Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WHAT!? They had a bomb one year after gaining fissionable material!? Impossible! It would be a lie to suggest a country that was compliant with the IAEA inspections could manage that, particularly Iraq. Certainly impoverished North Korea couldn't manage it, if oil rich Iraq couldn't.Natoma said:Maybe a year away. How could they have been silently pursuing their nuclear arsenal when they restarted their program last year, and voila, a year later they have 2-3 bombs with a few more on the way?
Gonna have to disagree again.Natoma said:The bottom line is, we had them by the balls a year ago with the ability to bomb them back into the stoneage with no reprisal whatsoever if they didn't comply. They didn't have the bomb. We've lost that chance by ignoring the situation.
So, again, which treaty has the good Ol' US of A not honored?
Going to have to disagree with your assessment that our actions in these cases violate the Geneva convention.CorwinB said:Well, there's always the Geneva convention, which prohibits the humiliation and public display of PoWs (*cough* Saddam dental check-up *cough*, *cough* hooded prisoners),
Not sure why they did it, as it hasn't been effective in bringing in Al Douri. I could try to argue that his wife was part of his command/control, or was offering refuge, but I don't know the facts of the situation. I will say I'm not terribly embarrased by this "violation", as we're not holding his family hostage (or will kill them). If these were "hostages", we should call the entire country held hostage, as we're keeping control of them until we get what we want.taking hostages (http://www.unknownnews.net/0728-1.html)
Thats another judgement call as to whether the actions violate the Geneva conventions or not. I think it was unecessary, but I'm not a military commander under the fog of war.use of cluster bombs in civilian areas (http://www.redcross.ie/news/news.php3?item=171)...
RussSchultz said:Literally, yes, you are correct. The US has a poor image around the world.o.d. said:Are we in agreement that the US, in the eyes of the majority of the world, does not maintain its 'we are the good guys' country these days? I would hope you would say yes.
I think its unfairly given, though. The arab world view, for example, is horribly skewed by the Israel/Palestinian question. It infects everything. So much that the Iraq question somehow gets swallowed up in it(the US invaded Iraq to help protect its Zionist masters!? C'mon, the oil reasoning is better).
The Europeans are all in a twist about Bush, from what I can tell.
RussSchultz said:Well, no. The US has had a long history of self introspection and internal dissent when it comes to many political topics throughout history.o.d. said:you blindly follow, taking what your ruler says at face value and do not listen to logic or history (proven facts).
But perhaps you're just projecting your own culture's failings on the US? It seems the imams, ayotollahs and muftis, like the pope prior to the reformation, hold near absolute sway of public opinion.
nelg said:o.b.
Since you are here, perhaps, you could provide me (us?) with a first hand discription of what thing are like in Saudi Arabia. In a previous hread I wrote...Thanks.That's not the impression that I have been given by someone who had lived there. I 'm not suggesting that it is like the west but I would usually save descriptions like "The vast majority of the nation live in squalor" to nations such as Afghanastan. OTOH I will say that I have no first hand knowledge of life in Saudi Arabia so ,yes , the GDP could be skewed by distrubution.
RussSchultz said:Literally, yes, you are correct. The US has a poor image around the world.o.d. said:Are we in agreement that the US, in the eyes of the majority of the world, does not maintain its 'we are the good guys' country these days? I would hope you would say yes.
I think its unfairly given, though. The arab world view, for example, is horribly skewed by the Israel/Palestinian question. It infects everything. So much that the Iraq question somehow gets swallowed up in it(the US invaded Iraq to help protect its Zionist masters!? C'mon, the oil reasoning is better).
The Europeans are all in a twist about Bush, from what I can tell.
o.d. said:You know, I don't think it is an unfairly given image.... it is unfortunate that to do anything 'good' a lot of 'bad' has to happen. It is unfortunate that the bad thing in the first place was put/built up there by the 'good guy'. I think the US gov't is in need of overhauling, cuz the ideals that started the US are getting lost.... unless the 'all people' changed to 'US people only'....
Clashman said:Lay off the acid, Sabastian.
Clashman said:Well, for one you could start by punctuating your ranting conspiracy theories with commas and periods, so as to make them more legible. (It also works great for fronting the appearance of sanity.)
Another step would be to actually read some political and/or economic theory, (of both the right and the left), before trying to develop and lump everyone into your own convoluted, boring, and highly innaccurate socio-political "models". The world is far more interesting and complicated than simply:
Left=Collectivist=Authoritarian
Right=Individualist=Freedom
European=Socialist=Left
American=Capitalist=Right
Arab=Anti-West=Islamo-Fascist
Then you could take into account that perhaps the reason why Americans face the greatest amount of criticism for their actions is that they wield the most influence, and that the bad things we do have much further-reaching repercussions than the bad things most 3rd world dictators do.
There's more, but I figure that's a pretty good start, (and in fact I doubt you'll even go so far as to fulfill these preliminary requests). Good day to you.
Clashman said:No. Once again, I think you lack a fundamental grasp of what "socialism" and "Islamic fundementalism" in fact are, (or capitalism). You simply lump them in as "collectivist authoritarian" because it suits your simple system of "models".