• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
_orm_

Osama Bin Laden is Dead.

148 posts in this topic

[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1304364984' post='4805613']
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304363521' post='4805605']
When the people decide to stand up for themselves. As I recall, people on this very forum were tripping over themselves to justify the bailouts of big banks and automotive companies as soon as their favorite politician got behind them. [/quote]If people stand up, they'll go to jail.[/quote]

Voting, petitioning leaders, disseminating information, and creating public advocacy groups will land you in jail?

Get real. I don't know what your personal position on the bailouts was, but your arguments are eerily in tune with the same kind of folks who supported them when it was politically expedient to do so (wouldn't want to be labeled a "tea bagger" after all) and, now that it is too late, complain about the evil banksters who took advantage of their brilliant "progressive" idea to meld state and private enterprise.

[quote]
Values have never been better or worse. Values are determined by force and ability to apply it.
[/quote]

You believe what you believe because someone held a gun to your head?

[quote]
People cheering the death of an individual are not highly moral and definitely not Western.[/quote]

Really? Says who?

[quote]
They aren't celebrating end of terror, end of war on terror, end of decaying freedoms, end of corruption, end of greed.[/quote]

As far as I can tell, the celebration is largely about achieving a major milestone in the so-called War on Terror: the elimination of a leading figurehead and symbol of the enemy. People are happy Bin Laden has been brought to justice but I don't think the crowds were out to fantasize about the "headshot" moment. In fact, the cheering crowds materialized before the gory details of the operation emerged.

[quote]Do people also cheer when criminals get executed and throw parties late in the night?
[/quote]

No, they don't. So maybe this should clue you in on the fact that this is about more than just the assassination of some criminal. Maybe, just maybe, this was a slightly more complicated moment.


[quote]There is no ideology, morality or anything higher. it's just the same images as those seen every day in other countries, except that instead of burning flags, they burn pictures of Bin Laden. There is no superiority, no moral victory. None of the things he stood up for changed, if anything they were reinforced. None of the ideologies fought against have been defeated.
[/quote]

The ideologies are slowly but surely being discredited. People aren't exactly keen on living under an Al Qaeda-styled caliphate anymore.

[quote]
Bin Laden was a dead man on 9/11. Death certificate just took a while to show up. He was a madman with an impossible plan that somehow lucked out against impossible odds. But for every one of his victims, 300 people died.[/quote]

The vast majority at the hands of other Muslim terrorists and insurgents, by the way. So much for moral equivalence.

[quote]
And every time you use a phone, every time approach an airport, every time you show an id, every time you use a credit card, his legacy is there. Until this changes, his death is irrelevant.
[/quote]

Now you've taken us [i]way[/i] off topic. This is another issue altogether. You lost the argument that celebrating Bin Laden's downfall made us no better than fanatical, flag-burning throngs in the middle east, so you're shifting to our own internal problems, which are up to us to resolve.

Clever. But not clever enough.
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1304364916' post='4805612']
The point is the death of CIVILIANS. I can't see any ways to justify that and yet, for some interesting reason the thread forgets about them and starts to talk about some Islam vs Whatever and some moral bullshit we had many times before. I'm not a pacifist, go ahead, make wars and make some more, kill people, kill some more, but not CIVILIANS!
[/quote]

That's kind of a separate issue. I hope you're not saying Bin Laden was a civilian.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bin Laden is dead. Great. Now, can we get all of our freedoms back and get the hell out of the middle east? If we can't then we're left with fighting his ghost which is even worse. Ghosts don't have expiration dates. Especially when you have constant reminders everywhere you're hated (ex: US bases).

trzy. We are directly responsible for the theocracy in Iran. When those people burn our flags and celebrate when something horrible happens to the US, they have damn good reason to.

Let me be clear. I'm not saying that American citizens deserve to die. Or should die. Because they don't. But given the reason that you gave for us being morally in the clear for celebrating Bin Laden's death, Iranians can properly apply that reason when they do it. Also remember the Iran Contra fiasco.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Wavarian' timestamp='1304334815' post='4805352']
I believe that it's bad karma to celebrate a person's death, regardless of what they've done.

I do however find it ironic that while America was shocked to discover that middle-eastern civillians were celebrating the destruction of the twin towers, here America is now celebrating the death of the mastermind behind the attack.[/quote]

I find it rather sad. I would have much rather that the man surrendered after being caught, rather than continuing guns blazing until he died in a firefight.

I have no love for what the guy has done, but I don't think celebration is the right action by anybody. I can understand why so many are celebrating, but I can also understand why dogs eat their own vomit. I think it is an unfortunate fact that so many people are celebrating, just like it was an unfortunate fact when so many celebrated after 9/11 attacks.

Both are times that the populations should have chosen to mourn.




[quote]Perhaps the government will use this as an excuse to leave the middle-east? Maybe change the reason for war one last time? (9/11 -> Weapons of mass destruction -> Bringing down a tyrant -> Peacekeeping -> "Oh hey, our original reason for war was to take down Bin Laden, and now he's dead. Now we can leave.")
[/quote]

That depends on who you ask, and about which war you are discussing. If you are asking random Joe American you are quite certain to get a new response.

Please don't confuse the situation in Iraq with the situation in Afghanistan. Although they happened near the same time and many people confuse them, they are quite different. Both had very different causes.

Iraq = Started in 1990 with Iraq's Kuwait invasion, repulsion and ceasefire, decade of no-fly with a record of infractions. Followed up by UN inspection mandates requiring immediate and unconditional access to particular sites. UN expanded the program based on testimony from Iraqi expatriots, which was later shown to be false; The expanded program was followed by UN inspection teams getting locked out of locations, or in some cases locked into a room while crates of documents were removed off-site by the Iraqi government. At the same time there was an increase in surface-to-air attacks in the UN-ordered no-fly zone, discovery of UAVs that were in direct violation of the UN mandate, violations of UN sanctions, and violations of the terms of earlier cease fire. It was not so much the presence or absence of weapons, but the defiance to the weapons inspection orders and other mandates. Then there was the second invasion that resulted in the capture of Hussian and the trial by his own people.

Some officials and countless news outlets made statements about terrorists and 9/11, or trying tor take democracy to the country, but those claims were not stated by those in authority of making the military decisions behind the action in Iraq.


Afghanistan = Direct response to 9/11 with the stated goal of "dismantling Al-Quaeda and ending its use of Afghanistan as a base for terrorist operations". I don't believe this mission statement has significantly changed.

While Usama's choice to die rather than face capture does continue part of the goal, it does not complete either half of those objectives.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1304367200' post='4805629']
Iraq = Started in 1990 with Iraq's Kuwait invasion, repulsion and ceasefire, decade of no-fly with a record of infractions. Followed up by UN inspection mandates requiring immediate and unconditional access to particular sites.
[/quote]
Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling in Iraq territory and wouldn't stop after Iraq repeated demands for Kuwait to stop.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304367068' post='4805628']
Bin Laden is dead. Great. Now, can we get all of our freedoms back and get the hell out of the middle east?[/quote]

I thought Obama was supposed to lead us out of the middle east, in addition to healing the planet and controlling ocean levels with the sheer force of his will. Maybe we should get serious about electing people who will do something more decisive than playing musical chairs with the leaders of our military-intelligence complex?

[quote]
trzy. We are directly responsible for the theocracy in Iran. When those people burn our flags and celebrate when something horrible happens to the US, they have damn good reason to.
[/quote]

The US is partially responsible for creating the circumstances that ultimately led to that, but why don't you also blame the Iranians who actually installed the theocracy? Let's apply Occam's Razor and assign blame to the ones actually pulling the trigger. They could have re-installed a socialist or created a secular democracy, or even a military dictatorship, but instead they chose theocracy and that's not America's fault. The takeaway lessons from the overthrow of Mossadegh are: use regime change more sparingly, be careful of blowback, and, for nationalists around the world, don't steal the property of investors backed by more powerful governments than your own.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304367403' post='4805632']
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1304367200' post='4805629']
Iraq = Started in 1990 with Iraq's Kuwait invasion, repulsion and ceasefire, decade of no-fly with a record of infractions. Followed up by UN inspection mandates requiring immediate and unconditional access to particular sites.
[/quote]
Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling in Iraq territory and wouldn't stop after Iraq repeated demands for Kuwait to stop.
[/quote]

With that kind of logic, you could have tried a bit and justified the overthrow of Iran's socialist leader.
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304367403' post='4805632']
Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling in Iraq territory and wouldn't stop after Iraq repeated demands for Kuwait to stop.
[/quote]

Iraq invaded Kuwait because it was in debt and Kuwait was driving down the price of oil. Independent firms not related to either Kuwait or Iraq dismissed the claims of slant drilling as a weak excuse to take military action.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiDyrkU0WAQ&feature=player_embedded]Taiwan's animators do it again[/url] ;)
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1304368489' post='4805641']
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304367403' post='4805632']
Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling in Iraq territory and wouldn't stop after Iraq repeated demands for Kuwait to stop.
[/quote]

Iraq invaded Kuwait because it was in debt and Kuwait was driving down the price of oil. Independent firms not related to either Kuwait or Iraq dismissed the claims of slant drilling as a weak excuse to take military action.
[/quote]

Was it weaker than the false testimonies, propaganda and lies that led to the second Iraq invasion?


[quote name='trzy']our Western value system trumps others when we find ourselves the targets of violence by opposing ideologues[/quote]
Opposing ideologies that Reagan and Carter directly funded and armed. So much for your so-called moral superiority.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1304369332' post='4805646']
Was it weaker than the false testimonies, propaganda and lies that led to the second Iraq invasion?
[/quote]
Which of the UN resolutions that were not followed would you consider a lie? I need to know the answer to that question before any reasonable response can be made.
-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1304369332' post='4805646']
Was it weaker than the false testimonies, propaganda and lies that led to the second Iraq invasion?
[/quote]

This thread was about Bin Laden, which has more to do with Afghanistan and Pakistan. I disagreed with Iraq but am saddened to see that many self-proclaimed peace-lovers are gung-ho about intervention in Libya. So much for your so-called moral superiority.

[quote]
[quote name='trzy']our Western value system trumps others when we find ourselves the targets of violence by opposing ideologues[/quote]
Opposing ideologies that Reagan and Carter directly funded and armed. So much for your so-called moral superiority.
[/quote]

Between supporting Muslim freedom fighters (USA) and stabbing former allies in the back, and then trying to construct a phony narrative of Western Crusaders murdering Muslims (Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and yourself), I'd say the USA clearly possesses moral superiority in what is obviously a very messy situation.

Score another one for the good guys! *fist pump*
-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304370071' post='4805652']

Between supporting Muslim freedom fighters (USA) and stabbing former allies in the back, and then trying to construct a phony narrative of Western Crusaders murdering Muslims (Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and yourself), I'd say the USA clearly possesses moral superiority in what is obviously a very messy situation.[/quote]

That is true. Oil is messy.

But oil must flow. So ends justify the means.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1304370488' post='4805655']
That is true. Oil is messy.
[/quote]

Yes.

But I hope you are aware that there is no oil in Afghanistan.

[quote]
But oil must flow. So ends justify the means.
[/quote]

Sort of. Involvement in the middle east ultimately boils down to oil and national interest (but then again, so does [i]everyone's[/i] involvement [i]anywhere[/i]). But reality is a bit more complex. America's benign imperialism is not solely motivated by predatory resource extraction. The US is not benefiting from OPEC manipulating oil prices or the Saudis bankrolling anti-American terrorists, now are we? So perhaps the narrative is more complex.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1304369988' post='4805651']
[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1304369332' post='4805646']
Was it weaker than the false testimonies, propaganda and lies that led to the second Iraq invasion?
[/quote]
Which of the UN resolutions that were not followed would you consider a lie? I need to know the answer to that question before any reasonable response can be made.
[/quote]
[i]"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." [/i][url="http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wariniraq/gwbushiraq31903.htm"]George W. Bush, 19 March 2003[/url]

No such weapons were ever found either by the UN inspectors or the US occupation forces. A war that cost an est. 3 [i]trillion[/i] dollars ([url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece"]source[/url]), resulted in somewhere between ~100000 to 1000000 casualties, including coalition forces ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#U.S._armed_forces"]source[/url]).

Is there really anything more that needs to be said?
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304370945' post='4805659']
[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1304370488' post='4805655']
That is true. Oil is messy.
[/quote]

Yes.

But I hope you are aware that there is no oil in Afghanistan.
[/quote]

Your information is [url=http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/08/20108159431776396.html]outdated[/url].


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1304371133' post='4805660']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1304369988' post='4805651']
Which of the UN resolutions that were not followed would you consider a lie? I need to know the answer to that question before any reasonable response can be made.
[/quote]
[i]"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." [/i][url="http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wariniraq/gwbushiraq31903.htm"]George W. Bush, 19 March 2003[/url]

No such weapons were ever found either by the UN inspectors or the US occupation forces. A war that cost an est. 3 [i]trillion[/i] dollars ([url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece"]source[/url]), resulted in somewhere between ~100000 to 1000000 casualties, including coalition forces ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#U.S._armed_forces"]source[/url]).

Is there really anything more that needs to be said?
[/quote]
That is not the question that I asked. Which of the UN resolutions do you consider a lie?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1304371238' post='4805661']

Your information is [url="http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/08/20108159431776396.html"]outdated[/url].

[/quote]

From the article:

[quote]
In 2007 China's top integrated copper producer, Jiangxi Copper Co and China Metallurgical Group Corp, became the first major investor in Afghanistan.[/quote]

The other beneficiary of our invasion may end up being India (a good thing for us, in the long run, because it will put Pakistan in a deadly vice), who is also doing business there. So much for your silly theory that the Afghanistan invasion was a resource grab.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304367649' post='4805638']
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304367403' post='4805632']
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1304367200' post='4805629']
Iraq = Started in 1990 with Iraq's Kuwait invasion, repulsion and ceasefire, decade of no-fly with a record of infractions. Followed up by UN inspection mandates requiring immediate and unconditional access to particular sites.
[/quote]
Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling in Iraq territory and wouldn't stop after Iraq repeated demands for Kuwait to stop.
[/quote]

With that kind of logic, you could have tried a bit and justified the overthrow of [s]Iran[/s] Iraq's socialist leader.
[/quote]
Fixed.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='d000hg' timestamp='1304355874' post='4805543']
[img]http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2011/05/02/1226048/522721-us-celebrates-death-of-bin-laden.jpg[/img]

Pictures like this do a great job of strengthening national stereotypes. Street-parties, waving flags and chanting "USA. USA. USA" because someone was assassinated. It's more weird than anything else.
[/quote]


A bunch of drunk, rowdy white people crowded in the street waving flags. My god...it's the perfect recipe for a lynch mob.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304367555' post='4805635']
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304367068' post='4805628']
Bin Laden is dead. Great. Now, can we get all of our freedoms back and get the hell out of the middle east?[/quote]

I thought Obama was supposed to lead us out of the middle east, in addition to healing the planet and controlling ocean levels with the sheer force of his will. Maybe we should get serious about electing people who will do something more decisive than playing musical chairs with the leaders of our military-intelligence complex?[/quote]
Under Obama, we're winding down in Iraq, withdrawing troops, we've killed Bin Laden and actually are focusing on Afghanistan again. Also, we'd be on the way to getting out of the energy crisis, if Republicans would not try to kill every bill that involves companies lessening pollution and waste. Oh, and trying to pass a bill that cuts money to clean energy, education, and R&D.

In any case, bashing on Obama was pretty tactless. I expect better from you.

[quote][quote]
trzy. We are directly responsible for the theocracy in Iran. When those people burn our flags and celebrate when something horrible happens to the US, they have damn good reason to.
[/quote]

The US is partially responsible for creating the circumstances that ultimately led to that, but why don't you also blame the Iranians who actually installed the theocracy? Let's apply Occam's Razor and assign blame to the ones actually pulling the trigger. They could have re-installed a socialist or created a secular democracy, or even a military dictatorship, but instead they chose theocracy and that's not America's fault. The takeaway lessons from the overthrow of Mossadegh are: use regime change more sparingly, be careful of blowback, and, for nationalists around the world, don't steal the property of investors backed by more powerful governments than your own.
[/quote]
You're right. They did install a theocracy. And oddly enough it actually works. But because Iran was declared the Axis of Evil and we're doing everything in our power to isolate them (aside from bombing them and causing WW3), they're a bit hostile. But we can keep pretending that our policies toward Iran doesn't directly affect that country.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1304371133' post='4805660']
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1304369988' post='4805651']
[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1304369332' post='4805646']
Was it weaker than the false testimonies, propaganda and lies that led to the second Iraq invasion?
[/quote]
Which of the UN resolutions that were not followed would you consider a lie? I need to know the answer to that question before any reasonable response can be made.
[/quote]
[i]"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." [/i][url="http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wariniraq/gwbushiraq31903.htm"]George W. Bush, 19 March 2003[/url]

No such weapons were ever found either by the UN inspectors or the US occupation forces. A war that cost an est. 3 [i]trillion[/i] dollars ([url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece"]source[/url]), resulted in somewhere between ~100000 to 1000000 casualties, including coalition forces ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#U.S._armed_forces"]source[/url]).

Is there really anything more that needs to be said?
[/quote]
You are correct that none were found, but that wasn't the UN resolution.

A list of resolutions are [font="sans-serif"][size="2"][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_660"]Resolution 660[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_661"]Resolution 661[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678"]Resolution 678[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_686"]Resolution 686[/url],[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687"]Resolution 687[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688"]Resolution 688[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_707"]Resolution 707[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_715"]Resolution 715[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_986"]Resolution 986[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1284"]Resolution 1284[/url], and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441"]Resolution 1441[/url][/size][/font]




Resolution 1441 passed with a very rare unanimous 15-0 vote from the UN Security Council.

The final resolution clearly stated it was [font="sans-serif"][size="2"]"[i]a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations[/i]". [/size][/font]The UN demanded immediate and unrestricted access to many sites for inspection. This UN requirement for immediate and unrestricted access was repeatedly denied, including cases where truckloads of materials were loaded and driven away while the UN inspectors were locked inside the facilities.

The resolution never required a smoking gun or stockpile of weapons. It demanded access for inspection.

So specifically, which of those UN resolutions do you claim are propaganda and lies?
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]The resolution text was drafted jointly by the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States"]United States[/url] and the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom"]United Kingdom[/url], the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia"]Russia[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France"]France[/url]. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means…" in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."


[b][[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441&action=edit&section=2"]edit[/url]] Security Council vote[/b]
On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_countries"]Arab countries[/url] such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria"]Syria[/url] voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte"]John Negroponte[/url], said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#cite_note-1"][2][/url][/sup][/quote]

They had no nukes, chemical and biological stockpiles were considered harmless. And Iraq said they would let inspectors. The US thought it was a trick and went in anyway. So yeah, that Resolution is not really a justification for the war. Sorry.

edit:

And this:
[quote]
[b]Aftermath[/b]
In June 2006, the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ground_Intelligence_Center"]National Ground Intelligence Center[/url] (NGIC), a US Department of Defense entity, released a report detailing the weapons of mass destruction that had been found in Iraq, including pre-1991 sarin gas and mustard agent. The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."[url="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/21/060622014432.acs11f38.html"][10][/url]

The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, the administration’s own inspectors reported[url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm"][11][/url]:

“ "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." ” The review was conducted by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. In October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer’s analysis[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14897-2004Oct7?language=printer"][12][/url]: "The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

Factual questions about the Iraqi declaration still remain. To date the contents have still not been made public for independent scrutiny.[url="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-02-07a.213105.h"][13][/url] When the UK government was asked to state where in the Iraqi government's declaration there were false or inaccurate statements, the reply was that it was a confidential matter and that "huge quantities of documents remain to be translated."[url="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-02-10.152311.h"][14][/url]

[/quote]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304376584' post='4805678']
Under Obama, we're winding down in Iraq, withdrawing troops, we've killed Bin Laden and actually are focusing on Afghanistan again.
[/quote]

The Iraq war was already due to wind down and we are no closer to victory in Afghanistan.

[quote]
Also, we'd be on the way to getting out of the energy crisis, if Republicans would not try to kill every bill that involves companies lessening pollution and waste. Oh, and trying to pass a bill that cuts money to clean energy, education, and R&D.
[/quote]

We elected a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic President in 2008 in order to lead and get things done. You can't blame the minority party when Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and White House. We were promised change if only they were given power. Instead, they ended up suffering a historical election defeat, losing control of the House. What are you going to say next, that they somehow need [i]more[/i] power?

I think it's an obvious case of them lying and taking advantage of partisan fools, which is precisely what leftists have exposed themselves to be.

[quote]
In any case, bashing on Obama was pretty tactless. I expect better from you.
[/quote]

Hey, I've got plenty of praise for Obama as well. But if you want to talk about freedoms and legislation, Obama and your legislators are the go-to people.

[quote]You're right. They did install a theocracy. And oddly enough it actually works.[/quote]

For an extremely limited definition of "works".

[quote]
But because Iran was declared the Axis of Evil and we're doing everything in our power to isolate them (aside from bombing them and causing WW3), they're a bit hostile. But we can keep pretending that our policies toward Iran doesn't directly affect that country.
[/quote]

I didn't know they were such sensitive daisies. Did North Korea also become any more hostile or any less manageable? The only relevant thing we've learned from Iran in recent years is that conciliatory dialog doesn't work, either. Geopolitics is all about using power and influence to dominate regions. Iran's broader ambitions have always been there.


Here's my overall point: there's no need to beat yourself up for being an American and a Westerner. We're entering a very competitive century. There's no need to make excuses for anyone. Let's be realistic, move forward, and get things done. Returning to the original topic of this thread, we certainly don't have to feel bad about celebrating Bin Laden's death. All this talk about how we should be perpetually somber and mournful is little more than pretentious grandstanding by people who reflexively dislike anything that makes the US look successful or powerful.
-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that according the US constitution assassination is illegal - so does that make this murder? Any lawyers handy?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0