**The USA could have fought the terrorists without breaking international law and raising international tensions. The invasion and occupation of Iraq cannot be justified as fighting terrorism to any degree. The only lesson to be learnt by other countries is that the USA is a bully with no regard for international law and will beat the crap out of any country it pleases and the only way to be secure is to be strongly armed, preferably with nuclear weapons.
**
Or, don’t develop weapons or sponsor terrorism.
it’s not as if we are attacking Canada or some other inoffensive country here. IT’s pretty easy to tell who the targets are. Really bad folks.
Regardless of whether you approved of the war on Iraq or not, we can all agree Hussein was a really bad guy.
Sure, the bad guys are going to hurry up and develop WMD. But there are less of them now. Two less(no more Taliban, no more Hussein). That leaves a few countries, no doubt, but they now know what the score is. They will develop WMD if they can, but they won’t be inclined to use them against us because they know what will happen if they do.
You’re forgetting all the bad guys that were created because of our invasion of Iraq. And I wonder if Saddam & what’s left of his cronies are now more likely to commit acts of terrorism against us & our interests.
… and if Canada decides to develop a nuclear weapons program, what then? Or, perhaps more likely, if we are offering ‘safe haven’ to individuals who belong to groups the USA identifies as a terrorist organization?
Okay, let’s address the first part. Canada developing nuclear weapons.
In a word, no problem. THe US has been wanting Canada to help contribute more to the common defense for decades. There are tricky international issues like the NPT treaty, but with six months notice, Canada can pull out if necessary.
Now, terrorist organizations. You won’t be doing that because we both agree on most organizations that are terrorists. Canada wouldn’t harbor Al Qaeda or Hezbollah terrorists intentionally.
Canada is a major ally of the US, and a respectable government. if they had nukes, its not the same thing as north korea or iraq having them because canada can 99.99% be trusted to use them wisely, not use them to extort food aid like north korea or nuke israel or Iran like Hussein might have planned had he obtained them.
If canada offers sanctuary to terrorists, who knows. Probably something minor will happen in US-Canada relations, but i doubt anything major. it was always my understanding that people invovled in murder in the US run to canada because Canada refused to extradite people to the US who may face the death penalty. Those incidents of Canada offering sanctuary to people who commit murder in the US hasn’t driven a rift between the US & Canada.
Honestly, do you think the US would use force on Canada? Are people really that biased against the US that they think the US would attack a respectable liberal democracy and a major political & economic ally over an isolated incident? The iraqi war at least had 12 years of history to it, a terrible government and months of negotiations leading to war.
Did US opposition to fascism in WW2 cause an increase in world fascism? What opposition? You see, unbeknownst to you, the US did not actively oppose fascism, it merely opposed nations who had declared war on it.
Half of the wars you cite are not wars at all in that they are not fought with military means. It is particularly disgusting that you would cite the war on cancer, a ‘war’ which practically exclusively saves lives. The only explanation for your statement is that the lives of islamic civilians are entirely worthless for you.
Supposedly we didn’t oppose fascism prior to our entry into WWII.
Evidently, the definitions for “support” and “oppose” are flexible when being used to bash the US.
The US was in firm opposition to Hitler from the start of WWII and never opposed the entry of any nation into the war. In fact, we aided nations fighting Hitler prior to our entry.
Which communists? Care to be more specific? I didn’t know there was any such thing as The Communists, except as bogey-men used by right wing Americans to scare their children.
Well, I find AI to be fair and impartial, and I have never seen evidence that ties them to Communists. AI condemns Chinese atrocities just as much as they do other nations’ human rights violations.
That doesn’t mean they are always right of course. They have a limited agenda, which means they have a tendency to get tunnel vision.
Agreed. It would seem that some people on SDMB simply can’t accept any criticism of the leader of the free world as valid and can be countered with “but what about them?!”
Their “limited agenda” is a necessity if they are to keep focus on their stated aims. By the very nature of their mission they have to steer clear of party politics and questions of ideology. Quite apart from anything else, their mixed membership demands it.
True enough. And their report should be taken seriously. I respect AI a great deal, along with other such organizations, Freedom House and Human Rights Watch.
However, we also have to take it in context. AI opposes wars all the time, even when they can save lives long-term. If Hussein had kept up his current pace, he would have killed another million Iraqis or other nationals before he died. And of course there are the costs that aren’t measured in statistics, such as Iraqis not being able to speak freely, living in continued poverty, fearing for their lives from day-to-day. No matter how badly we screw this up, there is no way that things will ever be worse than they were under Hussein.
>> AI opposes wars all the time, even when they can save lives long-term.
Can you show me any evidence for this? Because I have never heard AI pass judgment on any wars at all. I have seen them report on all sorts of human rights abuses whether they were related to wrars or not but never oppose the war. So, can you, for instance, shows us some cites of AI opposing particular wars? I may be mistaken but I do not think you will find it.
It gets kind of tiring to see all these baseless accusations totally made up, that AI is in alliance with communists, that they do not report on human rights abuses in Cuba or China, that they do this or that, and it is all made up and easily verifiable to be false. It reflects very poorly on those who post such ignorant and biased stuff.
Don’t be too hard, it’s not like anyone’s made up an excuse for starting a war or invading a country or anything…
oh…
What would be refreshing is any of the above sources of these ‘facts’ either coming up with a credible cite for them or a retraction. Or do we take it that their silence is admission that their posts really were the unsupportable, knee-jerk mud-slinging from a position of near total ignorance they appeared to be?
