1) France has not always been passive...In fact, the greatest parallel I see for the current US actions is Louis XIV and his wars...but enough ancient history, let's look in modern times. Let's say midto late 2oth century...ok...Great Britain and France, citing violent actions against their persons and property, but unofficially looking for to assert their power in an economically valuable region organize an invasion of Egypt to gain control of the Suez Canal...and are opposed by the US who says that there is no reasonable justification for invading another sovereign nation when there are other resolutions available, and cites G.B and France for it's Imperialist ambitions, saying this isn't how we do things anymore...Reverse it and ask if it sounds farmiliar...and GB and France backed down, and it would seem, adopted our advice...Now we are apparently holding them in contempt for having the attitude we adivsed..But Iknow, it's different when it's our reasons rather than theirs... 2) Unless I have missed a huge news item, there is still no proff that Iraq wasbehind 9-11...Hence we were attacked, but not by Iraq, so what's the connection. We are pretty new to this terrorist game, but those who have lived with it for a while are farmiliar with the desire to attack someone in response...but it's not rational, irresponsible, and vaguely racist to do so to Iraq without proof. Where was McVeigh from again? Pick a neighbouring State and invade! 3) Unless there is proof that Iraq was behind 9-11, we are engaging in what is called pre-emptive self-defense, a catchy and popular snippet of war jargon for millenia, but, sadly, outlawed by the UN ( under our direction ) some half-century ago in response to the Soviet habit of claiming imminent military/terrorist dangers from other nations, and, in pre-emotive response, invading...Of course that was totally different because the Soviets responded to the UN classification of their avowed pre-emotive self defense by calling the UN irrlevant and doing it anyways, whereas we...er...
Well if America is SOOOOO Bad then why do you even want to be here? Beat it. You wouldn't even fight to defend it.
1. Ok 2. and 3. My point is that someone like Saddam will arm himself and those with money with weapons capable of killing many. Not just Americans, but any country that they terrorize. If you don't believe that, then tell me why? Like I said before 9-11, this would not fly. Now, we have to take out the SOB's that are behind 9-11 and stop future countries like Iraq from being behind other attacks. If Iraq had ICBMs that could hit the US or its interests, you don't think he would use them? Do you think that Saddam won't try to acquire these weapons in the future? Do you really think these inspectors would be making any progress in Iraq without or 250,000 plus troops in the Gulf? Hell the inspectors wouldn't even be back in Iraq if it wasn't for us....
Great Response Sonny. Something I can't stand is people that are here enjoying the freedoms and the liberties of this country that would not fight to further those freedoms. The question then moves to whether military action in Iraq will further the national US democratic movement and be beneficial to the economy and whether there is specific evidence pointing towards Iraqi aggression to the US. I have not been pointed towards any undeniable evidence that Iraq has WMD or any intentions whatsoever of using them even if they did. I can agree with someone stating that they don't wish to fight in Iraq because it is not justified as of yet. But to refuse to fight Al-Queda???? Or Japan and Germany in WWII?? This country is founded on the strength of the individual. But with that freedom comes responsibility to: voice our concerns, vote for the best of the country and fight to preserve our freedom.
1) ( of your points, not mine.. ) But when we assume the authority to decide who will and who won't be a threat, in the face of global opposition, we are the ones who are a threat to the world. Virtually every nation in hisory, including Nazi Germany, did so on some pretext, often real or imagined threats of terrorist like actions against their people. Are child molesters a threat to our children? But would you then give the government the authority to go in to someone's house and arrest him because he seems like the type who will probably do something like that in the future!?!? The authority of pre-emptive defense is unlimited, immoral, and subjective in the extreme. 2) 9-11 changes nothing from the standpoint of what is reight and wrong...I don't get that. Because it happened here for the first time? Because the guys who did it had a greater body count than any single of the literally hundreds of terrorist attacks Europe and the Middle East has been witness to? Why does the fact that it happened to us change what the UN should determine to be acceptable military action? The Soviets really could point to acts of terrorism by, say, Czech freedom fighters before their invasion...were they less reasonable justification for invasion because the numbers were more spread out, or because it happened over there? 3) Saddam had WMD during the Gulf War...when we actaully declared war on him...and he didn't use them...Why is it then so certain that he will rush to insane self-immolation the second he gets his hads on them now?
Is this a modernized translation of the statement made by a Crown Loyalist to a Continental Rebel in 1776? If so, excellent point... This country was MADE UP of people who didn't like the way things were...
Well if I was living in a country and taking advantage of all the freedoms that many men have died for, then hell yes. Or I would get out of that country.
what??? apples and oranges...we were a freaking colony!!! it's so not the same... this was the post in question: I understand where a lot of you are coming from, but I just couldn't kill someone, unless it was in direct self-defense or defense of a family member. By direct I mean in the room with me. And I certainly wouldn't fight for America. This country hasn't even given me a green card yet. Are you kidding? this should not be mistaken with a Continental Rebel in 1776.
I think Saddam knew that we weren't going to overthrow him, that was something we agreed not to do with the other Arab nations. We were just there to kick him out of Kuwait. In this case he will be removed. All bets are off then.
Right... so now we have King George WB and you are suggesting that we break away? In that sense, yeah I am a crown loyalist now...
I don't mean to bash you, I'm sorry if I come off that way. I have just reached my limit on anti-american sentiment. Immigrants founded this country, you are welcome to stay, but don't forget what made this country and who has fought to defend it. Just show some respect please. Would you fight for Australia if it was being invaded?
First of all, no problem, I'm used to being bashed. I've lived in America for a long time, so I am hardly against it. And I do appreciate those of you who would be willing to join the military and fight. I don't hate the military, I hate the people that control it. I've hated the American government since W was selected, and I hate the thought of people dying for HIM. I wouldn't fight for Australia either. I'm just not capable of killing like that. Only in direct self-defense could I even consider it. DaDakota- But I'd make up for that with my stellar 35% shooting.
I would fight if the american way of life was being endangered. Unfortunately, I believe Ashcroft and the current administration (for standing up to him) is endangering the American way of life more than Iraq is. War sucks for everyone involved, and we should avoid it at all costs. We couldn't avoid WWII, we couldn't avoid WWI, we couldn't avoid the civil war. We couldn't even avoid the persian gulf war. But we may be able to avoid this war and we should try. Once the all the american people and the rest of world decide we can not avoid it anymore, we should beat the living crap out of that regime.
