Lancet Study and Body Counts

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

No Johnny the allies did not know about Hitler when the treaty of Versailles was drawn up. Hitler was a nobody then. Sure if the end of the war had not been handled like the Franco Prussian war then Hitler may have never risen to power. But by the nineteen thirties when he had come to power that was all water under the bridge. So the validity of my point remains.

In the ninteen thirties before Hitler marched into the Rhineland would have been a good time to get him.

Or in 1938 they could have made him fight for Czechoslovakia. The Germans would have had to fight uphill into the mountains. The Czechs were heavily defended and could have made the Germans pay dearly. By the time the Germans recovered from that Hitler might have died from Parkinsons.

Or in 1939 when the entire German artillery corp was stuck in the mud in Poland and the road to Berlin was wide open. Churchill wanted to invade Germany then but the French refused.

While the funding of OBL is iteresting it doesn’t change the simple fact that we should have been trying to kill him long ago. Notice that I did not say send a couple of cops out to try and see if we could “pick him up”. After the embassy bombings in Africa we should have been after him nonstop. Not merely lobbing a few cruise missiles then forgetting about it.

102

[quote]rainjack wrote:

It would do you good - especially since you seem to pride yourself in how smart you are - to learn how to properly use the quote function.

I am sure you will figure it out. You just have to give it a try.
[/quote]

I edited it pretty quick, but well spotted by you. I had one \ instead of a /.

103

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:

Wars of aggression were established as the supreme international crime by the Nuremberg tribunals, upon the reasoning that they facilitate all the misdeeds that follow. If you have a problem with this reasoning, perhaps you should join the John Bolton and Richard Perle Fan Clubs and take up permanent residence on Hypocrisy Island.

How many times must you bring up the Nuremburg Tribunals? This is like the 18th time you have mentioned them.

I think it is the third time.

The U.S.'s invasion of Iraq is not an act of aggression. It is not an act of unilateral imperialism.

In adult discussion, one has to be able to point out flaws in the opponent’s logic or knowledge. Simply saying that what the opponent is saying untrue without offering anything to the contrary barely constitutes an attempt at argument. This doesn’t need to turn into a highly academic forum in which every post must be fully sourced by expensive scholarly journals, but your comments should at least reflect some acquired knowledge.

What the US-led coalition did is not anywhere close to being a war crime.

You should probably read the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Language is not ambiguous. But if you truly can’t handle this assertion anymore, we could discuss war crimes that occurred after the invasion. Plenty of debate topics there, all beyond partisanship and person bias.

Why must you continue to bring it up? DO you feel that if you say it often enough, you will be taken seriously?

I will continue to bring it up when it is pertinent to do so. Zap clearly had no idea of what the term ‘aggression’ means and where it came from. If you have objections to the conclusions reached by the council that tried the Nazis and established much of the modern code of ethics (however hypocritically) in international affairs, or how those conclusions apply to the topic at hand, please present those objections.

If you repetitively state that the invasion of Iraq was not an act of aggression just because the very notion is appalling to your sense of nationalism, do you expect rational and moral people to take you seriously?[/quote]

Seeing as how you have only been a participant for a whopping 60-some-odd posts, you might want to look at the archives. You bring nothing new to the discussion. Everything you have said is nothing but a rehash, andhas been soundly thwarted time and again.

To be taken seriously - you must have a modicum of insight. I am sorry to disappoint you, but parroting old, well defeated ideas is not insight. You fail miserably on the insight part.

I don’t claim to be taken seriously. I offer up what I offer up. Calling bullshit on bullshitters is what I do. Consider your bullshit called on.

I notice you managed to ignore the part about you beating a dead horse.

Leave morality out of it. Name one single “moral war”. You can’t. Wars are about death and destruction. Period.

104

[quote]The Mage wrote:
The biggest threat to the world? Radical Islam.[/quote]

It’s all about perspective my friend.

If you’re sipping a soda in Omaha, you may indeed be more likely to get harmed by radical Islamists than by an attack of the US military. However, to the rest of the world, radical Islam remains, by definition, radical (i.e: not mainstream)

Sure, most of its practitioners ar dangerous maniacs, but they don’t come close to the threat of the US military. In case you didn’t know, there are already radical Muslims in charge of many militarily capable countries.

Take Iran for example; it’s one of the strongest countries in the M.E. after Israel. But they are still many folds less belligerent than the USA. How many countries did the Islamic Republic of Iran attack in the last couple of decades? How many did the USA attack?

If radical Islam is a threat to anything, it’s to Islam itself.

105

[quote]lixy wrote:
If radical Islam is a threat to anything, it’s to Islam itself.[/quote]

Tell that to all the families of the dead Jews in Israel, and the families of those found at the bottom of the WTC.

radical islam is a threat to every human on the face of this planet.

Would that you kept your hate filled, murdering faith confined to your own people. But you won’t. And because of your faith of death, the world is in the situation it is in.

106

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Good god. How many times must this be discussed? The US went to Iraq with an international coalition of countries and the blessing of the UN…[/quote]

You lost me there.

Every government in your so-called coalition went alone against the will of the people it represents, and they’ve been punished by said people.

As for the UN, here is what the Secretary General declared in 2004: “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”

I’ll ask again: If you don’t think it’s an act of aggression, then what is it? If Chine decided to form a coalition (say with Nepal, Sudan, Russia, etc…) to attack and invade Israel because it’s been violating UN resolutions for over 30 years and because the country is believed to have WMDs, would you consider it any less than a blatant act of aggression? Replace Israel with any of the countries in the list of violated UN resolutions below.

[i]Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

353 (1974) Turkey
Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.

354 (1974) Turkey
Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353.

360 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus “without delay.”

364 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

367 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

370 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

377 (1979) Morocco
Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara.

379 (1979) Morocco
Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara.

380 (1979) Morocco
Reiterates the need for compliance with previous resolutions.

391 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

401 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

414 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

422 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

440 (1978) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and “in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.”

452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel’s settlements policy.

471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.

541 (1983) Turkey
Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn.

550 (1984) Turkey
Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may “not to facilitate or in any way assist” the secessionist entity.

573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

605 (1987) Israel
“Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention.”

607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.

658 (1990) Morocco
Calls upon Morocco to “cooperate fully” with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity “in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara.”

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

690 (1991) Morocco
Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory.

694 (1991) Morocco
Reiterates that Israel “must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.”

716 (1991) Morocco
Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus.

725 (1991) Morocco
“Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan.”

726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

799 (1992) Israel
“Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention�?�to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention.”

807 (1993) Croatia
Demands return of heavy weapons seized from UN storage areas.

809 (1992) Morocco
Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum.

815 (1993) Croatia
Reaffirms UNSC resolution 807.

822 (1993) Armenia
Calls for Armenia to implement the “immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan.”

853 (1993) Armenia
Demands “complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces” from Azerbaijani territory.

874 (1993) Armenia
Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces.

884 (1993) Armenia
Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces.

896 (1994) Russia
“Calls upon all concerned to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia.”

904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, “to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers.”

973 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara.

995 (1995) Morocco
Calls for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum.

1002 (1995) Morocco
Reiteration of call for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts.

1009 (1995) Croatia
Demands that Croatia “respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave, or return in safety.”

1017 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the call for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts and to cease “procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum.”

1033 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates call for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts.

1044 (1996) Sudan
Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists.

1054 (1996) Sudan
Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044.

1056 (1996) Morocco
Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara.

1070 (1996) Sudan
Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054.

1073 (1996) Israel
“Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured.”

1079 (1996) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia.

1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus
Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending.

1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending.

1120 (1997) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls on Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct this right, and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin.

1145 (1997) Croatia
Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin.

1172 (1998) India, Pakistan
Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1185 (1998) Morocco
Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force.

1215 (1998) Morocco
Urges Morocco to promptly sign a “status of forces agreement.”

1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1264 (1999) Indonesia
Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign.

1272 (1999) Indonesia
Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps.

1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251.

1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251.

1319 (2000) Indonesia
Insists that Indonesia “take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor.” Stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia.

1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions.

1338 (2001) Indonesia
Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319.

1359 (2001) Morocco
Calls on the parties to “abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict.”

1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with “the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay.”

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.[/i]

107

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Good god. How many times must this be discussed? The US went to Iraq with an international coalition of countries and the blessing of the UN…

You lost me there.

[/quote]

I am not surprised. You don’t follow the truth very well - especially when it is in opposition to your propaganda.

It’s not my job to make sure you keep up.

108

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:

Wars of aggression were established as the supreme international crime by the Nuremberg tribunals, upon the reasoning that they facilitate all the misdeeds that follow. If you have a problem with this reasoning, perhaps you should join the John Bolton and Richard Perle Fan Clubs and take up permanent residence on Hypocrisy Island.

How many times must you bring up the Nuremburg Tribunals? This is like the 18th time you have mentioned them.

I think it is the third time.

The U.S.'s invasion of Iraq is not an act of aggression. It is not an act of unilateral imperialism.

In adult discussion, one has to be able to point out flaws in the opponent’s logic or knowledge. Simply saying that what the opponent is saying untrue without offering anything to the contrary barely constitutes an attempt at argument. This doesn’t need to turn into a highly academic forum in which every post must be fully sourced by expensive scholarly journals, but your comments should at least reflect some acquired knowledge.

What the US-led coalition did is not anywhere close to being a war crime.

You should probably read the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Language is not ambiguous. But if you truly can’t handle this assertion anymore, we could discuss war crimes that occurred after the invasion. Plenty of debate topics there, all beyond partisanship and person bias.

Why must you continue to bring it up? DO you feel that if you say it often enough, you will be taken seriously?

I will continue to bring it up when it is pertinent to do so. Zap clearly had no idea of what the term ‘aggression’ means and where it came from. If you have objections to the conclusions reached by the council that tried the Nazis and established much of the modern code of ethics (however hypocritically) in international affairs, or how those conclusions apply to the topic at hand, please present those objections.

If you repetitively state that the invasion of Iraq was not an act of aggression just because the very notion is appalling to your sense of nationalism, do you expect rational and moral people to take you seriously?[/quote]

Your feckless citing of “international law” is meaningless - if you don’t think so, go file a complaint in the court that would sit in judgment of the war “crime” of attacking Iraq. Best of luck.

The war in Iraq, if you are dying to to know, gets its justification (if you go the “international law” route) from the Clintonian intervention in the Balkans, in which there was a “Grotian moment” giving rise to the idea that Article 51 no longer required the procedural classicism of an “armed attack” - and even the likes of the discredited Kofi Annan agreed.

Problem is, “pre emptive war” will always be evaluated on a political basis - it’s ok when the self-appointed “international community” sees the morality in it (i.e., prevention of genocide, though there is no such provision as a matter of “armed attack”), but not ok when a country actually asserts it against a rogue state (particularly when the exercising state is a hyperpower in need of some humiliation).

So, the “legality” of pre-emptive war is useless, other than an academic exercise by its whiney critics - there is no court to adjuducate it, and there is gridlock at the UNSC to prevent it from being addressed in that forum. As such, no “legal” recourse.

As a pure war of aggression as a philosophical matter, that wouldn’t make sense in light of the history of the invasion of Iraq, the consequent sanctions, and the ineffectual enforcement of resolutions. At some point, the resolutions needed teeth in the name of international security - and since the UN machinery was compromised, no one had to wait on the “smoldering ruins” of a classical armed attack before addressing the international security problem of Saddam and Iraq.

Rational and moral people understand that the Nuremburg principles were aspirational in nature but failed to be a blinding “case” by which other wars could be measured in any “legal” sense. Stop using them as such - they are useful guideposts, but they are not rules by which “defendants” - who enjoy the presumption of innocence, not applicable here - can use as a shield.

109

[quote]lixy wrote:
I am not trying to convince you. You can’t undo the carnage of the past 5 years.
[/quote]

Your hatred of America transends the last 5 years. It is ingrained in almost every one of your posts here.

110

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Do you honestly think the Chinese or the Russians would do things better if they had the ability?[/quote]

The dude loves the Chinese, Russians and Iranians despite all of their atrocities they have committed.

America is only held responcible and unexcused.

111

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Your hatred of America transends the last 5 years. It is ingrained in almost every one of your posts here.[/quote]

Lixy is an enormous waste of time. He isn’t all that bright, hasn’t said anything interesting in months, and recycles arguments that have been put to shame when he has raised them before.

Moreover, though himself a fan of irony, he has yet to figure out that he is the most hilarious example of irony we have here in the forums: Lixy chides people for being “irrational”, when he is immune to basic facts and arguments, no matter how patient his opponent tries to be; he frowns at people’s use of “logical fallacies”, when he routinely misuses terms like “strawman” (and then, in defense, suggests he has his own definition of “strawman” we should recognize), and openly urges the virtues of Ron Paul, despite the fact that Ron Paul’s primary political position is to dismantle the socialist state Lixy holds so dear.

Pure comedy gold.

112

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Statistically speaking and as far as dangerous countries go, the USA takes the cake.

You are the one who brought up statistics.

Again, is there a country on Earth that killed more foreigners since WWII?[/quote]

Yes the communists exporting their beliefs to other countries.

How many people did muslim terrorists kill since WWII?

113

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
So now you are going to change it be foreigners only. You did not say anything about foreigners only in this post I have quoted.

If you decide to cut off your arm, that’s your business. If you go to the other side of town, and start chopping people’s limbs off, that’s where we have a problem.

I thought that was self-evident.
[/quote]

No. What is self evident is that chopping ones own arm off is not the same as murdering someone. A more accurate analogy would be murdering ones own family then going up the street and murdering someone else. What would be self evident before that person got up the street is that they are a murderer. Another thing that would be self evident is that someone who would murder their own family is very ruthless and noone would be safe around them.

If a bomb goes off in Stockholm tomorrow it will most likely be a biker gang or Muslims.

A survey of the 23 European and middle eastern countries hardly constitutes the whole world. The BBC is an extremely biased organisation. I would question anything from them at least as much as I would question information from Fox. As a news organisation the BBC is a joke. They have been ripping off the British for years.

That poll is almost two years old. Besides it is only a poll of peoples opinions of something they really don’t know. Some polls are better than others.

[quote]
Russia killed several million eastern europeans after world war two. Their invasion of Afghanistan killed around two million. China has killed a good amount of people also. If one were to add in people who are not foreigners those two countries far outstrip the US.

During the reign of Mao the Chinese killed at least forty million of their own people. Their invasion of Tibet has killed over a million. Then there are their constant threats to Taiwan. Their invasion of Vietnam. Their invasion of India. Their arming Pakistan with nuclear weapons so they can threaten the Hindus in India. Their North Korean puppet state has killed millions.

Since the end of world war two the Russians and Chinese have been deadly to share a common border with. The same cannot be said for the United States.

By Russia, I’m guessing you mean CCCP. Right?

Tell you what, China and the Soviet Union are not democracies. I don’t think their people would have put up with the massacres committed in their name if they had a say in it.[/quote]

The CCCP was Russia. There are a lot of left overs from the CCCP. Putin was a KGB member. If you ask the people of Poland, or Lithuania, or Latvia, or Estonia, or Georgia, or Ukraine, I think they would say they feel more threatened by Russia than the US.

The Chinese have murdered millions of their own and they are threatening millions more in Taiwan. I would say that they are dangerous because they are not a democracy.

114

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
Wars of aggression were established as the supreme international crime by the Nuremberg tribunals, upon the reasoning that they facilitate all the misdeeds that follow. If you have a problem with this reasoning, perhaps you should join the John Bolton and Richard Perle Fan Clubs and take up permanent residence on Hypocrisy Island.[/quote]

Other countries that have committed the “supreme international crime” are excused by Lixy.

115

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Russia killed several million eastern europeans after world war two. Their invasion of Afghanistan killed around two million. China has killed a good amount of people also. During the reign of Mao the Chinese killed at least forty million of their own people. Their invasion of Tibet has killed over a million. Then there are their constant threats to Taiwan. Their invasion of Vietnam. Their invasion of India. Their arming Pakistan with nuclear weapons so they can threaten the Hindus in India. Their North Korean puppet state has killed millions.
[/quote]

Sifu, you’re missing the point. Yeah that was bad and all, but the Chinese and Russians ain’t American…lol

116

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
It might have been wise for the CIA to have never trained, equiped, and funded him in the first place. It would be wise to not cut the Saudi royal family members that fund him so much slack. If the then head of the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) transfers money to Mohamed Atta in Florida just days before 9/11, then why isn’t the ISI considered a terrorist organization? The O.B.L. that we know today is, in part, a product of proactive involvement.
[/quote]

I agree with what you say above for the most part about the Saudis and Pakistanis and their ties to al-qaeda, but think about it, if Russia had attacked Afghanistan and we stood by and done nothing either

  1. The Iranian Revolutionary guard would have taken the fight to the Ruskies and O.B.L. would be a Shia warrior now.

or

  1. Lixy and his ilk would be complaining that the US did nothing to save the Muslims in Afghanistan from a horrible holocaust. We would be demonized the same way we were for taking too long to kick Milosovich’s butt, and yet still condemned after we did it.

Maybe it would have been wise to leave Saddam alone. But would it have been equally wise to leave Milosovich alone?

117

[quote]lixy wrote:
Still, the US remains the most dangerous threat to peace worldwide. If a bomb was to fall on Stockholm tomorrow, chances are that it’ll be dropped by Americans. If Algeria is invaded next week, it will most likely be invaded by Americans.

Tell you what, China and the Soviet Union are not democracies. I don’t think their people would have put up with the massacres committed in their name if they had a say in it.[/quote]

Algeria is being invaded right now. Al-Qaeda in North Africa is attacking them.

If a bomb goes off on an Indian train, would you blame Americans?

Because the Chinese and Russians were not democracies does not make what they did any more right.

How were the atrocities committed? Did they have robots doing the killing? No, people, who had a say in it, did the massacring.

118

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Russia killed several million eastern europeans after world war two. Their invasion of Afghanistan killed around two million. China has killed a good amount of people also. During the reign of Mao the Chinese killed at least forty million of their own people. Their invasion of Tibet has killed over a million. Then there are their constant threats to Taiwan. Their invasion of Vietnam. Their invasion of India. Their arming Pakistan with nuclear weapons so they can threaten the Hindus in India. Their North Korean puppet state has killed millions.

Sifu, you’re missing the point. Yeah that was bad and all, but the Chinese and Russians ain’t American…lol[/quote]

Exactly - and remember non-Western nations never commit acts of original evil…they are always innocent bystanders full of love and compassion until Western bullies make them act violently and radically.

Just like JohnnyBravo’s fabulous theory of - holding back tears - it’s not Hitler’s fault. Big meanies at Versailles made the Nazis do what they did.

Same with totalitarians of all stripes, communists and radical Islamists, etc. - nothing awful they do is their fault or responsibility. They were decent, hardworking folks until the West turned them into monsters.

Pathetic - but predictable.

119

[quote]lixy wrote:
. . .
1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure. . .

[/i][/quote]

Maybe Bin Laden is right after all…The UN is a pos.

120

[quote]Sifu wrote:
No. What is self evident is that chopping ones own arm off is not the same as murdering someone. A more accurate analogy would be murdering ones own family then going up the street and murdering someone else. What would be self evident before that person got up the street is that they are a murderer. Another thing that would be self evident is that someone who would murder their own family is very ruthless and noone would be safe around them. [/quote]

True. But flattening the building where he/she lives, and turning the neighborhood into chaos is far worse in my opinion.

[quote]Still, the US remains the most dangerous threat to peace worldwide. If a bomb was to fall on Stockholm tomorrow, chances are that it’ll be dropped by Americans. If Algeria is invaded next week, it will most likely be invaded by Americans.

If a bomb goes off in Stockholm tomorrow it will most likely be a biker gang or Muslims. [/quote]

Which part of “fall” did you miss? Do you think the Hell’s Angels have wings? Or that the “Muslims” (whatever you mean by that) can fly?

As far as I know, it is the gold standard of good journalism. But let’s not go in a tangent.

How about the Financial Times?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70046760-27f0-11dc-80da-000b5df10621.html

So…?

What do you mean? Are they too dumb to figure out who’s a threat and who isn’t?

[/quote]If you ask the people of Poland, or Lithuania, or Latvia, or Estonia, or Georgia, or Ukraine, I think they would say they feel more threatened by Russia than the US. [/quote]

Not a chance that Estonians would view Russia as a bigger threat than the US. Of all Eastern Europe, they were the most vehemently opposed to the war on Iraq.

Do you not see what the difference between what you do in your own borders and what you do outside of them is? Plus, those actions have not involved the will of the people. Their government was hijacked by a group of self-appointed representatives.

Taiwan is another story. I have no doubt that it will be Chinese territory again. It’s a matter of when…