13-02-2004 06:38									#61
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc If he's lying about anything his credibility in total is called into question and I fail to see how you can only rely on part of the report in that case.

True dat, but his claim that they haven't found any weapons has been verified by the fact they haven't found any wepaons.

	13-02-2004 07:07									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc You say that as if it didn't have that right already and hasn't exercised it in the past. Serbia?

If the US claims the right to wage aggressive wars then all I can say is "go terrorists" since that's what they do.

Kosovo was different, no one really disapproved of it that much.

	13-02-2004 07:11									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Kosovo was different, no one really disapproved of it that much.

The Serbs sure did.

	13-02-2004 08:22									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor The Serbs sure did.

Because they were actively engaged in killing people. Same goes for Rwanda which also justified intervention.

Saddam Hussein's atrocities were ancient history and most were committed either while he was an ally of the US or when the Coalition failed to protect the rebellion George Bush had incited in 1991.

	13-02-2004 08:28									#65
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Because they were actively engaged in killing people.

what another dumbass ignorant statement... go educate yourself about Kosovo... how come the UN human rights people concluded the only "mass grave" held 7 bodies??? OH BUT WAIT THERE WAS GENOCIDE OKMFGOMFGOMFGOMFGOMFGOM

if the bullshit figures the Western media was saying the Serbs had killed was true, there wouldn't be anyone living in Kosovo anymore...

the fact is, the Serbs were doing the same thing Israel does... the Serbs were fighting AL QAEDA SUPPORTED KLA (albanian shitheads)... the KLA was targetting civilians and the Serbs responded... but NATO bombs Serbia to spite Russia, and then we give unconditional support to Israel. ****ing bullshit... all of it...

**** Clinton

and **** any moron who says "blahblah blah genocide blah blah..." you don't know what the **** you are talking about...

	13-02-2004 08:30									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

At least I am consistent. I opposed the Kosovo wars just as I opposed the Iraq war. If you supported the first one for humanitarian reasons, I don't understand why you'd oppose the second one.

	14-02-2004 07:57									#67
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Agathon If the US claims the right to wage aggressive wars then all I can say is "go terrorists" since that's what they do. Kosovo was different, no one really disapproved of it that much.

Agathon, just for our benefit, please define "aggressive wars."

I believe the term is used in the Geneva Convention, is it not? It is also used to describe the crimes the NAZI leadership was found guilty of committing, IIRC.

	14-02-2004 08:08									#68
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, the nazi declared unprovoked wars to their neighbours, just ike he US did on Iraq, so I don't exactly see why you are drawing a parallel here, Ned.

An agressive war is basically any war that you join without you of an ally being attacked fist. Every war has hence at least an agressor.

	14-02-2004 08:10									#69
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Kosovo was different,

Not in anyway that matters much. But feel free to enlighten me how selectively you apply your principles.

	14-02-2004 08:13									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: If you supported the first one for humanitarian reasons, I don't understand why you'd oppose the second one.

Indeed .

	14-02-2004 08:19									#71
	Increase the size of your Attachments

See thats the whole problem of a "pre-emptive war", whatever the purpose. They should be illegal, whatever the cause, whatever the justification.

This war was conceived and justified on the argument that we could look ahead to see a potential danger, a potential attack and that we were taking action to prempt that. This episode has proven that it is impossible to look ahead with certainty. The very first voyage of this new American theory on war has been shown to be a utter failure and disaster.

In our pride we thought American power and justness was infallible. We (or more accurately those who supported this war) were wrong.

Like the Titanic that sought to conquer nature was tragically humbled. So too the neo-cons attempt to conquer 230 years of American precident of morality and restraint at war has been tragically defeated. Let us just pray they feel humbled.

	14-02-2004 08:22									#72
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I only hope whoever wins the upcoming elections will drop that pre-emptive strike doctrine - it's very dangerous and only hurts the American reputation.

	14-02-2004 08:24									#73
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: So too the neo-cons attempt to conquer 230 years of American precident of morality and restraint at war has been tragically defeated.

Restraint at war?! Tell that to the Native Americans.

	14-02-2004 08:31									#74
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP Like the Titanic that sought to conquer nature was tragically humbled. So too the neo-cons attempt to conquer 230 years of American precident of morality and restraint at war has been tragically defeated. Let us just pray they feel humbled.

I wouldn't call the manifest destiny "morality and restraint" personally. The US did have some noble moments when it came to military engagement, but it also has a long history of arrogance and self-righteousness Bush merely continued.

	14-02-2004 08:35									#75
	Increase Your PM Length

Well that was different and more a factor of racism. The US didn't consider the native americans to be equal nations, but rather savages on "our" land. So I wouldn't so much consider those wars as massacres and genocide and other less pleasant terms.

But yea, there are some significant blemishes on our history.

	14-02-2004 08:36									#76
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: The US didn't consider the native americans to be equal nations, but rather savages on "our" land.

That was different... we are still 'restrain[ed] at war'.

That's a laugh.

	14-02-2004 08:54									#77
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Well, the nazi declared unprovoked wars to their neighbours, just ike he US did on Iraq, so I don't exactly see why you are drawing a parallel here, Ned. An agressive war is basically any war that you join without you of an ally being attacked fist. Every war has hence at least an agressor.

So.

Party A wages war against party B, wins and takes lands from party B and gives it to Party C.

Party B demands the restoration of the stolen lands from Party C. Party C is willing to negotiate, but

Party A intervenes and calls off negotiations.

Party B then takes military action to return the stolen land.

Part B, then loses the subsequent war. It leaders are tried and executed for planning and "aggressive" war.

Moreover, later historians (Spiffor) declare the war "unprovoked."

The question, I believe, is whether the war was necessary to redress a wrong or to prevent a wrong from happening.

Given the above, Hitler might actually have had a better case than Bush.

	14-02-2004 08:57									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

In your example, Party B, whomever that may be, is indeed the agressor. It started a war for no other reason than territorial expansion

	14-02-2004 13:30									#79
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Gatekeeper, what do you make of this: "Dr. Kay, the former chief C.I.A. weapons inspector, has said that his team learned that no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons — but that all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had them. He said it appeared that the Iraqi officers were the victims of a disinformation campaign by Mr. Hussein. " http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/p...pagewanted=2&th

It sounds like internal Iraqi politics to me — politics that got picked up by our intelligence services, brought to the attention of U.S. officials and, well, from there the rest is history, so to speak.

It's well-known that Saddam, especially after his 1990-91 invasion of Kuwait (and subsequent butt-kicking), hardly trusted anyone outside of his immediate family, so likely this was an attempt on his part to keep any internal enemies at bay, sort of like the same thing he was doing on the international scene.

Our intelligence services couldn't see past the deception, either, so they reported the info back to U.S. officials. But even with this false info in hand, our intelligence services apparently didn't paint a dire enough picture for the likes of Rumsfeld, who went on to establish his OSP w/i the Pentagon, an office, as I've said earlier, that proceeded to provide him with intelligence data more to his liking.

What would have Rumsfeld, et al., done had they had correct info all along, instead of incorrect info? The incorrect info — which showed Saddam with apparent WMDs, yet wasn't enough to deem him a severe enough threat to the U.S. itself — caused Rumsfeld to establish the OSP. What would he have done to justify invading Iraq if he'd had the correct info — showing little to *no* WMDs — all along?

Gatekeeper

	14-02-2004 13:38									#80
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by debeest Kudos to Gatekeeper, who shows a US flag and a stealth fighter with every post, for acknowledging that our government lied to us and the invasion was wrong. Those of us who feel as if that was obvious long before the invasion still need to salute anyone who will admit he was wrong. There are darned few who will.

Hmm. That seems to be a bit of a simplification of how I feel on the issue, but I'll take your kudos and run with 'em anyway.

As for the U.S. flag, it's displayed because that's where I live (for better or for worse), and not all flag-waving Americans are single-minded idjits. The stealth fighter is a Civ thing, more than anything else, but I suppose it could be implied as a symbol of U.S. military might. After all, our air force has played a big role in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gatekeeper

	14-02-2004 16:59									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned Given the above, Hitler might actually have had a better case than Bush.

Did Party B not attack first in this case?

	14-02-2004 19:35									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Party B was obviously Nazi Germany. They had a good case, IMO, for going to war as their objective, the return of stolen lands, was arguably "just." In a way, Stalin was doing the exact same thing to Poland at exactly the same time. One cannot condemn Hitler without simultaneously condemning Stalin.

But - only the Nazi high command was put on trial. Stalin actually stood in judgment over these men. What hypocrisy!

Japan, on the other hand, did appear to be guilty of what I would describe to be "aggressive war." They were waging war to acquire territory that was not theirs from everyone in Asia.

	14-02-2004 20:27									#83
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned In a way, Stalin was doing the exact same thing to Poland at exactly the same time. One cannot condemn Hitler without simultaneously condemning Stalin. But - only the Nazi high command was put on trial. Stalin actually stood in judgment over these men. What hypocrisy!

This troll is poorer than your usual fare, Ned.

I don't think Hitler is condemned mainly for breaking a treaty. He is condemned mostly for other things.

Besides, did Germany (or rather, the Central Powers) not start WWI as well?

	14-02-2004 20:30									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Urban, the first shot was fired by a Serb.

	14-02-2004 20:41									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Err, Stalin was at peace with Germany until operation Barbarossa took the USSR unprepared. And I don't see how nazi Germany had a good case in any way for starting WW2.

The Japanese did start an agressive war too.

Prior than that, the Austrians did give an ultimatum to the Serbs, and declared war. But you can hardly say there was an agressor in WW1, because all countries involved wanted to go to war (mobilization in Russia, Germany and France could have been avoided with restraint: the Brits and Italians have shown this restraint for one year)

	14-02-2004 20:45									#86
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Spiffor, are you unaware that Stalin invaded Poland at the same time Hitler did - and for the same reason -- to get back lands stolen from them during World War I?

	14-02-2004 22:03									#87
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP But yea, there are some significant blemishes on our history.

Along with other nations - they have their own blemishes.

The World War II, some historians argue that the date should be set in 1931 when the Japanese invaded Manchuria. Yet some other historians argue that there was one World War beginning in 1914 with a lull in the middle and ended when the Japanese surrendered to the Americans.

	15-02-2004 05:21									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Data, that's how we now view the Peloponnesian war: One war separated by a period of relative peace.

	15-02-2004 05:26									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Yep

	15-02-2004 10:04									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ned Urban, the first shot was fired by a Serb.

Ned, the assassination could hardly be seen as the beginning of WWI. It might be the immediate cause of WWI, but not the start.