote] Its a different situation all together. If the police know he is guilty they will take him to court first of all. Second he is not killing innocents on the same scale as the terrorist leaders. He is no immediate threat to others, we just need to keep some sharp shooters on the roofs if neccessary and a team of men there to storm the apartnment.

[quote]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg88288#msg88288 date=1100127307]
You are just so anti Israel that you want to believe that the jews there are truely evil. I wonder what Yoni thinks.
[/quote]

Naa, I'm not really that anti-jews. Yoni is OK. I think all the jews who think like him (i.e. don't want to go to the palestinian areas to keep some ultra-religious settlers safe) are quite OK. I'm anti-any-religious-or-otherwise-emotionally-extremist. That includes anti-anti-abortionist, anti fundamental-christian/jew/muslim/..., anti-nazist, and so on.

I am also very anti- anyone who seems like a bully, which applies to Israel right now. If they were more humble, forgiving, and willing to give, I'm sure things could be solved much easier.

[/quote] I think Israel is a victim. I think they can take care of this whole situation by just going falluja on the terrorists and combing each persen and the like, but the rest of the world will not let them. Their citizens are dieing (which that is a primary goal of a country, to keep its people safe) because of these retards and their hands are pretty well tied up.

So people who don't have an army and have to use whatever means necesary to get their point across//defend themselves are terrorist. And people who have armies that are supplied with good weapons and training are obviously right and it's allright that they are killing people...

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9422.msg88380#msg88380 date=1100155364]
So people who don't have an army and have to use whatever means necesary to get their point across//defend themselves are terrorist. And people who have armies that are supplied with good weapons and training are obviously right and it's allright that they are killing people...
[/quote]

No. The North Koreans are a prime example of a well armed group who are terrorist in nature. Terrorism is when the rules of war are ignored, the Geneva Convention is forgotten, and innocent civillians are put in jeopardy or killed.

You what? AFAIK, North Korea hasn't been involved in any armed conflict at all since the ceasefire with the US...

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg88408#msg88408 date=1100178807]
[...] the Geneva Convention is forgotten, and innocent civillians are put in jeopardy or killed.
[/quote]

Tell that to Iraqis, and the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib...

[quote]AFAIK, North Korea hasn't been involved in any armed conflict at all since the ceasefire with the US...[/quote]

No, but they did threaten to anniliate Japan, since they can't reach the US.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9422.msg88411#msg88411 date=1100180151]
You what? AFAIK, North Korea hasn't been involved in any armed conflict at all since the ceasefire with the US...[/quote]

You should read the news. North Korea went before the UN Security coucil and warned the US "not to mess with them" because they had nuclear weapons and would use them.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9422.msg88411#msg88411 date=1100180151]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg88408#msg88408 date=1100178807]
[...] the Geneva Convention is forgotten, and innocent civillians are put in jeopardy or killed.
[/quote]

Tell that to Iraqis, and the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib...
[/quote][quote][/quote]

You want to know the difference? Iraqi civilians are not being specificially targeted at all. In fact, civillian loses in this war are miniscule compared to other major wars and thats a fact.

Sources: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ , http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html , http://www.vietnam-war.info/casualties/ , http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html , Department of Defense , Cent Com

Its been said before and I'll say it again, prison is not like staying at the Hampton Inn. The prisons meet the standards set forth for prisoners of war. Isolated incidents of prisoner abuses happens by misguided human beings and is by no means the work of the US government.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg88417#msg88417 date=1100184422]
North Korea went before the UN Security coucil and warned the US "not to mess with them" because they had nuclear weapons and would use them.
[/quote]

What, precisely, is wrong with that? They are a sovereign nation, after all. The US's response to foreign attack has had exactly that consequence: Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg88417#msg88417 date=1100184422]
Isolated incidents of prisoner abuses happens by misguided human beings and is by no means the work of the US government.
[/quote]

I agree.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9422.msg88380#msg88380 date=1100155364]
So people who don't have an army and have to use whatever means necesary to get their point across//defend themselves are terrorist. And people who have armies that are supplied with good weapons and training are obviously right and it's allright that they are killing people...
[/quote] People that target civillians are terrorists.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki targetted civilians...

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9422.msg88439#msg88439 date=1100193616]
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki targetted civilians...
[/quote] I agree, the use of the bomb was not right. If I were in charge I wouldnt have done that. The only good thing that came from the bomb was that we spared some troops from more fighting. I believe that if we would have just launched a massive air strike over japan and then landed we could have finished them rather quickly at the point where we used the bomb. Becuase japan was already crumbling at that time. We destroyed all of their aircraft carriers I believe.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg88408#msg88408 date=1100178807]
No. The North Koreans are a prime example of a well armed group who are terrorist in nature. Terrorism is when the rules of war are ignored, the Geneva Convention is forgotten, and innocent civillians are put in jeopardy or killed.
[/quote]

That's not terrorism. Terrorism is rule by terror, or using terror to try to make others do as you like. Definitions are important or there will be endless misunderstandings.

I'm for the use of the atomic bomb, it accomplished it's mission. I'd rather enemy civilians die than American troops.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg88449#msg88449 date=1100194891]
I'm for the use of the atomic bomb, it accomplished it's mission. I'd rather enemy civilians die than American troops.
[/quote]

It's good to know that you think so. It's the way I think the Israeli think. (replace American troops with Israeli)

Could you quantify anything about how you weigh them against each other? Is it better to kill a dozen enemy civilians than a dozen American troops? A dozen enemy civilians vs a single American troop? A million enemy civilians vs a single American troop?

I realize this becomes more of a morale question, so now I'm just trying to sound you out, not arguing advantages of any position on it.

I don't know. But what I do know is that I'm much more concerned about the lives of those who defend me and my family than those who most likely agree with those trying to bring them harm. Of course though, one million civilians to one American is a bit extreme.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9422.msg88439#msg88439 date=1100193616]
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki targetted civilians...
[/quote]

First of all, both cities had military importance. I suggest you pick up the book "Rise to Globalism" by Steven E. Ambrose and read it if you are interested in learning more about US tactical decisions in World War II.

Second, dropping the bomb saved lives. Care for me to go in depth?

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg88461#msg88461 date=1100196591]
I don't know. But what I do know is that I'm much more concerned about the lives of those who defend me and my family than those who most likely agree with those trying to bring them harm. Of course though, one million civilians to one American is a bit extreme.
[/quote]

Good to hear that you think that's a bit extreme :)

It sounds like your moral standpoint on the issue of enemy civilians and friendly troops is something not unconventional or very strange to me. Doesn't mean I have to agree, but...

You'd probably make a reasonable trade-off in enemy civilian lives vs friendly troops. Have you considered the reverse though, i.e. an enemy of yours making a trade-off between his troops and your civilians?

[quote]Have you considered the reverse though, i.e. an enemy of yours making a trade-off between his troops and your civilians?[/quote]

Yes. When I was typing my response earlier I was thinking that the same is true elsewhere.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg88417#msg88417 date=1100184422]Isolated incidents of prisoner abuses happens by misguided human beings and is by no means the work of the US government.[/quote]

Hmm, care to clarify what you mean by "US government"?  Is a misguided human being who works for the US government still part of that government?  Or are they just a misguided human being?  If they are a government employee who orders the torture of prisoners, and you classify them as misguided, then you have won your argument every time.  Maybe even the president is misguided human being and not the government, if we use your definition.

Sorry, but enlisted ranks and junior officers get guidance on what to do from their superiors.  The superiors have direct knowledge of what is going on on a daily basis.  I have no faith that negligence is the extreme crime here.  The officers in charge of the guards doing the torturing had to have their own asses covered by their superiors having ordered them, albeit maybe verbally and not written, to extract information from the prisoners in the manner done.

The abuses were too widespread and common to be anything but a general order.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg88486#msg88486 date=1100200562]
[quote]Have you considered the reverse though, i.e. an enemy of yours making a trade-off between his troops and your civilians?[/quote]

Yes. When I was typing my response earlier I was thinking that the same is true elsewhere.
[/quote]

What do you think about that? Is it acceptable that your enemies show little concern for your civilians, or does that make them "monsters"?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg88492#msg88492 date=1100201283]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg88486#msg88486 date=1100200562]
[quote]Have you considered the reverse though, i.e. an enemy of yours making a trade-off between his troops and your civilians?[/quote]

Yes. When I was typing my response earlier I was thinking that the same is true elsewhere.
[/quote]

What do you think about that? Is it acceptable that your enemies show little concern for your civilians, or does that make them "monsters"?
[/quote] When planes fly into buildings full of civilians they are monsters. Targeting civilians is completely wrong. The cole bombing was bad but that was targetting our military not our civilians. When they hit innocent people just to kill innocent people it is completely wrong.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg88493#msg88493 date=1100201769]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg88492#msg88492 date=1100201283]
What do you think about that? Is it acceptable that your enemies show little concern for your civilians, or does that make them "monsters"?
[/quote] When planes fly into buildings full of civilians they are monsters. Targeting civilians is completely wrong. The cole bombing was bad but that was targetting our military not our civilians. When they hit innocent people just to kill innocent people it is completely wrong.
[/quote]

Good, you saw what I was getting at. :)  I'll be glad if things can stay on an intellectual, analytical level.

But the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs targetted civilians, didn't they? They were justified because they saved American lives. Saved American lives compared to what? To surrendering? To invading Japan and fighting their infantry, their military?

Consider al-Qaeda as having the option of sending thousands of Afghanistani men against your armies, probably not making a statement of the same strength as the twin towers, or to just send twenty men, taking out civilians instead of fighting your modern well-equipped troops and tanks.

It seems to me like al-Qaeda's choice is supposed to be to kill civilians, or to do nothing (lose). But then Americas choice could've been to drop nukes or retreat, where retreat wouldn't cost more American lives at that time?

[quote author=Grok link=topic=9422.msg88487#msg88487 date=1100200641]
Hmm, care to clarify what you mean by "US government"?  Is a misguided human being who works for the US government still part of that government?  Or are they just a misguided human being?  If they are a government employee who orders the torture of prisoners, and you classify them as misguided, then you have won your argument every time.[/quote]

It has never been the stated practice or a standing order in the US military to torture or humiliate prisoners. These are misguided people wraught with emotion who did something foolish.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9514.msg88490#msg88490 date=1100200954]
Sorry, but enlisted ranks and junior officers get guidance on what to do from their superiors.  The superiors have direct knowledge of what is going on on a daily basis.  I have no faith that negligence is the extreme crime here.  The officers in charge of the guards doing the torturing had to have their own asses covered by their superiors having ordered them, albeit maybe verbally and not written, to extract information from the prisoners in the manner done.[/quote]

I firmly believe that no officer in the high command would have ordered this. You ahve no evidence whatsoever to back that up, and its insulting to the commanders.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9514.msg88490#msg88490 date=1100200954]
The abuses were too widespread and common to be anything but a general order.
[/quote]

If it is, indeed, a general order, why hasn't this order been published anywhere, and why cant it be found?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9422.msg88500#msg88500 date=1100202768]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=9422.msg88487#msg88487 date=1100200641]
Hmm, care to clarify what you mean by "US government"?  Is a misguided human being who works for the US government still part of that government?  Or are they just a misguided human being?  If they are a government employee who orders the torture of prisoners, and you classify them as misguided, then you have won your argument every time.[/quote]

It has never been the stated practice or a standing order in the US military to torture or humiliate prisoners. These are misguided people wraught with emotion who did something foolish.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9514.msg88490#msg88490 date=1100200954]
Sorry, but enlisted ranks and junior officers get guidance on what to do from their superiors.  The superiors have direct knowledge of what is going on on a daily basis.  I have no faith that negligence is the extreme crime here.  The officers in charge of the guards doing the torturing had to have their own asses covered by their superiors having ordered them, albeit maybe verbally and not written, to extract information from the prisoners in the manner done.[/quote]

I firmly believe that no officer in the high command would have ordered this. You ahve no evidence whatsoever to back that up, and its insulting to the commanders.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9514.msg88490#msg88490 date=1100200954]
The abuses were too widespread and common to be anything but a general order.
[/quote]

If it is, indeed, a general order, why hasn't this order been published anywhere, and why cant it be found?
[/quote]

Orders are not always written ones.  A general order can come down and you would never get anything but a verbal.  Disobey it and you're screwed.  With Bush and Congress passing the Patriot Act which destroys civil liberties and due process, how could an uneducated junior enlisted know the difference between right and wrong anymore?  With his commanding officer (Bush) stating that civil liberties can be suspended in a time of war, and with the US Supreme Court backing him on this, those in the chain of command had better just obey or be threatened with courts-martial and being called traitor and other names.

I've been in the military for 6 years, during good years in which these situations and fears were not present.  Even during my time, 95% of my orders were verbal, not written.  About 30%-40% of the time the order was given to me when no one was around.  How does one prove a verbal order?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9422.msg88492#msg88492 date=1100201283]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg88486#msg88486 date=1100200562]
[quote]Have you considered the reverse though, i.e. an enemy of yours making a trade-off between his troops and your civilians?[/quote]

Yes. When I was typing my response earlier I was thinking that the same is true elsewhere.
[/quote]

What do you think about that? Is it acceptable that your enemies show little concern for your civilians, or does that make them "monsters"?
[/quote]

I don't think it makes them 'monsters'  since anybody with patriotism should have more concern for their countrymen than their enemies. However, when radical groups target civilians because they have a different religion - I think that makes them monsters.

Adron Al Quida target our innocents not in hopes of saving their blood, but just to kill our innocents. Our reason from dropping the bomb was very different from their reason for knocking down our buildings. We knew that using the bomb would end the war, they knew that dropping our towers was not going to end anything, but it would kill our people so we did it.

If I were the president I would not have chosen the bomb. But that does not make it the same as an act of terrorism like that on 9/11. Because we did not go after civilians just for the hell of it makes it very different from 9/11.

They didn't go after us on 9/11 'just for the hell of it' though. I mean, they had their reasons. They think they're still in jihad (holy war) and Christians are the enemy. To them, they're fighting to keep their faith alive and keep the infidels from potentially harming it.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg88521#msg88521 date=1100209816]
They didn't go after us on 9/11 'just for the hell of it' though. I mean, they had their reasons. They think they're still in jihad (holy war) and Christians are the enemy. To them, they're fighting to keep their faith alive and keep the infidels from potentially harming it.
[/quote] Yes yes, but their goal was stricktly to kill civilians. That was not our goal when we dropped the bomb. It was to get japan to surrender.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=9422.msg88511#msg88511 date=1100205494]
Orders are not always written ones.  A general order can come down and you would never get anything but a verbal.[/quote]

So, Bush ordered Rumsfeld who in turn ordered Army Cheif of Staff Gen. Schoomaker who in turn ordered Gen. Franks at CentCom who in turn ordered Gen. Ricardo Sanchez who in turn ordered some Brigadier General who in turn ordered some Colonel who in turn ordered some Captains who in turn ordered some Sergeants who in turn ordered some corporals and privates? Sounds kind of...

[quote author=Grok link=topic=9422.msg88511#msg88511 date=1100205494]Disobey it and you're screwed.[/quote]

You do not have to follow an order that is unlawful and if the order is demanded one could request that the order be put in writing. Officers know that full well.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=9422.msg88511#msg88511 date=1100205494]With Bush and Congress passing the Patriot Act which destroys civil liberties and due process[/quote]

Thats not true, its just common misconception. Read the Patriot Act. Not the summary given to you by the Washington Post, read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=9422.msg88511#msg88511 date=1100205494]how could an uneducated junior enlisted know the difference between right and wrong anymore?[/quote]

Common sense? Enlistedmen are all farmiliar with the UCMJ, as I'm sure you are.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=9422.msg88511#msg88511 date=1100205494]I've been in the military for 6 years, during good years in which these situations and fears were not present.[/quote]

No offense Grok, but that means you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about when it comes to this exact situation.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=9422.msg88511#msg88511 date=1100205494]Even during my time, 95% of my orders were verbal, not written.  About 30%-40% of the time the order was given to me when no one was around.[/quote]

How many of those orders did you find legally and morally questionable? How many of them asked you to violate the rules of war?

Funny how, increasingly, people just seem not to know what they're talking about when Hazard disagrees with therm..

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9422.msg88595#msg88595 date=1100248071]
Funny how, increasingly, people just seem not to know what they're talking about when Hazard disagrees with therm..
[/quote]

Maybe its because I'm talking to Grok and not you Arta, so why don't you either read the whole thing and get up to speed or just shut up.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9422.msg88519#msg88519 date=1100209367]
Adron Al Quida target our innocents not in hopes of saving their blood, but just to kill our innocents. Our reason from dropping the bomb was very different from their reason for knocking down our buildings. We knew that using the bomb would end the war, they knew that dropping our towers was not going to end anything, but it would kill our people so we did it.

If I were the president I would not have chosen the bomb. But that does not make it the same as an act of terrorism like that on 9/11. Because we did not go after civilians just for the hell of it makes it very different from 9/11.
[/quote]

You hoped that using the bomb would end the war. Perhaps you assumed it. But you can never know absolutely in advance what consequences an action will have. Maybe al-Qaeda assumed that striking at your heart would scare you? Perhaps you would yield, perhaps you'd stop supporting their enemies so much, and concentrate more on your own business?

If you justify any actions by the results, it would be justified for al-Qaeda to keep killing your civilians, as long as it eventually makes you surrender? Anything the winner does is justified, but if the loser has done the same thing it's wrong?

[quote]Perhaps you would yield, perhaps you'd stop supporting their enemies so much, and concentrate more on your own business?[/quote]

Their enemies are us, we're not going to stop supporting ourselves. Their enemies are Christians and Jews, and the US is primarily Christian. Israel and America are partners in liberty, and we won't break that alliance because some terrorist group wants us to.

[quote]If you justify any actions by the results, it would be justified for al-Qaeda to keep killing your civilians, as long as it eventually makes you surrender? Anything the winner does is justified, but if the loser has done the same thing it's wrong?[/quote]

I don't know how many wars Sweden has been involved in, so maybe you just don't know what patriotism and compasion for ones country is. From both sides of the table, we see the same thing, only with different people in different spots. It's justified to them, but we think it's wrong. If we were some radical terrorist group who hates jews, women, and anybody who doesn't think or look like us then we'd probably think it was justified too.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg88645#msg88645 date=1100282615]
Their enemies are us, we're not going to stop supporting ourselves. Their enemies are Christians and Jews, and the US is primarily Christian. Israel and America are partners in liberty, and we won't break that alliance because some terrorist group wants us to.
[/quote]

I think it depends on how much it costs you. At some point you probably would. But al-Qaeda don't have the resources to inflict that kind of damage to you yet.


[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9422.msg88645#msg88645 date=1100282615]
[quote]If you justify any actions by the results, it would be justified for al-Qaeda to keep killing your civilians, as long as it eventually makes you surrender? Anything the winner does is justified, but if the loser has done the same thing it's wrong?[/quote]

I don't know how many wars Sweden has been involved in, so maybe you just don't know what patriotism and compasion for ones country is. From both sides of the table, we see the same thing, only with different people in different spots. It's justified to them, but we think it's wrong. If we were some radical terrorist group who hates jews, women, and anybody who doesn't think or look like us then we'd probably think it was justified too.
[/quote]

What I'm asking for is that you define what is justified in some neutral terms, that can be applied to American, Israeli, Palestinian, and everyone elses actions equally. Just to make sure that torture isn't right when it's done to muslims and wrong when it's done to Americans.




Note: I was going through posts I haven't responded to because I've been too busy with other things. If anyone is missing a response to something, please point me to it.

[quote]What I'm asking for is that you define what is justified in some neutral terms, that can be applied to American, Israeli, Palestinian, and everyone elses actions equally. Just to make sure that torture isn't right when it's done to muslims and wrong when it's done to Americans.[/quote]

Torture isn't right period, but it's less demonized when you're the one doing the torturing compared to when somebody else is doing it to you.