It's ok for USA to do anything, right? Watch

Luminique
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
Personally, I dont agree or support anyone who kills innocent people, weather its bin laden or george bush.
But America doesn't have the right to 'police' the world. I agree what happened to having trials? Human rights. Yes bin laden may have taken the rights of many but with America and generally the 'western' world being so 'civilised' and 'humane' and democratic and whatnot surely them as the supposedly 'better' people should know better than to kill the man and then dump him in the sea..this only causes more uprising. This is no better than what he had done. Only proves yet again that money rules everything..America being a superpower means that anything it does is right and everyone else is wrong. And seriously there making bin laden out to be some superpower in his own right- in being an architect of terror. for gods sake even without him it doesnt take much 'mastermind' to blow up places. it really isnt a 'momentous' moment in the 'war against terror'.
anyways just my opinion...and apologies for the bad spelling/grammer/english.......
0
reply
Luminique
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
(Original post by wanderlust.xx)
Totally agree. I mean forget philosophy and ethics, we need to get the job done!

The worst part of this entire debacle is that my parents, whom I have thought are very hard working and honest people, did not want to listen to a word I was saying when I was sceptical of a) Osama's death, b) America's actions and why everyone seems to be going, "okay, sweet" and c) the quite frankly ridiculous news coverage over quite a lot of channels.

I mean really, Al Jazeera (sp?) were basically going about for an hour saying, "YAY OSAMA'S DEAD, WE CAN CHILL". :facepalm2:
Agreed
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
I agree that it would have been better to apprehend Bin Laden and bring him to trial but lets be honest he was hardly going to put his hands up and surrender to the West was he? He would obviously have resisted arrest. Someone like him is used to fighting not surrendering.

Raul Moat didn't get arrested and brought for trial either.
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
(Original post by No Future)
I won't feel sorry for them when their economy crumbles and Asia rules the world
LOL, you really are an idiot if you believe this. Let me guess, you think China is going to rule the world?

The US is the buyer/seller of last resort to the world, has the most liquid money market on the earth and has countries like China pegged to its currency and dependent on them for growth. The US is embedded at the very base of the worlds financial markets/economy. No doubt BRIC countries shall gain more power slowly, but overtake the US economically (in real/actual terms), won't occur for decades if not a century+ to come.
1
reply
The Premier
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by manchild007)
No doubt BRIC countries shall gain more power slowly, but overtake the US economically (in real/actual terms), won't occur for decades if not a century+ to come.
Couldn't agree more; people seem to complain misunderstand statistics. China may be the 2nd biggest economy but:
1) it has the biggest population in the world - when you have GDP per capita China is far too low to be the major economic power.
2) the gap is huge (China must increase their GDP 3x to rival the USA)
3) for the USA to be replaced as a major country China must beat the GDP of all of NATO, not just the USA - which is roughly 250+% of the US's GDP.

If China does become the biggest economy and most influence country it won't happen soon.
Remember the exact same was said for Japan.
0
reply
thurin
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
Time to take a history lesson, with my good old A2 textbook and background knowledge.
(Original post by The Premier)
- Korean War - America fought [as a member of the UN] saving South Korea from an invading army. Regardless of your political ideology it is hard to justify a dictatorship invading another country.
America helped create the divide 38th Parallel, dividing the north and the south. The reason was that the US was adamant in retaining some control of the region(as were the Soviets). The arbitrary division divided a nation of Koreans along a geographical demarcation. Of course conflict was going to arise.
Note that South Korea was just as dictatorial as North Korea at this point. The President, Syngman Rhee, was brutal and murdered thousands of political dissidents.

(Original post by The Premier)
- Vietnam War - see above, one country invaded another, America helped the defender
Vietnam was beset with just as many problems as Korea was, if not more so - the US and UK attempted to restore some vestige of French Indo-China colonialism by rearming the French troops, after the Japanese invasion had removed French control from the region. The Viet Minh were victorious in elections in North Vietnam, but the French troops (REARMED and authorised by the US/UK) removed them from Hanoi. Ho Chi Minh was vastly more popular than Ngo Dinh Diem (and whoever the Emperor was...), but the US-supported Ngo Dinh Diem refused to hold elections in South Vietnam, for fear of reunification. Diem was a tyrant, just as Rhee was, and was responsible for many civilian deaths, including Buddhist monks protesting - sounds familiar to China? This had been a US backed regime. Eisenhower still supported him. It's unsurprising that North Vietnam wanted to unify the nation, with so much support behind Ho Chi Minh and the communist National Liberation Front.
The US told South Vietnamese generals that, if they were to instigate a coup, the CIA would not intervene. Thus Diem was assassinated. The US backed a succession of failed military regimes, which were unstable and attempted to be authoritarian. The US had gradually embedded themselves in South Vietnam, and inevitable invaded, in order to stop the NLF unifying the nation.

(Original post by The Premier)
-Persian Gulf War - again saving the defender
Apart from some appalling tactics (which I might add were isolated incidents), and a failure to oust Hussein when the US had the chance at the Safwan Talks, with General Norman Schwarzkopf, or limit military technology such as helicopters (which were later used to crush Shia rebels in the south and Kurdish uprisings in the north), they at least did stop an aggressor nation.

(Original post by The Premier)
-Afghanistan - replaced a dictatorship (that supported and funded the only major attack on US soil) with a democracy
There was no UN authorisation. The claim that Article 51 of the UN Charter justifies this attack is slightly perverted, seeing as the US was effectively responsible for the Taliban regime in the first place! They funded the mujahidden against the Soviets, simply because it was the Cold War, and your perceived-rival's failure was your success. The US was simply funding its own way into the region, to establish some interests detrimental to the Soviets. Wonderful that they tried to liberate the region in 2001, but they really should have made long-term preparations. What else is al-Qaeda but a manifestation of disillusionment with the West mixed with politicised-Islam?

(Original post by The Premier)
-Iraq - overthrowing of a repressive, murderous regime
If sanctions had been imposed after the First Gulf War, perhaps the invasion and regime change wouldn't have alienated Islamic extremists further. By leaving it so long, it's very easy to perceive the invasion as neo-imperialism. I don't know enough about Iraq and Afghanistan to fully comment, though.

(Original post by The Premier)
UK - to open markets (The Opium Wars) or to expand its empire
19th/20th Century? NICE COMPARISON. Whatever happened to post-1945, in light of the creation of the United Nations, the international guardian of law and arbiter of political-morality?
(Original post by The Premier)
Russia - to maintain an unpopular dictatorship (Afghanistan/ Prague/ Budapest)
Granted. Well, not at first (Czechoslovakia was willing to side somewhat with the Soviet Union, following the failure of Appeasement, and the Allies had refused Hungary to open up another front in south-east Europe, to liberate Hungary, so Hungary had to wait for Soviet liberation).

(Original post by The Premier)
Of course these are simplified, but I'd rather we have America promoting democracy than let dictators invade and impose their ideology on others.
Looks like the US have been just as dictatorial in imposing their ideology - an ideology of neo-imperialism. Let's hope the US are gradually forsaking this Cold War attitude to international politics. If it weren't for 9/11 and Bush Junior, it might have come around sooner.
Of course, I have marginalised Soviet actions. But I take a heavily Revisionist approach to 1945-1991 anyway.
You have a pretty arbitrary notion of 'nations'. Just because the US/USSR divided countries post-1945, that doesn't mean that the divided nations each have a right to sovereignty, especially when one nationality - one people - is divided unfairly in authoritarian measures.
1
reply
wanderlust.xx
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#107
Report 7 years ago
#107
Has anyone stopped to think of what would happen if America didn't police the world?

It's like... the One, from the Matrix. Yes, unplugging people might be immoral. Yes, that much power for one being may be too much. But at the end of the day, who's going to be the one who's praised and saved lives? The philosopher, or the One?

Same thing with America. If the American government were sat there all day debating the morality of killing one man in return for 3000, then the man would still be out there and eventually kill more people. If he were to be put on trial, the logistics alone may leave it far too late for even more innocent civilians.

Just my opinion.
0
reply
Moscardini
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#108
Report 7 years ago
#108
He lost his right to a trial when he decided to commit mass terror acts. Surely being 'human' constitutes having a soul, a conscience. The act of murdering so many people suggests otherwise. He lost his human rights when he became inhumane.
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
(Original post by The Premier)
If China does become the biggest economy and most influence country it won't happen soon.
Exactly.

The people who buy the hyperbole of China overtaking the US/world tend to be those who are anti-US to begin with, so you can't blame them for being so utterly and moronically ignorant.
0
reply
Haywir3
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#110
Report 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by Swayum)
Please do find me the "lol ignore all of this in event of war" clause in the list of human rights.
If he's shooting back or is armed then a soldier or 'operative' has the right to defend himself by either killing or getten rid of the threat to himself and the people hes responsible for in his team.
0
reply
wildrover
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#111
Report 7 years ago
#111
No one has answered my question yet of why should the US tax payer be forced to pay for his trials and security?
0
reply
lukejoshjedi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
OP has a logical and moral point here... it almost beggars belief, they just go into Pakistan, a two miles from a major city and do a raid / carry out an attack on a compound in another country - not too sure the Pakistani government even knew about it, they probably may not have been told
0
reply
Balagan
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
Cry me a river. Bin Laden lost his 'human rights' when he decided to intentionally murder thousands of innocent people, and inspire others to do the same. To have 'human rights' you have to be human first.

May he rot in hell.
0
reply
Genocidal
Badges: 16
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
Yes America can do what it wants. You know why? Because nobody can do anything about it. And when America eventually falls into 2nd place, someone else will take over. Don't be fooled by silly organisations such as the UN.
0
reply
ihatebrownbread
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
Hasn't bush killed more innocent people than bin laden?
0
reply
ibysaiyan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(Original post by Swayum)
Wrong. Who do they think they are just assassinating Osama Bin Laden? It's completely against human rights. Yes, he may be a bad person, but America is not the world's police who can go around bringing THEIR 'justice' to whomever they want. Even he has a right to a trial, just as much as a Nobel Prize winner does.

Just sayin'

Human rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml





*Edit 2*

I've been using TSR since 2006, I don't care about your negs. What I would care about is if you'd take a few mins to read the posts in this thread first and then post your thoughts so we can have a discussion.

*Edit*

Also, while I'm here, although really I'm not very anti-American, I think everyone needs to watch this:

I admire your post. I only saw you active around the Maths sub-forum,this must have taken you to the core,I must say.

At the end of the day it clearly shows you what contrast we live in.It's in black/white.
There is no real democracy or human rights for that matter BUT greed.
I am no Osama supporter either,part of me says he got what he deserved but this whole execution scenario seems too convenient at this time.What stands clear to us is that USA can do whatever it wishes.We have seen it before too,the vietnam war? wmd of iraq...
if it really seeks peace then it needs to stop using brute force,negotiation is the only way.

EDIT: I read it somewhere but wasn't Osama a secret agent for USA back in the soviet era?



Regards,
ibysaiyan
0
reply
ibysaiyan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by Moscardini)
He lost his right to a trial when he decided to commit mass terror acts. Surely being 'human' constitutes having a soul, a conscience. The act of murdering so many people suggests otherwise. He lost his human rights when he became inhumane.
In other words, every serial killer/prisoner must be executed.


-ibysaiyan
0
reply
sydalee
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
I, an american-born student, am pretty unamerican.. but while i disagree with a lot of the things our government does, i will say that i don't wholly disagree with killing bin Laden.

now, i am NOT saying that killing anyone is right, ever. I think it's disgusting and very wrong.
however, there is a valid point to be raised in the fact that bin Laden's responsible for so many deaths. that, and the fact that his sole mission (in the eyes of the US) is to wreak havoc... er, terror.

this isn't an eye for an eye (haha i have to point this out)... this is paying for all those deaths with ONE man's life. no, not the right thing to do, but i would argue it's justifiable.

i can't honestly say it would have been a better thing to capture him alive and bring him back for trial. sure, it MIGHT have been.. and we'll never know, really. but he'll spend the rest of his life in prison, probably under torture, and let's face it: would you rather be killed straightaway, or have the rest of your life turned into living hell? not that that's not what he deserved...

one more thing i want to say: unfortunately whoever said that no one's powerful enough to stop the US.. well, they're right. i'd like to think, though, that at least 90% of the time the US's missions are for a good cause...
0
reply
tface
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by ibysaiyan)
I admire your post. I only saw you active around the Maths sub-forum,this must have taken you to the core,I must say.

At the end of the day it clearly shows you what contrast we live in.It's in black/white.
There is no real democracy or human rights for that matter BUT greed.
I am no Osama supporter either,part of me says he got what he deserved but this whole execution scenario seems too convenient at this time.What stands clear to us is that USA can do whatever it wishes.We have seen it before too,the vietnam war? wmd of iraq...
if it really seeks peace then it needs to stop using brute force,negotiation is the only way.

EDIT: I read it somewhere but wasn't Osama a secret agent for USA back in the soviet era?



Regards,
ibysaiyan
bin Laden was trained by the CIA if I am not mistaken. This has something to do with it. I don't really know much so I might be wrong.
0
reply
m.wellington
Badges: 2
#120
Report 7 years ago
#120
[QUOTE=Swayum;31209508]Wrong. Who do they think they are just assassinating Osama Bin Laden? It's completely against human rights. Yes, he may be a bad person, but America is not the world's police who can go around bringing THEIR 'justice' to whomever they want. Even he has a right to a trial, just as much as a Nobel Prize winner does.

Just sayin'

I totally agree. The Americans are essentially bullies. If OSB had been found in a different country he might have been taken hostage and given a trial but Pakistan do not have the power to control the US even in their own country, since they were weakened indirectly by the US and their war on Afghanistan. Thats not fair play in by book.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (502)
37.74%
No - but I will (102)
7.67%
No - I don't want to (91)
6.84%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (635)
47.74%

Watched Threads

View All