RIP: They ALSO died in Iraq

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Last i cecked we do not tourture our own civilions, if we do it to an enemy to prevent more casualtys so be it.

So, a perceived insurgant to one ruler's power, then torture is bad. But a perceived insurgant to our power is morally just?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I hope you aren't suggesting what he said isn't true.  The Bin Laden family was worth billions of dollars, with Osama inheriteding about $250 million.  They were the primary construction company responsible for the great majority of the oil industry infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. 

 

Since the US cut off funding for the Afgan insurgency and Bin Laden declared war on the US and Saudi Arabia, Osama has created multi-front companies that make him a huge amount of money.  Conservative estimates put his worth in the billion dollar range.

I don't think he's suggest that it's not true. It's common knowledge that the bin Ladens are really rich.

 

However, a lot of the funding for weapons and training in guerrilla warfare was given by the CIA in our proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan.

[IlliniBob72]

IlliniBob, there's a difference between a car and DEADLY CHEMICAL WEAPONS.  I didn't know that lying blood soaked murderers had apologists.

 

As for the torture, the torture devices being exported are by US corporations but the ban on sales can be enforced by Bush.  He has chosen not to enforce it and allow the sale of leg irons.

 

As for torture that the US is committing, we have been bringing suspects to Pakistan and other countries where torture is allowed.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/World/G...eQuestions.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,909164,00.html

You avoided my main point and decided to latch onto a throw away sentence at the end. Typical. Right out of a debate handbook.

 

I'm not a murderer's apologist. I'm saying that if the U.S. gives a guy weapons to fight a common enemy, they can't be held liable for the fact they are put to other uses. If I give you an attack dog to protect your home and you use it to attack neighborhood children, that's not my fault. But no, focus on the analogy and not the point being made.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

You avoided my main point and decided to latch onto a throw away sentence at the end. Typical. Right out of a debate handbook.

 

I'm not a murderer's apologist. I'm saying that if the U.S. gives a guy weapons to fight a common enemy, they can't be held liable for the fact they are put to other uses. If I give you an attack dog to protect your home and you use it to attack neighborhood children, that's not my fault. But no, focus on the analogy and not the point being made.

I am focusing on the analogy. The fact remains, they knew that he was a lying murderer (I'm sure you know that the CIA helped him murder thousands of Communist insurgants so he could take power in Iraq) So, giving weapons to a guy we already know will murder people at the drop of a hat is good foreign policy?

 

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html We knew Saddam was all about murdering and doing whatever it took to keep power...and we continued to supply him with weapons.

 

And please, tell me how the Iraqi torture of people trying to harm Saddam's regime is more morally corrupt than the US torturing people it believes to be overthrowing their power. I'd really like to hear this one.

[mreye]

They could have made a better case than lying out their ass with plagiarized reports, outright lies citing UN reports that don't exist etc. then.  Even the most conservative person can agree with that.

Everybody in the world thought he had WMD. That was not disputed. Even Germany and France didn't argue about that or the validity of the intel.

[IlliniBob72]

The fact remains, they knew that he was a lying murderer (I'm sure you know that the CIA helped him murder thousands of Communist insurgants so he could take power in Iraq) So, giving weapons to a guy we already know will murder people at the drop of a hat is good foreign policy?

 

Wow, if not for the mention of Iraq, I wouldn't know if you meant Hussein or Stalin. The United States will support whomever is in it's best interests, whether it be Stalin or Hussein. Concerning Iraq, you are considering this in a vacuum. The major concern of the time was the spread of fundamentalist Islam. Iraq, being a secular government, was supported as a bulwark against the spread of fundamentalist Islam. Not to mention the fact that Iran had just held 40-some U.S. hostages. The support of Iraq is understandable as the best of two bad options.

 

And please, tell me how the Iraqi torture of people trying to harm Saddam's regime is more morally corrupt than the US torturing people it believes to be overthrowing their power. I'd really like to hear this one.

 

I've never made this argument. Ask someone else.

[israel4ever]

IlliniBob, there's a difference between a car and DEADLY CHEMICAL WEAPONS.  I didn't know that lying blood soaked murderers had apologists.

 

As for the torture, the torture devices being exported are by US corporations but the ban on sales can be enforced by Bush.  He has chosen not to enforce it and allow the sale of leg irons.

 

As for torture that the US is committing, we have been bringing suspects to Pakistan and other countries where torture is allowed.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/World/G...eQuestions.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,909164,00.html

"I didn't know that lying blood soaked murderers had apologists"???

 

This sentence, coming from Apu, is such a crock of s*** it's almost laughable!

 

Apu defends Yasser Arafat, the PA and radical Islamists every chance he gets. He calls their terrorist acts "heroic", and routinely blames the (innocent) victims thereof for the terrorist acts.

 

Un-f***ing-believable!!!

 

:headshake

[LowerCaseRepublican]

"I didn't know that lying blood soaked murderers had apologists"???

 

This sentence, coming from Apu, is such a crock of s*** it's almost laughable!

 

Apu defends Yasser Arafat, the PA and radical Islamists every chance he gets. He calls their terrorist acts "heroic", and routinely blames the (innocent) victims thereof for the terrorist acts.

 

Un-f***ing-believable!!!

 

:headshake

I've said before I don't condone Arafat and think he sucks...but I understand the reasoning behind a random guy getting pissed enough to wanna do something to attack a group that's harmed them the way the Israeli "Defense" Force has.

[munkey51]

Being one sided on these topics gets you no where! now i dont know everything about sadaam or osama, but i do try and read all the posts about them and learn from them. with that said APU after we acknowledge the fact that we f***ed up in aiding sadaam what would happen then? it makes no difference, weather or not we apologize, the fact is somthing needed to be done NOW! what would you suggest as an alternative to going to war with iraq, SIT AND HAVE A TEA PARTY AND TALK THE PROBLEMS OVER?!?!?!? GET THE f*** OUTTA HERE!!! you cant have a war with out innocent people dying its not possible, s*** happens, yeah there might have been a better way to go about it but its too late now, you cant bring those dead people back!

[IlliniBob72]

Being one sided on these topics gets you no where!  now i dont know everything about sadaam or osama, but i do try and read all the posts about them and learn from them.  with that said APU after we acknowledge the fact that we f***ed up in aiding sadaam what would happen then?  it makes no difference, weather or not we apologize, the fact is somthing needed to be done NOW!  what would you suggest as an alternative to going to war with iraq, SIT AND HAVE A TEA PARTY AND TALK THE PROBLEMS OVER?!?!?!? GET THE f*** OUTTA HERE!!! you cant have a war with out innocent people dying its not possible, s*** happens, yeah there might have been a better way to go about it but its too late now, you cant bring those dead people back!

I asked Apu that question once before. He said he would offer a great big apology, cut the U.S. defense budget to 1% of it's current level and give the other 99% to anyone who has been treated unfairly by the United States. So, an "I'm sorry" and a cash payment to what I'm sure would turn out to be every citizen of a third world country.

 

That is what I find frustrating. Nothing but complaints and no solutions that are remotely feasible.

[IlliniBob72]

As for what I'd do, I believe exactly what former State Department member William Blum has said on the subject:

"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

 

Actually, above is a direct quote to my question. I was wrong when I said 99%. It's actually 90%, but the gist is still the same.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I asked Apu that question once before. He said he would offer a great big apology, cut the U.S. defense budget to 1% of it's current level and give the other 99% to anyone who has been treated unfairly by the United States. So, an "I'm sorry" and a cash payment to what I'm sure would turn out to be every citizen of a third world country.

 

That is what I find frustrating. Nothing but complaints and no solutions that are remotely feasible.

Even if you lower the Pentagon budget by 15%, you could pay for all sorts of social welfare programs, Head Start, etc. That still gives us billions of dollars for "defense" and increases adequate funding for social programs.

[kapkomet]

I have never understood why the government has to be our provider for everything. Please explain why the government has to be our proiders for health care, education, etc. etc. etc. I understand that there's corruption and such in private business, but why do we have to have everything spoon fed to us? Some government programs are inevitable, sure. But retirement, health care, etc is a God-given right? Bull ****.

 

Don't get me wrong, I wish that people could have all these things but for (most) Dems out there, they expect the government to take care of us. And they sit on their asses waiting for handouts, and when they don't come, they blame Republican whackoffs who pocket all the money from their business interests.

 

So back to the original point, why should the GOVERNMENT give all this money to third world countries, give out money to all the social programs, etc.?

[israel4ever]

I've said before I don't condone Arafat and think he sucks...but I understand the reasoning behind a random guy getting pissed enough to wanna do something to attack a group that's harmed them the way the Israeli "Defense" Force has.

Very convenient excuse, Apu.

 

Nobody ( and I do mean NOBODY) has harmed the "Palestinians" more than their "leaders" and their Arab neighbors.

 

Remember in 1967, when they were told, "get out of the way, we're going to take out Israel, and the land will be yours'". D'oh!!! Now, they're "homeless".

 

Then they try to live in (Trans)Jordan, their original (actual) homeland, where they can exist in peace amongst their Arab "brethren"...then comes Black Sunday...10,000+ "Palis" slaughtered by the Jordanians. Ouch!

 

Then what do the "poor Palestinians" do? They try to go back into the areas of Israel that they once lived in, (in ISRAEL!) and use them as a base from which we can murder innocent civilians until the Jews leave the land.

 

In the meantime, Arafat will force "his" people to live in abject poverty, all the while convincing them that the Jews are doing it to them. He will brainwash them as children and will air anti-Israel/anti-Jew programming on his "state" run media outlets. He will make "his" people feel that they have no alternative but to destroy the Jewish State. He preaches "Palestine - From the River to the Sea". He later calls for "a million martyrs to attack Jerusalem".

 

I guess it's easy to see how it's all Israel's fault, right Apu?

 

:headshake

[mreye]

Apu, cwsox - Hindsight is a wonderful thing. You can criticize the Reagan Administration for aiding Saddam and Bin Laden more than 20 years ago. Congratulations! The thing is, as we now know, it was a mistake. So, the question is: Do we sit back and cry about it or should we learn from our mistake and try to correct it? I say we correct it.

 

About this war...I believe in my heart that it is a just action. I can only hope that Bush did it for the right reasons. He says he did. Only he knows. I support this war on principle reasons, not political. I supported it when Clinton bombed Iraq (though I questioned the timing with his Grand Jury testimony). All people deserve freedom. It is my belief that our freedom, our liberty, our country was given to us by God, and given to us for a reason. That reason was to spread his word - LOVE. Saddam did not "love" his citizens. I feel it was our duty, under God, to right his wrongs. Yes, innocent people died and continue to die, but less will be tortured, oppressed and killed in the long run because of what we have done. Yes, there are other dictators that are committing injustices around the world, and as far as I'm concerned, they're on the list and I'll support any President that calls them to the mat with or without the UN.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Actually, above is a direct quote to my question. I was wrong when I said 99%. It's actually 90%, but the gist is still the same.

Attached is a feasible plan, just for you IlliniBob

 

First thing's first. Take the money we give to the Star Wars program (sorry, a global missile defense shield wouldn't have stopped the box cutter on 9/11), take the money from Plan Colombia, take the money from the military aid to right wing thug Ariel Sharon (and don't get your knickers in a twist I4E, economic experts say they can get the same amount of money if Israel raised its income tax on their own population 5% a year)...take that money and invest it in foreign aid.

 

Right now, we spend .01% on foreign aid and the American public, when polled, believes we spend too much on foreign aid. Take this money and use it to rebuild the infrastructure of Afghanistan, Iraq...After our proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan through the 1980s, our leaving the Afghans on their own in their war torn land is known throughout the mid-East as "The Great Betrayal". Take all that money and create a new Marshall Plan-like idea for those countries and the war torn, economically dire old Soviet republics.

 

In a lot of these countries, there are still multitudes of old Cold War era weapons that we gave the Moujhadeen and other groups to use during the proxy war with Russia etc. They have open air markets in many of the old Soviet republics where they are desperately starting to sell the weapons to damn near anybody so they can get some food because they are starving. Why not take some of the money from the military budget (there's more than enough to cut) and buy up these weapons en masse and destroy them? We neutralize that threat and these people get fed.

 

Not only that, but rebuild the school systems and the such in the Mid East. The reason that Wahabbi fundamentalist Islam is spreading so fast is because of madrasas. These are the schools that teach it. They are springing up faster than Starbucks because so many countries have sacrificed their school systems in order to pay for their military (and in some cases IMF/World Bank loans) These schools are nicely built and feed the kids warm food compared to the public schools with missing windows, no food etc. In the school, the kids gets inundated with Wahabbi sect fundamentalism and whammo...instant right wing religio-nut is created. Let's take foreign aid money and fund their schools so parents won't be forced to send their children to madrasas.

 

Take the leftover money...go to airline security in the United States. Let's create planes like El Al Airlines has as the industry standard. They have numerous protections in their airline that put American Airlines etc. to shame. In line they have trained experts look through luggage and they know exactly what to look for and where. This beats the random guy from the Jiffy Lube looking through your stuff and getting paid s***ty wages and isn't that well trained. (This whole trained experts thing paid well by the government is done in a lot of European countries so it has been done before) A bill having this sort of thing was introduced and shot down by House Republicans and condemned by Bush because it would eat into corporate profits. Don't give pilots guns. Instead, follow El Al's lead and put a plain clothed armed specialist who has been trained in breaking up hijackings on an airplane. Even the airplanes they have are f***ing amazing. They are so reinforced that if an altitude triggered bomb went off, the plane might not go down. They also have reinforced bulletproof doors to the cockpit so it's damn near impossible for people in the cabin to get into the cockpit and take control of the plane.

 

Also on the home front, cut the Pentagon budget 15% (still more than enough money for military programs etc.) and use that to create ourselves health care and adequately fund the NCLB, Head Start etc.

[Texsox]

I have never understood why the government has to be our provider for everything.  Please explain why the government has to be our proiders for health care, education, etc. etc. etc.  I understand that there's corruption and such in private business, but why do we have to have everything spoon fed to us?  Some government programs are inevitable, sure.  But retirement, health care, etc is a God-given right?  Bull ****.

 

Don't get me wrong, I wish that people could have all these things but for (most) Dems out there, they expect the government to take care of us.  And they sit on their asses waiting for handouts, and when they don't come, they blame Republican whackoffs who pocket all the money from their business interests.

 

So back to the original point, why should the GOVERNMENT give all this money to third world countries, give out money to all the social programs, etc.?

IMHO the #1 reason we give financial aid to foreign countries is to buy our friends. We can control countries when we are giving them millions and millions of dollars.

 

We also are helping ourselves. Look at your local supermarket in January. See all the fresh fruits and vegetables? Those are grown far away. When we build better sewage and water treatment facilites we are helping those people who grow our foods to keep better sanitation. I do not want people squatting to take a crap next to my strawberries.

 

We also help other countries because as Americans we are basically good at heart.

 

I could go on. And by the way, we are not even close to being the most generous country

 

 

Map & Graph: Economy: Top 100 Economic aid - donor (per capita)

Scroll down for more information Show map full screen

 

Country Description Amount

1. Luxembourg $356.69 per person

2. Norway $309.38 per person

3. Denmark $303.6 per person

4. Netherlands $217.83 per person

5. Sweden $191.51 per person

6. Switzerland $150.64 per person

7. France $105.41 per person

8. United Kingdom $75.28 per person

9. Belgium $74.36 per person

10. Finland $73.12 per person

11. Ireland $72.88 per person

12. Japan $71.67 per person

13. Germany $67.27 per person

14. Austria $50.18 per person

15. Australia $45.74 per person

16. Canada $40.75 per person

17. Spain $33.19 per person

18. Portugal $26.87 per person

19. New Zealand $25.51 per person

20. United States $24.59 per person

21. Italy $17.33 per person

 

The above is from the 2002 CIA World Factbook.

[mreye]

I could go on. And by the way, we are not even close to being the most generous country

 

 

Map & Graph: Economy: Top 100 Economic aid - donor (per capita)

Scroll down for more information  Show map full screen

 

Country  Description  Amount

1. Luxembourg $356.69 per person

2. Norway $309.38 per person

3. Denmark $303.6 per person

4. Netherlands $217.83 per person

5. Sweden $191.51 per person

6. Switzerland $150.64 per person

7. France $105.41 per person

8. United Kingdom $75.28 per person

9. Belgium $74.36 per person

10. Finland $73.12 per person

11. Ireland $72.88 per person

12. Japan $71.67 per person

13. Germany $67.27 per person

14. Austria $50.18 per person

15. Australia $45.74 per person

16. Canada $40.75 per person

17. Spain $33.19 per person

18. Portugal $26.87 per person

19. New Zealand $25.51 per person

20. United States $24.59 per person

21. Italy $17.33 per person

 

The above is from the 2002 CIA World Factbook.

I would bet that if you added personal donations to that list, the US would be a lot higher up.

[Texsox]

I would bet that if you added personal donations to that list, the US would be a lot higher up.

The list is just foreign aid, not internal charities. And actually I would think the gap would widen. With the countries being so close together in Europe giving to a neighbor wuld seem more likely.

 

I've also seen lists, but can not find it, that considering all charitable gifts, we are behind most other countries. We do rank better at donating time.

 

Sociologists point to our "keeping up with the Joneses" and "throw away" mentality for spending more on ourselves than we do others.