How about these?
Ah, some of the fervent weapon users are on board…
I have a few questions for them:
-
How legitimate is US president Bush, seen the comedy of his “election”
-
How legitimate is a president who declares openly that he is ready to give the order to assassinate the leader of an other sovereign nation
-
How legitimate is the leader of a nation that as member of the UN subscribed the UN charter, yet by his order acts in breach with that charter and invades sovereign nations
-
How legitimate is a nation where the president stole his election, declared to be ready to murder an other Head of State, gives next that same head of State an ultimatum to leave his country, yet declares that it doesn’t matter if he leaves or not since he plans to attack that sovereign nation anyway, next invades that nation with the intention to kill its leader and members of his family and government (we leave out the previous attacks where that Head of State was targettted, yet were only many other people were killed), kills thousands of people while invading and occupying that sovereign nation
-
How legitimate is a nation that while doing all of this knows very well that this nation was and is a member of the same UN and thus that the UN charter is applyable.
-
How legitimate is the same president and government of the attacing nation who tried previously and during this invasion and occupation to lie to the world about the motives behind this terrorism.
-
How legitimate is the same president and government of the attacking nation who declared that the UN has no role to play since they declare themselves to be in a postition to attack any nation they want.
-
How much inclined to international terrorism is the vast majority of the population of that attacking terrorist nation, which aplauds and supports the president and his actions and waves the flags for the invading soldiers.
-
How legititmate is this invading nation that with the support of the vast majority of its population endangers world peace and doesn’t even keep itself by the rules of the Geneva Convention once the invasion and occupation began, upto this very day.
This is a brief description of what you people like to call a rough nation led by a crazy dictator whit a population that supports the terrorism, isn’t it?
According your logic, other nations can invade that country in order to pacify the citizens and to kill the presidentand thousands of people in order to finally pacify them.
So how do you think this should be done?
But I’m still waiting for you to come and pacify me, you know…When can I expect your visit?
Salaam (although peace is not what you people like; you admire a criminal who brings death and destruction). A
People are quick to lump Americans all into one group, too. Or should we not worry about this because we are a superior breed of humanity and thus need not take offense when our lessers indulge in generalizations about us?
Forgot to ask: anyone interested in some pictures showing the murders comitted by that terrorist nation during the invasion?
You are so incredible peaceful bloodthursty… So maybe I should give you some reason for a bit of celebrations in the weekend?
What do you want… Children with their head blown off? Children with their limbs teared off? Children burned alive?
Will that make your day?
Just ask, I’ll give it to you.
Salaam. A
Always at service for the needing
To torie,
Yes of course that was one of the intentions of my OP.
Yet there is much more behind such writings, as one can see by the reactions overhere.
Some part of the US population is in an odd way stubbornly convinced that the USA has some God Given Right to invade other nations, to instigate the overthrowing of governments in other nations, to plot and plan and commit murders of people in other nations.
They are convinced that the USA can commit whatever crime it wants to commit on the international scene, in order to guarantee them their capitalistic heartless egocentric way of life.
I guess it must be something in the upbringing of US’ers that one sees this phenomenon and self-glorification and denial of crimes committed by the own nation so widely spread all over the USA.
So this topic is also set up to see where those people are coming from with their unbelievable arrogance and to see how they defend it.
Salaam. A
So I take it you considered Saddam a legitimate head of state? Or do you realize he wasn’t and are just lashing out at Bush in exasperation?
The US is no saint, but we are democratic, liberal, and successful. The Muslim world is not. Why? Until the Muslim world looks within for the reasons for their failure, they will always be the losers.
If the US hadnt signed the UN charter… or in fact been the primary motivator for the creation of the UN they could do whatever there silly leaders wanted… but since they disregarded the rules they set themselves it certainly stinks.
Adding that the idea of forcefully creating free societies sounds a bit contradictory… especially since free societies might fall back into old ways.
Every nation violates the UN charter. Singling out the US for it is ridiculous.
This has to be one of the stupidest posts I’ve seen in a long time. The old excuse "everybody does it. Well, no, not everybody does it, much less in the scale of the USA. But even if everybody did it it would just mean everybody was wrong, it would not make the USA right.
But since you said it you might want to support your asserion with some citations. Please show us examples of UN charter violations by Iceland, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Australia which even come close to being in the same league as starting a war of aggression.
Adahar,
Any stateleader recognized as such by the international community has legitimacy.
You forget some details, so may I ask you to fill in the blanks:
Since when did the USA consider Saddam Hussein an “illigitimate” leader of the sovereign nation Iraq?
And by the way: Seen the election circus and the serious doubts about the outcome of that ridiculous play, I consider GW Bush an illigitimate leader of the USA. Does that mean that I can form some organisation and start plotting to plot to overthrow him in the name of "democracy?
Or do you believe only the US formed, US based and US controlled terrorist organisation which is widely known as the CIA has the God given Right to do such things on a global scale.
Salaam. A
Yo, Alde!
Got something for you.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4152661#post4152661
What about dictators the United States helped to install?
That didn’t work.
Again, in response to Dasiy Cutters statement that “(d)ictators and their ilk need to go,” I ask: what about dictators the United States helped install. Or are thugs like Pinochet okay guys as far as you are concerned, Daisy Cutter?
An alternative point of view on Chile: http://val.dorta.com/archives/000343.html.
Yes, we live to drink the blood of Arab children, just like our Jewish brethen. :rolleyes: If your argument reduces complex political and social factors to being “bloodthursty (sic),” then you have serious mental problems. Perhaps you should ask your mommy to stop reading Chomsky’s “What Uncle Sam Really Wants” before bedtime, and choose something more, shall I say, educational?
Completely legitimate. He won the election fair and square.
See above.
Entirely legitimate. He acted in support of UN resolutions.
You’re repeating yourself. See above.
More repetition. See above again.
And again.
Bush and the US government did not state that the UN had no role to play. You are lying.
Not inclined at all.
I assume you mean Iraq. The US is not systematically violating the Geneva Convention in its occupation of Iraq.
No, it is merely more of your idiotic drivel.
Are you asking for suggestions on how to shut you up? Why would we care?
No cites for any of the above. I am correct in every particular, and it would be beneath me to prove anything I say.
My post is my cite, to quote a famous line.
Regards,
Shodan
electric!sheep. All dictators need to go. Every last one of them. Some by force. Most not by force.
Democracy is the best political system for the guarantee of rights for its citizenry. Most nondemocracies aren’t as repressive as Hussein’s regime. I cannot, as a “bleeding heart liberal,” say that an Iraqi’s freedom is one iota less important than the freedom of an American or European. It concerns me that some people believe that only American liberties are worth defending.
An anecdote. You’re walking around a land, when you happen upon a village. You see something peculiar. In front of you is ten men tied up, gagged, and blindfolded. A soldier holds a gun, and is prepared to shoot them all.
You ask the soldier, “What have these men done?”
He responds, “A woman in this village was raped and murdered yesterday. We cannot find the culprit, but we know that it was one of these ten men. None of them are fessing up, so we are forced to shoot them all.”
Aghast at the barbarity of the situation, you interject, “I cannot believe this! This is inhumane! Shooting ten people for the misdeeds of one. This cannot go on!”
The soldier looks at you. “I propose a bargain. Apparently, you know something about justice, so I will leave it up to you to decide which one to kill. If you take this gun and shoot one of them, I will release the rest, and we shall say that you solved the crime. If you do not, however, I shall be forced to proceed with all ten executions.”
Now the conundrum. Assuming that there cannot be any alternatives, what do you do? Do you take the gun in your hands and shoot one of them yourself? In this case, you would be a coldblooded murderer, but would save the lives of nine men. Or do you pass on by? If you do nothing, ten men die and you save not one, but you don’t have blood on your hands.
Yes, I do have a point. The United States was presented, in my opinion, with a similar situation. We could leave Iraq alone, absolving ourselves of moral culpability, but still perpetuating the rule of, by all accounts, an evil regime. We could, by contrast, invade and do something about it. Quite obviously, we would kill civilians, and that is absolutely lamentable, but we would get rid of the murderous regime that was in place. We chose the latter position.
I don’t know which of the two positions is more “moral.” Different philosophers day different things. I do know this, however. Every human life is sacred, and should have everything done possible to prevent its murder.
Just trying to frame the debate in a different way.
By the way, I do believe that Bush’s WMD excuse was a load of dingos’ kidneys. I’m not a Bush follower in the least.
Certainly there are two sides to every story, and I never said Allende was perfect; however, my assertion that Pinochet was supported by the United States (and particularly, by the C.I.A.) is corroborated by the Agency’s own internal documents, which I linked to in my second post.
My challenge to Daisy Cutter to explain the difference between a murderer like Saddam and a murderer like Pinochet still stands.
Was Saddam Hussein put into power by the US, or did we just give his government assistance once it was in power?
You’re saying we chose the high ground. We invaded Iraq because its monstrous dictator was the scourge of the Iraqi people.
That is not the reason but a half-assed excuse.
If we invaded countries run by dictators who trod mercilessly on their people, why not go after North Korea, China and Iran for starters?
I think the Dub had many reasons/excuses for the Iraq fiasco. Whatever they were, he foresaw a quick victory and “Hail Caesar!” from all over the globe.
The only trouble is his neocon advisers have been outsmarted at every turn.
One supposedly dumb-ass arab, Saddam Hussein, with probably a 3rd grade education, has Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, Rove, Wolfowitz, the Pentagon and the GOP all looking for someone else to blame for this mess.