Spain PM-elect: Troops out of Iraq

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: It's ugly. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is simply too important to shed at whim. Justice belongs in the courts and should not be based upon hunches and a 'feeling'.

I never advocated lynch mobs, nor going on hunches and feelings. I repeat are you suggesting Hussein did not torture his subjects? Are you suggesting he was not waging war on the Kurds? Are you suggesting he was not living in opulence while his people starved? These are not feelings, these are facts. I am not speaking about WOMD. I couldn't care about WOMD. WOMD were a selfish motivator in any case. I never advocated removing Hussein because he had WOMD, when America has WOMD. I always advocated removing a PROVEN heinous Hitleresque dictator that abused his power and trampled over globally agreed humans rights. P R O V E N.

THe fact is, rogue states did business with him, and preferred to keep lining their pockets with gold, instead of sanctioning his removal - perhaps through means other than war!!

It disgusts me.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by : But if that is the case why kill the wife and kids in the process - what that they do that was so wrong that justified their deaths. Is being a victim a crime these days? Why take over their home - refuse to hand it back and 'appoint' outsiders to run it - why punish them in such a manner?

????

If rebuilding their homes, schools, hosptials and electricity plants is a crime, I'd hate to see your definition of "help."

They are handing it back. Rome wasn't built in a day. Anarchy is not quelled in a week.

What were you expecting? Leaving a void for another Hussein, the strongest warlord, to force their rule of law? The man with the largest gang could have filled the void. Hussein himself was only recently found if you recall.

As to "killing the kids" the analogical equivalent would be breaking their arm to force the door open. Damaging A SECTION, not the whole. What percentage of Iraq died? How many are now free?

Why are you even arguing this? Are you suggesting Hussein was a good man who should have been allowed to keep smashing his people? What would your solution to the mess oh' great one. I'm sure, now you have hindsight, you have the answers.

[Timber Loftis]

Our forces are still aiming to be out by June, Skunk. Helping set up a government takes a wee bit of time, especially when the UN won't help out as much as they normally do. More baseless allegations thrown around, including one horribly-abused metaphor, which I won't even tough; but, I will say that you can't expect Saddam to be ousted without SOME people dying. I also note our soldiers are paying the price with their lives as well, which you ignore.

You know, if the terrorist retards in Iraq went home today, you wouldn't see Americans shooting their guns on the news tonight. The continuing, daily -- yes, today, yesterday, tommorrow, every day, we're numb to it I guess -- attacks are not originating from the red, white, and blue, you know.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Have you ever witnessed domestic violence?

Yes. [/QUOTE]And what did you do when you saw this domestic violence?

[ 03-17-2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: If rebuilding their homes, schools, hosptials and electricity plants is a crime, I'd hate to see your definition of "help."

Destroying them in the first place is called a crime. Rebuilding what you have destroyed is called 'war reparations' - not help.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I also note our soldiers are paying the price with their lives as well, which you ignore.

No, I don't ignore them - I count them amongst the innocent victims.
I also count the soldiers that go home as victims too - they will have to carry the mental scars (especially those who accidently hurt/killed civilians) for the rest of their lives. It won't be an easy thing to live with.

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: It's ugly. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is simply too important to shed at whim. Justice belongs in the courts and should not be based upon hunches and a 'feeling'.

I never advocated lynch mobs, nor going on hunches and feelings. I repeat are you suggesting Hussein did not torture his subjects? Are you suggesting he was not waging war on the Kurds? Are you suggesting he was not living in opulence while his people starved? These are not feelings, these are facts. I am not speaking about WOMD. I couldn't care about WOMD. WOMD were a selfish motivator in any case. I never advocated removing Hussein because he had WOMD, when America has WOMD. I always advocated removing a PROVEN heinous Hitleresque dictator that abused his power and trampled over globally agreed humans rights. P R O V E N.

THe fact is, rogue states did business with him, and preferred to keep lining their pockets with gold, instead of sanctioning his removal - perhaps through means other than war!!

It disgusts me. [/QUOTE]Nonetheless, WMD was the stated reason for the war. Had the war been called to right human rights injustices, it probably would have garnered world-wide support - even in the middle east.

And speaking of trampling over human rights, the GM Bay residents would probably agree with you that such actions deserve military action against the states that commit them.

What do you do with people who commit these kinds of attrocities:
"'They'd herded maybe 300 of us into each container, the type you get on ordinary lorries, packed in so tightly our knees were against our chests, and almost immediately we started to suffocate. We lived because someone made holes with a machine gun, though they were shooting low and still more died from the bullets. When we got out, about 20 in each container were still alive....

Prisoners died daily: of the 35,000 originally marched through the desert, only 4,500 were still alive, the three men estimate. All this time they could see American troops 50 metres from their prison wing on the other side of the gates. "
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...168937,00.html
According the US government - you create a government for them in Afghanistan and make friends with them.

of course, that would make sense since it was little better than the treatment that US soldiers gave to the victims:

In the very different setting of a sitting room in suburban England, Iqbal demonstrates how they were made to kneel bent double, with their foreheads touching the ground: 'If your head wasn't touching the floor or you let it rise up a little they put their boots on the back of your neck and forced it down. We were kept like that for two or three hours.'

Rasul adds: 'I lifted up my head slightly because I was really in pain. The sergeant came up behind me, kicked my legs from underneath me, then knelt on my back. They took me outside and searched me while one man was sitting on me, kicking and punching.'

All this time they were still wearing their hoods. Then one soldier took a Stanley knife and cut off their clothes. Naked and freezing, they were made to squat while the soldiers searched their bodily cavities and photographed them. At last, they say, they were frog-marched through a barbed wire maze and put into a half-open tent where they were told to dress in blue prison overalls.

They had not washed since the container massacre a month earlier. There, Iqbal had sustained a ricochet wound to the elbow. Displaying an ugly purple scar, he explains that by the time he reached Kandahar, it had become infected. It was late at night by the time they had been processed, but next morning, they say, they were taken straight to their first interrogation. Rasul says: 'A special forces guy sat there holding a gun to my temple, a 9mm pistol. He said if I made any movement he'd blow my head off.'

The accounts of how just nations torture people makes for grim reading:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...168937,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...169122,00.html

What should we do with these nations that commit such attrocities - inavade them? Attack them without even bothering to go to the courts or seeking resolution through democratic processes?

According to you, they should be attacked. Al'Qaida would agree with you - but I don't. I still cling to the idea that civilisation is based both upon the law and democratic process - not the mob - and that disputes should be settled with dialogue and redress - not violence and contempt

[ 03-17-2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Have you ever witnessed domestic violence?

Yes. [/QUOTE]And what did you do when you saw this domestic violence? [/QUOTE]I took it and kept my mouth shut - just like any wised up child would.
Why? What has that got to do with it? That it somehow proves that two wrongs make a right? You'll have a hard time selling me that line.

[skywalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: I just ignored it because of the line "most people". I can't stand it when people use the moral weight of unknown others to justify their own opinions. Who are these "most people" Let them speak for themselves. Otherwise have the balls to stand up on your own opinion and simply say "I can't stand Bush".

I can't stand Bush!


Mark

I got balls!!!!!

[dplax]

I'd just like to add to this discussion (which has gone a bit offtopic, so please people try to keep on topic or post a new thread for the topics you are arguing about. IMO green parties and domestic violence don't have too much to do with the spanish drawing out of Iraq) that I read in a newspaper that spanish people voted for the opposition party because Aznar lied to his people by saying that ETA had comitted the attacks (he personally phoned newspapers to tell them that ETA had done it), while all the time they were finding evidence which pointed towards an arabic organisation (Quran, the maroccan and indian detainees). And the government also tried to keep the ETA investigation open as long as possible (they said something like this: we still think its ETA, but we are investigating every possibility).

[ 03-17-2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: dplax ]

[Gab]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Gab: I fear that this was part of Al-Queda's plans. However, you Americans should know this: Most world leaders and people all around the world hate George Bush. That's one of the reasons the Spaniards got rid of their government was because it was too pro-Bush. Want proof? Go ask people on Ironworks from another country if they like Bush. Heck, I believe John Kerry's claims of foregn ministers supporting him. I'm saying this not because I hate the U.S.A. but because I'm very anti-Bush.

We all talked around and about your post without referencing you. Yes, either it was AQ's plans or it will show results that encourage them to use this tactic again. Yes, people hate GWB -- I doubt many leaders do -- once you meet someone face-to-face it's harder to hate them. Yes, 90% of Spainyards were against the war, which is probably why they ousted their leader. Who knows if Kerry's claims are right?

Otherwise, your post is irrelevant and irresponsible. It is not well-organized and contains too many varied themes without appropriate transitions and connections showing the relation amongst them. I suspect you of Anti-Americanism, and I bet you've got pinko propoganda under your mattress. And your sig name sucks -- I mean, "Gab" -- how trite. Oh, and you smell bad and your momma dresses you funny.

Feel better now??? [/QUOTE]Your post misses the point, your signature sucks, you look like a stupid puppet, you're an arrogant arse and my sig name is fine and not silly like yours. Now I feel better

I don't know why you're such an asshole but my post is very relevant. The whole is regarding the Spainish election and that many people loathe Bush. Guess what? I can hardly blame them as he's a warmonger and a liar. He lied about WMD to get America into a war without approval from the UN. I'm sure many leaders don't like Bush, they just simply aren't going to go out and say that.

[ 03-17-2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Gab]

Originally posted by Yorick: I just ignored it because of the line "most people". I can't stand it when people use the moral weight of unknown others to justify their own opinions. Who are these "most people" Let them speak for themselves. Otherwise have the balls to stand up on your own opinion and simply say "I can't stand Bush".

If you can't stand it, fine but I'm telling you because that it's true. When I say most I'm refering to people over the world particularly the Spanish, Germans and French. Heck many people even from Britain (America's closest allies) hate Bush. There was lots of protesting upon his arrival and there was even concern for Bushs' safety.

George W. Bush is hated more in the rest of the world than any other U.S. president before him .

[ 03-17-2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]