US has a self-imposed moratorium on assassinating leaders and other individuals during times of peace. Basically, while this would be great for a lot of people in the world, it would break US law and set a bad precedent as to who can and cannot be taken out.Why don't you(the US) just send a spy in nk kill that fatty stupid a-hole and be done with it??? (like you should have done with saddam hussen...)
Sorry if im off topic but, i have to know
Why yes Timmy, US should pull out of South Korea
Author
US has a self-imposed moratorium on assassinating leaders and other individuals during times of peace. Basically, while this would be great for a lot of people in the world, it would break US law and set a bad precedent as to who can and cannot be taken out.
Why don't you(the US) just send a spy in nk kill that fatty stupid a-hole and be done with it??? (like you should have done with saddam hussen...)
Sorry if im off topic but, i have to know
They did try to kill Saddam, and killed some of his doubles and family members in the process. He had to spend a lot of money in staying alive...
They assassinate people in Pakistan all the time though - what do you think the drones (and seals) are doing?! As well as many, many other countries - they've been caught out asking governments to publicly take responsibility for their killings, and now have the legal power to even kill their own citizens that are overseas. They're also not afraid of initiating a coup so that a leader can be killed, like Allende in Chile's 9/11, or Lybia recently... Closer to home, there's Chavez, Castro, etc, if you care to look past denials / entertain possibilities.
But most importantly, the US is still formally at war with NK, so they'd be justified in almost any action.
Because it wouldn't do anything good, Un is not the entire NK government, he would be replaced and NK would almost be forced to retaliate against someone.Why don't you(the US) just send a spy in nk kill that fatty stupid a-hole and be done with it??? (like you should have done with saddam hussen...)
Sorry if im off topic but, i have to know
As for Iraq ...
1) Before the US invaded Iraq was a seqular dictatorship, there were no WMDs and Saddam kept the terrorist groups mostly out of Iraq, there were no reason to invade.
2) After the US invasion... the country is a mess and infested with terrorists, insurgents, rebels and criminals, and this is despite the fact that the US had troops in the country and have tried to make it form a democratic government.
Assassinating Saddam would only have resulted in him being replaced by another member of his party.
Replacing one oppressive dictator with another is not a solution.
In a war however it can be a perfectly valid and sane move to try to kill the enemy leaders (to disrupt their organisation), it is important that you fill the void left behind afterwards though.
1) Before the US invaded Iraq was a seqular dictatorship, there were no WMDs and Saddam kept the terrorist groups mostly out of Iraq, there were no reason to invade.
[...]
Assassinating Saddam would only have resulted in him being replaced by another member of his party.
Replacing one oppressive dictator with another is not a solution.
Of course there were reasons, an entire 710 of them. Assassinating Saddam Hussein would have resulted in the US losing the "justification" that they needed to cover their crimial act.
Though of course, often enough they don't even make a secret out of it. The USA do what the USA want, they veto anything that is not in their favour, and they only respect laws and treaties that are in their favour, as long as they are in their favour.
Think of UN resolution 61/89. Most civilized nations, with the exception of some "rogue states" that abstained, agreed pursuing illegal weapon trades was a good thing that would prevent a lot of suffering and save many innocent lives. The USA were the only ones to vote against it. Note that the law was not about limiting weapons, only about illicit weapon trades. What civilized nation would vote against such a law?
Similar can be said about the Kyoto Protocol (though the USA are in good company with Canada and Sudan in this case, and China doesn't care anyway). Everyone agrees that we need to do something before we all die from the uninhabitable environment that we create. Everyone... except the ones who would really need to (this is the same funny correlation as in cervix cancer screening).
It's so ridiculous watching the Green Party zealots here in Europe with their shit-head ideas in a situation where there's really nothing to do. In Germany, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 27% since 1990. But if you only contribute 2.9% to the worldwide total, reducing this fraction by any amount is just a joke. Even if we reduced it by 100%, no one would notice. Reducing emissions in the USA (or China) by only 1% would have a much greater effect. But of course they'll never think of it, as it costs money.
Reducing emissions in the USA (or China) by only 1% would have a much greater effect. But of course they'll never think of it, as it costs money.
It is nothing to do with money, both sides want to be in power and to do that they need a majority vote, sensitive / controversial issues like guns, environment etc causes leaders to stick their head in the sand or risk losing.
Personally I blame Republicans for this, before Al Gore's "inconvenience truth", most people agreed pollution was ugly, harmful (to both humans and the environment) and caused many problems, people may have had different solutions but no one 'liked' pollution. After inconvenience truth, Republicans got pissed off and somehow over time people are convinced that pollution in general is 'ok'. Notice I say pollution and not global warming? That is because sadly people have forgotten about all the other problems associated with pollution, even if global warming was a myth (which most scientists agree it ISNT), pollution in general is horrible and clean industry is something the US should promote.
Shame republicans aren't like conservatives in UK, stuff like guns, gay marriage, environment, healthcare aren't an issue, and when something is, it is dealt with, within weeks, not years. Even France deals with issues pretty fast, not entirely sure why US politicians move at a glacial pace
There it is. The standard Democrat blame-game. Christ, you people just never take any kind of responsibility whatsoever. Always someone else's fault.Personally I blame Republicans for this,
Shame everyone else doesn't have your values. Shame everyone just doesn't magically agree with you.Shame republicans aren't like conservatives in UK,
Do you have an actual argument, with evidence, that can disprove his point? As it stands, you're just engaging in more partisan rhetoric yourself, which given that partisan rhetoric is what you're quoting as a bad thing seems a little hypocritical...
There it is. The standard Democrat blame-game. Christ, you people just never take any kind of responsibility whatsoever. Always someone else's fault.Personally I blame Republicans for this,
What point is there to disprove? He doesn't have a point, just a wild accusation of some sort of... something about power, and whoever wants to keep it, that is somehow or other the Republicans' fault. Apparently evil Republicans.... ummm... somehow magically convinced everyone that pollution is good? Those goddam villains.
What point is there to disprove? He doesn't have a point, just a wild accusation of some sort of... something about power, and whoever wants to keep it, that is somehow or other the Republicans' fault. Apparently evil Republicans.... ummm... somehow magically convinced everyone that pollution is good? Those goddam villains.
Nonsense. I disagree with Maestro as well (Republicans were never especially pro-environment), but Republicans have overwhelmingly and consistently favored:
1. Policies which allow major industrial interests sole discretion to decide how much pollution matters and whom it affects, which often has had devastating consequences for groups of people who can't really fight those interests on their own. When these people try to organize against industrial interests to stop them from, say, dumping poisonous chemical waste products into their groundwater, the only viable way that they can do so is to agitate for government regulation where they are, *gasp*, stymied by certain politicians. I won't say it's always Republicans, because that would be inaccurate, but Republicans are certainly overrepresented in this opposition.
2. Reapportioning the impacts from environmental policies, as above, to groups with the least ability to deal with them or to protect themselves from such apportionment. This one is far more bipartisanly popular, but on environmental issues in particular Republican have again been overrepresented in protecting polluters.
3. Stances which dismiss even the possibility of negative environmental impacts from various industrial, economic, and land-use practices. On environmental issues, an average Republican from the last 70 years or so has been far more likely to dismiss environmental dangers, regardless of the amount or quality of evidence suggesting those dangers exist and far more likely to uncritically accept evidence suggesting that such dangers do not exist (again, regardless of the amount or quality of this evidence).
It's not a Republicans-only club, nor is it some cabal of villains trying to specifically destroy the world for some nefarious purpose. But this is one of the issues which features a pretty clear and consistent partisan divide, with Republicans making explicit policy moves which result in more and worse pollution more often and at higher per-party-figure rates than any other political party in the US.
Author
The operative word in this case is during times of peace. During the 90's Saddam lived relatively untouched.They did try to kill Saddam, and killed some of his doubles and family members in the process. He had to spend a lot of money in staying alive...
The justification is that US is at war with al-Qaeda, therefore it's ok to take out their operatives and leaders before they can kill themselves.They assassinate people in Pakistan all the time though - what do you think the drones (and seals) are doing?!
US has been asking governments to publicly take responsibility for their killings?As well as many, many other countries - they've been caught out asking governments to publicly take responsibility for their killings,
That's... not true. Unless you have a link to a document that actually states that the US fed can just off random US citizens as they see fit, then this must be some left-wing conspiracy theory.and now have the legal power to even kill their own citizens that are overseas.
Yes, during the Cold War the US and USSR did unsavory things in a global power struggle.They're also not afraid of initiating a coup so that a leader can be killed, like Allende in Chile's
Please don't tell me that you're a truther.9/11,
... I take it you don't know the background reasons behind what caused the Arab Spring, yes?or Lybia recently...
The US does not have a halo over its head, it never has and doesn't nowCloser to home, there's Chavez,
.CW power struggle, both US and USSR used dirty tricks and at times criminal actions. Yes, I know this.Castro,
You could make a case out of it that way, yes and if you got the right wording, then yes, you could say that US can off NK's head. However, that's not the de facto situation. Legally, US is still at war with NK, but the situation at the moment is that it's a tense peace. This tactic wouldn't make much sense at this very moment.But most importantly, the US is still formally at war with NK, so they'd be justified in almost any action.
And while Pyongyang is annoying, they have a bigger ally that permits them to get away with quite a bit.
But... I don't get why you're dragging these facts out. How does this add to the original post? US is imperfect? Very few people in this country would say with a straight face that this country has not done things that are criminal or immoral.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
