Damn, I'm falling behind!
Originally posted by gyroscope
This war probably would not have happened if the WTC had not been attacked and destroyed. America is the ultimate narcoleptic giant. We wouldn't have involved ourselves in WWII either, without being attacked.
To take this thinking to the next level:
Iraq- Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam would have behaved himself indefinitely? Although 9/11 woke the US up to the fact that a guy like Saddam should not be allowed to run-a-muck, does everyone really believe that he wouldn't eventually start some **** later on down the road?
WWII- For us not to have been attacked by Japan, it would be necessary for Japan to not have had imperial ambitions. They had to deal with us sooner or later if they wanted to rule the Pacific.
The premise I'm making here is that to take away the attack on Pearl Harbor, would be the same as taking away the aggressor, and that kind of misses the point of only "waking up" when we're attacked.
Originally posted by gyroscope
Sometimes, it seems we cannot conceive of the brutality that happens daily around the world until it intrudes on us directly.
How is that different from any other nation? People like to point out that America ignores conflict until it's dumped in their lap, but doesn't everybody?
In the case with Iraq, we're living in a time, demonstrated again by 9/11, where waiting until they strike first is unacceptable.
Originally posted by gyroscope
The real challenge lies in another consistent weakness we've shown. In follow through, will we leave Iraq to grow into another future enemy, or help develope a nation that serves it's citizen's best interests and contributes to the world community? This is what America does poorly, and where we are likeliest to falter. There is a slim chance to improve the lot of 24 million Iraqis.
My biggest fear after 9/11 was the resolve of my fellow citizens. Doing what has to be done isn't always pleasant, or without costs but in a lot of ways it's worse to come up short of a goal. Having said that, to say we do a poor job rebuilding a dictatorship into a democratic nation isn't totally true. Then again, what other nation can claim a better success rate?
Originally posted by duffistuta
6, that is not the case, that is a coincedence. It is politically expedient.........but this war is politically expedient for the US and Britain and has NOTHING to do with freeing opressed people. Nothing.
And that's what does my head in about the west; for ****'s sake call a spade a spade; don't disguise political expediency as morality.
Originally posted by Solonor
Mark ,with all respect ,gimme a break about Saddam's reign of terrorism. All of us know that many nations leaders are doing far worse than he does. And of course it's not the U.S.'s responsibility to solve all this. Like in Iraq.
I love this reaction. I'm not refering to OUR excuse to go to war, I'm refering to YOUR excuse not to go to war.
The US feels Saddam is a threat. You all say that we shouldn't invade Iraq because innocent Iraqis will die. It is an indisputable certain fact when I say that Saddam will kill and rape innocent Iraqis if he stays in power. You say that's just an excuse, that the US doesn't care about innocent Iraqis. I say, that that's not OUR excuse for going to war, it's YOUR excuse for not going to war, and it's a bad one because more will end up dying if we don't. Where do you get the nerve to turn YOUR excuse into OUR excuse?
Once more for clarity:
Our reason is security, whether you agree with that assessment or not, it's why we're going in. You say it will cost innocent lives. We say it's going to cost more if Saddam stays in power. I'm not making an excuse for an Iraqi invasion, I'm attempting to proove to you that your arguement is flawed.
HOW DOES LEAVING SADDAM IN POWER SAVE LIVES?
Originally posted by Solonor
This is not the time to say "enough" ,and the reason is cuz Saddam did nothing NOW.
In your opinion when would be the time to say enough?
He did nothing all right. He did
nothing to comply with 19 UN resolutions in 12 years. He did
nothing to cooperate with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC. He did
nothing to disarm. In short he did
nothing he promised, and
nothing to avert war.
Originally posted by Solonor
Oh ,and please excuse me for my mistakes and my simple language but I don't speak so good English ,as you do. So you could enlighten me with the money market I never heard of.
Basically a money-market is where you can buy any currency in the world, with the purpose of making money. If you thought the Euro would increase in value relative to the Dollar, you would sell your Dollars to buy Euros. In that way the Euro would always compete with the Dollar, and no theories about American imperialism is necessary.
Originally posted by Solonor
And one thing more again. After the war ,the reason will be obvious to everyone. Just check which nation's companies will emerge to "help" rebuilt Iraq.
Are you implying that this is all an elaborate get rich quick scheme? Our government will spend 100 billion dollars in the liberation and occupation of Iraq, risk world ridicule if the slightest thing goes wrong, we will lose millitary personel in combat, risk terrorist retaliation, all to secure construction contracts for American businesses?
Originally posted by Solonor
Lastly some of you guys asked how can Saddam still want to stay in Power.Many of his citizens ,are with him cuz
1.They are hardened by war ,they lived this again(this is their statement),and they're not afraid of the U.S..
2.They hate the U.S. ,of course.
3.They would never let their worst enemy to decide who will be THEIR leader ,especially if this enemy has no right to.
Wow. What about the statements from Iraqis NOT living under Saddam's fist?
http://www.spikeyworld.com/politics/pwndhippie.mp3
1. The Iraqi people were hardened by what war? You mean the one 11 years ago? First of all there is a difference between fighting a war and getting your ass handed to you, and they both do different things to a persons psyche.
2. Of course they hate us? Scenes of surrendering Iraqis kissing the hands of our soldiers in 1991 looked like hate to you? The only food and water they had for days came from the coalition forces. Their leaders sent them out in the desert to die, but they hate
us. When the same thing happens in a couple of days, does that mean they REALLY hate us?
3. "Never" is a pretty strong word. I'm not certain exactly what will happen come the liberation of Iraq, but I am pretty sure that once Saddam is de-throned, we'll get some insight into who the Iraqis consider their "worst enemy."
Solonor, I'm well aware of the opinion that the majority of Greeks have towards the United States. I'm not going to even try to change years of well cultivated opinions. Suffice to say, that it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.
