|
|
|
|
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/27/2006 12:45:56 AM | You are skewing matters so grossly beyond any realistic context its astonishing. Now you are trying to incriminate Kuwait? The country that was invaded during the Gulf War? And justifying the invasion by saying they were slamming oil prices? Are you for real?
Whatever...ignore the illegal slant-drilling (violating Iraq's sovereignty) part of the equation.
Ignore that many countries, including the US, have used violence in response to economic disputes. Which, of course, is wrong...but gathering the world to destroy another country that does it, is just hypocritical.
Ignore that OPEC is nothing without its price agreements, and its downfall could cause serious economic strife within those countries dependent on oil exports.
Iraq was exporting about 3 mil bpd, back then.
At $30 a barrel: $32850000000
At $15 a barrel: $16425000000
What don't you get about cutting another country's budget in half as being economic warfare? It's easier for the monarchies to do it, they're pocketing a portion of it. Geezus, the US backs a coup in Haiti, just because democratically elected Aristide wants sweat shop workers to make $5 a day. Where's the moral grounds for destroying Iraq for attacking Kuwait's lying, thieving dictatorship, who was engaged in economic warfare...backed by the US, who was getting all the excess cheap oil.
The actual events you have distorted into some kind of conspiracy theory do not even come close.
Back up statements and prove what you're saying, please. Instead of just spewing.
Prove that essential civilian water treatment facilities were a necessary target, in defeating Iraq's military...or else you're just blowing steam.
FACT: They knew the consequences, before doing it.
FACT: Destroying essential civilian infrastructure violates international law.
FACT: They went ahead and did it.
FACT: Iraq was then not allowed to regenerate its water treatment facilities, under sanctions...all the NGOs have written tons about it, it's easy to find.
FACT: 1 million + Iraqis died, because of it.
_____
In modern times the United States has not participated in genocide.
"participated in"? 
FORD, KISSINGER AND THE INDONESIAN INVASION, 1975-76: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/
You know who Suharto is right?
The Profits of Genocide: http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/may96udin.htm
Peace  | |
|
| |
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/27/2006 7:04:56 AM | Back up statements and prove what you're saying, please. It's up to you to prove your conspiracy theory, not me to disprove it. So far you have equated what you perceive as unfair economic practices (wake up this is the real world) with deliberate genocide. I said it wasn't the same thing and then you repeat yourself with examples expressing the same thing.
A mouse isn't a table just because they both have four legs. Coming up with examples of different types of mice and demonstrating that each type of mouse has four legs, just like a table, doesn't prove your point; it makes you look like a nut.
This has gotten off topic. You have not proven that the United States has put bus loads of innocent citizins in the gas chamber or that it is run by an aryan dictatorship. You argue speciously and with an incredible bias. | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/27/2006 8:58:43 AM |
It's up to you to prove your conspiracy theory, not me to disprove it.
In other words, you can't find anything to argue against all the evidence he has listed. | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/27/2006 9:21:27 AM | In other words, you can't find anything to argue against all the evidence he has listed. Nope, you got that wrong. He offers evidence for one thing and makes an accusation of another thing. Then he says they are the same thing, because either he personally can't tell the difference, or he is deliberately being deceptive.
You haven't proven the United States, in modern times, participated in genocide. You won't be able to. It hasn't happened. All you can do is try to twist the definitions of things to meet your ends. You talk about events you only know about because you read something on the internet. Neither of you have any insight into how these things really work or what was really going on. Neither of you really care. You just want to slam the United States and will use any lame argument and statistic you can dig up to do that. That is all you have done.
You want to yell and scream that the United States is exactly like Nazi Germany and that Bush is Hitler reincarnated and that the War in Iraq is exactly like the Germans sending the Jews to the gas chamber. So, go right ahead. Its still a lie. Even if people get tired of trying to reason with you. | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/27/2006 9:26:49 AM | Actually, I don't have that wrong, but forget that for the moment.
I challenge you to find a post of mine where I have slammed the United States, or compared it to Nazi Germany. | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/27/2006 9:55:01 AM | The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. It defines and outlaws genocide, as a result of campaigning by Raphael Lemkin who had coined the term some years earlier. The total number of states who have ratified the convention is currently 137.
The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:"
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I just wanted to clarify what is considered genocide. There are more ways to commit genocide than death camps. Personally I think that certain leaders in the USA don't care about killing people or not killing people. They just care about promoting their institutions and increasing their power base. If innocent people die and/or murdered for that so be it. If not, all the better because it avoids complications. Not that they have any real respect for human life. Others are different. But we need to find who is who and take the cold blooded killers out of power because they are a threat to humanity.
I leave it to you guys to argue the semantics of whether to call certain acts from certain callous USA leaders that result in innocent people deaths, genocide. At least Open_Book is bringing facts to light so that people are more educated by the actions of certain leaders. I do remember on news reports on Kuwait that Bush did give the OK for Saddam to invade. Then said when he saw the armies going towards Saudi Arabia that he decided to start Desert Shield. It did sound suspicious alright. Why did he give the OK to invade in the first place? | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/27/2006 10:36:36 AM | leif 333 Greetings.
Your punctuation has certainly improved. I'm thinking you're either a fast learner or you've hired a secretary.
Your's are some of the most interesting posts on this site. Good on you! | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/27/2006 12:47:14 PM |
It's up to you to prove your conspiracy theory, not me to disprove it. So far you have equated what you perceive as unfair economic practices (wake up this is the real world) with deliberate genocide. I said it wasn't the same thing and then you repeat yourself with examples expressing the same thing.
No...I equated the intentional targeting of civilian water treatment facilities, knowing full well what the consequences would be, with genocide. And, the conditions causing genocide were maintained via sanctions. If you bothered checking the link for the legal definition:
The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e.
A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
The water treatment report proves intent. The act itself falls under physical element c...
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Please explain how the two criteria, for genocide...intent and action, were not met.
Why We Ignored Iraq in the 1990s: http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger16.html
_____
Since you don't seem to recall...my points about economic warfare, and backdoor diplomacy, were a reply to the statement you made about how the war started, not part of the proof of genocide. The genocide part is pretty straight forward and it doesn't matter who started it.
_____
While you're at it...
Please also explain how supporting Suharto (even building M16 factories in Indonesia) is also not "participating" in genocide.
Please also explain how the US bombing of Cambodia and support of Pol Pot is also not "participating" in genocide.
Please also explain how the US cover up of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds (the CIA/Army War College blamed Iran, at the time), so they could continue trading with him, is also not "participating" in genocide.
_____
You have not proven that the United States has put bus loads of innocent citizins in the gas chamber or that it is run by an aryan dictatorship.
The topic: "Is the USA in danger of becomeing as bad as". NOT "exactly the same as"...NOT "already equal to"...but..."in danger of becomeing as bad as". Don't try changing the topic. I believe the two criteria, for genocide, were met in Iraq.
Peace | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/27/2006 8:30:30 PM |
I do remember on news reports on Kuwait that Bush did give the OK for Saddam to invade. No, he did not. Sadam interpreted the lack of support in the area by the US to be an "OK". Big difference. Iraq invaded a recognized sovereign nation that was a member of the United Nations. The United States, along with several other nations, defended a fellow member of the United Nations. The quagmire in the middle east today is quite different than the Gulf War.
I didn't think Bush Sr. was a very good president but he was a hell of a lot more competent and honest than his son. Unfortunately, that doesn't say too much. | |
|
| Is the USA in danger of becomeing as bad as Nazi Germany
Posted: 8/27/2006 9:05:45 PM | | look american forign policy (spellin shmellin) is crap and counterproductive, but calling america the next nazis is just stupid, we (the left/liberal, pansy, terrorist hugging, nit your own lentles, vegtable rights and peace brigade) need to engage in the arguments issue by issue, because the right have all the easyest arguments we must show we are rationaol, the tragicly late robin cook, madaline albright, clinton and blair brought gadaphy's libia in to the fold. but current american, british and isrealy forighn policy is breading terrorists, we must turn away from the agressive grandstanding policies and cooperate with the arab world, we have a common aim which is peace for the west bank and gaza. If we cooperate on this we can build bridges if not we are only recruting for bin larden - love and peace rich | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/27/2006 9:13:40 PM | "I do remember on news reports on Kuwait that Bush did give the OK for Saddam to invade."
"No, he did not. Sadam interpreted the lack of support in the area by the US to be an "OK"."
Whether what you say is true or not I clearly remember news reports saying that Bush gave him the OK to go into Iraq by saying he would do nothing if Iraq did invade. Then Bush told Iraq to stop advancing any further when Iraq was getting close to Saudi Arabia. Supposable Iraq said they stopped advancing when the Pentagon said they had pictures of Saddam advancing. What really happen as appose to what the propaganda machine says does get blurred. It is a shame that Government and its officials have no honor and always feel they have to lie to manipulate the public. Perhaps one day that will change. Perhaps one day people will elect men of honor as apposed to well, we all know. | |
|
vivid
|
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 313 | |
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/28/2006 12:14:10 AM | ^^^ I remember it vaguely as such. Hussein was angry and insistant that
he had prior consent - that much I know. But the details are shakey. | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/28/2006 12:47:31 PM | "Obviously, I didn’t think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."
Peace | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/28/2006 1:26:51 PM | I didn't think Bush Sr. was a very good president but he was a hell of a lot more competent and honest than his son. Unfortunately, that doesn't say too much.
I've thought much the same ... I actually kind of liked GHWB ... but I was furious with him for what eventually happened to the Shia ... after infering US support for them to topple Saddam ... he left them on their own, and granted the Revolutionary Guard access to heliocopter gunships.
Now I'm not so sure anymore that GHWB was more honest than his son ... the Gulf War allowed the whole process of disarmament and sanctions.
It must be remembered that Saddam did have WMD in 91, so without disarmament and the sanctions would the US have been able to conquer Iraq in 2003?
It might also help to recall that GHWB ran the CIA for several years.
So I'm having my doubts about the whole deal with this family ... from Prescott's profiteering during WWII, to the Silverado Banking Scandal, to Jeb being Govenor of Florida and turning the election in favor of Junior in 2000, which brings us to the most Caligula like character of them all in the dynastic Imperial succession of GWB.
Lets review, what did GHWB had his hands in back then? ... the CIA, the Contras, the Sandinistas, Panama and Noriega, the Saudis, the formation of Al Qaeda, International Banking, WMD, Iraq, Israel, the Arms Industry, Oil.
Quite an impressive roster of items.
That doesn't necessarily establish that it is a template, or pattern of any kind, but it hints at one. Or it could just be an uncannily significant but coincidental list.
darjeeling | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/28/2006 2:00:32 PM |
Ignore that OPEC is nothing without its price agreements, and its downfall could cause serious economic strife within those countries dependent on oil exports.
Iraq was exporting about 3 mil bpd, back then.
At $30 a barrel: $32850000000
At $15 a barrel: $16425000000
So open book...its ok to go to war over oil? | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/28/2006 2:53:36 PM | Something you didn't understand in my sentence immediately before what you quoted?
Ignore that many countries, including the US, have used violence in response to economic disputes. Which, of course, is wrong...but gathering the world to destroy another country that does it, is just hypocritical.
Peace | |
|
| Is the USA in danger of becomeing as bad as Nazi Germany
Posted: 8/28/2006 3:22:04 PM | | YES IT IS : We have the IRS who is worse that the nazis .There are destorying the american people They have no love for the consitution /They work for the UN forigen agents (have proof of that ) take peoples property without court order / And the courtd refuse to stop them . The 1040 is a bootleg form in voilation of the Paper reduction act they lie all the time . It time to put the pen down and pick up the guns . Anyone want more information ust write me and I will give you over 20 years of information I have gathered . | |
|
| Not to that degree.
Posted: 8/31/2006 12:00:43 PM | Helloooo? Anyone home? What didn't you comprehend about my statements before, and after, the part you quoted? I clearly called Saddam's actions wrong...but, it was also hypocritical because many countries use violence for economic purposes...I then added a comparisson...Kuwait chopping Iraq's economy in half compared to Aristide wanting to increase minimum wage to a whole $5 a day.
Helloooo?
Peace | |
|
| Is the USA in danger of becomeing as bad as Nazi Germany *
Posted: 9/1/2006 9:51:58 AM | | This as to be one of the more idiotic things I've ever read. In the US we sometimes let our mistrust and political leanings blind and color our judgment. One doesn’t have to look far to see the true face of Totalitarianism, Nazism, and Oppression. Does our government try to manipulate us? YES, does it infringe upon our personal liberties? YES Are our elected Leaders (of all strips) corrupt corporate owned Winnies? A BIG YES! But are they Nazis?? NO!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| Is the USA in danger of becomeing as bad as Nazi Germany *
Posted: 9/1/2006 12:53:29 PM | "But are they Nazis?? NO!!!!!!!!!!!" I agree not yet but unless you are a fortune teller who is to say what will happen.
Once again in danger of becoming as bad as says number one that I don't believe we are there yet, becoming means in the future. Number two it says that we may not become like the Nazis but could we become AS BAD AS in our own unique way. As bad as does not mean like but a gage to indicate that things could become much worse and could they get as bad as they could get.
Sorry if I knew I would get all these misunderstandings about my wording I would of worded it differently. I thought it was a colorful way to say that things could get real bad if we continue on the path we have been on the last 25 years or so. I wanted to see other peoples take on this, give them an chance to expose corruption and maybe come up with some possible solutions. Thanks for all the responses. It has been educational to see what others thought on the subject on both sides.
| |
|
| Is the USA in danger of becomeing as bad as Nazi Germany *
Posted: 9/1/2006 1:22:48 PM | | We do have to always guard against the subtle evolution of totalitarianism. More so then say an Islamic or Christian revolution. The best defense we have is to question and hold accountable our leaders. So I take back what I said about the notion being idiotic “it can’t happen here” is what I’m sure they said in Germany in the 1930’s the truth is it can happen anywhere if we let it. | |
|
| |
| Is the USA in danger of becomeing as bad as Nazi Germany *
Posted: 9/2/2006 2:22:25 AM | We do have to always guard against the subtle evolution of totalitarianism. More so then say an Islamic or Christian revolution. The best defense we have is to question and hold accountable our leaders. So I take back what I said about the notion being idiotic “it can’t happen here” is what I’m sure they said in Germany in the 1930’s the truth is it can happen anywhere if we let it. Good point. The most eye-opening statement for me was when Rumsfeld said that 57 percent of the American population was "morally confused" because statistically at least that percentage no longer approves of nor trusts the Bush administration. To think I actually used to like the guy.
What gender you are is irrelevent in a political forum, as it should be.
Noone is going to cowtoe to untruths because you are female. She said "attack" she did not say "disagree". As no one is to be verbally attacked in these forums, including women, she has a good point. Unless I'm mistaken a few posts have disappeared from this thread for that reason. | |
|
bobby7
|
Joined: 3/22/2006
Msg: 325 | |
| Is the USA in danger of becomeing as bad as Nazi Germany *
Posted: 9/2/2006 4:24:15 PM | America faces the danger of becoming such a country, if your system of 'Check and Balances" is not adhered to..And it is not being followed at the present time..
A for attacking women, 1f, I don't attack anyone who posts with their head and not their heart..
If the slap fits, take it! | |
|
|
| Page 13 of 24
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 |
|
Home
login 
