Hi, just a brief 'intervention'.
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Ok so we are off topic again but what the heck. I have ADD so it kinda works for me.
1. Afghanistan/Taliban could have avoided invasion if they just handed over Bin Laden, which they said they would not do. So thus you get
They said that they would consider extraditing him if they could find him( they liked being in power) if the US were willing to provide them with some
of the evidence that will be employed to prosecute him. Since the US refused to negotiate ( "Give him up , or") or share any of the information that
suggests his guilt the Taliban were really not left with any options. The US were always going to invade Afghanistan no matter what the Taliban did
short of inviting them to occupy the country.
Beside that fact the FBI is still not searching for OBL in relation to 9-11 as they still have no direct evidence of his involvement; there was not
and still is no legal case against him.
2. Even though Bush used 911 as a pretense for Iraq this was wrong. I agree they were not a threat in that way. He did have grounds to
invade which he didnt really use, I assume because he is slightly stupid.
There were no legal grounds for the invasion and occupation of Iraq without a mandate and the UN have made it pretty clear that both the invasion and
occupation are simply illegal criminal acts. The US national security state invaded Iraq simply because they believed they could get away with it
given the fighting in Afghanistan and their already significant presence ( Israel) in the middle east.
Those grounds are that Iraq was in constant violation of the cease first agreement from the first Gulf War from the moment they signed
No they were not. There never was a UN mandated no fly zone that Iraq could violate; entirely invented by the US national security state to keep
pressure on the Iraq forces and to ensure that a invasion would not be met with unexpected fortifications and air defense systems.
Oh and the seed analogy I understand where you are going I just dont agree with the logic of it, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree
on that one.
Agreeing to disagree is the cowards way out but it's true that cowards tend to live to fight another day.
I will do my best to stay out the discussion but i would like to make a statement.
I think this is much like arguing that a pile of bricks, cement, sand is a house because that's what it normally becomes given the right
circumstances and applied intelligence.
Perhaps that sounds like a 'liberal' ( hehe) ploy to shift the argument but in my opinion it has to come
down to women being enabled to make, preferably, educated ( let the state invest in trying to scare them out of abortion if it wants to) decisions
about their own bodies. It seems to me that the debate largely turns on the religious argument that human life ( i suspect 'souls' and the like)
starts with inception and the inherit 'specialness' of human life.
I would feel more comfortable with state intervention, laws against abortion, once our leaders shows that they are serious about preserving human life
everywhere ( tens of thousands starve or die from disease ever day and no one can turn them into zygotes) will fight poverty everywhere and wont
resort to incarcerating people by their millions without any effort to address their grievances.
[edit on 11-5-2009 by StellarX]