Jump to content

The Controversial Thread


Assume Nothing

Recommended Posts

Ever find those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

 

At best we went to war on poor information, at worst President bush wasted 100's of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives on a conflict he himself fabricated, finishing what daddy started.

 

I think he SHOULD be go on trial but he wont so I wont waste my time here.

 

Also the patriot act was basically congress pissing on the constitution

So the legality of the Iraq War is contingent on finding WMDs? If suddenly we found a secret cache you'd be okay with it? I doubt it. However, in the late 90s and early 00s it was international concensus that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He used them against the Kurds. He used them against the Iranians. It was no secret that he had them. Even Jacques Chirac agreed:

 

What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.

 

It is possible that Saddam unilaterally decided to disarm but I think we can all agree that's incredibly unlikely. Britain and America were enforcing a no fly zone over his country plus he was facing heavy sanctions and could have easily bettered his situation by coming to an agreement.

 

As for where they are now, perhaps he shipped them to a buddy (Assad, maybe?) or hid them with Osama somewhere really nondescript. We dithered with the United Nations for a couple months obtaining two Resolutions before bombing Iraq and even more time before we sent in ground troops, there was plenty of time.

 

So, in conclusion, it is pretty decisively not fabricated by Bush unless you believe nearly every major world leader, intelligence agency, and his political rivals were in on it.

 

Now, I think he and his administration did a [cabbage]ty job of articulating goals and such and could have learned a lot from Clinton's handling of Yugoslavia.

 

I wouldn't say the PATRIOT Act is pissing on the Constitution, but it's definitely pushing the envelope. It reminds me of a Benjamin Franklin quote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"The chief duty of the government is to keep the peace and stand out of the sunshine of the people." - James A. Garfield

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today." -Thomas Sowell

"Profits are evidence of the creation of social value, not deductions from the sum of the common good." - Kevin D. Williamson

TrueBeaversafe.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.

 

I agree.

Why?

 

Because you can't just invade a country just because it might have WMD's. Declaring war is a crime in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.

 

I agree.

Why?

 

Because you can't just invade a country just because it might have WMD's. Declaring war is a crime in itself.

Debatable.

 

While I'm one of those who abhors wars and would prefer to see them never occur, it's unreasonable and naive to say there is never justified military action. There is not a peaceful resolution for every single conflict, sometimes war is the only viable option.

 

These wars were weakly justified, sure. But not all wars are like that.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you can't just invade a country just because it might have WMD's. Declaring war is a crime in itself.

As a historical fact, Saddam Hussein gassed his people. If that's not enough to remove a dictator from power, I don't know what is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

 

I'm not sure what you classify as a WMD, if you're only including nuclear bombs or what not... maybe you should touch up on that as well:

A chemical, biological, or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you can't just invade a country just because it might have WMD's. Declaring war is a crime in itself.

As a historical fact, Saddam Hussein gassed his people. If that's not enough to remove a dictator from power, I don't know what is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

 

I'm not sure what you classify as a WMD, if you're only including nuclear bombs or what not... maybe you should touch up on that as well:

A chemical, biological, or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

 

Yes, I know WMD's aren't just nuclear weapons and that he used chemical weapons in 80's, and still had some in the 90's. But in my opinion, having or using WMD's still doesn't give other countries the right to declare war. The US used plenty of WMD's in the past as well, and they still have them. But nobody will declare war on them..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you can't just invade a country just because it might have WMD's. Declaring war is a crime in itself.

As a historical fact, Saddam Hussein gassed his people. If that's not enough to remove a dictator from power, I don't know what is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

 

I'm not sure what you classify as a WMD, if you're only including nuclear bombs or what not... maybe you should touch up on that as well:

A chemical, biological, or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

 

Yes, I know WMD's aren't just nuclear weapons and that he used chemical weapons in 80's, and still had some in the 90's. But in my opinion, having or using WMD's still doesn't give other countries the right to declare war. The US used plenty of WMD's in the past as well, and they still have them. But nobody will declare war on them..

It's a good point. However, the US generally hasn't used them on their own civilians, and when they have used them it's (generally) been on military targets for military reasons.

 

This is why I think there should be a worldwide blanket ban on WMD's.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 'not saving someone's life' should be extended to 'not assisting a person in need of medical assistance/attention'.

 

Take this case for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13457442

 

I think he was let off too easy with merely 12 weeks of jail. What he did was not merely theft - he intentionally stole a mobile phone from a person who was dying, which may have been a cause of her death (because if the person had contacted ambulance services, then maybe she wouldn't have died).

 

I still agree that it's highly circumstantial. What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As sick as that crime is, I wasn't too happy with North West Tonight's reporting of it. They made it sound like he deliberately stole the phone *in order to* kill her. Murder has to be premeditated, but in this case it clearly wasn't, so to make parallels with murder is dangerous in this case.

 

I think as far as saving lives goes, the vast majority of people lack basic first aid skills: how can you make an offence that the majority of the population could already be in potential guilt of at any given moment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly think that waterboarding is torture. Even 40 seconds of it has been known to cause permanent, severe psychological damage such as PTSD, phobias of water (showers, rain, pools, etc.), and paranoia. Plus you feel like you're drowning. There can also be brain and lung damage and even actual drowning.

 

If you want to see it, google Christopher Hitchens waterboarding. He lasted something like 15-20 seconds. In the interview after, he said he had been having nightmares of being smothered and woke up terrified.

 

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly think that waterboarding is torture. Even 40 seconds of it has been known to cause permanent, severe psychological damage such as PTSD, phobias of water (showers, rain, pools, etc.), and paranoia. Plus you feel like you're drowning. There can also be brain and lung damage and even actual drowning.

 

If you want to see it, google Christopher Hitchens waterboarding. He lasted something like 15-20 seconds. In the interview after, he said he had been having nightmares of being smothered and woke up terrified.

 

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture

 

There isn't really a logical argument that it isn't torture...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All statements I've seen supporting waterboarding have not been in denial that it is torture, though I'm sure a few individuals have convinced themselves otherwise.

 

What I have seen are 'means to an end' arguments where waterboarding isn't justified per se, but torture is in the light of a national catastrophe. You know the ones I'm talking about, "Bomb goes off in 5mins and you've got the guy who knows the code" sort of things.

 

The real question is nort whether waterboarding is torture, but whether torture itself is ever justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All statements I've seen supporting waterboarding have not been in denial that it is torture, though I'm sure a few individuals have convinced themselves otherwise.

 

What I have seen are 'means to an end' arguments where waterboarding isn't justified per se, but torture is in the light of a national catastrophe. You know the ones I'm talking about, "Bomb goes off in 5mins and you've got the guy who knows the code" sort of things.

 

The real question is nort whether waterboarding is torture, but whether torture itself is ever justified.

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll add that to the list on the Original Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a real danger our society is developing too quickly in the pursuit of corporate profit. The elderly for example are being increasingly left behind when it comes to modern methods of communication.

 

There's also a danger with the Internet not only becoming lawless, but unfettered. Take the whole thing with the Premier League footballer; is there any public benefit to his identity being revealed over Twitter? There are many useful applications to the Internet, Tip.it being just one of course, but I couldn't care less about more policing of that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the use of technology changing our society for the worse?

 

Plenty of problems have arisen because of the internet, but I believe it's mostly beneficial. After all, Google does help me and the rest of the world out with our everyday lives. Being well-informed might be rare, but it is no longer hard. Could you imagine what Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, and Martin Luther King Jr. would be capable of if they had access to the internet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off gotta give props to not trolling for making this thread :thumbsup:

anyways.....

 

Abortion is morally wrong.

 

Plain and simple, no.

 

George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes.

 

I'm a bit iffy on this one, while I would be okay with the being tried I'm no strongly advocating it.

 

Meat eating ought to be banned.

 

No, we're OMNIVORES not herbivores.

 

Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist.

 

Also a no, anonymity should still exist. However people also need to be educated on the dangers on online interactions with people.

 

Animal testing should be banned.

 

This is also iffy for me, so here's what I'll say: yes it should be banned all most animals but not all ,i.e rats, mice, guinea pigs

 

Not all people should have the same rights.

 

Now that depends on what you're asking. If you mean people segregated racial or other such stupid things no. But if you mean criminally insane people and others of the like should be given different rights then yes.

 

Killing in self defense is still manslaughter.

 

Would depend on the situation, but in almost all cases no.

 

Assisted suicide shouldn't be discouraged.

 

It should be carefully discussed but discouraged, no.

 

Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense.

 

That would also depend on the situation, if its you couldn't stop a guy jumping off a bridge then no. But if it's like the time when that homeless man (Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax) in NY stopped a mugging of an old lady was stabbed and lay dying i think for about 1 hour on the sidewalk and people walked by with no second thought, then yes all those people should be tried with some criminal offense.

 

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles

 

No, as that would be discrimination.

 

The use of torture can be justified.

 

It would only be justified in the: nuke is about to go off in 10mins in NY and the only way to find it is using torture then yes, it would be justified.

Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles

 

No, as that would be discrimination.

 

The use of torture can be justified.

 

It would only be justified in the: nuke is about to go off in 10mins in NY and the only way to find it is using torture then yes, it would be justified.

 

1. How is it discrimination? It means that people who decide to do unhealthy things should not bring the weight of the cost down on others.

2. How do we know torture would find it? How do we know the guy we have has any useful info? How do we know the nuke can be stopped?

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles

 

No, as that would be discrimination.

 

The use of torture can be justified.

 

It would only be justified in the: nuke is about to go off in 10mins in NY and the only way to find it is using torture then yes, it would be justified.

 

1. How is it discrimination? It means that people who decide to do unhealthy things should not bring the weight of the cost down on others.

2. How do we know torture would find it? How do we know the guy we have has any useful info? How do we know the nuke can be stopped?

 

1. I didn't mean choosing to smoke or choosing to eat unhealthy foods. I meant people with eating disorders, or those who simply cannot afford or are unable to purchase healthy foods. I probably should have made that more clear.

2. To all three of those questions the answer would be that you can't know, but with that many lives at stake and you think that this is your best shot, then I would be okay with it.

Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. Finally someone who can clearly and uninsultingly explain themselves. :razz:

yes I try to do that, although I could get very mean if you want :twisted:

Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. Finally someone who can clearly and uninsultingly explain themselves. :razz:

 

Yeah right, they are probably doing it for + credibility points. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. To all three of those questions the answer would be that you can't know, but with that many lives at stake and you think that this is your best shot, then I would be okay with it.

I commend you on your practical view.

"The chief duty of the government is to keep the peace and stand out of the sunshine of the people." - James A. Garfield

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today." -Thomas Sowell

"Profits are evidence of the creation of social value, not deductions from the sum of the common good." - Kevin D. Williamson

TrueBeaversafe.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I commend you on your practical view.

 

Why, thank you.

Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.