Iraq Topic

Danke · Post by **Danke** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:49 am

Woo, Friday.

Applying our values and ethics onto another country militarily is no different than diplomacy (yes, granted, the two situations are radically different, but the purpose is still the same)

They're no different, but they're different?
The purpose or imperialistic nature is irrelevant to me. And in any case, I see diplomatic "imperialism" a lot less vulgar than invasion, and a lot less imposing. In my eyes, we wouldn't be shoving MacDonald's down their throats or forcing our ideas on them. If the mere presentation of our culture and government is considered "imperialism," then I don't particularly see imperialism as a bad thing, as long as it isn't being done at the expense of human lives.

Just because one is "peaceful" and the other isnt, does that make their purpose or initiative any different?

Well if our ultimate purpose was to take out Saddam and instate a democratic government, I'd prefer that it would be done nonviolently. What I see in your post is "the two ways (diplomacy and war) are essentially the same in their purpose," so, if we have that purpose and we're going to follow through with it, I don't see why we shouldn't minimize the number of people dying. If you're just presenting that the basic principle of influencing other countries is wrong, then I might be inclined to agree except when dealing with things like genocide, etc.

Ok. I dont think your getting my point. Opinions of why we should and shouldnt be there will get no real progress in a time of war.

Except that this isn't the "Iraq Solution" topic, it's Iraq topic. Personal opinions are entirely relevant.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:28 am

Danke wrote:And in any case, I see diplomatic "imperialism" a lot less vulgar than invasion, and a lot less imposing.

Despite how you feel about imperalism being right or wrong is not my point, the idea/action is not granted as a power under our constititution into which imperalism is unconstitutional. Whether the imperalism is peaceful or not, it should not be happening.

Except that this isn't the "Iraq Solution" topic, it's Iraq topic. Personal opinions are entirely relevant.

Yes, this topic wasnt specific, though I would think our point here was to eventually end on a logical closing point/an agreeable solution.

I see a trend in many opinions that I have seen by many of our leaders who are running for our government positions. Since these are the same principles of the same leaders we have had for the last 60 years, it appears that Americans dont vote with the constitution in mind, well the ones who vote anyways. To stay relevent to this topic, I have been waiting for sometime now hoping one of our leaders would propose a type of legislation that would bring the Supreme Court into our legislation process. In addition, for legislation to pass it would require the majority (atleast 5 votes) in the Supreme Court. Obviously this war, technically not a war, would not have passed because it would be declared unconstitutional, if infact the Supreme Court does the job that it is suppose to. It would require our government to finally start obeying the constitution and start pushing the country into the direction it should be.

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:19 pm

noxiousraccoon wrote:To stay relevent to this topic, I have been waiting for sometime now hoping one of our leaders would propose a type of legislation that would bring the Supreme Court into our legislation process. In addition, for legislation to pass it would require the majority (atleast 5 votes) in the Supreme Court. Obviously this war, technically not a war, would not have passed because it would be declared unconstitutional, if infact the Supreme Court does the job that it is suppose to. It would require our government to finally start obeying the constitution and start pushing the country into the direction it should be.

The Supreme Court is laughably corrupt and party-minded, which is sad. Presidents only appoint those who agree with them (most of the time), and that goes for Democrat and Republican presidents both.
Maybe once in a while they'll make a good call, but in general, I think it's declining.

Regarding the whole imperialist conversation, problems don't necessarily have to end in our control of another government, so "solving problems peacefully" isn't imperialist in my mind. If we use forceful peaceful tactics to promote one viewpoint in a foreign country, that's still imperialist, just like we're trying to do with Iran by sanctioning them to no end.

Danke · Post by **Danke** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:51 pm

If your definition is going to be so vague as "the extension of rule or influence by one government, nation, or society over another," then it's irrelevant whether or not it's constitutional, merely existing influences other institutions. To say that all foreign relations are imperialism is ridiculous.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:23 pm

Danke wrote:If your definition is going to be so vague as "the extension of rule or influence by one government, nation, or society over another," then it's irrelevant whether or not it's constitutional, merely existing influences other institutions. To say that all foreign relations are imperialism is ridiculous.

Just existing is not the extension of rule or influence. How is it being constitutional not relevant? Our constitution does not say we can force our way of life and government onto others. Being relevant to this topic, Iraq is a perfect example of imperalism by our goverment, which is unconstitutional. I never said all foreign relations are imperalism, but being relevant to this topic, Iraq is.

shadowkas wrote:The Supreme Court is laughably corrupt and party-minded, which is sad.

The Supreme Court is the least corrupt and rarely ever vote party minded. Not everything is corrupt.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:22 pm

I know im double posting but there has been no responses.
Any responses?

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:34 am

noxiousraccoon wrote:
shadowkas wrote:The Supreme Court is laughably corrupt and party-minded, which is sad.
The Supreme Court is the least corrupt and rarely ever vote party minded. Not everything is corrupt.

Well, it being corrupt and party minded is what I've seen. It doesn't seem to really represent justice. I'll just use one quote from Scalia, and then if you want to continue it, let's go over PMs, because this is on Iraq.

Justice Scalia wrote:"I had a son on that battlefield, and they were shooting at my son,'' Scalia said. Giving a "full jury trial'' to an enemy soldier captured on the battlefield would be "crazy,'' he added.

They're supposed to be impartial and judge according to the constitution.

MidoriSakuragi · Post by **MidoriSakuragi** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:25 pm

ok this is really important. after doing some hard research, I found a link to 9\11 and the attacks (not a web link, a link between Saddam and Al Queda).

From what I'm getting, some very holy people to the Islam world made a move that turned everyone against us. apparently, one of the hierarchies tried to seize the grand mosque, none other then the Bin Ladden family.

Let's dig even deeper. Now you all know how (well if your a Christian) Lucifer was next to El Shaddai (God in Jewish), and he betrayed God right? along with his "fellow demons", he was cast out of heaven for every known evil and wanting of God's power.

Take this example, and put it with Bin Ladden's citation.

Devil is the cliche of Bin Ladden
God's Earth is the cliche of Mecca.
NOTE: THIS IS AN ANALOGY.

But anyways.

Here's a few sources to back this post up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_Seizure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family
صدام حسين عبد المجيد التكريتي
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Queda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11

I think the dude was connected to the inner circle with Bin Ladden's cult Al Queda, and was taking orders from them.
now if I'm wrong, please dont flame me, but correct me. I'd be enlightened if I missed something and learned something new, please inform me.
Well peace out, and I'll be checking this l8r.

INSANEdrive · Post by **INSANEdrive** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:27 pm

Continuing where one left off...

-------------------------

MidoriSakuragi wrote:I'd say so. Wikipedia has everyone to enter and someone to edit it if a mistake is made, for a perfect knowledge database. Pretty much everything known to mankind is found there, and corrected.

I know.

INSANEdrive wrote:...

Credible sources?

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:30 pm

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (September 2007)

This article does not cite any references or sources. (July 2007)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Clearly we have an expert on our hands.

MidoriSakuragi · Post by **MidoriSakuragi** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:31 pm

INSANEdrive wrote:Continuing where one left off...

-------------------------

MidoriSakuragi wrote:I'd say so. Wikipedia has everyone to enter and someone to edit it if a mistake is made, for a perfect knowledge database. Pretty much everything known to mankind is found there, and corrected.
I know.

INSANEdrive wrote:...

Credible sources?

well I'd credit the whole world for making wikipedia where it is today, but for this matter, the people who made the article on Al Queda and all that specifically.

Tural, that was a month ago. and theres more then one article

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:33 pm

Go get sources outside of Wikipedia! Having one source is never credible. If you can't find multiple independent organizations reporting it, you can't be assured of its validity.

INSANEdrive · Post by **INSANEdrive** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:35 pm

MidoriSakuragi wrote:
INSANEdrive wrote:Continuing where one left off...

-------------------------

MidoriSakuragi wrote:I'd say so. Wikipedia has everyone to enter and someone to edit it if a mistake is made, for a perfect knowledge database. Pretty much everything known to mankind is found there, and corrected.
I know.

INSANEdrive wrote:...

Credible sources?
well I'd credit the whole world for making wikipedia where it is today, but for this matter, the people who made the article on Al Queda and all that specifically.

*Sigh*

Tural wrote:This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (September 2007)

This article does not cite any references or sources. (July 2007)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Clearly we have an expert on our hands.

Wikipedia...a Credible source?

Not Now. Not Yet (If ever).

It is a wealth of information to help with an Idea, but...

MidoriSakuragi · Post by **MidoriSakuragi** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:36 pm

I dont trust anyone except wikipedia. but alternatively , theres Google to back me up, but you cant argue with Google, now can you?

INSANEdrive · Post by **INSANEdrive** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:37 pm

MidoriSakuragi wrote:I dont trust anyone except wikipedia. but alternatively , theres Google to back me up, but you cant argue with Google, now can you?

O_O

GametagAeonFlux · Post by **GametagAeonFlux** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:38 pm

MidoriSakuragi wrote:I dont trust anyone except wikipedia. but alternatively , theres Google to back me up, but you cant argue with Google, now can you?

College professors, and most high school teachers won't even accept your paper/whatever if you cite Wikipedia as a source. It's not credible.

MidoriSakuragi · Post by **MidoriSakuragi** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:39 pm

Lets not even get into Yahoo, ask, or any of those other crazy search engines.

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:39 pm

MidoriSakuragi wrote:I dont trust anyone except wikipedia. but alternatively , theres Google to back me up, but you cant argue with Google, now can you?

You are the absolute worst debater I have ever seen. Are you freaking kidding me? Jesus Christ, I can't imagine how you can be so arrogant about your ideas when you're so ignorant about the situation.

Present direct evidence of your claims or stop posting.

INSANEdrive · Post by **INSANEdrive** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:41 pm

This is a Debate? I think he's not on the same page as the rest of the class. [size=0](No Offence)[/size]

MidoriSakuragi · Post by **MidoriSakuragi** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:42 pm

alright alright alright... your right. I'm not too well with debates. But I'm just so use to it that it would be like a sin to not use it.
Ok I think I just went into the wrong subject.... sorry about this guys... continue the topic before I got started.