Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Apr 15, 2006.
Arms for Terrorists.
It's a war. Bad stuff happens. Democracy is messy. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Etc.
you don't go to war with the laws you have. you go to war with the laws you want.
This is a tricky issue.
In such a chaotic situation, where none of the players play by "the rules", how do you move forward by insisting on standards that are just unrealistic?
Frankly, if the US wants any hope of influencing the course of events on the ground in Iraq, then it has to be willing to play by the "house rules", which are effectively none.
Are we arming terrorists? Perhaps. But if we didn't, someone else would - and they would get the modicum of influence commensurate.
I mean, if the goal of the US is to try and forge some level of stability in Iraq, so we can gradually leave - and at the same time not be the primary target - it would seem one would arm whomever it took to create a stable power-structure in Iraq, be that friends or enemies, moral or not.
The Iraqi security forces have a wonderful example to follow, of course: why bother with the niceties of due process, when all around you are occupying troops and mercenaries who are not subject to Iraqi or US/UK law?
Anyone else get the feeling that whoever we dole out arms and training to right now will be using them against us in within a decade (and perhaps much sooner)?
are you including the US military staging a coup?
Nope. More along the lines of Saddam in the '80s, or the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Just to name two.
"WASHINGTON -- U.S. officials are doling out millions of dollars of arms and ammunition to Iraqi police units without safeguards required to ensure they are complying with American laws that ban taxpayer-financed assistance for foreign security forces engaged in human-rights violations, according to an internal State Department review.
Since when do the u.s care about human rights ( except when its an american at issue)? The states and human rights is ********... the u.s, under the rule of the Religious extremist, and Terrorist, gw bush, don't mix.
If the states did care about human rights, they wouldn't be holding prisoners, without trial, in Guantanamo Bay.