Quote:

 

Because stopping crimes against humanity involves toppling a regime without any set building plans, right? The Iraqi people would've greeted us as true liberators had we taken out some bastard tyrant who was oppressing them. We did so much damage - including the destruction of propery and acting as the catalyst for religious insurgence - that counteracts whatever good we did in ending human rights violations. You can't say: "Well golly gee, you've destroyed the barrier preventing relgious warfare in Iraq, gotten on the bad side of multiple countries, killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis, mismanaged the job, and ultimately drove Iraq into a worse state of affairs, but because you've stopped human rights violations it's allllllright.".

Sentenal

 

Yes, because the fact that post-war matters would be poorly handled was blatantly obvious before we even invaded. Don't give me that crap, no one goes into a war planning to suck cock after its over.

Sentenal

 

And here I think you are pretty much contradicting the entire purpose of a human right's court. Apparently, since Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds and brutalizing his own people, and therefore keeping a religious war from breaking out, thats all fine, keep up the good work!

Quote:

 

Protip: you can't "wing it" when it comes to rebuilding a divided nation after you completely topple it. If you go into war without a plan you can sure as hell expect to suck cock when it's over.

Quote:

 

The purpose of a human rights court is to identify and solve problems involving human rights. However, a court like this existing does not mean you have to go in and destroy a nation's solvency to fix it. That's like saying if the power is out the solution is to blow up the furnace. Should we work with the United Nations, not only would we develop a more intelligent plan for going into Iraq we'd also have a strategy to rebuild considering the United Nations wants to liberate the people as it's first priority rather than protect national security from the "threats" of WMDs (didn't exist) and ties to Al-Qaeda (also strangely missing).

Sentenal

 

Because obviously, the US planned on winging it in Iraq.

Sentenal

 

So, how exactly do you correct human rights violations when the one responsible is the country's dictator? Obviously, the UN was handing it right. You know, not doing anything at all. The UN didn't want to liberate anyone. The UN wanted Saddam in power. Remember that Oil for Food fiasco? Or maybe they thought they could convince Saddam to start being an alright guy, and turn him into Mr. Rogers. If they wanted to protect the human rights of Iraqis, then where the hell were they? "We like human rights and all, but if the US decides to use another reason than that to go into Iraq, fuck them, and fuck the Iraqis. HF with the torture rooms and killing fields!"

Quote:

 

Source 1: Basically talks about planning inadequacies in Iraq
Source 2: "Ambassador [J. Paul] Bremer was confronted with trying to improvise a plan to rebuild Iraq, where there'd been almost no plan whatsoever before the fall of Saddam Hussein."
Source 3: The fact that it's 2008 and Iraq has agreed to a plan for reconstruction ultimately proves US inadequacies in planning.

The information suggests the US had no real plan for reconstruction.

Quote:

 

Source 4:: Apparently the best say to prevent human rights violations is to kick the shit out of a country and do more damage in 5 years than Saddam caused in 25 years. Speeding up the killing by a rate of 5x is the ultimate way to end crimes against humanity. The United States' last objectives were to prevent crimes against humanity because although it was a great excuse, they would've thought out and provided for basic human needs such as water, electricity, and re-establishing the lives of the Iraqi people rather than senseless occupation.

Quote:

 

I've addressed the point multiple times: ending human rights violations shouldn't come at the toll of more deaths and more suffering in the first place: the solution you put forth is still equivalent to blowing up your furnace because the power is out.

Sentenal

Jan 8 2009, 06:51 PM

So basically, doing nothing is better than trying to protect human rights violations.

That alone discredits anything the US could gain from submitting itself to a court designed to protect human rights. A court that isn't willing to do anything at all to fulfill its purpose.

Reaver

Jan 9 2009, 06:35 AM

Sentenal

Jan 8 2009, 06:51 PM

So basically, doing nothing is better than trying to protect human rights violations.

That alone discredits anything the US could gain from submitting itself to a court designed to protect human rights. A court that isn't willing to do anything at all to fulfill its purpose.

Because CLEARLY a court that wants to avoid more devastating results - such as the aftermath of another World War or threats by China should we do anything in Sudan - is a court that doesn't want to end human rights violations.

Sentenal

Jan 9 2009, 08:42 PM

So according to your holy court, the Human Rights of the Iraqis aren't worth defending. K.

Quote:

 

Allow me to use numbers as an example. This might help you out.

Good = X + Y

X represents the former human rights violations caused by Saddam Hussein.
Y represents the help the United States caused.

If X is always negative, as Saddam Hussein did commit human rights violations, which is the best-case scenario: having a negative value for Y (by going into a foreign state with a foreign agenda with different goals that were arguably non-humanitarian) or making Y 0? I understand the best situation is one where Y outweights X, but if that isn't possible we shouldn't go in because we'll do more harm than good. It's really simple logic. Trying doesn't always do it: you can "try" to go on a diet but you still won't lose weight, you can "try" to run a mile but only get 2000 feet, you can "try" to cure cancer, but ultimately "try" does not fully fix anything. You can't put "trying" to fix human rights violations over acknowledging that we cannot effectively deal with them precisely because if we do more harm than good then we've fucked up pretty damn badly.