View Poll Results: What's worse...

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • European imperialism

    11 24.44%
  • Islamic imperialism

    15 33.33%
  • Both are roughly equivalent

    12 26.67%
  • Other - please specify

    7 15.56%
Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 163

Thread: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

  1. #121
    User rightwinghour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    04-10-09 @ 04:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    143

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    [QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]Tat is a completely dishonest misrepesntation of the Pentagon's findings the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," demonstrates that Iraq was in fact collaborating with Islamist extremists (including AQ affilliates) and actively working with them to attack the U.S.:
    Here's a link to the full report the pertinent information is located in the first volume of this five volume DOCEX:
    Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism
    Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests: [QUOTE]

    I donít see how I have misrepresented anything. I would think if I had, then certainly the newspapers I got the info from would have already been sued by the government for libel. One of the reasons we went to war was because Iraq was supposedly linked to AQ, and this report says it ainít so. And did I read correctly that you think our intelligence on WMDís was correct?


    [QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]Not to mention the fact that Saddam had fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone on an almost daily basis, was in material breach of numerous U.N. resolutions, was in fact harboring AQ operatives who had attacked the U.S. on our own soil, and had even once attempted to assasinate our former head of state one George Herbert Walker Bush. [QUOTE]

    It's funny that you mention the no fly zones. The no fly zones were established by the US, UK, and France, and cover about half of Iraq and of course Iraqi aircraft are not allowed to fly in them. They cited UN Resolution 688 as their authority to establish the no fly zones, but it says nothing about them, and the UN Secretary General declared them illegal. So what you have here are illegally enforced no fly zones over a sovereign country, and you are telling me that Saddam was the aggressor here? We bombed Iraq pretty much constantly for twelve years, flew some 40,000 sorties, and Saddam is to blame for firing at (and missing every time) our fighter planes? As for the assassination plot, itís very iffy whether or not Saddam was behind it. We bombed the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in retaliation, and a report known as the Duelfer report suggests Saddam is likely not to have been behind the plot. Who exactly was being harbored by Saddam?


    [QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]Bull**** the Iraqi Constitution was written by the Iraqi's and that Constitution was ratified by the Iraqi people in a nation wide referendum. [QUOTE]

    We had our hand all over that constitution. Paul Bremer, who was the US governor of Iraq wouldnít let them make Islam THE source of legislation. He instead allowed them to make it A source of legislation. Furthermore, if spreading democracy was our goal, you sure couldnít tell it was by our policies after the mission was ďaccomplishedĒ: washingtonpost.com: Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq



    [QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]Prove that the U.S. encroached on the writing of the Iraqi Constitution or that we did anything to make the elections anything less than free and fair. [QUOTE]

    Already proved Paul Bremer had the last say on what went into it. Have you ever wondered why they didnít just amend the old constitution? As for the elections, I donít know, although there were investigations into anomalies. Plus, they didnít get to vote for individuals, they had to vote for ethnic groups. Thatís just the way the ballot was set up.


    [QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]It's called representative democracy not direct democracy, the dually elected represenatives of the Iraqi people have not demanded our withdrawal, however, we have come to an agreement whereby U.S. troops have to be out by I believe 2011. [QUOTE]

    Youíre absolutely right, they donít have to represent the people at all, just like our Congress doesnít have to listen to us when 80% of us wanted them to vote against the bailout. Maybe the next election will make a difference.


    [QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]We were bound by treaty. [QUOTE]

    Unless Iím mistaken, we didnít have a treaty with anybody in Korea until after the armistice was signed.

    [QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]There was an AUMF which tantamount to a declaration of war as the Constitution does not specify what type of legislation the Congress must write. [QUOTE]

    Obviously you and I are going to disagree about whether or not an AUMF is sufficient or that it is okay for Congress to let the president decide when to go to war and for what reason. After studying the history of our Constitution and the debates surrounding it, I have to conclude that the founders never wanted the war making power vested in the executive, whether it was delegated or not. But even regardless of that, I have to wonder how you or anyone could think that our participation in either Korea or Vietnam had anything to do with defending America.

    [QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]Both had an AUMF.
    Aumf[QUOTE]

    Both Iraq wars were completely unconstitutional. The first one was a UN baby and had nothing to do with the defense of America. The second one was in large part a result of the first one, and authorization of the second one relied quite heavily on matters relating to the first one. For Afghanistan I would have preferred using a letter of marque and reprisal instead of invading a whole country.


    [QUOTE=jin1776;1057836434]That was a limited engagement, did the U.S. require a formal declaration of war for the quasi-war with the French under John Adams? Was one of our Founding Fathers an imperialist? [QUOTE]

    It was a limited engagement that was unconstitutional. We were not attacked and our military wasnít used to protect Americans. As for the Quasi War, perhaps you didnít read into it enough, or else you wouldnít have accused Adams of being imperialist. Our actions against the French were defensive. Furthermore, John Adams didnít take any unilateral action whatsoever. Congress passed a series of acts and Adams complied with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Cuba did not involve U.S. troops.
    Somehow I donít think it is constitutional for us to help overthrow the government of another sovereign nation.

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-12-09 @ 06:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    441

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    rewrite that sh!t right and I'll respond, I've been drinking and don't feel like deciphering that.
    Last edited by jin1776; 12-05-08 at 09:48 PM.

  3. #123
    User rightwinghour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    04-10-09 @ 04:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    143

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    rewrite that sh!t right and I'll respond, I've been drinking and don't feel like deciphering that.
    Dang. I'll do it sometime this weekend.

  4. #124
    User rightwinghour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    04-10-09 @ 04:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    143

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Rome ended its days as a republic when it became an empire. Hegemony =/= imperialism.
    Youíre right! I almost missed that. Our republic has suffered just like the Roman republic. We, like the Romans, have forgotten how to govern ourselves and have forgotten that the republican form of government was supposed to restrain executive power. Instead, like the Caesar and those after him, weíve had a string of presidents since at least Lincoln that have seized more and more power for the executive branch, and Congress has sat impotent in the midst of tyranny. Am I to assume that your lack of comment on the definitions I gave means you now understand I have not made up my definition of imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Under your definition of imperialism you wish to place any influential country under the banner of empire.
    Not at all. It depends on the pattern of behavior and the predatory nature of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    We were backing political dissidents opposed to totalitarian communist rule in Cuba.
    We planned and funded the attempted overthrow of the government of a sovereign country. We had no business doing so, and the Constitution doesnít authorize such a thing.



    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    That is a blatant lie and there is no evidence what so ever for this assertion outside of fringe websites which provide no documentation to back their claims.
    Fringe? I have to wonder what your definition of fringe is. Probably any site that disagrees with you. The CIA helped the Baathists with a coup in 1963. Back in 1959, Saddam had tried the same thing with five other fellows, but they failed. Saddam fled to Egypt until, you guessed it, the CIA helped get the Baathists into power. Saddam then felt safe to come to Iraq, and he was then set up as the head of the Baathist Intelligence organization. We didnít appoint him to be leader of Iraq, but we sure did hand it to his party.

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Prove it.
    Syria : The U.S. pushes 'regime change' at its peril - International Herald Tribune

    ďMy late friend Miles Copeland, a former CIA officer, sketched out in his book "The Game of Nations" the role he played for the CIA in Damascus in 1949, as the United States and the Soviet Union competed for influence. Over coffee in a Cairo hotel room in 1968, Copeland reminisced that while U.S. diplomats were preaching democracy to the Syrians, whom they didn't understand very well, he had manipulated Syrian elections by bribery, giving them a veneer of honesty by importing American voting machines. Copeland and another former CIA operative, Wilbur Eveland, agreed that Colonel Husni Zaim's "pro-Western" coup of March 1949 was CIA work. It initiated a time of great instability and political violence.Ē




    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Prove it.
    Going to this link should highlight where you should start reading.

    Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA ... - Google Book Search


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    That's true JFK killed Diem.
    Well, thereís that, but we started our operations over there much earlier than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Prove it.
    Weíve been occupying the Korean Peninsula for over sixty years. During that time we have armed and funded the South Koreans. We brought Syngman Rhee to South Korea from Hawaii and he acted as temporary president until officially elected in í48. Rhee proved to be a thorn in our side because he wouldnít do what we wanted him to do. When General Park took over in í61 we didnít directly put him in power. The conditions there at the time were great for a coup, so there were few problems, although it is known that the CIA did help smooth things along. The extent to which they did that is still classified (JPRI Working Paper No. 20). We also trained Park at Fort Sill, OK for about a year and he came out an artillery commander. The same kind of thing happened with Chun Doo Hwan in í79 Rogue State: A Guide to the World's ... - Google Book Search



    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Prove it.
    Laos is one of the more widely known cases of US intervention. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA ... - Google Book Search

    CIA activities in Laos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    I'm aware of Arbenze prove the 2nd assertion.
    We also helped overthrow Miguel Ydigoras http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/828


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Prove it.
    The guy that was overthrown even wrote a book about it called ďMy War With the CIAĒ.

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    That wasn't a coup it was a limited military engagement to restore democracy.
    I didnít say it was a coup. Remember I said ďcoups and suchĒ. Our actions there were unconstitutional anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    There is no evidence what so ever that the U.S. directly supported the coup plotters against Allende. The most there is is evidence that we financed opposition political parties and media outlets.
    CNN Cold War - Historical Documents: CIA Operating Guide on Coup Plotting in Chile
    CNN.com - CIA acknowledges involvement in Allende's overthrow, Pinochet's rise - September 19, 2000
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...20Pres%202.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Prove it.
    We occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934. Also, thereís the Aristide ouster in í04.
    Aristide: 'Marines forced me to leave' - Americas, World - The Independent


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    And FYI you're going to have a tuff go of proving these accusations considering that the CIA has already aired its dirty laundry regarding these time periods:
    I donít understand how you can say that the Family Jewels would cover all CIA coup operations, when that report only covers material from the 1950ís to the mid 70ís. And besides that, I find it hard to believe that YOU would believe that the CIA disclosed every bad thing they did during the whole of their existence up to that point, and furthermore that they donít do any bad things now. Just how much do you trust the government anyway? I suppose you think the 9/11 Commission Report is forthright and honest, too?



    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    They are there in defense of U.S. interests. And can you name me a single example of an empire that placed troops in foreign lands only with the permission of the sovereign government?
    What interests? The Constitution doesnít allow for our military to be used for such things. Your second question shows you are still missing the point, that the US employs a different kind of imperialism. Youíre still trying to make things conform to old world empire definitions. So just to be sure, do you reject the definitions I provided of imperialism? If you do, please say so and why.



    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Your knowledge regarding the AQ-Taliban relationship is quite limited, AQ was a member of the Taliban ministry of defense, and the Taliban even had brigades made up completely of AQ fighters. AQ funded the Taliban and in return the Taliban granted them a base of operations from which to launch attacks.
    Limited? I have no doubt that the Taliban and AQ were thick as thieves, but how does that refute what I said about the ultimatum? FYI, as early as two days before 9/11 we already had planned to give the Taliban the ultimatum. 9/11 was just extra incentive I guess. As for funding, we gave the Taliban $43 million back in May of í01.


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    He has been indicted in Spain and the only reason he hasn't been indicted for 9-11 is because there is already a superceding indictement on capital charges and a 2nd indictement would be superfluous:
    Besides bin laden has confessed on video twice in the first video from 2001 it is clear from the video that 9-11 was an AQ operation:
    And then in 2004 just before the U.S. Presidential Elections he directly confesses to 9-11:
    Sounds entirely possible to me as far as the indictments are concerned, and I already had no doubt it was an AQ operation, that wasnít at issue. I still think the FBI should list 9/11 as something heís wanted for, but thatís just me. Iím just wondering how the government was so sure it was OBL before the tapes came out. Although, since we had plans in the works to take action in Afghanistan before 9/11, that may not even matter much.

  5. #125
    User rightwinghour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    04-10-09 @ 04:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    143

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Tat is a completely dishonest misrepesntation of the Pentagon's findings the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," demonstrates that Iraq was in fact collaborating with Islamist extremists (including AQ affilliates) and actively working with them to attack the U.S.:
    Here's a link to the full report the pertinent information is located in the first volume of this five volume DOCEX:
    Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism
    Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests:
    I donít see how I have misrepresented anything. I would think if I had, then certainly the newspapers I got the info from would have already been sued by the government for libel. One of the reasons we went to war was because Iraq was supposedly linked to AQ, and this report says it ainít so. And did I read correctly that you think our intelligence on WMDís was correct?


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Not to mention the fact that Saddam had fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone on an almost daily basis, was in material breach of numerous U.N. resolutions, was in fact harboring AQ operatives who had attacked the U.S. on our own soil, and had even once attempted to assasinate our former head of state one George Herbert Walker Bush.
    It's funny that you mention the no fly zones. The no fly zones were established by the US, UK, and France, and cover about half of Iraq and of course Iraqi aircraft are not allowed to fly in them. They cited UN Resolution 688 as their authority to establish the no fly zones, but it says nothing about them, and the UN Secretary General declared them illegal. So what you have here are illegally enforced no fly zones over a sovereign country, and you are telling me that Saddam was the aggressor here? We bombed Iraq pretty much constantly for twelve years, flew some 40,000 sorties, and Saddam is to blame for firing at (and missing every time) our fighter planes? As for the assassination plot, itís very iffy whether or not Saddam was behind it. We bombed the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in retaliation, and a report known as the Duelfer report suggests Saddam is likely not to have been behind the plot. Who exactly was being harbored by Saddam?


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Bull**** the Iraqi Constitution was written by the Iraqi's and that Constitution was ratified by the Iraqi people in a nation wide referendum.
    We had our hand all over that constitution. Paul Bremer, who was the US governor of Iraq wouldnít let them make Islam THE source of legislation. He instead allowed them to make it A source of legislation. Furthermore, if spreading democracy was our goal, you sure couldnít tell it was by our policies after the mission was ďaccomplishedĒ: washingtonpost.com: Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq



    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Prove that the U.S. encroached on the writing of the Iraqi Constitution or that we did anything to make the elections anything less than free and fair.
    Already proved Paul Bremer had the last say on what went into it. Have you ever wondered why they didnít just amend the old constitution? As for the elections, I donít know, although there were investigations into anomalies. Plus, they didnít get to vote for individuals, they had to vote for ethnic groups. Thatís just the way the ballot was set up.


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    It's called representative democracy not direct democracy, the dually elected represenatives of the Iraqi people have not demanded our withdrawal, however, we have come to an agreement whereby U.S. troops have to be out by I believe 2011.
    Youíre absolutely right, they donít have to represent the people at all, just like our Congress doesnít have to listen to us when 80% of us wanted them to vote against the bailout. Maybe the next election will make a difference.


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    We were bound by treaty.
    Unless Iím mistaken, we didnít have a treaty with anybody in Korea until after the armistice was signed.

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    There was an AUMF which tantamount to a declaration of war as the Constitution does not specify what type of legislation the Congress must write.
    Obviously you and I are going to disagree about whether or not an AUMF is sufficient or that it is okay for Congress to let the president decide when to go to war and for what reason. After studying the history of our Constitution and the debates surrounding it, I have to conclude that the founders never wanted the war making power vested in the executive, whether it was delegated or not. But even regardless of that, I have to wonder how you or anyone could think that our participation in either Korea or Vietnam had anything to do with defending America.

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Both had an AUMF.
    Aumf
    Both Iraq wars were completely unconstitutional. The first one was a UN baby and had nothing to do with the defense of America. The second one was in large part a result of the first one, and authorization of the second one relied quite heavily on matters relating to the first one. For Afghanistan I would have preferred using a letter of marque and reprisal instead of invading a whole country.


    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    That was a limited engagement, did the U.S. require a formal declaration of war for the quasi-war with the French under John Adams? Was one of our Founding Fathers an imperialist?
    It was a limited engagement that was unconstitutional. We were not attacked and our military wasnít used to protect Americans. As for the Quasi War, perhaps you didnít read into it enough, or else you wouldnít have accused Adams of being imperialist. Our actions against the French were defensive. Furthermore, John Adams didnít take any unilateral action whatsoever. Congress passed a series of acts and Adams complied with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    Cuba did not involve U.S. troops.
    Somehow I donít think it is constitutional for us to help overthrow the government of another sovereign nation.

  6. #126
    Banned Iriemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    12-19-15 @ 09:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,405

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by jin1776 View Post
    rewrite that sh!t right and I'll respond, I've been drinking and don't feel like deciphering that.
    Tot, you've repeatedly shown you have a hard time deciphering anything when you've been drinking.

    When are you going to Iraq?
    Last edited by Iriemon; 12-06-08 at 10:46 AM.

  7. #127
    Herzschmerz !
    Ahmed Shaheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    04-29-14 @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,410

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    Yes they do.
    Prove it dude ..


    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    Just because they don't tax you to allow you to do it like you do to the dhimmis doesn't mean they respect it.
    Who told you that i think like that , they will respects me because I Would never offend their religion and they know that well , and for the taxes issue , there is no taxes taken from the dhimmis anymore .

    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    The majority of people here are Christians neither is yours.
    Ok , bring me one christian who offended my religion .


    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    When you say things like "the majority is always right" you deserve to be offended.
    when I say logic is always right then its true .


    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    The dominant idea on this forum is discussion of view points. Simply because more people believe it does not make it correct.
    so why are many people convenced with the majority's opinion ?


    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    And since, as you said, the majority is always right that makes you wrong.
    as you said before .. view points , thats my point of view .


    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    You're first mistake was believing in paranormal things.
    never ...

  8. #128
    Herzschmerz !
    Ahmed Shaheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    04-29-14 @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,410

    Re: Temptation

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    "Temptation"
    Religion in general is deficient in objectivism.

    The personification of "God" as an extrinsic, cognizant entity which intercedes, with an exalted purpose, for the facility and direction of mammon, or for the whim of the entity itself (dependent upon the weather), is indicative of the self serving human ego.


    Who -- is personification, which leads to a presumption of motivation (why?).
    Is the motivation clear?
    It seems the only thing that this who can seem to do is eek out signs and muffled grumblings with an expectation that the intuitions of an occasional, selected visionary will relate a message that every one should obey.

    What -- is objective, at least with respect to how.
    How -- is objective, at least with respect to why.

    The proponents of monotheism have some explaining to do.
    Is the world comprised of an inordinant number of monads, a substance whose quality is the same, a substance which is infinite in its existence?

    To help with the understanding of a monad, consider an irrational number, suppose half of the square root of two 0.707106781186547524400844.......
    The size and quality is relatively the same, yet at each moment there is a transition to a similar representation.
    The number is without end, infinite, eternal; by virtue, it is being and becoming with some manner of transition.

    A consistent quality of a monad would lead to principles of order, conservation would lead to principles of accountability, and the possibility of diversity exists only within the bounds of the monad itself.

    Now, number is indifferent, yet any composite of monads will emulate being and becoming with some manner of transition through induction.
    And sophistication would imply that affirmation of being and becoming occurs by deduction.
    Procreation is a manner of emulating and or affirming being and becoming.
    material point of view , you'll never touch the Spiritual part of yourself .

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-12-09 @ 06:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    441

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinghour View Post
    I don’t see how I have misrepresented anything. I would think if I had, then certainly the newspapers I got the info from would have already been sued by the government for libel. One of the reasons we went to war was because Iraq was supposedly linked to AQ, and this report says it ain’t so.
    The Pentagon review of the DOCEX release which I provided in full does say that they found no collaborative relationship between Saddam and AQ proper, however, that is completely disinigenous because if you had actually read the report you would find that they did find a collaborative relationship between Saddam and AQ affiliates and other terrorist organizations and that Saddam was willing to use these terrorists to attack the U.S. right up to the liberation of Baghdad.

    And did I read correctly that you think our intelligence on WMD’s was correct?
    We found the programs just not the stockpiles, according to David Kay head of the Iraq Survey Group Saddam was in material breach of the ceasefire agreement.



    It's funny that you mention the no fly zones. The no fly zones were established by the US, UK, and France, and cover about half of Iraq and of course Iraqi aircraft are not allowed to fly in them. They cited UN Resolution 688 as their authority to establish the no fly zones, but it says nothing about them, and the UN Secretary General declared them illegal.
    Well to bad for you that is not the Secretary Generals decision to make, and to bad for your argument he doesn't have any damn idea what he's talking about as the no-fly zones were not only legal but were under U.N. mandate thanks to the wording of U.N. resolution 678 which grants member states "all necessary means" to enforce U.N. resolution 660 and "all subsequent resolutions", and the subsequent U.N. resolution 688 "demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected," that sounds like a subsequent resolution to me, and no fly zones sound like "all necessary means" don't they? It's not simply resolution 688 it's resolution 688 in conjunction with resolution 660.

    So what you have here are illegally enforced no fly zones over a sovereign country, and you are telling me that Saddam was the aggressor here?
    No what we have here are no fly zones falling within the "all subsequent resolutions" clause of resolution 660.

    We bombed Iraq pretty much constantly for twelve years, flew some 40,000 sorties, and Saddam is to blame for firing at (and missing every time) our fighter planes?
    Oh please every single sorti was retaliatory either for him firing on our aircraft patrolling the U.N. MANDATED no-fly zone, or for him violating the ceasefire agreements.

    As for the assassination plot, it’s very iffy whether or not Saddam was behind it. We bombed the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in retaliation, and a report known as the Duelfer report suggests Saddam is likely not to have been behind the plot. Who exactly was being harbored by Saddam?
    Well the FBI, CIA, and DOJ beg to differ:

    How Do We Know that Iraq Tried to Assassinate President George H.W. Bush?


    [quote]
    We had our hand all over that constitution. Paul Bremer, who was the US governor of Iraq wouldn’t let them make Islam THE source of legislation.[/quoe]

    Prove it.

    He instead allowed them to make it A source of legislation. Furthermore, if spreading democracy was our goal, you sure couldn’t tell it was by our policies after the mission was “accomplished”: washingtonpost.com: Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq
    Oh gee we didn't want to allow the elections to go forward only a couple of months after the war had started while Iraq was still in complte anarchy. Well golly gee.




    Already proved Paul Bremer had the last say on what went into it.
    You didn't prove that at all, you just claimed it.

    Have you ever wondered why they didn’t just amend the old constitution?
    "The old Constitution?" Probably because it was a national socialist constitution.

    As for the elections, I don’t know, although there were investigations into anomalies.
    They were certified as free and fair by international observers.

    Plus, they didn’t get to vote for individuals, they had to vote for ethnic groups. That’s just the way the ballot was set up.

    No they had to vote for party lists it's not our fault that those parties divided along ethnic lines.

    You’re absolutely right, they don’t have to represent the people at all, just like our Congress doesn’t have to listen to us when 80% of us wanted them to vote against the bailout. Maybe the next election will make a difference.
    They represent the people but it is not direct democracy which is the entire point of representative democracy, IE the representatives sometimes do what may not be popular but rather what is in the nations best interests.

    Unless I’m mistaken, we didn’t have a treaty with anybody in Korea until after the armistice was signed.
    The U.N. treaty IE the U.N. charter which the U.S. ratified, once the security council determined that action must be taken for the defense of South Korea the U.S. was bound by a collective defense treaty.


    Obviously you and I are going to disagree about whether or not an AUMF is sufficient or that it is okay for Congress to let the president decide when to go to war and for what reason. After studying the history of our Constitution and the debates surrounding it, I have to conclude that the founders never wanted the war making power vested in the executive, whether it was delegated or not.
    I guess that would be why they granted an AUMF to Adams for the quasi war against the French.

    But even regardless of that, I have to wonder how you or anyone could think that our participation in either Korea or Vietnam had anything to do with defending America.
    It was about protecting American interests namely the containment of Communist expansionism.

    Both Iraq wars were completely unconstitutional.
    Both had AUMF's.

    The first one was a UN baby and had nothing to do with the defense of America.
    It had an AUMF sir, and once again the U.S. has ratified the U.N. charter.

    The second one was in large part a result of the first one, and authorization of the second one relied quite heavily on matters relating to the first one. For Afghanistan I would have preferred using a letter of marque and reprisal instead of invading a whole country.
    ya let's write a letter of marque and reprisal for every single member of AQ who was living in Afghanistan at the time, I mean that would have worked out great except there were thousands of them and probably didn't even know the names of most, whose name were they going to sign on the letter of marque and reprisal? OBL is that it? Are you asserting that if OBL was eliminated that the threat of the global Jihad would be dimished one iota? Bloody genius.


    It was a limited engagement that was unconstitutional. We were not attacked and our military wasn’t used to protect Americans. As for the Quasi War, perhaps you didn’t read into it enough, or else you wouldn’t have accused Adams of being imperialist. Our actions against the French were defensive.
    So were our actions against Grenada, they were building a run way capable of supporting Soviet heavy bombers and we needed to protect U.S. students who were in danger due to the illegal coup de'ta that had taken place. And do you really think that the founders would have been opposed to the U.S. restoring a fallen democracy that fell within our sphere of influence? I highly doubt it.


    Furthermore, John Adams didn’t take any unilateral action whatsoever. Congress passed a series of acts and Adams complied with them.
    Congress passed an act granting authorization for the U.S. Navy under Adams to attack French vessels IE the very first AUMF in the history of this republic.


    Somehow I don’t think it is constitutional for us to help overthrow the government of another sovereign nation.
    Really? And why is that?
    Last edited by jin1776; 12-10-08 at 05:45 AM.

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-12-09 @ 06:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    441

    Re: What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinghour View Post
    You’re right! I almost missed that. Our republic has suffered just like the Roman republic. We, like the Romans, have forgotten how to govern ourselves and have forgotten that the republican form of government was supposed to restrain executive power. Instead, like the Caesar and those after him, we’ve had a string of presidents since at least Lincoln that have seized more and more power for the executive branch, and Congress has sat impotent in the midst of tyranny. Am I to assume that your lack of comment on the definitions I gave means you now understand I have not made up my definition of imperialism?
    What ever's clever, fear of the centralized government has prompted many of the citizenry to declare their President a tyrant since the time of John Adams (eg alien and sedition act), I suppose it is that paranoid streak amongst us that keeps the American public vigilant but to compare every president since Lincoln to Caesar is just laughable. Call me when the POTUS starts ruling by decree before you start, NO executive orders and singing statements in the excercise of the POTUS's Constitutionally Authorized responsibility to insure that "laws are faithfully executed =/= ruling by decree.

    Not at all. It depends on the pattern of behavior and the predatory nature of it.
    "Predatory nature of it" sir I'll have you know that they U.S. has spent more blood and treasure to improve the standards of living and increase the liberty of the global population than any other country in history, more over never has a country wielded such power with such magnaminity as the United States.

    We planned and funded the attempted overthrow of the government of a sovereign country. We had no business doing so, and the Constitution doesn’t authorize such a thing.
    The Constitution doesn't really deal with foreign policy except in terms of war and treaties. The Constitution was only designed to limit what the Federal government could and could not do to the citizens of the U.S. and the state governments it was designed to determine how the federal government can and can not interact with other nations.


    Fringe? I have to wonder what your definition of fringe is. Probably any site that disagrees with you. The CIA helped the Baathists with a coup in 1963. Back in 1959, Saddam had tried the same thing with five other fellows, but they failed. Saddam fled to Egypt until, you guessed it, the CIA helped get the Baathists into power. Saddam then felt safe to come to Iraq, and he was then set up as the head of the Baathist Intelligence organization. We didn’t appoint him to be leader of Iraq, but we sure did hand it to his party.
    To my knowledge there is only minimal evidence that the U.S. supplied the Baathist regime with the names of suspected Iraqi Communist Party members after the coup had taken place, provide evidence that the U.S. armed, funded, or directed the Baathist coup plotters.


    Syria : The U.S. pushes 'regime change' at its peril - International Herald Tribune

    “My late friend Miles Copeland, a former CIA officer, sketched out in his book "The Game of Nations" the role he played for the CIA in Damascus in 1949, as the United States and the Soviet Union competed for influence. Over coffee in a Cairo hotel room in 1968, Copeland reminisced that while U.S. diplomats were preaching democracy to the Syrians, whom they didn't understand very well, he had manipulated Syrian elections by bribery, giving them a veneer of honesty by importing American voting machines. Copeland and another former CIA operative, Wilbur Eveland, agreed that Colonel Husni Zaim's "pro-Western" coup of March 1949 was CIA work. It initiated a time of great instability and political violence.”
    A) This guys word for a dead guys word =/= evidence by a long shot.

    B) That article explicitly states that the coup of 1966 was "not U.S. inspired".




    Going to this link should highlight where you should start reading.

    Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA ... - Google Book Search
    O.K. I see words like "reportedly intimately involved with the CIA" now provide some actual evidence that the U.S. funded, armed, or directed the coup plotters, and FYI speculation and aspertions =/= evidence.

    Well, there’s that, but we started our operations over there much earlier than that.

    We’ve been occupying the Korean Peninsula for over sixty years. During that time we have armed and funded the South Koreans. We brought Syngman Rhee to South Korea from Hawaii and he acted as temporary president until officially elected in ’48. Rhee proved to be a thorn in our side because he wouldn’t do what we wanted him to do. When General Park took over in ’61 we didn’t directly put him in power. The conditions there at the time were great for a coup, so there were few problems, although it is known that the CIA did help smooth things along.
    Prove that the coup plotters were directed by the CIA.

    The extent to which they did that is still classified (JPRI Working Paper No. 20). We also trained Park at Fort Sill, OK for about a year and he came out an artillery commander. The same kind of thing happened with Chun Doo Hwan in ’79 Rogue State: A Guide to the World's ... - Google Book Search
    So in other words you can't prove that those coups were orchestrated by the U.S..




    Yes we were involved in Laos, now show me how we overthrew a government there.



    We also helped overthrow Miguel Ydigoras http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/828
    Your article said "we helped incite the army to overthrow him" it doesn't elaborate nor does it provide evidence that the CIA directed the coup plotters. But as to Arbenz of which there is actual evidence (because FYI the U.S. admits it when it was responsible for a coup) Arbenz was in fact a communist aligning with the Soviets against U.S. interests, I fully support taking him out.

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •