| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
So let me see, you want to invade another country, call it a war, put on trial anyone from that country who shoots at the invading army and still call it a war.
Seems to me like you want to have your cake, lock it up for an indeterminate time without charge, torture it and then eat it.
Either it is a war or it isn't. If the opposition are commiting a criminal act by shooting at an invading army then it ceases to be a war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
Seems to me like you want to have your cake, lock it up for an indeterminate time without charge, torture it and then eat it.
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, I know you have your beliefs but you stance on this is entirely unsuppourtable. Prove to me that the entire country of Iraq were members of Al-qaeda and you have my backing, but come on man.
The United States INVADED Iraq plain and simple. Anyone in the Iraqi military at the time was honour bound to fight and resist. I would also argue that any civilian would have had the right to join the insurgency. Whether you like agree with their aims or not, whether you think your country is doing the right thing or not, this whole "give up their war" spiel is absolutely ridiculous.
Answer this please.
The following people would have the right to shoot as US forces, yes or no.
1.) Members of the Iraqi military. (during the initial invasion)
2.) Disbanded members of the Iraqi military who have decided to fight a guerrila war against the US.
3.) Shiittes who saw their entire families slaughtered by Hussein after Bush#1 called for an uprising and then totally abandoned them to Saddams army. (sh#t, I know I would have an axe to grind after that one)
4.) Any father, brother,uncle, cousin who had family members killed by American forces. ( Oh, but they didn't mean to kill them or we are the good guys doesn't cut it. )
5.) Any Sunni that had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, who had seen his family slaughtered by Shiite militias. Let's face it, the destabilization caused by the invasion led to the power vaccum which allows these militias to operate.
If any one of these situations were to pertain to ANY American, I hardly doubt you would be asking JIM BOB to lay down his weapon and "give up his war".
Last edited by yawarakaijin on Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JMO"]S
| Quote: |
| o let me see, you want to invade another country, call it a war, put on trial anyone from that country who shoots at the invading army and still call it a war |
.
Well cause the helped the people who hit the US. YOu seem to forget that.
[quote]
| Quote: |
Either it is a war or it isn't. If the opposition are commiting a criminal act by shooting at an invading army then it ceases to be a war. |
It is a war but anyone who also helps AQ is also a criminal . That is hwy they are enemy combatants.
You insist on only two categories when in fact those in Gitmo fit in a third.
As I said anyone who took a shot at US soldier ought to be charged with attempted murder.
Defending AQ is not a legimate act.
As I said the US system as it is wasn't up to dealing with AQ and the evidence is that the US could not convict Bin Laden in a US court and so he was allowed to go free.
That was a failed system at it is unreasonable to demand that the US use a system that failed to protect US national security during war.
Especially from anyone who doesn't think that 9-11 is really evidence that the enemy intends to attack within the US .
"There was something like only only one attack"
Even that fact was wrong.
I get the impression that all this concern for Gitmo prisoners is by people who really just they want enemies of the US to free cause they don't want to see the US win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You cannot invade a country, then claim that everyone within that country that fires upon you is a criminal. You say all these men in these prisons are AQ but you cannot prove this. neither do you want to. You just want to hold anyone you consider to be an enemy without trial.
By your logic, after pearl harbor any japanese soldier who fired on a US soldier is a criminal. Really this is either a war or it isn't. Until you can prove that all them men being held in those prisons are AQ you do not have a point. Of course to prove that, they would have to go to trial. There is no third category in between criminal and enemy combatant...you cannot make new classifications to abuse people's rights.
| Quote: |
Especially from anyone who doesn't think that 9-11 is really evidence that the enemy intends to attack within the US .
"There was something like only only one attack"
|
How many attacks have there been on US soil? How many americans in america have dies from terrorism? Lets do a little math.
| Quote: |
| I get the impression that all this concern for Gitmo prisoners is by people who really just they want enemies of the US to free cause they don't want to see the US win. |
Yea concern for people's basic rights is completely opposite to the american ideal...wow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JMO"]
| Quote: |
| You cannot invade a country, then claim that everyone within that country that fires upon you is a criminal. You say all these men in these prisons are AQ but you cannot prove this. neither do you want to. You just want to hold anyone you consider to be an enemy without trial. |
Anyone who fights for the Taliban and AQ is a criminal.
There war is evil.
| Quote: |
| By your logic, after pearl harbor any japanese soldier who fired on a US soldier is a criminal. Really this is either a war or it isn't. Until you can prove that all them men being held in those prisons are AQ you do not have a point. Of course to prove that, they would have to go to trial. There is no third category in between criminal and enemy combatant...you cannot make new classifications to abuse people's rights. |
No Japan was a country they have a home address.
There is a third catgory the US has it now and the US also had it in WWII.
Stoping the US from destorying AQ is not a legitimate cause.
| Quote: |
| How many attacks have there been on US soil? How many americans in america have dies from terrorism? Lets do a little math. |
One was enough.
| Quote: |
| Yea concern for people's basic rights is completely opposite to the american ideal...wow. |
Concern about those who support AQ is not more important than US national security. US national security comes before all else.
Fixing the system that was not good enough to get Bin Laden comes first.
I don't know all the circumstances of all those at Gitmo but what was a mideasterner doing in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban?
anyway the US really needs to get the miltary trials going. That way the the enemy combatants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No Japan was a country they have a home address |
So is Iraq and Afghanistan. Is an Iraqi or afghani entitled to fight against the US invaders? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No answers Joo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No Japan was a country they have a home address |
So is Iraq and Afghanistan. Is an Iraqi or afghani entitled to fight against the US invaders? |
Not if they are protecting Al Qaeda , the Bathists or the Khomeni followers.
But in Iraq the insurgents are fighting to get the US out they are fighting to conquer the nation of Iraq.
They have every right in the world to ask for independence but they won't cause their region has no oil.
But if one of the regions of Iraq wants independence and doesn't want US troops there then they have a legitmate claim. If they try to conquer the whole country then they don't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's their country!! what say does the american army have in this? Who are they to dictate terms in a country that isn't there own.
| Quote: |
| But if one of the regions of Iraq wants independence and doesn't want US troops there then they have a legitmate claim |
So if an Iraqi kills an american solider in his own region he would be immune from prosecution?
If america invaded Ireland i would have to contain my insurgency within my immediate area. You are insane..,sorry but its true. Not so long ago this whole invade iraq to pressure other states was your main argument. now thats not working you seamlessly blend into another..really just give it up. there was no justification for this war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How long are you all gonna go on before just accepting that no agreement can be had? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lets see. A woman takes off her shirt and rubs her breasts in your face and thats considered torture?!?!?!
Someone get me a ticket to Gitmo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
="JMO"]
| Quote: |
| It's their country!! what say does the american army have in this? Who are they to dictate terms in a country that isn't there own. |
Don't support Al Qaeda. Saddam ought to give up his war.
See the example of Libya Khaddafy gave up his war -most of it. Now the US isn't bothering him.
| Quote: |
| But if one of the regions of Iraq wants independence and doesn't want US troops there then they have a legitmate claim |
| Quote: |
So if an Iraqi kills an american solider in his own region he would be immune from prosecution? |
If it was part of a group that was only asking for independence and wasn't part of an overall effort to conquer the rest of Iraq probably.
but the insurgents
However since the insurgents in Iraq have the intention to conquer the whole nation it really doens't apply
| Quote: |
If america invaded Ireland i would have to contain my insurgency within my immediate area. You are insane..,sorry but its true. Not so long ago this whole invade iraq to pressure other states was your main argument. now thats not working you seamlessly blend into another..really just give it up. there was no justification for this war. |
Yep that was the main argument for the war.
Criminal prosecution is a different topic.
How am I blending one argument into another they are two different topics.
There are several justifications for this war.
1. The mideast was a threat to the US.
When regimes and elties teach hate and inctie violence as a tactic is war.
Mideast regimes and elties thought that sucide bombing and terror would even the balance between them and the US. Ought the US allow it?
The US needed a big military base in the mideast and needed to make an example of a regime to get the message across . Don't incite violence and terror as a tactic. And also kill the AQ supporters in your nations if you don't then the US is going to kill your leaders and elites.
Saddam was so horrible that it was justified to destroy his regime. Saddam's regime was so horrible that is deserved to be attacked. If if his connections to AQ were nominal .
He still shot at US planes.
Even if he didn't have WMDs he still had and was doing stuff that he was not permitted to do.
Also he continued to threaten Kuwait. He continued to threaten the Kurds.
He tried to kill a US president.
His regime did support terrorists other than Al Qaeda.
He was one of the great killers of the 20th century and his regime was illegitmate.
Saddam deserved it.
| Quote: |
| there was no justification for this war |
Maybe you think the US doesn't have the right to force mideast reigmes and elties to stop inciting violence , teaching hate , supporting Al Qaeda and funding terror. Well sorry JMO. Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedist have to give up their war. All of it . If they don't want to then they ought to be forced to. And anything the US does to force them to is probably okay.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="yawarakaijin"]
| Quote: |
| Joo, I know you have your beliefs but you stance on this is entirely unsuppourtable. Prove to me that the entire country of Iraq were members of Al-qaeda and you have my backing, but come on man. |
There was already a state of war between the US and Iraq.
Did Saddam shoot at US planes?Did Saddam try to kill a US president?
Did Saddam continue to threaten Kuwait with invasion? Did Saddam's regime support terrorists other than AQ? did he regime teach hate and incite violence? Was Saddam as great a killer as Idi Amin? Even if Saddam didn't have WMDs didn't have lots of stuff that he was not allowed to have?
| Quote: |
| The United States INVADED Iraq plain and simple. Anyone in the Iraqi military at the time was honour bound to fight and resist. I would also argue that any civilian would have had the right to join the insurgency. Whether you like agree with their aims or not, whether you think your country is doing the right thing or not, this whole "give up their war" spiel is absolutely ridiculous. |
Before we were talking about Gitmo , any Iraqis in Gitmo?
What do the insurgents fight for? They fight to conquer Iraq ? That is why they were so much against elections. Here are the demographics of Iraq
20% Sunni Muslim
20% Kurd sunni
60% Shia muslim
The main insurgents were the sunni muslims. They wanted the US out so they could rule Iraq like they did when Saddam was in charge . they have no hope of winning an election so they needed the US out of the country to conquer it.
Of course they could ask for independence but they won't because the center of Iraq doesn't have much oil. ( It might in the future ) but for now it doesn't . So the Sunnis can't ask for independence cause then they would have no chance at the oil.
Now the Shias and the Kurds hate the Sunnis after all they were second class in Saddam's Iraq. So they don't want to be ruled by the Sunnis. So the Sunnis need to defeat both of them for them to rule Iraq again.
| Quote: |
Answer this please.
The following people would have the right to shoot as US forces, yes or no.
1.) Members of the Iraqi military. (during the initial invasion) |
Sort of yes
| Quote: |
| 2.) Disbanded members of the Iraqi military who have decided to fight a guerrila war against the US. |
only for independence.
| Quote: |
| 3.) Shiittes who saw their entire families slaughtered by Hussein after Bush#1 called for an uprising and then totally abandoned them to Saddams army. (sh#t, I know I would have an axe to grind after that one) |
Why is that all the fault of the US. But why would they ? They are already going to rule Iraq. If they shoot at US forces it would be to kill Sunni civilans.
| Quote: |
| 4.) Any father, brother,uncle, cousin who had family members killed by American forces. ( Oh, but they didn't mean to kill them or we are the good guys doesn't cut it. ) |
Doesn't make it right to shoot at US forces but they would not be criminals the same way as AQ.
| Quote: |
| 5.) Any Sunni that had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, who had seen his family slaughtered by Shiite militias. Let's face it, the destabilization caused by the invasion led to the power vaccum which allows these militias to operate. |
Depends on what they fight for
| Quote: |
| If any one of these situations were to pertain to ANY American, I hardly doubt you would be asking JIM BOB to lay down his weapon and "give up his war". |
For the record
would it have been right for Germans during WW II to shoot at American soliders who entered Germany ? How about Japanese during WW II?
How about North Koreans during the Korean war which after their invasion was reversed and the US invaded North Korea.
The short answer is that in some or many of the cases that you mentioned above while it is not right to shoot at US forces those doing the shooting would be POWs and not criminals .
That is not the case with those in Gitmo who were picked up during the Afghan war most of them are not even from Afghanistan .
This is my best argument. You might not agree with it but it is worth reading.
Because We Could
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
