CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
9/11: Are we starting to forget?
9/11 is such a signifigant date for Americans.
On that day, thousands of innocent lives were taken.
I feel as if the younger generation is forgetting what America went through that day, because we choose not to talk about it. (Rightfully so)
On that day, my father was actually working a few blocks from the towers.(He was a cop) When they heard the first plane crash, they had thought it was an accident, and when panic started to arrise, he was called out to help.
When the tower fell down, a few of his co workers ran into a school building nearby, and stayed there till the dust died down. They then went back out again, and walked back to thier building. Just a few hours ago, there were people inside, but now it was deserted. Him and his friends ended up manning that building, giving directions to anyone who had stopped by.
He made it home that day. (Thank God)
He just told me this story yesterday, and I have such a deep respect for the ones who were not as fortunate.
What americans conveniently don't know (or don't want to know) is that 1.2 million Iraqis died for that attack, are they going to have day or remembrance? Are they going to psoted on every major media outlet non stop for the next few days, no because they are what John Pilger referred to as "unpeople"
What about the 500,000 Iraqis children that starved, and died of health complication due to the US and British backed sanctions against Iraq.
What about the tnes of thousands of afghanis that have died for reasons that the people still don't understand, most of them have never even heard of 9/11
Americans should have taken 9/11 as a wake up call, its time to start unxderstanding the rest of the world, why are there people out there willing to do this, why are there people out there who hate american this much, instead the american people regressed into a coma of complete nationalism, and the elite's who really control the country licked their lips at the prospect of having carte blanche to cut up the middle east as they saw fit, and Iraq and Afghanistan with there oil and strategic importance were the lowest habging fruit, and has the american adminstration "war of terror" and the rest of the world made this world safer, no, you can be fucking sure it hasn't, in fact it has made it far more unsafe.
The reponse to 9/11 only enforeced the bully-boy imperialist narratives constantly labbelled against the US, and blooded and new line of Bin Ladens.
You make good points with bad facts. The 1.2 million dead Iraqis [from 2003] is a number pulled out of the Opinion Research Poll's ass. The number is probably around than 600,000 if you colligate most of the reports, although only about 150,000 deaths are certain.
Also to say our sanctions in Iraq BEFORE 9/11 have anything to do with 9/11 is not only syllogistic but anachronistic. The sanctions only prove a point against your argument, that the Iraq war was a postponed war, and Sadaam should have been taken down long before 9/11.
No doubt Iraq was an utter failure and the war in Afghanistan is really an endless catch 22 against self-replicating apparitions. But what are our other options?
To step back and try to understand why??? Your argument falls apart when you state Iraq and Afghanistan as a low hanging fruit; clearly the 10 year occupation of the latter makes it more of unattainable poisonous fruit instead of an easy target or a "carte blanche to cut up the middle east."
"The response to 9/11 only enforced the bully-boy imperialist narratives constantly labelled against the US, and blooded and new line of Bin Ladens."
No doubt I can agree with that but I cannot think of any reasonable alternative than our action. It was a gamble we took and we lost.
Bad facts, none of facts are bad, or inaccurate for that matter, i can justify every claim i make, just keep reading.
"The 1.2 million dead Iraqis [from 2003] is a number pulled out of the Opinion Research Poll's ass.The number is probably around than 600,000 if you colligate most of the reports, although only about 150,000 deaths are certain."
So what source are you using for that figure of 600,000, or are you just using your intuition? Have you actually colligated the reults of all the reports, and if so what in the hell makes you think thats a reliable way to estimate anything?
Your the one with the bad facts my friend, the figure 600,000 is a gross underestimation of the the total casualities of the war since 2003, this figure was reasonably accurate back in 2006 but since then has doubled, no person serious about the truth would dispute this.Here's the link to survey conducted by the John Hopkins University.
Now the survey has been criticised ( from people with a pro-western agenda who want to down play casualities)) and applauded, it is the only survey to use a scientific methid in analysing casualities, and it is widely acknowledged as being the most accurate, and comprehensive estimate of the numbers killed since the war was illegally started by the US but don't take my word it, do your own investigating, the wiki page isnt a bad place to start:
I having taken many advanced statistics courses during my education, im not saying this to toot my own horn, im saying it because ive looked into the methodology used in estimating the casualities, and this one is by far the most reliable estimate of Iraqi deaths, but again don't take my word for it, heres what the western governments would like to sweep under the carpet:
(Keep in mind the figure quoted here is 650,000 as this dates back to 2006 when the figure 650,000 was accurate)
You see most fo the other methods rely on counting methods that are highly unreliable especially in a place like Iraq which has been in total flux since the start of the invasion. The accracy this kind of statistical analysis cannot be question, the math doesn't lie, thats why that top UK scientist came out in support of it after examining the findings.
Now if you are still in denial about the varacity of my claims and the accuracy of the figures i have presented please take the time to research the John Hopkins report, you can critique the analysis methods all you want if you are capable:
This is the report they released in 2006 that details the casualities from 2004-2006, since then they have updated and refined there study, the latest figure is 1.2 million dead Iraqis like it or fuckin lump it.
"although only about 150,000 deaths are certain. "
NO about 1.2 million deaths from combat related situations (not to mention those from lack of health, clean water etc, as the US has completely destroyed the infrastructure) are certain, why not do some investigating before you spread your misinformation.
"Also to say our sanctions in Iraq BEFORE 9/11 have anything to do with 9/11 is not only syllogistic but anachronistic"
Of course they have somthing to do with 9/11, all the US's imperialist actions in the middle east contributed to 9/11, and thats not even how i meant it in the first place.
Now i will admit that the views i espouse maybe slightly syllogistic, i call it using making inferences from the available evidence with a dash common sense involved in the process, im not saying the process is proves 100% effective 100% of the time, such a process doesn't exist but ive predicted many things, and my suspicions have nearly always been proven to be within a certain tolerable level of accuracy, leaving aside the emotional bias of course which i have been trained to do.
As for saying 9/11 being related to the sanctions imposed on Iraq is an anachronism i really have to disagree, you think you can starve a muslim country, and prevent them from importing medicine, and have no ripple effect, do you seriously beleive you can make that many people suffer that much and not have any effect, if so you need a lesson in causality my friend;-)
" The sanctions only prove a point against your argument, that the Iraq war was a postponed war, and Sadaam should have been taken down long before 9/11. "
Really they work agaisnt me do they, well ive never heard that interpretation before, so killing about 1.5 million Iraqis (of which 500,000 were children) through brutal sanctions that were almost universally opposed somehow works against my piont about the extreme loss of life the US's actsion have inflicted on worn torn impoverished nations.
Also you seem to be conveniently forgetting Saddam was a cherished US guard dog before he got off his leash deveoped imperialistic ambitions of his own, and went sniffing around Kuwait, up until then he was to quote Donald Rumsfeld: "Our man in the region"
This is btw when he was gasing Kurds with chemical weapons supplied by the US and west, you know that major arsenal you supplied him with in order to massacre the Iranian people when he decided to invade that country, or have all these events conveniently slipped your extremely selective memory.
Saddams genocide only became a reportable story in the West when Saddam fell out of favour with the West, the fact is he was allowed to do what he did with impunity with the West having full knowledge of it cause in reality they don't give two fucks if a few hundred thousand Kurds go missing in mass graves but when it came time to invade you can be fucking sure the entire news watching population of the west was fully aware of what he had done as it fitted conveniently into their bullshit brainwashing propaganda.
"No doubt Iraq was an utter failure "
Understatement of the century, a more correct interpretation is, *Iraq has proved (if we were ever in any doubt not that we were) that the US is just as bad(if not worse) , as all the people it loves to call bogey men , and scare its own population with the thought of them, whether it be Iran, North Korea, or anyone else, its words are hollow, its actions define it, and they have spoken volumes.
"and the war in Afghanistan is really an endless catch 22 against self-replicating apparitions. "
You don't get it, 9/11 was the excuse thats all, they US knew they could justfiy goin on a serious rampage(at least with their own people) all they ahd to do was dress it up with rhetoric and their bullshit ideology, they spun a globe, they weighed up the pros and cons, and Iraq and Afghanistan were the lowest hanging fruit, they knew Iran would be a little too hard to crack without some serious calsualities on their side so that was out. This has even been stated by ex-chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, watch for yourself:
Because you have been systematically preventing democracy in that region since the end of WW2, you have been the main driver ensuring the safety of the worse regime int he region, you have robbed the region and prevented the people from having any freedom, anytime someone in the region has challenged this you have dealt with them severly to say the least. The US needed to understand the reasons behind 9/11 instead they just cried "the hate our freedom" lets bomb the fuck out them.
"Your argument falls apart when you state Iraq and Afghanistan as a low hanging fruit"
Really, the ex-chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell would disagree with you on that score my friend, im sorry if the truth hurts, go watch the video.
"10 year occupation of the latter makes it more of unattainable poisonous fruit instead of an easy target "
Its quite obvious to anyone that the actual results of the invasion were completely underestimated by the administration, that in no way invalidates my piont, and you should really know that.
"No doubt I can agree with that but I cannot think of any reasonable alternative than our action."
You see your countries actions through the eyes of person grossly misinformed about the reality of US froeigh policy and its effecdts on the world since the end of WW2, the fact is you had plenty of other options, 9/11 was a crime by a small number of extreme individuals, itn was not an attack by another soveriegn country, but the response was kind you would expect if it was, i am referring to afghanistan of course. If the taliban had conducted 9/11 i wouldn't have be so against the invasion of afghanistan, but they didn't, a small group of criminals did and the US made million and milions of people suffer for something they still have very little understanding of. The people responsible for the attack could have hunted down, of this is no doubt, the US government however didn't give a fuck about 9/11, they were delighted it happened, it gave them carte blanche to act out whatever imperialistic ambitions that had been only fantasies prior to the invasion.
Im not even goin to talk on Iraq, the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach
Your argument is absurd. What exactly do you like about the Iraqi terrorist so much that you want to give them a remembrance day. Does Hitler and his followers have a remembrance day? Thousands of them died. we can feel sorry for the innocent people caught in the middle (of both sides) without making sure everyone has a "fare" pity party. What would you have suggested we do different?
For your information there were plenty of occasions for us to kill bin laden but he surrounded himself with women and children (like most terrorist do) so we chose not to attack. Name another country that would do that.
As sorry as i feel for the Iraqi civilians, their the ones who let these extremist get out of control, they are the ones who should have stopped them but they didn't and then the terrorist attract US so we are stopping them.
Not all Iraqis are terrorists and the Iraqis weren't invaded because of them harboring terrorists but because their dictator apparently had "weapons of mass destruction", remember that? What happened to the punishment fitting the crime, do innocent civilians deserve to die because of a few rebels and bad intelligence?
When could we of gotten bid laden? It seems we were too focus on Hussein for most of the time to even think about him much.
The middle east is a product of the west, they were colonized, given weapons, used as tools, etc by the west for awhile. It is no wonder why they don't like us. For example, bin laden was used to fight the soviets for us. To blame the victims for the extremists is quite absurd.
I don't think i said that innocent civilians deserve to die. I absolutely believe that killing civilians ( u.s., Iraqi or other) is wrong and should be avoided at all cost. Though I'm sure US troops have killed some civilians (and I don't like it) I don't think they did it on purpose and I don't think that they were given orders to do so, however the extremists they are fighting routinely go into populated (with Iraqi civilians) building and areas and set off bombs killing anyone they can. They do it to not only take out any US forces in the area but also to later point their finger at the US and say "you did this". The media doesn't discern between US killed civilians and Insurgents killed Iraqis.
This is just one site that goes into the other times we could have gotten bin laden.http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete;_911_timeline_counterterrorism_before_9_11=huntForBinLaden
Here is another.
I also think the invasion of Iraqi and the creation of Al-Qaeda are much more complected then your argument would suggest.
If the KKK got a few thousand more followers and started killing all the African Americans they could. Then decided they wanted to kill all the Africans in Africa by whatever means necessary. I would think that the rest of the wold would hold all Americans as well as our government responsible for not stopping them sooner. That is an example of what I mean when I say that the Iraqi people are at fault, not completely of course but partially, yes.
The tactics of terrorists are designed so that conventional warfare doesn't work well against them. So why then, did we decide to fight against them in a primarily conventional manner? It is doubtful that anyone can even tell a combatant from a non-combatant when your fighting terrorist. Well civilian deaths may not be intentional, our strategy is going to result in them. Why the civilian deaths, because the relatively small group that was successful in what was basically an ambush might of had members or allies in the country which might of had access to weapons of mass destruction or(and the more probable) these potential allies would be a threat to the US, so.. um preemptive strike? hm, Do you attack someone because they might have a gun on their hip and you want them disarmed? Or do you attack them because they pulled the gun on you? You especially don't attack someone that might be armed because you just got attacked, because then the person that attacked you can easily point at you and recruit 10 more people to his posse.
All those times in first article was before 9/11, I was speaking of the period after. The second appears to be more of a history, which i don't have time to dig though to see how many times we could of got him after 9/11.
If the united states were colonized by a foreign power, or ruled by corrupt governments and the KKK started genocide and decided to spread it around the world, it wouldn't be the fault of all the people in America, but of the corrupt government, foreign powers, and those who sold/gave the KKK weapons and ultimately the fault of the KKK. Those people not bothered by the KKK have their own lives to live, we shouldn't expect them to pick up arms over every injustice, rather that is the job of governments; else we have various groups of vigilantes carrying out various types of justice, which in their minds may very well include terrorism.
I do agree that you should only attack someone who has drawn a weapon against you, on that note they drew their weapon and fired. Tell me how do you think we should have responded to the 9/11 ATTACKS? How should we defend ourselves against terrorism? How exactly do you fight an enemy without borders or uniforms or restraint supported by many corrupt leaders around the world?
We shouldn't of lunched a war against Saddam, we should of focused primarily on intelligence, defense, and infiltration of Terrorists so seal teams can do what they did with bin laden, but sooner then what they did and so they could do it with other figure heads and Find those that fund the network. instead of having our boys driving around looking almost randomly and getting hit with IEDs. We also should of supported democratic nationalists and provided humanitarian aid.
Terrorism is a result of desperation, people who simply want to change things don't blow up buildings, but they might if they desperately want things to change or stay the way they are. You remove the desperation, instead of add to it, and you reduce terrorism. America and the western countries are viewed as imperialists causing numerous problems for the people of the middle east and that sentiment has some validity to it, and it is used to recruit.
With all that being said, 9/11 was a successful and very damaging attack on multiple levels, but most terrorists attacks against the united states were by non-muslims, Most are carried out by US citizens, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States. If we really want to prevent terrorism, we shouldn't be spending so much of our money over seas in unnecessary wars, and more of it at home.
If we did nothing after 9/11, its unlikely another attack of the same magnitude would of been carried out for years.
You said yourself that terrorism is particularly hard to fight. It isn't one man who attract us it is a group of people from all over the world supported by rich, powerful, hateful, corrupt; dictators, businessmen and extremists.
Khalid sheikh Mohammad (the mastermind of 9/11) funded the 1993 wold trade center bombing, carried out by his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, and others, was supported by bin ladin and al-qeada. After that attack Khalid was given lots of respect by bin ladin and AL-qeada without which he might not have been able to convince Bin laden to attack the trade center the way they did.
Also El sayyid Nosair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Sayyid_Nosair was released and also given high status in Al-qeada after he assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane in a public place in the US.
Osama bin ladin had millions of dollars and was friends with royalty. He could have taken that money and tried to really help his people in a peaceful and political way but he chose not to.
Though our tactics against terrorism aren't perfect I think we are doing the best and most productive way we can given situation. I know we cant eradicate all hate in the would or ride everyone of fear (a human survival mechanism) but i think we can eradicate terrorist and free people of THAT fear. We will win.
Bin laden comes from a time of colonialism and the middle east being the puppets to the cold war game, he isn't going to trust that the west will allow him to use his resources peacefully.
Our tactics are the ones terrorism is specifically resilient against, how could it be the best and more productive way?
how do you know who he trusted or wouldn't have trusted? What tactics do you suggest we use? I think we will win by overcoming terrorism, winning the war on terrorism.
Look at the situation through a rational objective lens, you occupy their countries, you have military bases on their land, you prop up brutla regimes that do your bidding in order to control their resources, and then you complain when they try to hit back?
You label them terrorists despite the fact that you are responsible for the deaths of 1.2 million of them, you bombo their land, how do you distinguish who a terrorist is, based on the size of the weapon he has? Cause that exactly what you're doing, you can hark on about we don't try to kill people all day long but the fact is really don't care who you kill, you may pretend to care about casualities but a quick glance at the death toll quickly dismisses that myth.
If you don't want people attacking you get the fuck off their land, allow the people to goevrn themselves, give them control of the natural resorucse that exist on land that is supposed to belong to them, its really very fucking simple, but i don't expect someone like you to understand.
"I think we will win by overcoming terrorism, winning the war on terrorism."
Are you fucking kidding me, Obama doesn't even use that term cause he knows nobody will stand for it, most people rightly have called americas "war on terror" a "war of terror", and has been proven to be so by the blodd of 1.2 million Iraqis. I wonder would you be so bullshit if you saw the death and destrcution you have wrought on them.
Yes because the USA is just out to get innocent civilians sure many will die but I think it's safe too say the majority die at the hands of terrorists. Also the entire world is largely a product of the West due to industrialization etc. So....
"Yes because the USA is just out to get innocent civilians "
No but innocent civilians frequently stand in the way of it and its goals, and we all know which one of those comes out on top. The US likes to pretend it stand for something, this is a ideological fabrication ingrained into the minds of every american to convince them that they have some moral right to behave in the way that they do, the only right the US has ever had is might, and once the empire fades and it rejoins the rest of the world its going to realise the hard way how the ideology of americanism it has been cultivating since the end of the 2nd world war is a complete fabrication.
The US does not nor has it ever represented anything that can be called democracy, the US (and the West) has never stood up for anyones rights if it didn't suit their imperialist agenda (Libya is a case in piont), the west has succeeded in making themselves somehow look like good guys, and most other people like bad guys, we in the west beleive it as it makes us feel better about ourselves but it prevent the real and much more disturbing truth from emerging, and prevents war criminals like George W Bush and Tony Blair from facing trial.
" think it's safe too say the majority die at the hands of terrorists"
!.2 million people have died as a direct result of combat operation in Iraq, when you make a statement like that are you basing it on anything aside from what you'd like to beleive?
"Also the entire world is largely a product of the West "
The world is not a product of the west, the fact that ego driven consumer capitalism is sweeping across the globe liek a virus does not equate to the world being a product of the west, that kind of exceptionalism really is stupid.
No the USA is the greatest nation on earth, we do help people, we do bring freedom, ever heard of a country called South Korea... sure it could be considered part of our so called "Imperialist Agenda" But in the end that nation is far better off than it's counterpart North Korea which is hardly a coincidence. Furthermore your accusations that the USA kills civilians blatantly and repeatedly sounds an awful lot like just believing what YOU wish as well.
As far as I can tell when western culture and western ideas are sweeping across the globe as you say does that not equate to the world being in large part a product of the west. Finally Democracy is a horribly inefficient and useless form of government Republican government is a far more suitable alternative.
Everybody helps somebody its impossible to exist in this world without helping others to some degree, our society is built around reciprocation, its a darwinian truism, your missing the piont entirely, and simply using your well ingrained fantasies as a shield.
" ever heard of a country called South Korea"
Yes i have.
" sure it could be considered part of our so called "Imperialist Agenda""
Yes actually it could be and is part of your imperialist agenda.You just have a selective memory, you never supported freedom in that country despite what you may think.
"But in the end that nation is far better off than it's counterpart North Korea which is hardly a coincidence."
Of course.
" Furthermore your accusations that the USA kills civilians blatantly and repeatedly sounds an awful lot like just believing what YOU wish as well. "
Well in situation's like these (i.e. differences of opinion) its best to consult the facts, they show quite unequivocally that the US (or the west) doesn't really care all that much about civilians, Iraq is a perfect example, if wikileaks has shown one thing its that the US is just as bad as all those bogey men its likes to scare its people with (i.e. Iran, NOrth Korea, China or whoever), but you see its alright when the US is responsible for the deaths of 1.2 million Iraqis cause they were doing it in the name of freedom and democracy, give me a break, the US doesn't bring freedom, nobody even in the west beleive that anymore, may some diehard in the US (liek yourself) but iu can assure you that you are in the extreme minority my friend.
"As far as I can tell when western culture and western ideas are sweeping across the globe as you say does that not equate to the world being in large part a product of the west."
I beleive i said consumer capitalism.
"Finally Democracy is a horribly inefficient and useless form of government Republican government is a far more suitable alternative."
Finally, where was the beginning, it seemed like you just through that in there for psoterity
At this site you can see that a a huge number of Iraqi civilians ( the majority) are killed by "the bogeyman". I believe that this site is liked to wikileaks so you may think it credible.
I think for the most part the US dose bring freedom, or do you think that covering woman and telling them that their god given unintentional (or intensional) ability to arouse men is a sin and worthy of death. That they cant have a job or leave the house without a male escort, have any control of their children, leave their husband, choose a husband or sleep with anyone besides their husband without threat of death is freedom? If you think thats freedom then please leave my county and go support your "freedom" somewhere els please.
"At this site you can see that a a huge number of Iraqi civilians ( the majority) are killed by "the bogeyman". I believe that this site is liked to wikileaks so you may think it credible."
Actaully the Iraq body count is not taken seriously by anyone who is seriously concerned with the truth, their methodology is completely non-scientific, the Lancet survery performed by the John Hopkins University is the best and most credible estimaye available of the total body count from conbat operation since the start of the war in 2003, it is by far the most comprehensive study done, and it is the only one that uses a scientific method of estimating the dead, its results have been examined by scientists with have corroborated its superior methodology. The latest calculated figure it has is that 1.2 million people have died as a direct reults of combat operation in Iraq
"site is liked to wikileaks so you may think it credible"
No they are not linked.
"I think for the most part the US dose bring freedom"
No it never has, and it never will, provide me with an example of this so called freedom the US has brought to a country.
"or do you think that covering woman and telling them that their god given unintentional (or intensional) ability to arouse men is a sin and worthy of death."
Thats actually not the only alternative to thinking the US doesn't stand for freedom and democracy.
"If you think thats freedom then please leave my county and go support your "freedom" somewhere els please."
"Your argument is absurd. What exactly do you like about the Iraqi terrorist so much that you want to give them a remembrance day."
The fact that you think the 1.2 million people that have ided in Iraq were terrorists speaks for itself really.
"Does Hitler and his followers have a remembrance day?"
Ya he probably does but that besides the piont.
" What would you have suggested we do different? "
I wouldn't suggest anything to you, there's simply no piont.
"For your information there were plenty of occasions for us to kill bin laden but he surrounded himself with women and children (like most terrorist do) so we chose not to attack."
Really??? For my information??? Well i gues ive got it all wrong, i see the light, hallelujah!!!!!!!!
"Name another country that would do that."
My God.
"As sorry as i feel for the Iraqi civilians, their the ones who let these extremist get out of control, they are the ones who should have stopped them but they didn't and then the terrorist attract US so we are stopping them."
Wow you are a superior debater. Your opinion of me is clear, you think I'm a ignorant mindless sheep, got it. Oh and not worthy of you great wisdom. Once you have thought about it for another week and come up with some witty and "in your opinion" well thought out idea why don't you get back to me on my question.
I don't consider myself superrior to you, but i do consider your views to be based on misinformation, propaganda, and brainwashing.
"Once you have thought about it for another week and come up with some witty and "in your opinion" well thought out idea"
Why would i wait a week?
"what would you have suggested we do differently?"
Well not illegally invading any foreign country would have been a good thing to do differently. Now i recognise the fact that the US felt agrieved after 9/11, but the reaction was infinitely worse than the crime, and a crime it was, perpetrated by a small number of individuals. The fact is if the US dealth with the attack by hunting down those responsible, which it was well within its means to do, and then bringing them to justice, thats what it should have done.
But you didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan for any reason other than imperialism, thats a fact.
Before 9/11 the US government got many warnings and information about the then future attracts and chose to not take it seriously like they hadn't taken other threats that didn't come to fruition seriously. The attracts happened and then the government was paying attention (perhaps excessively) to any and all information.
Iraq namely Saddam Husein had been playing a weapons cat and mouse game with us and the UN for years. Clinton and the UN let him get away with it since Iraq was defeated in the gulf war.
Anyway bush Jr and the US government was getting information that Saddam Husein supported terrorist groups and when Bush wanted to inspect Husain's weapon stocks (legally) he refused. The US then had reason to believe that Husein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, consequently they were a huge threat to the people Bush represented so he invaded LEGALLY.
Iraq. How in the name of fuck did you not know you invaded that country illegally, why am i not surprised. I would argue Afghanistan was illegal as well but the western world more or less turned a blind eye to that one as you had just had two planes flown into your buildings.
"Before 9/11 the US government got many warnings and information about the then future attracts and chose to not take it seriously like they hadn't taken other threats that didn't come to fruition seriously."
Really, wow, thanks for enlightening me, got any more half regurgitated propaganda?
"The attracts happened and then the government was paying attention (perhaps excessively) to any and all information"
Ya of course, i have one simple question for, have you ever in your entire adult life formed an opinion yourself without being told what to think?
"Iraq namely Saddam Husein had been playing a weapons cat and mouse game with us and the UN for years."
Exactly, i mean he was asking for it, thats hiw it goes, i mean when you come rolling in the hood you gots to be ready to bring the pain.
"Clinton and the UN let him get away with it since Iraq was defeated in the gulf war."
Yep, flawless, totally flawless, i take my hat off to you sir.
"Anyway bush Jr and the US government was getting information that Saddam Husein supported terrorist groups and when Bush wanted to inspect Husain's weapon stocks (legally) he refused."
OOOhhhhhh, he refused, well that dirty dog. (i only wish i could use my vioce for this it would be so much better)
"The US then had reason to believe that Husein was hiding weapons of mass destruction,"
Exactly, jesus when you put it like that i mean what was i talking about before, the way that you take official narrative and deobfuscate so mnay aspects of the political lexicon, and terminology, bravo sir, bravo!!!!!!!!!!
"consequently they were a huge threat to the people Bush represented so he invaded LEGALLY."
So you actually think it was legal, em, what exactly makes you think that, do you think the US decides what's legal and whats not? Is that wre the confusion arises, or are you simply so indoctrinated, that you are incapable of assimilating anything that runs remotely contrary to you pre-existing beliefs, or more accurately neurosis
I have developed MY opinion through information and facts that I have picked up in my life. I am and have been interested in all things political for a long time. I think my opinion is based on facts and an amount of personal conclusions that follow a rational train of thought based on the information I have accumulated.
You on the other hand (though obviously very smart) are plainly threatened by my would view. Perhaps this means you actually think that I'm right and consequently have won this debate, or maybe you truly believe that I am wrong because of the years of liberalized agendas and public school brainwashing you've obviously endured. I bet you had republican parents who you've rebelled against your whole life only to end up in college, for what ten years where everyone around you agrees with you and you feel excepted. Why don't you go out in the world and actually experience reality then come back and show me the facts of why I'm wrong instead of just Insulting me. Who knows maybe Ill change my mind.
"I have developed MY opinion through information and facts"
Well clearly you haven't if you think that the Iraq wasn't an illegal invasion by on country onto another countries soverign territory, and you seem to grossly ill informed about most of the political realities that led you into that war, you have simply digested what your media has fed you. You see i watch news a lot to critique it, and have done for a long time, i am especially familiar with US propaganda, so i know it when i hear it. What im trying to say is whether you realise or not the views you epouse are directly in line with mainstream US propaganda, its immediately obvious to me that you have simply assimilated the views you've heard on your radio and tv bcuase these views are virtually uniform in your country given how polarised the politcal spectrum is. You see i can tell the difference between a person whos formed their own opinions and someone who hasn't as i am aware of the official propaganda. You my friend i am sorry to tell you are just echoeing those vioces you heard on Fox, you have not formed your own piont view, you have not critiques anything, you are clearly incapable of critical thought, and you obviously can't tell the difference between the truth and misinformation and lies.
" I think my opinion is based on facts "
Really lets put that theory to the test shall we:
1. Iraq was invaded illegally by the US, you said it was legal, thats one fact you got very very very wrong. Now please don't take my word it, go check it out.
2. The Bush administration was getting info. that linked Saddam with terrorist groups, again this compeltely false, and since the invasion it has been proved false, what was actually happening is the Bush adminstration were torturing people trying to get them to tell them what they wanted to hear, they also paid people who were compulsive liars to testify that Saddam met with such and such a terrorist leader. Again go check this stuff out, it seems vaguely important doe it not? Why do you think there was such a shit storm about Iraq? Because all this stuff was found out and exposed but it doesn't appear on your corporate controlled media so people like you don't find out about it.
3. You said: "Bush wanted to inspect Husain's weapon stocks (legally) he refused."
Again this is completely wrong, Saddam was complying fully with the weapons inspectors, again this is a widely known fact, and again i challenge you to find this out for yourself.
4. You said:"US then had reason to believe that Husein was hiding weapons of mass destruction"
This again is completely and totally false, they had no reason to beleive it, but they needed to come up with a reason as in order to garner consent for the war, this has been debunked i cannot beleive you have convinced yourself of these things. The US knew he had no weapons, tons of evidence has come to light that they received no substantive intel of any kind linking Iraq with WMD yet they received tons of info. telling them he had no WMD programme, they chose to ignore it.
Next your going to tell me they found WMD, aren't you.
"You on the other hand (though obviously very smart) are plainly threatened by my would view"
Is that really your interpretation.....WOW.
"Perhaps this means you actually think that I'm right and consequently have won this debate,"
Fuck me this is entertaining.
"or maybe you truly believe that I am wrong because of the years of liberalized agendas and public school brainwashing you've obviously endured"
If only we could talk face to face.
" I bet you had republican parents who you've rebelled against your whole life only to end up in college, for what ten years where everyone around you agrees with you and you feel excepted."
This is fucking hilarious. If you're going to attempt to psych-analyse someone even a little bit you need to build up a repertoire of similar responses from them, then you can begin to infer certain things about them, you need to watch out for the things that give them away, this very difficult as the persona people present on the web is often quite different from that they presetn in real life (obviously) but peoples beliefs always give them away, and beleifs can be used effectively to characterise people if you know how, if you can reads the signs. This is quite far from an exact science as people are complex in every way but you can judge certain things if you know how, and have put in the time. You have just attempted to this on me despite the fact that ive only ever repsonded to you twice of three time, and i can tell you now that you have failed spectacularly. And beleive me if you had actually gotten anything right i would say so, but you haven't, everything you assumed about me is completely incorrect, and whats more its virtually the opposite of the actual truth, it quite funny actually. I mean you didn't have to debate we me ad naseum to be able to know a fwe thigns about me, i like anyone else am susceptible to what i just outlined, you could have read my historical arguments and responses, and if you had you'd know just how wrong you are as ive explicitly stated the opposite in the past of much of what you just inferred.
"Why don't you go out in the world and actually experience reality then come back and show me the facts of why I'm wrong instead of just Insulting me."
You really have no idea whats going on here do you?
"show me the facts of why I'm wrong instead of just Insulting me"
I couldn't take you seriously from day one because your views are just so unbeleivably wrong its hilarious, i am sorry but beleive me if you knew how wrong you are, adn you were me you'd be laughing to.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
The fact that you beleive any of this only highlights your own gullibility but why am not surprised. All of those quotes are from washington elites beating the drums of war, what in the name of fuck do you think you are proving by pasting them here, aside from your own guillibilty of course.
"There is a lot to read on this page look to the "legallity of invation"."
Lets take this piece by piece shall we. Ok so the US decided that the invasion was legal as they were the ones doing the actual invading, surprise surprise, did anyone else beleive it was legal, you anyone from that other place we call teh rest of the fucking world. Let's see, the following is all lifted from your own source:
1.
"The legality of the invasion of Iraq has been challenged since its inception on a number of fronts, and several prominent supporters of the invasion in all the invading nations have publicly and privately cast doubt on its legality It is argued that the invasion was fully legal because authorization was implied by the United Nations Security Council.[97][98] International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, a group of 31 leading Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, have denounced both of these rationales"
2.
" an article published in the Guardian alleged that Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, conceded that the invasion was illegal but still justified"
3.
"According to an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands, UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted (as the Dutch government did) as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions." Accordingly, the Dutch commission concluded that the 2003 invasion violated international law"
4.
"United States Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich held a press conference on the evening of April 24, 2007, revealing US House Resolution 333 and the three articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. He charges Cheney with manipulating the evidence of Iraq's weapons program, deceiving the nation about Iraq's connection to al-Qaeda, and threatening aggression against Iran in violation of the United Nations Charter."
So lets some up shall we,
1.
The pathetic rationales used for invading were denounced by the relevant experts, even the ones from the US
2.
Even Richard Pearle a senior memeber in Bush adminstration admitted that the war was illegal but he beleive it was justified (obviously).
3.
An independent commission found that the US had violated international law
4.
Even a US senator trid to actively tried to impeach the vice president, and called for the president to be impeached.
Now lets keep in mind the US occupies an unrivaled position of pwoer within the world, and because of this it can get away with things that other countries can only fantasy about getting away with, this really needds to be kept in mind when considering how much criticism it came in for the invasion of Iraq because if any other country had invaded it is very likekly (especailly if that country was non-western) they would have been invaded themselves.
Even the source you provided details exactly how illegal the war was, i don't even need to provide any more daming sources, that fact that people like you even exist is surprising, nobody outside the US would try to say the Iraq war was legal, it has been proved illegal by the highest judicial
bodies, very fwe outside the US would even try to claim it was justified. But i suppose you people are always going to exsuit you people that think even though a unanimus concensus has been reached, even though everyone that matters has given their verdict, you can still find a few ignorant americans who just won't beleive it.
who are these "people that matter" what is the "highest judicial" that decided whats legal and whats illegal. I is not surprising to me that the Netherlands (the dutch) and Canadian lawyers claim the invasion was illegal why didn't "everyone outside the US" have their own "independent commission" that determined the US invasion of Iraq illegal if it was true and not just supported by a few fringe groups of naive people.
By posting that information to show you that at the time most of government(republicans and Democrats alike), the American people, and a lot of the world were behind the idea of invading. Whether some of their info later was determined to be wrong is irrelevant the truth is Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, a murderer and a tyrant that given the chance would help whoever destroy America. You may like that idea but I don't and I support the decisions that where made then by our government.
I have determined that I do not like or respect you and since I know you will keep giving me the run around when I ask for actual references of your own, as well as egotistical and overconfident rants about how you are right and anyone who believe different is a stupid, mindless, media brainwashed idiot and therefor irrelevant, I am making you my first hostile enemy. Take that=)
"who are these "people that matter" what is the "highest judicial" that decided whats legal and whats illegal. "
From your own source:
International Commission of Jurists, a group of 31 leading Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
Richard Pearle
From wikipedia:
The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."[1][2] The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed. The political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal, while many legal experts and other international leaders have argued that it was illegal.
"Canadian lawyers claim the invasion was illegal why didn't "everyone outside the US" have their own "independent commission" that determined the US invasion of Iraq illegal if it was true and not just supported."
Yes that it rationalise it all to yourself, it was the canadians, listen to yourself, it was an interntional commission of jurists representing international law, all the relevant people know it was illegal, thats why Tony Blair had to answer to a commission in Britain.Even the people within the countries that invaded condemned the war, what planet are you living on? You just can't accpet that your country can ever do wrong, now thats the reults of propaganda and ideology.
"a few fringe groups of naive people"
Are you fucking serious, so if the US says tommorrow the sky is red, and the rest of the wworld says it isn't they're just a few fringe groups of naive people, your an idiot its a simple as that, the fact that you even think you ccan argue this amazes me, this has long been put to bed, the invasion was illegal, im sorry your too indoctrinated to accpet that.
"By posting that information to show you that at the time most of government(republicans and Democrats alike), the American people, and a lot of the world were behind the idea of invading"
ya i thought thats probably why you did that, your not the first idiot on this site to post quotes from political figures thinking that somehow represents public opinion. Honestly, the guillibilty of you people amazes me.
"Whether some of their info later was determined to be wrong is irrelevant "
Actually its not, thats just your opinion, and im sorry to telkl you this but your opinion isn't worth shit as far as i can tell. If someone provide a reason for invading another country and that reason turns out to be a lie fabricated in roder to inavde and steal that coutnries rsources, that actually matters.
" Saddam Hussein was a terrorist"
The US supported Saddam Hussain for most of tenure as president, they even supplied him with the chemical weapons he used agaisnt the Iranians and the Kurds (remember when he gased 300,000 of them), the US knew he was doing this but didn't care as he was playing by their rules then.
Also the US are responsible for 1.2 million Iraqi lives since the war started in 2003, does that not make them terrorists, or are terrorists only terrorists if they kill americans?
"You may like that idea "
No i don't actually, i don't like the idea of any country using agression against another, thats why i hate US actions, all you think about is your own security and what someone else may do, this you use as a justifcation to commit gross acts of murder and genocide. Have you ever stoppped to think of the deaths you have casued and continue to cause, if only you were capable of seeing throught the eyese of an Iraqis or Afghan civilian, maybe then you would understand what you have done.
" I support the decisions that where made then by our government."
Thast because your a good little sheep whos bought into all the official propaganda, you know most germans supported Nazi decisions as well for the very same reasons.
"I have determined that I do not like or respect you"
Oh no, say it ain't so.
"since I know you will keep giving me the run around when I ask for actual references of your own"
Please do, i will be more than happy to provide you with them.
"as well as egotistical and overconfident rants about how you are right and anyone who believe different is a stupid"
I never said anyone who doesn't beleive me is stupid, i called you stupid cause you are unaware that your own country illegally invaded another, you should be ashamed that you were unaware of something of that magnitude, i don't care how much propaganda you've digested, to be unaware that the US had no legal basis for invading nIraq and causing the deaths of 1.2 million people nis inexcusable.
" I am making you my first hostile enemy. Take that=)"
Oh im sorry, is there any way i can ,ake it up to you?
"and a lot of the world were behind the idea of invading"
Who was behind? Think about it, who was behind it? Even in Britain the one country (aside from american) that supported the invasion there was massive resistance, Tony Blair the acting prime minister lost three of his cabinet to resignations when he passed the bill to invade Iraq. All other major western powers were opposed it, Germany was opposed, France, Spain, Italy. I don't even need to mention non-western countries but even among western countries there was far more opposed than not opposed, and of the ones that were providing tacit support it is widely beleived they were being strongarmed by the US.
How have you managed to convince yourself of this, i mean seriously, im actually very surprised you've managed to aviod the truth so successfully and maintain such an obviously false position.
Why no response, do you not want to face the fact that your country invaded another illegally?
"who are these "people that matter""
Do you think the international court of human justice, the UN, the then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Richard Pearly key member of George Bush's administration count as people that matter?
"By posting that information to show you that at the time most of government(republicans and Democrats alike), the American people, and a lot of the world were behind the idea of invading."
Please exaplinj in detail how you came to this conclusion, seriously i would really like to know
"Whether some of their info later was determined to be wrong is irrelevant!"
This highlights how you will justify your coutnries actions no matter what.Just like any German would for the Nazis.
"Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, a murderer and a tyrant that given the chance would help whoever destroy America. You may like that idea but I don't"
Thinking Saddam Hussein had the capacity to destroy the US highlights your ignorane and guillibilty.
" since I know you will keep giving me the run around when I ask for actual references of your own"
I don't beleive ever asked for references, i used your references as i felt it would be better to use somebodies own references against them.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by congress with Republicans voting 98% in favor in the Senate, and 97% in favor in the House. Democrats supported the joint resolution 58% and 39% in the Senate and House respectively
It is argued that the invasion was fully legal because authorization was implied by the United Nations Security Council.
, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq's compliance through military means.
contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Portugal, and Denmark), 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. Six members have no military.
Approximately 148,000 soldiers from the United States, 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers from the special forces unit GROM were sent to Kuwait for the invasion.[112] The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 70,000.[9] In the latter stages of the invasion 620 troops of the Iraqi National Congress opposition group were deployed to southern Iraq
Richard Pearly is and was a flaky wish-washy bastard I don't give his opinion any credit and if you knew more about him you wouldn't either.
Im sorry i don't understand why you put this in here, whats it supposed to prove, its a public opinion poll, and it doesn't even say how many people were surveyed, and even if tens of thousands of people were surveyed (which they were) it would still be no more significant than the polls that come in prior to an election indicating which candidate is in the lead. And all that being said i looked that results and they are very much opposed to your opinion, so providing that as evidence of somthing really baffles me.
"The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by congress with Republicans voting 98% in favor in the Senate, and 97% in favor in the House. Democrats supported the joint resolution 58% and 39% in the Senate and House respectively"
Sorry i didn't realise that the US Senate, and House decided what was and wasn't legal in the world, this is classice case of an american thinking that because they are most powerful country that entitles them to make the laws
"It is argued that the invasion was fully legal because authorization was implied by the United Nations Security Council."
Yes i heard those arguments, but most of the people who perpetuated them changed their position cause they realised it was completely untenable, yet somehow there are still people like yourself clinging to the beleif that you were perfectly entitled to inavde Iraq and kill 1.2 million people mostly of whom were civilians struggling to nunderstand why there were military personnel in their country.
"and several prominent supporters of the invasion in all the invading nations have publicly and privately cast doubt on its legality It is argued that the invasion was fully legal because authorization was implied by the United Nations Security Council.[97][98] International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, a group of 31 leading Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, have denounced both of these rationales"
", Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq's compliance through military means."
Your problem is that no matter what evidence is put on front of your face you wil cling to your small minded beliefs, can you not see that? Do you not understand how bad that is? I mean i can understand, beliefs are hard things to give up once you have internalised them, i know that but the evidence agsainst you is overwhelming, even the crazy neocon Richard Perle who was then a memeber of Goerge Bushes administration openly admitted the war was illegal, i mean when one of the people who instigated the war openly admits it wasn't legal surely that hinders your position a tad. And then thers the fact that every relevant legal body outside the US ruled it illegal, and the fact that the then UN secratary general Kofi Annan who is supposed to oversee the UN publicly stated the US had no legal basis for invasion.
"contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Portugal, and Denmark), 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. Six members have no military"
Again i know this may sound convincing to you but you have to realise that the US is very powerful, and has unbeleiable soft power and influence on countries smaller than it, and it strongarmed most of those countries(except Britain, and Australia) it could into sending troops or at the very least provided tacit approval for thie hanus actions precisely so people like you could piot to the other invlved and say it was an international effort.
"Richard Pearly is and was a flaky wish-washy bastard I don't give his opinion any credit and if you knew more about him you wouldn't either"
I really wonder if you would be so quick to dismiss him if he never admitted the war was illegal? I really think calling somebody who was instrumental in making the war happen flaky and wishy-washy is quite disingenuous.
Besides the rest of the wolrd ruled on this, the international court of justice,Kofi Annan even stated it unequivically, and they determined that the war was illegal, now i know you don't give a fuck what the rest of the world think cause you view the US as being above international law but when somebody within your government who was made the case to go war alongside GWB comes out and admits that what they did was completely illegal under international law, even if you don't respect that law (and you clearly don't) you still have to admit that what he is saying is it false, i mean come on, this really isn't a chioice, i know you'd prefer if it was legal but merely wanting what you did to that country and its people to be legal doesn't in itself make it legal, are you so small minded that you won't admit the truth when its staring you in the face?
i gave you a link to the Gallup pole to give you the example of the US citizens support of the Invasion of Iraq that you asked for.
As for the rest, I believe and I think Ive proved that AT THE TIME we went into Iraq the majority of the world and most importantly the US thought it was necessary and legitimate. I say " most importantly the US because we felt as if OUR way of living and lives were at stake. Whether it ended up being illegal is irrelevant because you cant go into the past and change things. personally I don't think The US OR ANYONE ELS has ultimate say over whether it was illegal or not, it is a matter of opinion.
"Your problem is that no matter what evidence is put on front of your face you will cling to your small minded beliefs" I could say the same for you garry. We are never going to resolve this and the more you insult me the less I want to debate this with you so lets call this one a draw and move on.
"i gave you a link to the Gallup pole to give you the example of the US citizens support of the Invasion of Iraq that you asked for."
Seriously? Ok fair enough. I really don't care how many american supported the war, the numbers were crunched along time ago, over half the populaiton were against Iraq, yes thats right over half, and the other half were completely traumatised but 9/11, and there scare mongering media telling them Saddam had hundreds of WMDS and a button on front of him ready to push at any second and obliterate you, the people were lied to consistently every minute of everyday, and still the majority of the populaiton opposed.
"As for the rest, I believe and I think Ive proved that AT THE TIME we went into Iraq the majority of the world "
Are you fucking serious? Where exactly did you porve this id very much like to know, has someone else been reply to you under this name and avatar, cause anyone that reads this can plainly tell whose actually making any sense here.
I especially like the way you threw in "the majority of the world", i mean im prepared to admit that many american were indoctrinated to beleive the war would be a good thing but how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the world supported you, even the very few countries where you did have some support i.e. the UK, Australia etc.
Witnessed the biggest protests in decades, i million people marched through London to oppose Britain ebtering the war.
" I say " most importantly the US because we felt as if OUR way of living and lives were at stake."
Really you think Saddam had the capacity to destroy you and your way of life? My God woman get a grip.
" Whether it ended up being illegal is irrelevant "
No actually thats not quite true, normally when one coutnry invade another and slaughters 1.2 million people the people responsible for that are brought to bare for their crimes against humanity, its another one of those things american claims to be in favour of you know democracy, fairness, etc. etc. but in reality they do the opposite.
"personally I don't think The US OR ANYONE ELS has ultimate say over whether it was illegal or not"
So basically what your saying is nothing is true and nothing is false, nothing is illegal, the law doesn't exist, i can kill someone tommorrow cause i don't like his face and nobody can say whether that illegal or not? If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion thats where you end up, can you not see how ridiculous that psoition is?
" it is a matter of opinion"
So if Russia and China decide its perfectly legal to launch thousands of nukes at the US even though they've signed up to legally binding documents-(like the US has which they violated when they invaded Iraq, and which China and Russia couild violate if they so wished, just like you did to invade Iraq) saying they wouldn't would that still be a matter of opinion? would it still be a matter of opinion of 1.2 million american people were killed? Or would you then try to say what Russia and China did was illegal? Im sure there'd be plenty if Russian's land Chinese people who have been effectively indoctrinated who would claim otherwise, maybe they'd cite past US agression against them, but they would be wrong just like you are wrong, and im sure they wouldn't be big nough to admit it just like your not big enough to admit it.
You started off by saying it wasn't illegal at all now your claiming nothing is illegal cause you don't want to admit that killing 1.2million people was a bad thing, well i can tell you if you saw the destruction you unleashed on that country, if you saw the eyes of your victims your ignorance would immediately be washed awawya nd your heart would be filled with regret.
" I could say the same for you garry"
Exactly what evidence have you put on front of my face, i mean i don't cling to my beleifs if ive been proved wrong because i have been proved wrong many times, but unlike you im capable of admitting when my oponent can piont out exactly why im wrong. you psoted a wikipedia page that proved you wrong conclusively, when everyone in the world invluding people in your own government say something is illegal based on international law don't you think it might be prudent to take their word for it?
" We are never going to resolve this "
I know were not cause your incapable of admitting your wrong, you don't want to deal witht he harsh truth of what your coutnry did to another, i can tell you that has sowned the seeds of hatred for decades to come, and even though you and people,like you may hjave selective memories the people you hurt certainly don't.
"and the more you insult me the less I want to debate this with you so lets call this one a draw and move on."
A draw, a fucking draw, again you amaze me, fair enough if your delluded enough to think this is a draw im not goin to try any longer to piont out your delusion, , you started off by claiming the Iraq war was legal, do you not realise that nobody would try to claim that expect some person like you on a debate site, the Iraq war is going down in the history books as an illegal agressive imperialisic invasion launched by the US to enforce US hegemony in the ME, and it doesn't matter how many crazed neo-cons like you think otherwise, i think the families of the victims of that war would disagree with you on this one.
You cannot see the difference between truth and lies, you think im insulting you but in reality im just pointing out what ive observed.
No offence, but that's really old now. Can't the U.S just accept that people died and get on with life?
Nearly all great powers in the World have been hit by terrorists and only the U.S reminds that rest of the world, 10 years later, that they were hit by a couple of planes. I swear this whole "10 year anniversary" stunt if to boost tourism in New York.
I still regret what happened and acknoledge that many thousands of people died, but it's time to move on now.
It can't be time to move on. Why do you think we remember the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, the Assassinations of Kennedy or MLKJ? We remember them to make sure they never happen again. If we start to "forget" about 9/11, then we as a nation and as a world will be more likely to commit or be victimized by the unspeakable.
I was 49, and on my way to work in Midtown Manhattan when it happened. I was crossing the Brooklyn Bridge when I saw the explosion of the first tower. Traffic stopped quickly and, shortly thereafter I watched the airplane heading towards and crashing into the second tower. It was awful. And I can't imagine that anybody who was over 6 or 7 years old at the time could ever forget.
"We remember them to make sure they never happen again."
Really you conveniently forgot the movement againt the vietnam war when you decided to let your country invade Iraq?
"If we start to "forget" about 9/11, then we as a nation and as a world will be more likely to commit or be victimized by the unspeakable. "
Im sorry but this view is just covered with subjective bias, very few american can say what crimes there coutnry has commited against the world even though they are infinitely more frequent than those against amerian and orders of magnitude worlse in there destruction of peoples live, causing deaths, destroying the environment etc. etc.
"It can't be time to move on. Why do you think we remember the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, the Assassinations of Kennedy or MLKJ? We remember them to make sure they never happen again. If we start to "forget" about 9/11, then we as a nation and as a world will be more likely to commit or be victimized by the unspeakable"
Let's put it into context for a bit, if Britian had been hit by a terrorist attack the U.S would not be giving the media coverage of it like Britain has done today. In fact I'ld go to say that americans would be the ones telling us to shut up and move on. And because of the U.S's attitude to the rest of the world, I feel obliged to make statements like that, if it was any other country I'ld have the same level of sympathy as many people today.
I noticed how you haven't including the nuking of 2 entire Japanese towns in your list of horrific events, but thought the murder of 1 american guy was comparable to the destruction of two entire towers filled with people.
You're right. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrifying as well, and it's true that the world, particularly the U.S, doesn't pay enough attention to the bombings. Though to be fair, the killing of a president and the leader of the civil rights movement and world peace aren't the killings of "1 American guy". Those were two pretty damned important Americans.
We have accepted and we have moved on remembering is hardly evil, and if you look at the number of attacks and the number of casualties the USA has by far the worst with I believe less than ten attacks and thousands of casualties far more than these other great powers.
Why is this question being asked? Why? Really? Why...
Here's a better question, for all the Jewish people whom read it.
The Holocaust: Are you starting to forget? No? Yes?
The point is that some people will say yes and others will say no, both to that question and this debate question. What matters is what the event means to you. If you've forgotten, and it means nothing, good for you! If you haven't forgotten, and it means something, good for you to!
There is no point otherwise to this... people die all the time. People are born all the time to. People love and people hate. People make and people destroy.
It's all in the past.
Whether it means anything to you or not, that's just the truth. The past, in a sense, is always forgotten, and yet never forgotten.
What's really important is right now. This moment. The moment that over 100 billion dead humans will never get to experience.
That's the only thing I'm worried about people forgetting.
Of course not. :) You still see it on tv and i bet it would still be on tv forever on every 9/11 date. Why? It seems illogical for someone to forget something that huge. A lot of people died.
I don't think it is best to forget because history repeat itself. It is best to consider to what went wrong on 9/11. Definetely we need better security.
Me? When i think about 9/11 a lot, i do get sad. Some parts of me want to forget, some parts don't.
Overall, who's dead is dead. We can't change that. All we can do is learn and reinforce.
It's far from too soon to forget. Rather or not people agree with all the attention/ lack of attention being given to the day, ask anyone, they will remember where they were at the time.
More Americans are murdered by Americans every year... like 50 times as many. Time to stop using it as a political wedge issue. Either that or start a vague war on Americans and run ads about how scarry your neighbor is.
no we are not. i'm sure that we'll never forget our fds our beloved. but life must go on. we cannot let sorrow bury us. we shall never forget, but we should live our lives beautifully live for those who sacrificed
