Self-Defense - A question for the pro-Americans

[Pete]

Why do you consider it a crime that someone you pick on can defend them selves?

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 7:53 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Why do you consider it a crime that someone you pick on can defend them selves?

I think I know what you are implying, but please restate your point to be more specific.

[Pete]

America complains that Iraq is buying things like anti-tank weapons and nightvision googles. Aswell they see the fact that they have vaccines against chemical weapons as a crime. I just don't understand why.

[CruelVerdad]

Because they want to have the power, and only them. It´s "dangerous" that other country have lethal weapons... because it can kill "more" civilians in the US.
Then they call it terrorism to buy weapons or to develop some kind of weapon.
It´s just an excuse, for this stupid war!
If they take all the weapons of Iraq, we should take all the weapons that they have in the US.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CruelVerdad on 8:25 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Because they want to have the power, and only them. It´s "dangerous" that other country have lethal weapons... because it can kill "more" civilians in the US.
Then they call it terrorism to buy weapons or to develop some kind of weapon.
It´s just an excuse, for this stupid war!
If they take all the weapons of Iraq, we should take all the weapons that they have in the US.


I will concede the WMD and terrorism angle is an excuse to start a war.

Saddam sees himself as a historic figure that will unite the Gulf under one rule, namely his. That is the underlying megalomania that is driving Saddam. He wants history to remember him for thousands of years.

http://www.witn.psu.edu/articles/article.p...id=28&show_id=5 (http://www.witn.psu.edu/articles/article.phtml?article_id=28&show_id=5)

Saddam knows that the USA will never allow the oil region to be controlled by his regime. To achive his goals, Saddam needs WMDs to bargin and barter with the USA as an equal.

This war was inevitable. The USA would never allow Saddam to unite the Gulf region under his rule.

Oh BTW, Saddam is a good Stalinist:

"So Saddam in the early '70s is Iraq's vice president. Could you describe how he's already setting up a Stalinist system with control of the government.

In the early '70s, Saddam started out controlling one small department called the Peasants Department; at that time the Ba'ath regime, for a very brief period of time, was committed to installing a democratic system in Iraq. It was a bit of a dream. Came the time for them to assign the job of head of the security system, and no one from the inner circle wanted the job. Everybody says, "This is a dirty job. I don't want it." Young Saddam Hussein raised his hand, and said, "I want the job. I'll take over the security system."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ws/aburish.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html)

[Pete]

Kelvin, that is all and good, but does not answer my question.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 8:54 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Kelvin, that is all and good, but does not answer my question.

My previous post above in a nutshell:

Any weapons that Saddam has is unacceptable. As long as Saddam has the remote possibility of uniting the Gulf region under his regime, there will be a USA with an itchy trigger finger. Saddam can keep his oil. The USA wants continued flow of Saudi, and Quwaiti oil. Any disruption of either is unacceptable.

The question you are looking for is "it is about oil." Not Iraqi oil, Saddam can keep it. Saddam would have been just fine if he never invaded Quwait or had any dreams of expanding beyond the his pre-Gulf War borders.

[Tkinter1]

"America complains that Iraq is buying things like anti-tank weapons and nightvision googles."

It's who they're buying them from that the US complains about. Remember, if someone sells Iraq weapons they are violating international law.

Also, the more weapons and technology Iraq has, the longer this war will take.

"Aswell they see the fact that they have vaccines against chemical weapons as a crime."

That could show that the Iraqi's may be planing to use chemical weapons on advancing troops. That is why finding vaccines/protection is disturbing.

[Tkinter1]

"Because they want to have the power, and only them."

True. I trust the Americans with weapon technology more so than I do rouge factions.

It´s "dangerous" that other country have lethal weapons...

True. Don't you agree with that?

because it can kill "more" civilians in the US.

True.

"Then they call it terrorism to buy weapons or to develop some kind of weapon."

Most of the time it is!


"If they take all the weapons of Iraq, we should take all the weapons that they have in the US."

Then who has the weapons?

[Pete]

Then no one has weapons and something called peace comes around.


Kelvin this has nothing to do with oil. It happened in Nicauragua aswell. American officals complained that the Nicauraguans where defending themselves.

[kelvin90701]

Fine. Then what is your point.

[Pete]

Why do you consider it a crime that someone you pick on can defend them selves?

That is my point. Answer my question straight.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:02 am on Mar. 31, 2003

Why do you consider it a crime that someone you pick on can defend them selves?

That is my point. Answer my question straight.

First off read your first post. It is very vague. "Someone" did you mean Iraq, did you mean the nerd I picked on in highschool?

"Defend themselves" in the context of an international war? Or the right to self defense against a murderer?

A crime? What crime? Do I oppose something that offends you.

Take those exact words: "Why do you consider it a crime that someone you pick on can defend them selves?" Go next door right now and ask someone that. Did they know what you mean? Your not trying hard enough.

I will answer your question with a similiar vague answer.

It is not a crime to defend yourself. Everyone has a right to self defense.

[Pete]

crime=america always whines when someone they are fighting stands up and defends themselves. such as nicaurauga.

this is only about iraq because you made it about iraq. it is in the international context.

defend themselves= defending against america's agression

"It is not a crime to defend yourself. Everyone has a right to self defense."

I agree. Selfdefense is not violence.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:22 am on Mar. 31, 2003
crime=america always whines when someone they are fighting stands up and defends themselves. such as nicaurauga.

this is only about iraq because you made it about iraq. it is in the international context.

defend themselves= defending against america's agression

"It is not a crime to defend yourself. Everyone has a right to self defense."

I agree. Selfdefense is not violence.

Dude your seriously confused. Read the frist three post. YOU made it about Iraq.

Remeber:

Post 1 You: Why do you consider it a crime that someone you pick on can defend them selves?

Post 2 Me: please restate your point to be more specific

Post 3 You: America complains that Iraq .........

[Pete]

I used an example. It does not have to be about Iraq. In general. Why is this so? If you do not know then please say so and let someone who does answer.