The World Trade Center has been attacked!!!

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by mank!
To an extent it was, war was only declared when Hitler went marching into Poland to find some more Jews to slaughter.

but even that is pretty arguable

Yes very arguable mainly because it aint true.
1st the "final solution" from the nazis was first discused and aproved in 1942 (I think maybe a year earlier or later) Poland was attacked before that. Yes there where razia's before and concentration camps and Jews, Gypsy's, homosexuals, political oponents and other groups died there because of the terrible places there were at.
2nd the attack at Tschjecoslavia (sp?) and then Poland were done for a few reasons first of all Lebensraum, second in case of Poland also mainland connection to east Prussia and getting rid of an early threat to a 2 sided front.

/edit congrats with your sister Shocko, but just one question Iraq and Afghanistan were/are trouble spots what is your sollution for that then? I cant believe that you would like to see dictators and opressive regimes stay in power.

 

[Shocko]

Originally posted by dysfunction
Not done wrongly and Not illegal....show me your proof please? Thanks.

The proof that it was illegal lies in the fact that there was no UN resolution sanctioning the invasion. Now there have always been wars unsactioned by the UN that are considered right, however there is a distinct difference. In this case, justification for the attack was claimed from UN resolutions. The fact that the resolution calling for action to be taken was withdrawn before it could be voted on, shows that the US knew that they would not be given permission to go to war. Had that resolution been dissmissed by the council, there would be solid proof to say that there was no UN sanctioning for the invasion, but as it is, idiots everywhere are claiming that the previous resolution gave authorisation, when it blatantly didn't.

If you believe the whole charade about Saddam disobeying UN resolutions then you're a bigger fool than you appear to be. It's pretty obvious that the US, and specifically the "neo-conservatives" there, had already earmarked Iraq for conquest, before they even got into power.

congrats with your sister Shocko, but just one question Iraq and Afghanistan were/are trouble spots what is your sollution for that then? I cant believe that you would like to see dictators and opressive regimes stay in power.

Well, you have to have a balanced policy. The way i see it is, that the US used the excuse that Iraq could be a threat to world security, in order to invade it. They wanted to do that anyway - Lets not forget how much of a history the US has of "dealing" with smallish regimes that oppose American interests. There are many dictatorships out there, that inflict mass cruelty to their people. If you're going to do something about it, you've got to sort out all regimes like that, and you've got to do it so that the likes of the US can't exploit the situation.

The conflict in Afghanistan was understandable, since the Taleban were harbouring and supporting al'qaida, however the point needs to be made, that the country is in a situation almost as bad as it was under the Taleban. The US has really left the country in a mess...

 

[SoWat]

Idiots, Fools?

Some rather harsh terms there for people who disagree with you.

In actual fact Saddam had been flouting UN resolutions for years (as has Israel and numerous other countries). Suddenly picking on him because he is no longer our 'friend' may be selective politics, but it doesn't alter this fact.

The war with Iraq may have been questionable on legal grounds, but morally it was right. I'd like to think that Bush pursued his war with Iraq because of said moral concerns, but that's as unlikely as... erm, Bush 'thinking' at all.

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by Shocko
The proof that it was illegal lies in the fact that there was no UN resolution sanctioning the invasion.

oh really....very interesting...

FROM BBC News:
Before the war, Lord Goldsmith said that despite the absence of a second United Nations resolution, an attack was covered by existing international law....

....many international lawyers said at the time that a second UN resolution was required but the UK relied "on a resolution over 12 years old at the time of the start of the 1990 war that permitted proportionate force to disarm Iraq to be used

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by Shocko
The conflict in Afghanistan was understandable, since the Taleban were harbouring and supporting al'qaida, however the point needs to be made, that the country is in a situation almost as bad as it was under the Taleban. The US has really left the country in a mess...

I would say Afghanistan was already in a mess long before the US got involved....its just been highlighted more after they invaded...

 

[Deadmanwalking]

On this subject of war.. What are your actually thinking on the armed forces? And by that i means the troops not the Politics or the high up ones giving the orders.

Im saying that because if you are going off to fight, having people calling what you were doing illegal? Talk about support.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Ahh an interesting discusion
By saying it is illegal ermmm what law are you talking about? Last time i looked there is no international lawbook, only agreements. Also permission to attack? since when does an independent country need permission to go to war?

Yes I believe all dictatorships should be removed but you do need to start somewhere so why not at a place that is more important to the world?
But still what is a balanced policy? I have never seen a dictator abstain caus he was asked politely to go. Next to that I still believe that Iraq aswell Afghanistan are better off being attacked now then they would if nothing had changed. Maybe not now (I wished it would) but give it some time, lets not forget how much killing there was before those countries were invaded.

Don't get me wrong the USA are not angels and will never be, countries will always look at their own interests first second and then maybe just maybe at the interests of other countries.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by mr.Blacky
Ahh an interesting discusion
By saying it is illegal ermmm what law are you talking about? Last time i looked there is no international lawbook, only agreements. Also permission to attack? since when does an independent country need permission to go to war?

Conventions for a start governing the "right" way to fight a war and the "wrong" ways.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Only if the USA signed an agreement on it, which I don't think they have, considering the fact that they haven't signed the treaty banning landmines.

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by mr.Blacky
Only if the USA signed an agreement on it, which I don't think they have, considering the fact that they haven't signed the treaty banning landmines.

you won't be pleased to note that the US does not sign many treaties and proposals that most of the rest of the civilised world support.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Yes I know but someone mentioned princess Diana and she was one of the spokespersion for the anti mines movement I thought I mention that. But even considering that other countries have signed a particular treaty doesnt make it illegal for the USA to use mines.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by Tom.
Racial, not religious

yeah, but surely the race ties in with their religion, no?

 

[Deadmanwalking]

If you take it all the way back thousends of years maybe.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by mr.Blacky
1st the "final solution" from the nazis was first discused and aproved in 1942 (I think maybe a year earlier or later) Poland was attacked before that.

Correct, the Wannsee conference was held in January 1942 (it was planned for December 1941, but was held back for various unrelated reasons) and this was where the 'final solution' itself was drafted, but Jews were being discriminated against as early as 1935 where Hitler drafted up laws that were 'For the Protection of German Blood and Honour' which basically discriminated against the Jews entirely. Hitler's active discrimination and intent to destroy the Jewish race had been brewing long before he invaded Poland and I am of the opinion that he was partially motivated by his hatred for the Jews that he invaded Poland. I realise that's a highly debatable point, but I feel it's a valid one and I'm sticking by it.

 

[Tom]

Hitler wouldn't be the only one who ever persecuted the Jews. Back when Henry VIII was knocking around, he needed some money for the coffers, to go to war. Guess what he did?

Yep, he kicked all the Jews out of the country and confiscated their assets. Way to go Henry!

:/

 

[mank!]

And the relevance is?

 

[kameleon]

Its disgusting that some of the extremist islamic groups in this country have declared 9/11 as a celebration of the martydom of the 19 people involved in the hijackings. I mean, I'm all for free speech , but when these groups start saying that we deserve everything we are going to get and incite racial hatred then its time for a few deportations.



All of the muslims I know abhor violence in accordance with the teachings of the Quran. All exremists should be kicked out of the country. It's a lot harder to incite meaningless racial hatred when you have to spend 20 hours a day tring to scratch a living for your family.

 

[Shocko]

Originally posted by SoWat
In actual fact Saddam had been flouting UN resolutions for years (as has Israel and numerous other countries). Suddenly picking on him because he is no longer our 'friend' may be selective politics, but it doesn't alter this fact.

True, however there are two ways of looking at it. One is that a nasty dictator was deposed, even if it wasn't for the right reasons. The other is that there's a country, taking on the role of a "bully"(as it's been since the 50s), taking advantage of humanitarian situations to increase its control of the less developed world.

My logic. What country did the US invade Iraq from? Kuwait. Assuming the US wanted to convince the likes of Iran that it would invade them and impose a "democratic" regime, what do you think it would need? A nice country with a rather large boarder with them, who would let them do whatever they want. It's been said that the US didn't need to invade Iraq to secure oil, political influence, and army bases in the middle east. Well, i think it's clear to anyone that the likes of Saudi Arabia were far from friends of stable friends of America.

There's not much point arguing about it. There's two ways of looking at it, and neither of them is "wrong".

Posted by Dys
I would say Afghanistan was already in a mess long before the US got involved....its just been highlighted more after they invaded...

The key thing is, that the US went in and got rid of the Taleban. It's pretty clear that the new government in Afghanistan isn't up to much. They have hardly any power outside of the capital, leaving the rest of the country at the mercy of the warlords who the US supported during the conflict, who you might note aren't the nicest of people. The has effectively abandoned Afghanistan, having achieved nothing apart from scattering al'Qaida, and getting rid of a hostile regime.

 

[rynnor]

I find it bizarre that Bush can sell the 'liberation' of Iraq as part of the 'War on Terror' to a US public.

Can the US public truly be so inward focused and un-informed that it cant spot the fact that Saddams regime (while terrible in many respects) was completely opposed to Al Qaeda and had absolutely nothing to do with the events of September 11th despite the numerous attempts to link the two made by the American government??

So far it appears that they cant - amazing! I'm pretty sure you could convince the US public that the world was flat - all you need to do is keep repeating it, roll out a few 'scientists' etc. etc.

Personally I cant shake a certain amount of suspicion about the US Intelligence agencies regarding September 11th - it was a complete godsend to them and to the Armed forces who prior to this tragedy were looking like they were something of an uneccesary expense.

Now they have a new 'enemy' and there wildest requests for extra funding just get waved through by Congress...

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by rynnor
I find it bizarre that Bush can sell the 'liberation' of Iraq as part of the 'War on Terror' to a US public.

Can the US public truly be so inward focused and un-informed that it cant spot the fact that Saddams regime (while terrible in many respects) was completely opposed to Al Qaeda and had absolutely nothing to do with the events of September 11th despite the numerous attempts to link the two made by the American government??

So far it appears that they cant - amazing! I'm pretty sure you could convince the US public that the world was flat - all you need to do is keep repeating it, roll out a few 'scientists' etc. etc.

Personally I cant shake a certain amount of suspicion about the US Intelligence agencies regarding September 11th - it was a complete godsend to them and to the Armed forces who prior to this tragedy were looking like they were something of an uneccesary expense.

Now they have a new 'enemy' and there wildest requests for extra funding just get waved through by Congress...

Actually your talking plop. Saddam ran a secular republic it's true and Islamic fundamentalists hated him for that but they shared many common aims and Saddam was willing to fund many terrorists and willing to praise them to court popularity in the middle east.

Fair enough, compared to the funding given to terrorists by the Saudis and Syria he's small fry but he's a less controversial target and they can get away with it easier. Take out who you can without making more enemies. Simple logic really.

/edit : Yes, I'm quite sure Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but the idea was a war on terrorism, not a war on Al Quaida.

 

[Gumbo]

Alledgedly he personally gave relatively massive amounts of money to the families of the palestinian suicide bombers too.

Source type thing, might well be bullshit, don't care.

So yep, looks like he was a fan of the terrorist, wether Bin Ladens mob or not, I don't really care. Glad we got rid of him, shame we had to make up some excuse to go do it.

I do wish if we're going to do this sort of thing though we made a proper job of it. Mugabe is still running amok, The pro democracy movement in Myanmar could do with a few cruise missiles to back up their struggle. Why the fuck didn't we stop the idiots hacking lumps out of each other in Rwanda?

Lets face it, you get slated for helping people, you get slated for not helping people. Can't win really, ah well.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by Gumbo
Lets face it, you get slated for helping people, you get slated for not helping people. Can't win really, ah well.

Exactly. Some ppl will never support the USA even if they ran a war on child prostitution.

 

[icemaiden]

Getting back on point here, when the planes hit the twin towers i had just started working for Morgan Stanley, i was sat in a training room with about 20 other ppl when someone came in and told us all to go to the main office. There were 2 large screen TV's on either end of the office showing what was happening through some news program. At this point my manager told us that about 10 floors of one of the towers had morgan stanley staff in it. After the first tower collapsed we were sent home. I picked my daughter up from nursery and went home, later that evening i had to explain to a 3yr old what was happening, she just couldn't understand why all this had happened, and tbh neither could i. The sight of ppl jumping from the towers is something i'll never forget.
Few things have affected me emotionally like 9/11 did, Lockerbie and what happened in Dunblane are the only other 2 that i can think of.
All 3 of the above tragedies(sp) should never be forgotten in my opinion.