The CIA has permission to kill you.

[pagemap]

This whole situation is getting so out of hand.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1204cia04.html


WASHINGTON - American citizens working for al-Qaida overseas can legally be targeted and killed by the CIA under President Bush's rules for the war on terrorism, U.S. officials say.

[Cubsfan]

(Disclaimer: I didn't read the article, just the part you quoted)

I actually have no problem at all with this, with one caveat: they better be pretty sure of themselves!

Assume for the second that it is 100% certain that an American citizen is working for al-Qaida. From my point of view, they are as much an enemy as anyone. It may even be treason, I don't know.

The problem here comes, of course, if they aren't totally sure, but pretty sure :) Then perhaps assasination isn't the best way to go about it.

[gwilks98]

Well, folks, take a good look at who Bush is surrounding himself with: Kissinger (suspected Butcher of Cambodia) and Gephardt (Gestapo wannabe).

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by gwilks98
Well, folks, take a good look at who Bush is surrounding himself with: Kissinger (suspected Butcher of Cambodia) and Gephardt (Gestapo wannabe).

Gephardt is a democrat. I think you mean Ashcroft.

Either way this whole issue is only a problem if the government abuses its power. And we all know the government would never abuse power, especially overseas where there is less media. :rolleyes:

[Johnnymac]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Gephardt is a democrat. I think you mean Ashcroft.

Either way this whole issue is only a problem if the government abuses its power. And we all know the government would never abuse power, especially overseas where there is less media. :rolleyes:

Abuse power? What? They would never...... ;)

[sbp]

"These officials said the authority will be used only when other options are unavailable. Militarylike strikes will take place only when law enforcement and internal security efforts by allied foreign countries fail, the officials said.

Capturing and questioning al-Qaida operatives is preferable, even more so if an operative is a U.S. citizen, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Any decision to strike an American would be made at the highest levels, perhaps by the president."

Why should a terrorist scumbucket be given a pass.

As for Gephardt, he is a democrat and potential Presidential candidate in 2004.

[Tse How]

Originally posted by Cubsfan
(Disclaimer: I didn't read the article, just the part you quoted)

I actually have no problem at all with this, with one caveat: they better be pretty sure of themselves!

Assume for the second that it is 100% certain that an American citizen is working for al-Qaida. From my point of view, they are as much an enemy as anyone. It may even be treason, I don't know.

The problem here comes, of course, if they aren't totally sure, but pretty sure :) Then perhaps assasination isn't the best way to go about it.

You should have a problem with it then. :)
Not because they work for Al-Qaida necessarily, but for the fact that the soldier might not know for sure. And if a soldier puts a bullet through the heart of a U.S. al Qaido operative in a rage, I bet you the story will be spun so that they can say "Its 100% he must have been Al-Qaida."

[sbp]

Capturing is preferred, whacking is a last resort.

For those opposed: what would you suggest then?

If an Al-Qaida operative who is American is killed, that is the way it goes. That person knew the risks when joining up with a terrorist group.

[ironape]

The way I look at it is this. The person must have some reason to have joined them. This leads me to believe they are anti-american and no longer wish to be american. Why would they wanna be called what they hate.

Since they are no longer american but labeled al-quaida then why should they not be targeted if all al-quaida are. They made a choice and now they suffer with all the rest. Al-quaida should be hunted down like dogs. Do you really think they will go easy the next time they blow something up? I dont think so. They bloodied americas nose and now its beat down time.

Ape

[Cubsfan]

Originally posted by Tse How


You should have a problem with it then. :)
Not because they work for Al-Qaida necessarily, but for the fact that the soldier might not know for sure. And if a soldier puts a bullet through the heart of a U.S. al Qaido operative in a rage, I bet you the story will be spun so that they can say "Its 100% he must have been Al-Qaida."

Well, they could also come to my house and shoot me, and then say that it was "self-defense" on their part. If the government really wants to kill someone, they could. I'm not so much worried about them covering it up, I have a certain level of trust in the government (I know I'm going to get hammered for that one!)

Remember a few weeks ago when we blew up that car that contained a very important al-Qaida member? What if there was an al-Qaida American in that car? I don't want there hands tied just because of that. If you fight for a foreign army against the US, all bets are off :)

[Butch]

Actually, the CIA does not have permission to kill "you" . . . at least not if "you" refers to most of the people on these boards . . . assuming they live in the US.

The CIA is not allowed to spy/conduct operations within the US.

However, the CIA does have permission to kill American citizens. It was not explicitly said that they could, but permission is tacit in that American citizens were not excluded from the order.

[Cantacuzene]

I think the idea is that even if you are a member of al-queda you are still an american citizen and entitled to your rights as an american. American citizens are only allowed to be killed by police or military if they are commiting a crime where deadly force is authorized or fleeing the scene of a crime where dealy force is authorized.

And why the special treatment for Al-queda terrorists? Is an american member of the albanian communist radical terrorist wing somehow less of a terrorist, doesn't he deserve to die just the same? Or worse still, perhaps they will just label him al-queda so they have an excuse to kill him. What if I'm a student studying abroad and I visit a famous mosque as a tourist and I just happen to rub elbows with an al-queda big whig, and he stops to talk to me for 10 minutes, does that make me suddenly open to be killed or arrested by the CIA? Probably.

I hate all of these laws, its far too easy to manipulate and abuse them.

[Kim]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I hate all of these laws, its far too easy to manipulate and abuse them.

So what do you suggest we do to end the suppossed manipulation and abuse?

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by Cubsfan


Well, they could also come to my house and shoot me, and then say that it was "self-defense" on their part. If the government really wants to kill someone, they could. I'm not so much worried about them covering it up, I have a certain level of trust in the government (I know I'm going to get hammered for that one!)

Remember a few weeks ago when we blew up that car that contained a very important al-Qaida member? What if there was an al-Qaida American in that car? I don't want there hands tied just because of that. If you fight for a foreign army against the US, all bets are off :)

well if thats the case, then why worry about it, if they kill you ur dead. i think this is what they call having trust/faith in ones country to do what is right. and i have mucho faith that our country is right and will do the right things and not abuse this power which they have. :)

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Kim
So what do you suggest we do to end the suppossed manipulation and abuse?

Enforce the legitimate laws we already have rather than making new laws which comprimise our rights as american citizens.

[kain9i6]

If you are hanging around with al-Qaida you are an enemy and should be shot.. If you denounce america and join the scum, then die with the scum..

YAY for lake Afganistan!!!!!

[molecularfire]

No big deal. The CIA can kill us at anytime if they want to anyways. Heck, if they kill a few people by accident, so be it. Can't expect people to be perfect. I'd rather they get the bad guys and accidentally kill a few innocent people then not get the bad guys. :shrug:

[Kim]

Originally posted by molecularfire
No big deal. The CIA can kill us at anytime if they want to anyways. Heck, if they kill a few people by accident, so be it. Can't expect people to be perfect. I'd rather they get the bad guys and accidentally kill a few innocent people then not get the bad guys. :shrug:



I agree!

[Merlin]

Originally posted by ironape
The way I look at it is this. The person must have some reason to have joined them. This leads me to believe they are anti-american and no longer wish to be american. Why would they wanna be called what they hate.

Since they are no longer american but labeled al-quaida then why should they not be targeted if all al-quaida are. They made a choice and now they suffer with all the rest. Al-quaida should be hunted down like dogs. Do you really think they will go easy the next time they blow something up? I dont think so. They bloodied americas nose and now its beat down time.

Ape

I hear what you are saying but realize how easy it would be to twist this into an "anyone who disagrees with our government is a target" arguement. Being a country that was born out of violent revolution where all of our founding fathers would have been labeled terrorists I think it is important to distinguish between citizens and external forces.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by molecularfire
No big deal. The CIA can kill us at anytime if they want to anyways. Heck, if they kill a few people by accident, so be it. Can't expect people to be perfect. I'd rather they get the bad guys and accidentally kill a few innocent people then not get the bad guys. :shrug:

Its that permissive attitude that will get our guns confiscated, our books burned and our intellectuals thrown in prison. The CIA is a part of our government. BY the people FOR the people. Whenever any law is passed ask whether it is in the best interests of american citizens and you have your answer. Any law that specifically says the government can arbitrarily kill american citizens with impunity is obviously neither by or for the people.

If the said american terrorist is a terrorist, arrest him, and put him on trial for treason and if he is guilty THEN he will die. We our a society that places value on trial by jury. To suggest otherwise is unamerican and unpatriotic. Its funny how the people who blindly follow the laws passed by the administration are the ones who consider themselves the patriots. These people have no idea what america means.

Anyone who likes or trusts the government will get the government they deserve: one is that is unlikable and untrustworthy.

[Kim]

Never mind.

[zenbooty]

Thank god somebody's speaking sense here. Hearing people over and over saying it was ok for our new secret police to kill any American they think belongs to a shadowy, secretive, extremely loosely organized group was starting to scare the living Hell out of me. The parallels between our new "security" measures and the actions of fascist authoritarian regimes in the past are becoming starker and more frightening with every passing day.


Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Its that permissive attitude that will get our guns confiscated, our books burned and our intellectuals thrown in prison. The CIA is a part of our government....

[Cubsfan]

So at what point do we draw the line? What if an American joins the Iraqi army? Should we not kill him because of this? So you're going to use the "self-defense" sort of story there. Because he's shooting at us, then we can kill him.

Ok, let's try somthing else. Say, perhaps, that there are many Americans who join al-Qaida. Now, say they join in a totally non-combative way (computer programmers or something). If al-Qaida puts them in every installation, we have just taken away the ability to do anything, because we might kill the American. Also, as I said before, what if an American al-Qaida was in that car that the CIA blew up a few weeks ago. Well we can't kill him, so we just missed a chance to hurt al-Qaida badly.

Now I'm not saying that the CIA should be able to just kill anyone who "might" be connected. There should be very good proof, and also a good reason that they couldn't just arrest them (i.e. in the car, not just walking down the street). They should have the power, but also the responsibility and accountability.

[Cantacuzene]

You miss the point. If we attack an al-queda compound and an american terrorist is killed in the attack, that is fine. What I protest is that if the said compound surrenders rather than arresting the american they can just kill him. Thats what I oppose.

Your comparison to the iraqi army is ridiculous. Its against the law for an american to join the armed forces of another nation, thus it becoems treason. The army of a sovereign nation is far different than a club of terrorist.

[Cubsfan]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
You miss the point. If we attack an al-queda compound and an american terrorist is killed in the attack, that is fine. What I protest is that if the said compound surrenders rather than arresting the american they can just kill him. Thats what I oppose.

Your comparison to the iraqi army is ridiculous. Its against the law for an american to join the armed forces of another nation, thus it becoems treason. The army of a sovereign nation is far different than a club of terrorist.

That's where the part about responsibility comes in. Obviously just mowing down people is not acceptable.

Just curious about treason. Were the Taliban considered the armed forces of another nation? I know that the American dude wasn't charged with treason because he joined them. Also, treason doesn't automatically give the right to kill an American. Treason must be tried and have two witnesses. Treason does carry the death penalty, however.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that the government has to have both the power and the responsibilty. I think it seriously hurts efforts when the power is not available to them, but I also think that the power should be checked by both the rest of the government and the people.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Cubsfan
So at what point do we draw the line? What if an American joins the Iraqi army? Should we not kill him because of this? So you're going to use the "self-defense" sort of story there. Because he's shooting at us, then we can kill him.

You are confusing CIA operations with miltary activity. If an American finds himself on the field of battle with an enemy force than God help him. But the CIA does not operate on that level.


Ok, let's try somthing else. Say, perhaps, that there are many Americans who join al-Qaida. Now, say they join in a totally non-combative way (computer programmers or something). If al-Qaida puts them in every installation, we have just taken away the ability to do anything, because we might kill the American. Also, as I said before, what if an American al-Qaida was in that car that the CIA blew up a few weeks ago. Well we can't kill him, so we just missed a chance to hurt al-Qaida badly.

Again, this is a situation where an American is located at an enemy installation of strategic military value. No military would or should stop an attack on the enemy because of the presence of Americans. But let me give you another situation:

Let's say there is a peace activist who just won't shut up, receiving funding and support from various left wing activist groups, and a mouthpiece in the editorial pages of various newspapers around the country. His message strikes a chord with many in the general populace, causing public support for the war to diminish noticeably. This obviously doesn't mesh with the goals and motivations of the President, nor the Vice President, nor thus the entire Executive branch (under which fall the Army and CIA). Now, let's say one night under cover of darkness CIA special operatives break into said activist's home and put a bullet in his head (historically this is much closer to how a CIA operation goes down, as opposed to military action). The next day, the CIA and Dept. of Justice claim to have had evidence that the activist had ties to Al Quaeda. The way things are now thanks to the Homeland Security Department, this story would end right there. None of the evidence would have to be made public. No trial would be necessary. No public questioning would need be entertained by the CIA, the Justice Dept., or the president. No one would have to account for anything. They just say "Al Quaeda," and since all relevant information regarding the operation, the activist, and Al Quaeda's membership are hidden from any public oversight, they are free to do as they please. Shouldn't this be a major concern to anyone who truly believes in freedom?


Now I'm not saying that the CIA should be able to just kill anyone who "might" be connected. There should be very good proof, and also a good reason that they couldn't just arrest them (i.e. in the car, not just walking down the street). They should have the power, but also the responsibility and accountability.

The problem as it is right now is that no proof is necessary. The individual will receive no trial, there is no public oversight over the actions of the CIA. They are the sole arbiters of what proof is sufficient, and no one else gets a glimpse of how they arrived at their conclusions.

[molecularfire]

Its that permissive attitude that will get our guns confiscated, our books burned and our intellectuals thrown in prison. The CIA is a part of our government. BY the people FOR the people. Whenever any law is passed ask whether it is in the best interests of american citizens and you have your answer. Any law that specifically says the government can arbitrarily kill american citizens with impunity is obviously neither by or for the people.

First off... guns are useless. When the bill of rights was written, the second amendment was put in to keep the government in check. The right to bear arms was put on so that people can have the ability to revolt should the government turn tyrannous. That is no longer the case. I don't care what kind of gun you have, that is now no longer doable.


If the said american terrorist is a terrorist, arrest him, and put him on trial for treason and if he is guilty THEN he will die. We our a society that places value on trial by jury. To suggest otherwise is unamerican and unpatriotic. Its funny how the people who blindly follow the laws passed by the administration are the ones who consider themselves the patriots. These people have no idea what america means.
Yes. We place value on a system that a bunch of people who don't know what happened, don't care what happened and are too dumb to get out of jury duty are the best ones to decide what happened. Simply put, the only way to keep our government in check is in us getting past our own selfish desires in life and taking a more active stance on how it's run. Simply put, with very few exceptions... that doesn't happen. How many people vote? How many of those that do vote actually read the actual laws that they are voting for? We get 99% of our information second hand or worse because we are too darn lazy to bother reading and understanding the laws as they are written. We don't want a fair government, we want to be able to do whatever we want and get away with it. The only reason why people are so worked up over this is because it is possible that we can get screwed by it. We don't care if the CIA kills all non-citizens because then we are safe. In fact, we want them to be able to stop all threats against us, but to do it in such a way that there is no possible way that we can be at risk. Unfortunately, that's not the way fights go. It's this attitude... this apathy for what is right, what is logical, etc... this pure selfish desire for what we want that has gotten our society to the depths that it has sunk.


Anyone who likes or trusts the government will get the government they deserve: one is that is unlikable and untrustworthy.
We've already got that one. Now... if we bind their hands because of some theoretical fear we will have one that is also incompetent. Do you have any idea why we have a bunch of liars in office. We wouldn't vote for someone who told us the truth. The truth is that as a society, we want everything without giving up nothing. We want lower taxes but more services. We want to be protected by something stronger than us, but we don't want them strong enough that we can't beat them? How is that even possible? We don't want politicians, we want magicians.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by molecularfire


First off... guns are useless. When the bill of rights was written, the second amendment was put in to keep the government in check. The right to bear arms was put on so that people can have the ability to revolt should the government turn tyrannous. That is no longer the case. I don't care what kind of gun you have, that is now no longer doable.

I disagree with you. If 99% of american citizens were in open revolt, do you honestly think the army would remain loyal to the government? I think not. An american soldier wont fire on his family, especially if EVERY soldier's family is in revolt. You also overestimate the armies size. The army can't be in every city. Washington DC has a large population. If the entire citizenry of DC was hell bent on storming the white house, the police and national guard would not be able to stop them.

[Kenas]

Originally posted by pagemap
This whole situation is getting so out of hand.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1204cia04.html




Way to go!! Terrorists don't care about MY human rights, why should I care about theirs.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Kenas



Way to go!! Terrorists don't care about MY human rights, why should I care about theirs.

Because you are better than they are.

[molecularfire]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I disagree with you. If 99% of american citizens were in open revolt, do you honestly think the army would remain loyal to the government? I think not. An american soldier wont fire on his family, especially if EVERY soldier's family is in revolt. You also overestimate the armies size. The army can't be in every city. Washington DC has a large population. If the entire citizenry of DC was hell bent on storming the white house, the police and national guard would not be able to stop them.

Yes, but that wouldn't have to do with guns. If 99% of american citizens went on revolt they could take out the government with muffins. :D


Because you are better than they are.
What do you mean by better? Are we better because we hide here safely in our backyard and yell at them about how they should be more like us? This is a fight. They've made that clear. The least we can do is to show them enough respect to beat them properly instead of tying our own hands just to show ourselves that we can beat them despite a bunch of rediculous rules that we have placed on ourselves. Think about it this way... how would you feel if you were playing basketball with someone and she said that she was so much better than you that she'd play you with one hand tied behind her back (let's say that that really was the only way you'd have a shot). Personally, I'd rather she show me some respect and just beat me. :shrug:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by molecularfire
What do you mean by better? Are we better because we hide here safely in our backyard and yell at them about how they should be more like us?

We are supposed to have the moral superiority in the situation. We had the moral superiority in WW2 and we should have it now. But resorting to brutality and violating people's human rights isnt the way to keep it.

[molecularfire]

How did we have moral superiority in WWII? I mean, we developed a lot of power because of WWII... there was this big war in europe, and when everybody was really hurt, we went in a beat up what was left. Then, we realized that since our country was one of the few that hadn't had the crap bombed out of it that the other countries had to do what we said or we wouldn't help them rebuild. That I remember from reading about WWII, but how did we have moral superiority?

[Cantacuzene]

I guess you might have forgotten the little event known as Pearl Harbor. The fact that we were sneak attacked gave us the moral superiority over the japanese for their cowardly act. In europe the fact that the Nazis were as evil as any government can be and we saved europe from national socialism gave us the moral edge.

The fact that you are disputing that we did the right thing in WW2 is a joke, in fact, I'm guessing you're joking.

[Tse How]

Ok, let's get some things straight. First of all, yes we were "sneak-attacked" and that in itself is wrong. But what led up to that action? Western domination of resources. I've put a lot of time into WWII studies and basically it came down to this: After Perry tore Japan open to the worldwide community, the Japanese started building up their military in the form of those they saw because they realized they were behind. Additionally, they needed resources and such to expand their empire and thought that colonization was the key. Why? BECAUSE THEY SAW ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES DOING THE SAME THING. So, they felt that they deserved a piece of the pie too, which is why the fiasco in China and Indochina, and the creation of the Co Propsperity Sphere. And when the U.S. and its allies said "NO, WE CAN PLAY, BUT YOU CAN'T", the Japanese felt that, that in itself was war, albeit an economical war. At that time, Japan was running low on resources because the U.S. and other countries were shunning them because of their actions. They either had to keep expanding, which they couldn't with what they had, or attack.

That is the Japanese perspective and it does make sense. However, 2 wrongs don't make a right my mama always said (actually my mom doesn't speak ENglish well), so that's no excuse for Pearl Harbor. It IS HOWEVER, something to think about when you're bringing "moral" reasons for the different roles each country played in WWII.

Next, the U.S. would like to think that they were the reason why Europe was saved. Remember, the U.S. wanted NOTHING to do with the war until they were attacked, content with just sending Europe stuff. The real saviors of WWII were the Russians whos losses far outnumber those of the Americans and were the only reason that there existed a Europe to save for the Americans.

[Cantacuzene]

Great, someone who wants to debate history...


Ok, let's get some things straight. First of all, yes we were "sneak-attacked" and that in itself is wrong. But what led up to that action? Western domination of resources. After Perry tore Japan open to the worldwide community, the Japanese started building up their military in the form of those they saw because they realized they were behind. Additionally, they needed resources and such to expand their empire and thought that colonization was the key. Why? BECAUSE THEY SAW ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES DOING THE SAME THING. So, they felt that they deserved a piece of the pie too, which is why the fiasco in China and Indochina, and the creation of the Co Propsperity Sphere. And when the U.S. and its allies said "NO, WE CAN PLAY, BUT YOU CAN'T", the Japanese felt that, that in itself was war, albeit an economical war. At that time, Japan was running low on resources because the U.S. and other countries were shunning them because of their actions. They either had to keep expanding, which they couldn't with what they had, or attack.

The age of great european colonialism was over by 1920, when Japan decided to start their empire. Their mistake was they started their empire when the age of empires was over. Tough luck. I know the whole story of how we "provoked" them by cutting off their oil. Cry me a river. I'm sure all the people they were killing in China at the time cut off their oil too right? They were a military dictatorship whose goal was conquest on a massive scale. Japan didn't want a 'piece of the pie' they wanted the whole pie.




That is the Japanese perspective and it does make sense. However, 2 wrongs don't make a right my mama always said (actually my mom doesn't speak ENglish well), so that's no excuse for Pearl Harbor. It IS HOWEVER, something to think about when you're bringing "moral" reasons for the different roles each country played in WWII.

I agree that it "makes sense." However, "making sense" does not in any way equate to being justified. Just because attacking was the perceived correct course of action doesn;t mean it was the right thing to do.

We were sneak attacked, and no matter what sort of percieved provocation thats still the case. We had every moral right to declare war on them and obtain revenge after Pearl Harbor.


Next, the U.S. would like to think that they were the reason why Europe was saved. Remember, the U.S. wanted NOTHING to do with the war until they were attacked, content with just sending Europe stuff. The real saviors of WWII were the Russians whos losses far outnumber those of the Americans and were the only reason that there existed a Europe to save for the Americans.

I was hoping someone would mention the soviets. I whole-heartitly agree that the soviets by themselves could have beaten the germans and would have if we didnt attack intervene. Have you ever heard the phrase, "shake hands with the russians as far east as possible?" The russians were as bad as the Nazis, in fact Stalin killed more Kulaks than Hitler killed Jews, so they were probably worse. In essence our invasion of europe saved France, Italy, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, West Germany etc from Communism. If we didn;t invade the Soviet Union would have conquered to the atlantic ocean. I myself and pretty happy that didn't happen.

I can accept that you don't look at the Us as heroes, thats your perspective. But DONT for one second, paint Japan or Germany as victims. Everything that happened to Japan they brought upon themselves. Germany and Japan are no more victims than are Al-Queda or any mass murderer in the US.

[molecularfire]

The age of great european colonialism was over by 1920, when Japan decided to start their empire. Their mistake was they started their empire when the age of empires was over. Tough luck. I know the whole story of how we "provoked" them by cutting off their oil. Cry me a river. I'm sure all the people they were killing in China at the time cut off their oil too right? They were a military dictatorship whose goal was conquest on a massive scale. Japan didn't want a 'piece of the pie' they wanted the whole pie.
Oh come on. Don't tell me you think we didn't do harm in China. The whole west had been raping china not that much earlier than Japan did. Yeah, they got there late, but by 20 years or less. I wouldn't exactly call it ancient history. As for an unprovoked attack on Japan... we screwed them over after the russo-japan war (remember who mediated the talks and gave them the raw deal).


We were sneak attacked, and no matter what sort of percieved provocation thats still the case. We had every moral right to declare war on them and obtain revenge after Pearl Harbor.
First of all... Japan was not the only country to use sneak attacks. What did you think Washington was doing crossing the deleware? As for the attack on Pearl Harbor being unprovoked... we were supplying their enemies with weapons! Just because we said that we were not getting involved doesn't mean squat if we are supplying their enemies with weapons. If we were fighting a country and another country was supplying them with weapons, we would fight them too. That is taking sides. The only reason why we didn't get involved in the war before that was because we figured we were safe with the two oceans separating us from the fighting, and there were people in europe who could do our dirty work for us. I don't see how that means that we were in any way morally superior. We got involved because we realized that the countries in europe who were supposed to do our dirty work wasn't getting the job done. We got our nose bloodied and decided to fight back before it got any worse. Doesn't sound like moral superiority to me.


I was hoping someone would mention the soviets. I whole-heartitly agree that the soviets by themselves could have beaten the germans and would have if we didnt attack intervene. Have you ever heard the phrase, "shake hands with the russians as far east as possible?" The russians were as bad as the Nazis, in fact Stalin killed more Kulaks than Hitler killed Jews, so they were probably worse. In essence our invasion of europe saved France, Italy, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, West Germany etc from Communism. If we didn;t invade the Soviet Union would have conquered to the atlantic ocean. I myself and pretty happy that didn't happen.
No arguments here, but how is watching out for our best interests moral superiority? We didn't trust the Soviets (for good reason IMO) and were worried that they would get too powerful if they took over all of europe. This would give them too much power, power that they could use later against us. What did morals have to do with anything?

I can accept that you don't look at the Us as heroes, thats your perspective. But DONT for one second, paint Japan or Germany as victims. Everything that happened to Japan they brought upon themselves. Germany and Japan are no more victims than are Al-Queda or any mass murderer in the US.
Look up the treaty of versailles (sp?). Look at the conditions that Germany was in before WWII. How are the Germans not victims? This may be a very callous stance, but overall, WWII did Germany more harm than good. WWII was the only way that Germany could've gotten out of the treaty of versailles. Because of the cold war following WWII, the western nations had to pump a lot of money into W. Germany and rebuild it. People in Germany are living better now than they did before WWII. :shrug:

[Tse How]

Who said the age of colonialism was over? Who gets to make those rules, the West? Uh ok, we have all we need so lets stop now. Yaah, uh, change the rules. The victor decides and to Japan, there is no victor without war. Japan was RIPPED OPEN from isolationism from all the Western countries and yah uh, they can all forget about it because past is past? Not that easy for a nation state. They didn't "decide to start their empire" in the 1920s, it was something they were building up to since the beginning of the Meiji Era/end of Bakamatsu period.


And no, I never painted the Japanese and Germans as victims. Don't put words in my mouth. All I did was offer another perspective that even you admit 'makes sense' although not morally correct.

But get this in your mind. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA does not equal PERFECT NATION TOUCHED BY GOD WITH MORALS TO BE SHARED BY ALL. No, sorry. I am Chinese- American and damn proud of it, but I recognize flaws in all countries. What Japan did to China was reprehensible, but so was SOOOOOoo much of the U.S. did. Sure, maybe not directly like raping a naked girl in the streets, but how about raping a whole nation? I'm not talking about just Japan. Damn, we are not part of the holy trinity.