Obama Snubs Injured Soldiers for a Workout, Will Media Care?

ImWithStupid

New member
I've mixed up nothing - you, on the other hand, are still missing the point.
The USA violated the people of Iraq's human rights by illegally invading their country.
Um pot, this is kettle.

To date, there are 54 countries that have joined the Coalition of the Willing--not including Canada, Germany, and France, which have recently offered conditional support. This does not include all of the 15 nations that have offered quiet support. The number of nations to date already eclipses the 1991 Gulf War coalition, which had 38 countries. 2
The Coalition of the Willing

Afghanistan: Afghanistan has pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq. May open airspace to U.S. and allied military flights.

Albania: Offered to send troops. Approved U.S. use of airspace and bases.

Angola:

Australia: Sent 2,000-strong force of elite SAS troops, fighter jets and warships to the Gulf.

Azerbaijan:

Bahrain: Headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

Bulgaria: Offered use of airspace, base and refueling for U.S. warplanes; sent 150 non-combat troops specializing in chemical and biological warfare decontamination.

Canada: Sent military planners to join U.S. counterparts at their command post in Qatar. A destroyer and two frigates sent to the region could protect U.S. ships.

Colombia:

Croatia: Airspace and airports open to civilian transport planes from the coalition.

Czech Republic: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to U.S. request.

Denmark: The government decided to take part in the military action with submarine, surface ships, and a medical team comprised of 70 elite Jaegerkorps soldiers.

Dominican Republic:

El Salvador

Eritrea

Estonia

Ethiopia: Ethiopia has publicly pledged its support for the U.S. backed effort to disarm Iraq.

Georgia: Georgia has expressed strong support for the U.S. attack on Iraq, and has offered both its airspace and military bases to support the campaign.3

Greece: U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. sixth fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes.

Honduras:

Hungary: Hosts a U.S. base where Iraqi exiles are trained for possible post-war administrative roles. NATO can use the country's roads, railways and airspace to carry military support for Turkey's defense. May open airspace for U.S. military flights.

Iceland:

Italy: Offered logistical help and use of military bases and ports under longstanding NATO commitments.

Japan: Japan expressed unequivocal support for U.S. plans to forcibly disarm Iraq. Will provide post-conflict assistance.

Jordan: Opened its airspace to coalition planes; hosts U.S. troops carrying out search and rescue operations in western Iraq and manning a Patriot anti-missile defense system.

Kuwait: Hosts coalition forces massed for an invasion.

Latvia: Government has decided to ask parliament to authorize the deployment of a small number of troops.

Lithuania: Authorized use of airspace for U.S. backed mission to disarm Iraq.

Macedonia

Marshall Islands:

Micronesia:

Mongolia:

Netherlands: A few hundred Dutch troops are stationed in Turkey to operate three Patriot missile defense systems, allowing movement of U.S. troops and supplies from Germany through the Netherlands en route to the Persian Gulf.

Nicaragua

Norway: Offered to send 10,000 chemical warfare suits to Turkey.

Philippines: The Philippine National Security Council offered political support for a U.S. led war to disarm Iraq.

Poland: To deploy up to 200 troops in the Gulf region, which will perform an unspecified non-combat role, supporting the U.S.-led offensive. A few dozen Grom elite commando troops and transport ship already stationed in the Gulf area, as part of the Afghanistan campaign, could be enlisted.

Portugal: Made available NATO air bases and an air base in the Azores.

Qatar: Hosts a mobile HQ for U.S. Central Command; allowed Washington to expand an airfield to handle more combat jets.

Romania: Airspace and a base open to U.S. warplanes; sent non-combat specialists in chemical decontamination, medics, engineers and military police in response to a U.S. request. Will make available Black Sea air and naval bases.

Rwanda:

Saudi Arabia: U.S. and British planes use its Prince Sultan Air Base to enforce a "no-fly zone" over southern Iraq.

Singapore:

Slovakia: Sent non-combat troops specializing in chemical warfare decontamination in response to a U.S. request. Has approved U.S. flyovers and use of its bases.

Slovenia: Signed the Vilnius 10 declaration supporting the United States

Solomon Islands:

South Korea: Seoul will dispatch some 500 army engineers to support a U.S. led war on Iraq, in addition to post-war assistance.

Spain: Strongest ally of the United States and Britain. Promised use of its NATO bases for a strike on Iraq. Spain will send a medical support vessel equipped with nuclear, biological and chemical treatment facilities. A frigate and 900 troops will accompany the support vessel in the event of a conflict.

Taiwan: Taipei opened its airspace to U.S. military aircraft.

Turkey: Hosts U.S. planes enforcing "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq. Parliament has rejected a resolution to allow use of airspace and deployment of American troops for an attack on Iraq but the cabinet was to debate the resolution again on Tuesday with a possible parliamentary vote on Wednesday. (Update: 3/19 Turkey has granted the United States the use of its airspace.)

Uganda:

Ukraine: Agreed to U.S. request that it send chemical warfare and nuclear decontamination experts

United Arab Emirates: Base for U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and refueling; host to an estimated 3,000 western troops. Has pledged 4,000 troops supported by Apache attack helicopters, Leclerc tanks, BMP3 amphibious armored vehicles, a missile boat and a frigate to defend Kuwait in case of war in Iraq.

United Kingdom: Washington's chief ally on Iraq has sent or committed 45,000 military personnel, planes and warships.

Uzbekistan
 

ImWithStupid

New member
Hi Kettle.
Kindly show me the post where I defended Australia's human rights record.

Good luck!

'Pot'
Well...

The USA violated the people of Iraq's human rights[/color'] by illegally invading their country.
 


I find it very hard to believe that in this quote, you weren't implying that the USA wasn't the lone violator, in your oppinion.


 


If you say differently, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


 

Anna Perenna

New member
Well...
I find it very hard to believe that in this quote, you weren't implying that the USA wasn't the lone violator, in your oppinion.

If you say differently, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Of course Australia was wrong to invade Iraq.

I've NEVER said otherwise.

 

ImWithStupid

New member
Of course Australia was wrong to invade Iraq.
I've NEVER said otherwise.
Now I pose the question. The process that this was done, with exaggerated, or manipulated, intelligence is wrong, but given the history of Saddam Hussein and his blatent denial of complying with regulations set up by the U.N. His history of aggression in attempting to invade Iran, invading Kuwait, using chemical weapons on the Kurds in northern Iraq and openly threatening another soverign nation in the region, i.e. Israel. Is this really that much less of a noble cause as fighting the ****'s in Europe was in WWII?

I mean at the time of WWII, imperialism was still rampant. Great Brittain had it's empire, France had it's empire, the US had it's empire, etc...

The only difference in what Germany and Japan did, was they turned their empirical ambitions toward European and other Anglo nations.

Nobody did anything when Japan invaded and spread throughout China and other Asian nations all the way to Southeast Asia, nor did anyone care when Italy, the third part of the Axis nations, went into and invaded African nations.

Resistance was only deemed necessary when Germany started spreading across "white anglo" Europe and Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, spread through the Pacific until it was in place to threaten Australia and Italy was in place to threaten Great Britains interests in the Middle East, i.e. oil reserves.

 

Anna Perenna

New member
Now I pose the question. The process that this was done, with exaggerated, or manipulated, intelligence is wrong, but given the history of Saddam Hussein and his blatent denial of complying with regulations set up by the U.N. His history of aggression in attempting to invade Iran, invading Kuwait, using chemical weapons on the Kurds in northern Iraq and openly threatening another soverign nation in the region, i.e. Israel. Is this really that much less of a noble cause as fighting the ****'s in Europe was in WWII?
I mean at the time of WWII, imperialism was still rampant. Great Brittain had it's empire, France had it's empire, the US had it's empire, etc...

The only difference in what Germany and Japan did, was they turned their empirical ambitions toward European and other Anglo nations.

Nobody did anything when Japan invaded and spread throughout China and other Asian nations all the way to Southeast Asia, nor did anyone care when Italy, the third part of the Axis nations, went into and invaded African nations.

Resistance was only deemed necessary when Germany started spreading across "white anglo" Europe and Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, spread through the Pacific until it was in place to threaten Australia and Italy was in place to threaten Great Britains interests in the Middle East, i.e. oil reserves.
I'm not going to argue about the wrongs and rights of the war in Iraq. I've been arguing with Americans about this for years and nothing good ever comes of it.

Your president executes retards.

Your army tortures and holds people, without rights, in Guantanamo Bay.

You have 30 serial killers roaming around at any given time.

A woman gets raped every 6 seconds.

etc etc etc

Your country is not perfect. You should concentrate on fixing your own society before judging others.

 

ImWithStupid

New member
I'm not going to argue about the wrongs and rights of the war in Iraq. I've been arguing with Americans about this for years and nothing good ever comes of it.
Your president executes retards.

Your army tortures and holds people, without rights, in Guantanamo Bay.

You have 30 serial killers roaming around at any given time.

A woman gets raped every 6 seconds.

etc etc etc

Your country is not perfect. You should concentrate on fixing your own society before judging others.
My point wasn't so much to justify the Iraq war as to call into question the motives of WWII.

I am very aware as to the US being imperfect, but as you said, Your country is not perfect either. You should concentrate on fixing your own society before judging others. The difference is that, just like the celebrity at the top of popularity, someone is trying to point our every flaw in the US.

I again bring up the pot and kettle thing. Here is where you again are projecting a dialogue of arrogence. I believe that I could point out many negative issues with your nation also, it's just that Australia isn't as "big of a celeb" as the US in the world stage so it's issues go much more unnoticed.

 

Anna Perenna

New member
My point wasn't so much to justify the Iraq war as to call into question the motives of WWII.
I am very aware as to the US being imperfect, but as you said, Your country is not perfect either. You should concentrate on fixing your own society before judging others. The difference is that, just like the celebrity at the top of popularity, someone is trying to point our every flaw in the US.

I again bring up the pot and kettle thing. Here is where you again are projecting a dialogue of arrogence. I believe that I could point out many negative issues with your nation also, it's just that Australia isn't as "big of a celeb" as the US in the world stage so it's issues go much more unnoticed.
I'm not the one judging China and righteously lambasting their human rights record.

I'm pointing out the holes in your arguments, that's all.

For the last time, stop projecting false opinions on to me.

 

hugo

New member
A lot of issues brought up here. Yes, we should seek liberalized trade agreements with all nations regardless of their human rights records. Free trade and open markets are a force against tyranny. It was Hillary and Barack in the Democratic primaries who showed a tendency to reject liberalized trade in favor of protectionism. I think they were just shooting for the votes of union members. John McCain has better free trade credentials.

Kyoto is a flawed treaty and has gotten worse as India and China's economies grow. It gives those nations a free ride and no progress can be made in reducing greenhouse gases without restrictions on those nations also. Kyoto needs to be trashed and a new agreement put in place. It will do no good for the Western world to lower emissions while the Asian economies go full steam ahead.

Actually, the **** Supreme Court won't let states execute retards anymore, Which is a **** shame. People with 70 IQs know it ain't right to cut peoples throats. You hear this **** about how they have a mind of an 8 year old. Guess what? Not many 8 year olds kill people.

Invading Iraq was stupid but basically based on a Wilsonian human rights philosophy. Hussein was an important force keeping Iran in check. Taking him out may well end up being good for the Iraqis but the US will receive no net benefit from it.

Clinton and Bush both met the Dalai Lama and it is pretty certain the next Prez will too.

 

Anna Perenna

New member
A lot of issues brought up here. Yes, we should seek liberalized trade agreements with all nations regardless of their human rights records. Free trade and open markets are a force against tyranny. It was Hillary and Barack in the Democratic primaries who showed a tendency to reject liberalized trade in favor of protectionism. I think they were just shooting for the votes of union members. John McCain has better free trade credentials.
Well, if Hugo agrees with me I must be right :D

Cheers.

 

snafu

New member
A lot of issues brought up here. Yes, we should seek liberalized trade agreements with all nations regardless of their human rights records. Free trade and open markets are a force against tyranny.......
I find myself disagreeing with the hugopedia. Wow first time!

How is free trade a force against tyranny? Just look they way they freaked out when they thought some counties we're going to boycott the Olympics. They tried to clean up their act pretty **** fast. They want our money and I think we can put the screws on them by sanctions.

 

ImWithStupid

New member
I find myself disagreeing with the hugopedia. Wow first time! How is free trade a force against tyranny? Just look they way they freaked out when they thought some counties we're going to boycott the Olympics. They tried to clean up their act pretty **** fast. They want our money and I think we can put the screws on them by sanctions.
I agree with Snaf. Playing nice with a nation just to get what they can provide, ignoring the human rights violations is wrong. I don't agree with it with China and I don't agree with it with Saudi Arabia.

Ignoring what they do to their people is like a neighbor ignoring the domestic violence going on to keep peace in on the block. She's still getting abused.

 

hugo

New member
Let me take some excerpts from:

Classical Liberalism in the 21st Century: War and Peace

by Richard M. Ebeling, September 2001

The classical-liberal visionOnly starting in the middle of the 18th century did there emerge a different vision of a society of peace and freedom. It is found in the writings of the French Physiocrats and the Scottish moral philosophers, two of whose leading figures were David Hume and Adam Smith. Their ideas were refined and popularized by the classical economists of the first half of the 19th century.

The ideas of the classical economists became the economic foundation for the classical-liberal revolution that radically changed the course of human events. They argued that private property was not the source of conflict among men but rather the institutional prerequisite for social peace. They reasoned that men have a logical basis for peacefully associating and cooperating with each other to obtain the benefits from the greater productivity and gains from trade that develop through a system of division of labor. They explained that the benefits from a division of labor were ecumenical in their nature, that is, the benefits from specialization and trade between members of the same community or region were no less universally true for all people who might happen to live in different countries.

It led one French classical liberal, Frederic Passy, to state in 1861,

Some day all barriers will fall; some day mankind, constantly united by continuous transactions, will form just one workshop, one market, and one family.. And this is . the grandeur, the truth, the nobility, I might almost say the holiness of the free trade doctrine; by the prosaic but effective pressure of [material] interest it tends to make justice and harmony prevail in the world.

And it is understandable why Passy reached this conclusion. By the middle of the 19th century, it appeared that the classical-liberal doctrine of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets would transform the world into an ever greater network of human relationships based on voluntary association, open competition, and international peace as governments were restricted to protecting liberty under constitutional restraint.
Liberalized trade leads to peaceful relations among nations. Economic prosperity leads to an increase in civil liberties. We are taking the right road with China, the wrong road with Cuba. There is nothing wrong with occasionally using the bully pulpit to espouse American values (even if we often fall short ourselves) and critique our trade partners but we should always remember to pursue our national interests which is liberalized trade.

 

snafu

New member
Liberalized trade leads to peaceful relations among nations. Economic prosperity leads to an increase in civil liberties..
I disagree.

Economic prosperity in a Democratic or Socialist society yes but not in a communist or dictatorship society. Prosperity should be achieved but not at the expense of human suffering.

Sanctions with Cuba didn't work because they had enough trade with Russia and China.

Some day all barriers will fall; some day mankind, constantly united by continuous transactions, will form just one workshop, one market, and one family.. And this is . the grandeur, the truth, the nobility, I might almost say the holiness of the free trade doctrine; by the prosaic but effective pressure of [material] interest it tends to make justice and harmony prevail in the world.
What grand fairy tale for the rich and elite in a communistic world. The two societies can not co-exist.

 

hugo

New member
It only took 17 years for classically liberal economic policies to turn Chile from a dictatorship into a democracy. China is no longer a communist country, not much more socialistic than Europe. The Chinese people are much better off than they were when Nixon first established friendly relations and opened up trade economically and from a civil liberties point of view. Yep, to believe us human bastards will ever live totally in peace with each other is utopian; there will always be some conflict. The best way to reduce it is to follow liberal (in the classic use of the word) trade policies.
 
Top Bottom