Ahmadinejad at Columbia University

War, state sponsored terrorism.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
I wonder if anybody can help me out with the truth of this; has war been officially declared by anybody towards anybody in the Iraq conflict? I heard in conversation that there's been no official declaration from the U.S. side because Congress is reluctant to put that much power into the hands of the President as Commander-in-Chief. I don't know where to go to verify this, but I certainly can't remember any headlines reflecting an official declaration.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
So why is the Arab response different when the USA drops a smart bomb on a suspected terrorist hideout, killing the target but also 4 innocents versus a bomber in the market blowing up a hundred innocents? The US is an indescriminate murderer, while the bomber is a martyr. Sounds like a pretty big difference between war and terrorism to me, although not the difference I'd expect.

@magerette- We're there under UN sanction (although that's gotten lost in the furor over "Bush's war"). Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since there's no recognized government to declare war against.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
Thanks, dte. That makes sense. The conversation in question was full of shaky facts and now that I've have been taught to verify statements by my lessons here in international debate, I find it carries over and I don't believe anybody anymore ;)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
I should clarify, since we're all striving to be accurate here--we have formally recognized the new government of Iraq. The "no government" I was referring to was terrorists in general, such as al-Qaida.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
what about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during ww2? I'm not 100% sure about the numbers, but atleast 140000 dead In Hiroshima and 80000 in Nagasaki. And thats doesn't include what damage radiation did to civilians afterwards. Objective was only to kill as many japs as possible.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,468
exactly, if those bombings weren't the zenith of terrorism then the world truly is flat.

actually dte you may want to check your facts. the us was not authorized to use force when they went into iraq. timing was everything apparently (unlike you know letting bin laden have plenty of time to escape) and the us refused to wait for more inspections for the non existence weapons of mass destructions that they conjured up...so they went in. it was only later i believe and with the fact that the un has become a laughable puppet of the us in many cases, that some resolutions were passed that washed our hands so to speak. if that's authorization for attacking iraq than i hearby authorize you to shoot me in the face.
 
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
812
Location
standing under everyone
Can't deny the facts of Truman's choice, but I think you'll find that nobody did "nice wars" back in the WW2 days. It was flat earth for both sides, and damn the innocents (see bombing of London, see bombing of many German cities).

Saddam refused to give complete access to the UN inspectors authorized to look for a variety of sins, not just WMD's. While Europe wrung its hands and shook its finger, the US took an aggressive posture, forcing Saddam's hand. While I would disagree with a few points, I think this Wikipedia is a reasonably accurate timeline. France openly refused to give any teeth to the resolution, which put the entire process on the skids.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
So why is the Arab response different when the USA drops a smart bomb on a suspected terrorist hideout, killing the target but also 4 innocents versus a bomber in the market blowing up a hundred innocents? The US is an indiscriminate murderer, while the bomber is a martyr.
There's no defending killing innocent people who aren't involved in the fighting, but we can try our best to understand how it’s happening. In fact, I'd suggest this stuff is especially important to understand correctly.

The US military’s strategy is to try to avoid killing innocent people. That should be obvious, because it’s the reason the war has become so difficult. It’s equally obvious that they keep failing at that – not completely or anything even close to it. It’s occasional failure. But how many innocent deaths are acceptable?

Of course, terrorists base themselves around hospitals, schools and residential areas; because it’s their strategy to manipulate US public opinion into thinking its military forces are terrorists too.

It’s convenient to bolster anti-war sentiment with casual judgments and sweeping statements about this whole mess being equally to blame and equally wrong. But characterizing US forces as indiscriminate murderers is outrageous.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
It’s convenient to bolster anti-war sentiment with casual judgments and sweeping statements about this whole mess being equally to blame and equally wrong. But characterizing US forces as indiscriminate murderers is outrageous.
I agree completely, but somehow the Arab world (and many others, to a lesser extent) has bought into the spin doctoring. It's hypocrisy thru and thru, but they're still celebrating the martyrs.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
dte, put yourself in a pair of Arab shoes or imagine that some chinese military forces armed to the teeth landing on your backyard to "secure their oil". There are always individuals in any collective group, even in armies engaging in wars. You can't see the forest for its trees...then there are those "trees" in Abu Ghraib prison. Everyone hates wars except those profiteers and warmongers.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
That seems convenient. So people who disagree with your point of view are either profiteers or warmongers?
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
You know what, Squeek, I don't often make blanket statement like this. However, I challenge you to find one figure in history who enjoyed wars and yet not a profiteer or warmonger. Then my statement would fall by itself. It's "convenient" to alter my standpoint in stead of addressing my statement. I don't think you dare say you "like" wars unless...
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
I think that there are also those who consider that wars are occasionally a necessary evil, but wouldn't necessary say they 'like' them. Which is probably most people.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,936
Man is a violent and jealous critter by nature, so it's only natural that the occasional war is going to break out. As Mike says, you don't have to "like" them to accept them.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
I don't care if Dubya and Ahmadinejad/Osama duke it out in the ring mano-y-mano. The problem is why drag all these people into wars. Violent indicates fearful, jealous means insecure. Above all, we are selfish...But on both side of the war, self scrifice is esteemed. Something happens in between to alter human nature in war.

here is a quote from Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials after WWII:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

I might add it works the same in any time.
Check this out http://foxattacks.com/blog/10777-fox-attacks-iran?play=1
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
I really don't mean to be clever, but now you seem to be saying people who don't hate war must like it. We can all see which is better, so that puts you on the moral high ground. That's convenient.

My honest opinion is that I probably hate war more than you. It's just that I also hate terrorism more than you, and that's even worse. Your willingness to rationalize terrorism sounds like something other than peace-loving to me. And doing it in the context of anti-war rhetoric seems like a contradiction.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
Yep, I don't think I can be indifferent about war. And if someone dare to do that in my backyard, you bet my guns will do the talking. Call it whatever you want. Ask yourself this question, "is this war reducing terrorism or multiplying it?" Terrorism is a strategy.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
Yep, I don't think I can be indifferent about war. And if someone dare to do that in my backyard, you bet my guns will do the talking. Call it whatever you want.

And I think the 'in my backyard' part makes a difference ... there is an easy distinction between the bombing of Pearl Harbor, driving invaders back from Korea / Kuwait, and destabilizing a region due to potential WMD's.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,936
Mike, I no longer look at official "history" at face value now. Before 9/11, intelligence raised all the red lights and warnnings enough to have prevented it from happening. But we found no evident of Elkaida or WMD in Iraq when actions were taken that costed trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
Back
Top Bottom