what if on 9-11 a massive terrorist attack killed thousands of Europeans. then, lets say after they attacked afghanistan, their leaders decided the next step to ensure their safety was to militarily overthrow Sadaam Hussein. What would your reaction be to the Europeans going in and taking him out? ( I know its ludicrous but play along) Personally I would have been happy. IF every dictator in the world got overthrown tomorrow I would throw a freaking party man. It all seems to me that most of the people who are against the war are mainly upset becasue we didnt listen to them. Thats the only reason I can think of. I am pretty sure they are not upset Saddam Hussein Is in jail. they are upset they were not listened to. They are so convinced that they are right aobut everything anyone who goes agaisnt their wishs or demands must be an idiot. I dont know where I am going with this. I guess I am just saying if te French somehow overthrew Hussein, or any reason, I would be all for it. In fact, I think we need to take out more dictators, all of them in fact. Respecting the soveirnty of the likes of Kim Jong Ill is pretty stupid.

I tried hard to find the important words in this rather nonsensic post.

Originally posted by Travh20
...their leaders decided the next step to ensure their safety was to militarily overthrow Sadaam Hussein.

Yep, DECIDED. That's exactly the point, bravo Travh.
Bush DECIDED the next step was to overthrow SH. He did this like one decides to change shoes or decides to go to bed early.

I 100% agree with you that many dictators deserve to be overthrown. But then who DECIDES to overthrow them - and according to what criterias ?

Human right abuses ?
Then i DECIDE to have Bush thrown away for the death penalty.

Corruption ?
Oh please DECIDE to send the marines against Chirac and Berlusconi, as soon as possible.

The USA, no more than Europe, Russia or any other country, shoudl have the right to attack another country just because their leader does not please them. That's all.

It would depend on if the Europeans had solid proof (unlike the States) that Saddam Hussain had a hand in their 9/11 attacks. If they did, I'd say go kick their ass. But if they went into a country to "liberate" it and they had a bad history of overthrowing gov't for their own selfish needs, and crappy evidence of who did what, then I'd say, "f**k you ya greedy selfish bastards"

astra, decisions are a part of life. I assume we could just debate things forever in the UN and never do anything, but that didnt seem to work very well. eventually, someone has to make a decision. something has to happen. There will always be those who disagree with your decision. you can not please everybody. you take what you got, analyze it, and make a decision. thats what leaders do, they dont ask others in other countires what they should do.

on a side note, it has become clear that the french and germans and russians had more reasons to oppose te war then the moral issues they claimed to oppose it on. its called the oil for food scandal, a scandal so big it makes Enron look like chump change. Of course this scandal is getting virtually no play in the press.

astra, decisions are a part of life. I assume we could just debate things forever in the UN and never do anything, but that didnt seem to work very well. eventually, someone has to make a decision. something has to happen. There will always be those who disagree with your decision. you can not please everybody. you take what you got, analyze it, and make a decision. thats what leaders do, they dont ask others in other countires what they should do.

Good point Trav, well made... except for the US decision making thing. Had they had any real solid evidence that Saddam Hussain had a hand in 9/11 then I would support what they did, but not the innocents getting killed or the oil getting stolen by the US.

Originally posted by Travh20
astra, decisions are a part of life.

So what ? You could justify anything like that.

Ben Laden : I decided to crash planes on WTC because something had to be done with the USA.

Hitler : I decided to invade Poland because all these negociations led us to nothing.

Putin : I decided to invade Chechnya because... Er... Can't remember.


Decision funded on nothing and that result on chaos, more terrorism and death of thousands are not "part of life". They are BIG MISTAKES.

Tell me how you feel safer now that Hussein in is jail. Did you really fear he would come in your home at night to stab you ?

OK then. Its clear you are a proponent of endless debate over action. Nothing will ever be 100% astra. sooner or later, you have to act.

OK then. Its clear you are a proponent of endless debate over action. Nothing will ever be 100% astra. sooner or later, you have to act.
What clarifies what action is important enough to act to?

"Until he extends his circle of compassion to all
living things, man will not himself find peace."
-- Dr. Albert Schweitzer

Originally posted by Blibblob
OK then. Its clear you are a proponent of endless debate over action. Nothing will ever be 100% astra. sooner or later, you have to act.
What clarifies what action is important enough to act to?


apparently nothing

If anybody on the globe DECIDED to overthrow anyone else, America would be up their ass immediately. See Desert Storm.

well if france and germany decide they want to re install sadaam hussein by force, as in kick us out of there, as we did to saddaam in 91, let them try

basically, going and overthrowing somebodies governemnt for them just isn't right. if we beleive in soveriegnty comng from the people, which as a democracy i damn well hope we do, then it isn't our job to assign or take away said sovereignty. besdies that, i doesn't work. if someone came in and told you that they were replacing this system of governemnt, even if it was more competent and better for you than what we have now, it simply woudln't work. a democratic governemnt can't be legitimate unless the people whom it governs create it. if the people of a deomcracy dont feel it has egitimacy it can't do its job. we have just gone into iraq and created a democracy for them. its not their deomcracy, its ours, and that is dimetrcially opposed to what a democracy is supposed to be.

Good post Wammy. I have said all along that you can't give democracy away at gunpoint. If people want it they have to be prepared to fight FOR it and to fight to DEFEND it.

For the people, by the people.

tell that to the germans and japanese

Originally posted by WhammyBar
going and overthrowing somebodies government for them just isn't right, if we believe in soveriegnty coming from the people,

Overthrowing other governments isn't right?!?!?

Sovereignty?!?!?!?

You've got to be kidding.

What you've just outlined is pretty much the antithesis of the worldview of the Fascists [IOW, the "Compassionate Conservatives"] currently in control of the United States.

yes, we're known for rushing to another country's aid, to deliver those poor souls from the evils that rule (too bad we can't rush to the aid of those in OUR country that need saving). but what happens next? we storm in, kick ass, and wish them well. why do you think afghanistan (or was it pakistan) despises us? we "set them free", then left them to rebuild and find a way to adjust to their new way of life. when people live their lives one way (regardless if it's right or not), you can't just overthrow their government and leave; an entirely new way of life has to be taught and explained. if we can't commit to being their during that adjustment period, then maybe we don't need to be the one's rushing to "help".

Originally posted by jennygadling
you can't just overthrow their government and leave; an entirely new way of life has to be taught and explained

Why do you want to teach people how to live in their own country ? How would you react if foreigners wanted to tach you how to live ?
I agree that it's not a good idea to rush in, kick out govt and then go back home. But IMO it's the whole thing that is a bad idea ! Which does not mean I am an isolationist, but sending the army to solve the other people's problem is always a very bad idea.

Originally posted by astrapol2
but sending the army to solve the other people's problem is always a very bad idea.

ya, if we all believed that you would be speaking german right now

Germany declared war to the USA before the USA attacked, do you remember ?

Originally posted by astrapol2
Why do you want to teach people how to live in their own country ? How would you react if foreigners wanted to tach you how to live ?
I agree that it's not a good idea to rush in, kick out govt and then go back home. But IMO it's the whole thing that is a bad idea ! Which does not mean I am an isolationist, but sending the army to solve the other people's problem is always a very bad idea.

i don't believe it's our job to teach other nations how to live. i'm saying that we go there to fight for their "reform", then we leave them to rebuild their governments and their lives. these people have lived that way all their lives; that's all they know. they want what we have here, but who's going to teach them? if we can't commit to that, then maybe we should reconsider that before we set out to "free" another nation.

Originally posted by Travh20
well if france and germany decide they want to re install sadaam hussein by force, as in kick us out of there, as we did to saddaam in 91, let them try

Do you really believe the US is ready, able or capable of beating any civilized country at this time -- especially a France or Germany? Iraq has proven we are no longer the bad-asses we once were....

When the troops don't believe in what they're doing -- we get what we see today in Iraq -- a total mess with troops shaking their heads wondering WTF they're doing.

You know-it-all neocons that want to run the military via civilian leadership and Israeli interests, have ruined our military -- we may never recover.

The rest of the world senses our weakness and given enough time, we, the US, will pay the price -- count on it.

Dop

with enough of your "support" dop I am sure all you say will come true

hey, being the most powerful nation in the world, the united states has invested interest in ANY country that could theoretically harm the united states in any way. Take it or leave it...in war the more powerful(well trained, passionate, etc.) army always wins. You extrem-o libbies can protest every war in the history book, but it's survival of the fittest.

Originally posted by Decka
hey, being the most powerful nation in the world, the united states has invested interest in ANY country that could theoretically harm the united states in any way. Take it or leave it...in war the more powerful(well trained, passionate, etc.) army always wins. You extrem-o libbies can protest every war in the history book, but it's survival of the fittest.

There you have it people. We should go about our business with the idea that every country on earth is a potential enemy. And that might makes right.

In which case, why the hell are we even bothering to overthrow Sadam and then rebuild Iraq. Why not just eliminate the entire country. It will still be a potental enemy. Why bother to rebuild it? Lets just level every country we don't like and anyone that doesn't agree with our way of life and cut down on the numbers of countries that make us nervous. Then we can sit back and decide what to do with the countries that are left, they are potential enemies and it would be in our best interest to rid ourselves of their potential threat.

The United States of Earth. All other countries being illiminated due to their "possible threat" potential.

so what are you feelings on all the wars of the past echo? is EVERY war EVER a bad thing? You take what i say and run with it, coming to conclusions and trying to represent me, when you are really just MIS-representing. You may not like it, but it IS survival of the fittest in war....did i say we should go kill everyone everywhere in every country? absolutely not.

What happened is George W. Bush (Along with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John Edwards) thought Iraq was a threat to us and needed to be dealt with. If you dont like people dying so much, why dont you protest automobiles? those kill millions, why waste your time on this puny war?

I 100% support attacking and crushing anyone that attacks the united states or purposely interferes with it's financial, political or physical stability with the intent to harm our infrastructure. I support closing our boarders to people from nations that are a posible threat to us. I support increasing the military and always have. I voted for Regan the first time around because he backed a strong military power. America should maintain a strong and state of the art military even in peacetime. We should quickly and decisively take out anyone who moves against us or our allies.

I do not support taking out two bit dictators because we think they might someday be a threat. I do not support increasing our military for the purpose of throwing more bodies at a war that is not making America safer. I do not support sending our young hero's off to a foriegn land to die fo a presidents maniacal policies.

There are times to stand up and support our country and our military and their are times to stand up and say no to our politicians choices and how they use our military.

I supported daddy bush in the gulf war. And I would have supported baby bish going after Sadman if Sadamn had attacked another country. I do not support overthrowing a soveriegn government because we don't like the leder and he might someday do something against us.

so echo cares about what a minority of the iraqi people think (wanting the U.S. out of there), and the liberal leaning crowd CLAIMS to be all about fixing world hunger, but they could give a shit about the dictator there ruling by force and killing fellow iraqis for pleasure. If you cared about iraqi's you'd want Saddam out of power...its obvious you dont care about them.

attacking a country because they pose an actual threat and have acted to demonstrate so, and attacking a country because they could pose a threat at some point in the future are incredibly different. it sounds sublte, but its actually huge. it is incredibly subjecitve to say which countries could possbily threaten the U.S. in the future. anyone could, really, and this means that politicians can figure out a way to give themselves permission to attack any country they want. there is no reason for miulitary actio unless it is direcly necessarry to protect this contry and its citizens, plain and simple. saying there is a hypothetical attack sometime in the future is a license for the governemrnt to do snything it wnats. that is simply not ok.

look, if turkey attacks hungary from behind, do you think greece would help..........lmao

Originally posted by Decka
so echo cares about what a minority of the iraqi people think (wanting the U.S. out of there), and the liberal leaning crowd CLAIMS to be all about fixing world hunger, but they could give a shit about the dictator there ruling by force and killing fellow iraqis for pleasure. If you cared about iraqi's you'd want Saddam out of power...its obvious you dont care about them. and its even more obvious that you believe everything your told.........how in the hell do you know that the majority of iraqi's want us there... ? what fuckin poll did you take ? thats what i mean about a mind of your own. you dont know shit, but you can talk about echo, what makes what you say, more right !??......fellow iraqis..:rolleyes:

Originally posted by astrapol2
The USA, no more than Europe, Russia or any other country, shoudl have the right to attack another country just because their leader does not please them. That's all.
and I agree..this rightous state of mind is dangerous.

quote:
_________________________________
Originally posted by astrapol2
but sending the army to solve the other people's problem is always a very bad idea.
_________________________________
It has been a recurring dilema when the US goes in to lend a hand in defense of the oppressed. It is based on the US administrations "opinion" of right and wrong. Albeit a very selective opinion..
IE..currently Rwanda and the Sudan.
Iraq is nothing more than an occupation
and the people of the US were misled when we should have persued Osama w/o distraction.

Gotta weigh in.

First off to you Decka. You have the right idea, just not the right words. Every nation on the planet and throughout history has looked after its own interests. There is nothing wrong with a country doing that. The national interests of the United States has evolved to extending our rights, freedoms, dignities to as many other countries as possible. As free democracies, as a rule, do not attack each other. Decka, I suggest you grab a copy of Dinesh D'Souza's "What's So Great About America." Get some mental ammunition to combat some of these god-awful ideas that get posted here from time to time.

Do you guys who oppose this war in Iraq really believe you have any crediblity at all? Do you? I don't. I've got a long memory. I remember when Bill Clinton launched his little expedition into Bosnia. The national interests of the United States was certainly not threatened there, and the Croats and Serbs were sure as hell not working on weapons of mass destruction. Yet, when Clinton made a speech saying that the U.S. is duty bound to stop the ethnic cleansing there. I remember that there was NOT one single god-damned anti-war protest, nor was there any of this "oh we can't go into another country and show them a better way of life" bilge I've been reading here. But this is 2005 and we have a conservative in the Whitehouse and such foreign policies just won't do when W is running things. What a joke!


If people in other parts of the world don't want the ideals and freedoms we have in the U.S., then why the hell does America have this problem of foreigners practically beating down the door to get here? It's because the ideals our system of government supports and succors is UNIVERSAL!

Who is opposing the U.S. in our war in Iraq? Bin Laden, Hamas, Al-Qeda, Iranian Mullahs. Those guys want 14th century Islam in the Mid East. Too bad the people don't. Then there is France and Russia who got a sweet oil deal from Saddam. Damn, they must be mad that we took out the sugar daddy. Anybody want to argue this "no blood for oil" crap? Saddam was pumping out oil to Europe and filling mass graves. But, somehow, it's a crime when the U.S. comes in and puts a stop to the shenanigans. Last, but certainly not least, there is the darling U.N. An international body so corrupt that they only thing they won't steal is a red hot stove. Those guys were rollling in so much dough from the U.N oil for food scandal, that they were hoping it would never end. Yeah, let's follow the advice of those group of idiots.:rolleyes:

General question: If people in other parts of the world don't want democracy, then why the hell were the Afghanis out in a foot of snow to vote even though they were threatened with death for doing so? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Beuller?

I don't think that anyone is denying that getting rid of Saddam is a good thing. It is, it's a fantastic thing. Good riddance to bad rubbish. But Bush's war came at a bad time, was executed badly, and oddly was not originally about Saddam. It was about WMDs, and the fact is that Bush lied to us about how much we knew about WMDs in Iraq, which still have not surfaced. Even if we had gone in strictly for Saddam, it still is a bad time. We have massive debts; it's not feasible to fight a war and repay those debts at the same time. Fighting elsewhere for democracy is a just and noble cause. But there is a time for it. The time was not a year following a major terrorist attack which caused the economy to go into shock. I would not have minded going into Iraq, it just simply was not done well.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I don't think that anyone is denying that getting rid of Saddam is a good thing. It is, it's a fantastic thing. Good riddance to bad rubbish. But Bush's war came at a bad time, was executed badly, and oddly was not originally about Saddam. It was about WMDs, and the fact is that Bush lied to us about how much we knew about WMDs in Iraq, which still have not surfaced. Even if we had gone in strictly for Saddam, it still is a bad time. We have massive debts; it's not feasible to fight a war and repay those debts at the same time. Fighting elsewhere for democracy is a just and noble cause. But there is a time for it. The time was not a year following a major terrorist attack which caused the economy to go into shock. I would not have minded going into Iraq, it just simply was not done well.
Once again on target...great summary..

Most of the hostility about Iraq is towards Bush..
The people feel jilted after being MISLED by the Commander in Chief.
The people do NOT want their allegiance nor the the military exploited.

Was it wrong to remove Saddam ? No.., Hell No but who empowered him in 1st place ?
Who was over there slapping him on the back giving him support and selling him helicopters ?
2 wrongs don't make it right.

In the Theatre of War what part are we going to play ?
the good guys, the bully or the tyranical egomaniac..

It seems as if all the resistance to the removal of saddam is based on the pride of the left. they all say its a good thing we took saddam out, but all seem to protest because we didnt do it their way. If removing saddam was such a great thing, why does it matter how he was removed? in the game of geo politics and war you take it any way you can get it. if saddam being gone is a good thing when the UN does it it is a good thing when we do it too.

Geez.

There was a guy who was a member of triple A. He was talking about people who start drinking and can't stop. Ask the guy why he's drinking and he'd tell you because it was raining. On another night ask him why he was drinking, and he'll say it didn't rain.

Same thing here. We were attacked on 9/11 and because the economy went into shock, we can't go and fight a war to remove a dictator that no one denies needed to be removed. However, if the economy was going well, I'd suspect that the argument would be that a war would sour the economy. :rolleyes:

Be honest, borg, this whole war "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" has nothing to do with any factors you've mentioned, it's because Bush is fighting it. That's the reason.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Geez.

There was a guy who was a member of triple A. He was talking about people who start drinking and can't stop. Ask the guy why he's drinking and he'd tell you because it was raining. On another night ask him why he was drinking, and he'll say it didn't rain.

Same thing here. We were attacked on 9/11 and because the economy went into shock, we can't go and fight a war to remove a dictator that no one denies needed to be removed. However, if the economy was going well, I'd suspect that the argument would be that a war would sour the economy. :rolleyes:

Be honest, borg, this whole war "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" has nothing to do with any factors you've mentioned, it's because Bush is fighting it. That's the reason.

darth, don't you mean "AA"? AAA is for cars.

No jenny, it was AAA. These guys would drink till they couldn't stand up and race like hell all over the back roads. Really.

oh my dear god!!
don't they no it's a bad idea to drink and drive???

Actually Jen,

He did learn. He was zipping around Norman Road and tried to jump the creek like in the Dukes of Hazard, the jump went well, but he ended up about 25 feet up in an oak tree. From there he tried to step out of his car and he fell. A loaded hay truck was all that saved his life. It was awful.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Same thing here. We were attacked on 9/11 and because the economy went into shock, we can't go and fight a war to remove a dictator that no one denies needed to be removed. However, if the economy was going well, I'd suspect that the argument would be that a war would sour the economy. :rolleyes:

Be honest, borg, this whole war "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" has nothing to do with any factors you've mentioned, it's because Bush is fighting it. That's the reason.
I didn't mind Bush until Iraq. That's when I started thinking he was making some bad decisions. Hate the sin, not the sinner. ;)

This pretty much sums up my WHOLE point of view.....such a good post Darth, i nominate it for POTY(post of the year lol)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I remember when Bill Clinton launched his little expedition into Bosnia. The national interests of the United States was certainly not threatened there, and the Croats and Serbs were sure as hell not working on weapons of mass destruction. Yet, when Clinton made a speech saying that the U.S. is duty bound to stop the ethnic cleansing there. I remember that there was NOT one single god-damned anti-war protest, nor was there any of this "oh we can't go into another country and show them a better way of life" bilge I've been reading here. But this is 2005 and we have a conservative in the Whitehouse and such foreign policies just won't do when W is running things. What a joke!


Democratic laws: 1.Only protest wars when a Republican President is in office
2. Only ask for recounts in states we LOST
etc....

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal

If people in other parts of the world don't want the ideals and freedoms we have in the U.S., then why the hell does America have this problem of foreigners practically beating down the door to get here? It's because the ideals our system of government supports and succors is UNIVERSAL!


amen, preach it(oops, i said preach)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal

Who is opposing the U.S. in our war in Iraq? Bin Laden, Hamas, Al-Qeda, Iranian Mullahs. Those guys want 14th century Islam in the Mid East. Too bad the people don't. Then there is France and Russia who got a sweet oil deal from Saddam. Damn, they must be mad that we took out the sugar daddy. Anybody want to argue this "no blood for oil" crap? Saddam was pumping out oil to Europe and filling mass graves. But, somehow, it's a crime when the U.S. comes in and puts a stop to the shenanigans. Last, but certainly not least, there is the darling U.N. An international body so corrupt that they only thing they won't steal is a red hot stove. Those guys were rollling in so much dough from the U.N oil for food scandal, that they were hoping it would never end. Yeah, let's follow the advice of those group of idiots.:rolleyes:


Originally posted by Darth Be'lal

General question: If people in other parts of the world don't want democracy, then why the hell were the Afghanis out in a foot of snow to vote even though they were threatened with death for doing so? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Beuller?

(crickets chirping).............(more crickets chirping)...........

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Actually Jen,

He did learn. He was zipping around Norman Road and tried to jump the creek like in the Dukes of Hazard, the jump went well, but he ended up about 25 feet up in an oak tree. From there he tried to step out of his car and he fell. A loaded hay truck was all that saved his life. It was awful.

that's priceless!