Should Americans be in IRAQ - Page 3

Ferre · 07-06-2007, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeithCash

Well said. it is amazing that the war had stopped hundreds of thousands from being killed in IRAQ, but that does not matter, just there were not weapons of mass distruction, I guess in some peoples minds, other humans just do not matter.

Smart thinking. To prevent hundreds of thousands to be killed in the future by a brutal tirant we just go in and kill a couple hundred of thousand people ourselves, ruin the country's infrastructure and steal their oil.

**kristeejo** · 07-06-2007, 06:40 AM

we stole their oil?

why the hell am i paying so much for a friggin gallon of gas then?

StrongInTheArm · 07-06-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

That's all? Democracy is not an issue?

Not for me. It is my firm belief that it is for sovereign nations to determine their own political system without interference from outside forces. You cannot force democracy on people, they have to come to it of their own accord or it does not work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

The right of citizens to not be gassed, tortured and murdered on a whim is ok with you?

Did you miss this bit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

To remove Sadham from power was enough of a reason in my book. Murdering despots should not exist in this century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

It's like you are staring at New York's skiyline and saying you only see one house - a 2 story one in the Bronx. How is it you miss the skyscrapers?

Let us just stomp on everybody in the vain hope of striking the one who hurt us. Forgive me, I didn't realise it was Sadham or the Iraqi people that are being held responsible for that act of terrorism.

We were fighting terrorism in the UK when Senators in America were organising fund raising events for the IRA and Jerry Adams was flying back and forth shaking hands with them. I am sure you are familiar with the various attacks on the UK main land and in London over the last few years by Muslim extremists. Don't come waving the Two Towers in my face when we have been by your side in the fight.

The only way to do right by those that died on 9/11 will be to bring those responsible to account. Invading some half assed country is not going to get the job done.

I still love you by the way.

**kristeejo** · 07-06-2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Not for me. It is my firm belief that it is for sovereign nations to determine their own political system without interference from outside forces. You cannot force democracy on people, they have to come to it of their own accord or it does not work.

Did you miss this bit?

Let us just stomp on everybody in the vain hope of striking the one who hurt us. Forgive me, I didn't realise it was Sadham or the Iraqi people that are being held responsible for that act of terrorism.

We were fighting terrorism in the UK when Senators in America were organising fund raising events for the IRA and Jerry Adams was flying back and forth shaking hands with them. I am sure you are familiar with the various attacks on the UK main land and in London over the last few years by Muslim extremists. Don't come waving the Two Towers in my face when we have been by your side in the fight.

The only way to do right by those that died on 9/11 will be to bring those responsible to account. Invading some half assed country is not going to get the job done.

I still love you by the way.

hide behind me SITA - he's afraid of me.

**John Scott** · 07-06-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Not for me. It is my firm belief that it is for sovereign nations to determine their own political system without interference from outside forces. You cannot force democracy on people, they have to come to it of their own accord or it does not work.

Really? Where did you get this nonsense? Arguably one of the most free democracies in the world had democracy forced upon it - Japan.

Many of today's democracies were established by foreign military force.

Your statement is like saying - "I do not believe in helping somebody escape a murderer. If they really want to escape a murderer, they will do it themselves."

<sarcasm>Yeah, that really worked for the Kurds. </sarcasm>

Quote:

Let us just stomp on everybody in the vain hope of striking the one who hurt us. Forgive me, I didn't realise it was Sadham or the Iraqi people that are being held responsible for that act of terrorism.

What act of terrorism? Is English not your native language?? I did not mention or reference any act of terrorism.

Ferre · 07-06-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

<sarcasm>Yeah, that really worked for the Kurds. </sarcasm>.

Funny how you mention the Kurds and even more funny how you use the <sarcasm> tag, knowing the history of Kurdistan and how the western world, and specially the UK and USA have been the main cause of all the problems the people of this country have faced since Kurdistan was erased from the world map after WW2 when the ALLIED nations CARVED UP THE MIDDLE EAST and DENIED the Kurds a Nation state.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../saddam/kurds/

Quote:

In America's dealings with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, Iraq's Kurds have been a tragic side show. For decades, they looked to the U.S. for support in their struggle against Saddam's government. Washington's response has been classic realpolitik - using the Kurds when it wanted to hurt Saddam and then dropping them when their usefulness had run out.

Specially the "policies" of the US regarding the Kurds and Saddam Hussein is interesting, the US supported the Kurds to fight against Saddam and promissed them to stand with them in their fight, but when Saddam turned against them and started an offensive the USA run out. That's one of the reasons why Saddam hated and killed so many Kurds, because they were fighting against him with the support from the USA.

<sarcasm>We all know what the support and help from the USA has brought the Kurds in that area now don't we?</sarcasm>

**John Scott** · 07-06-2007, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferre

Funny how you mention the Kurds and even more funny how you use the <sarcasm> tag, knowing the history of Kurdistan and how the western world, and specially the UK and USA have been the main cause of all the problems the people of this country have faced since Kurdistan was erased from the world map after WW2 when the ALLIED nations CARVED UP THE MIDDLE EAST and DENIED the Kurds a Nation state.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../saddam/kurds/

Specially the "policies" of the US regarding the Kurds and Saddam Hussein is interesting, the US supported the Kurds to fight against Saddam and promissed them to stand with them in their fight, but when Saddam turned against them and started an offensive the USA run out. That's one of the reasons why Saddam hated and killed so many Kurds, because they were fighting against him with the support from the USA.

<sarcasm>We all know what the support and help from the USA has brought the Kurds in that area now don't we?</sarcasm>

Blah blah blah. What the hell does this have to do with the debate at hand - i.e., the argument that democracy must come from the murdered citizens and not from foreign powers, like in Japan's case?

Ferre · 07-06-2007, 07:40 AM

Dunno if you realize this John, but it's one of the main chapters of the UN that every nation has the right to their own political system without interference from other nations.

In history, there have only been exemptions for nations that started agressive wars and were defeated by allied forces. It was the first time in history that a member country gathered support from a handful of other countries and invaded another member country which they were not at war with, with the purpose of a regime change without support of the UN since the UN was founded.

...not many people realize this I guess.

StrongInTheArm · 07-06-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

What act of terrorism? Is English not your native language?? I did not mention or reference any act of terrorism.

You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Again, how is it you are able to miss the other valid reasons? It's like you are staring at New York's skiyline and saying you only see one house - a 2 story one in the Bronx. How is it you miss the skyscrapers?

If that is not a reference to 9/11 in the context of this discussion, I apologise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Arguably one of the most free democracies in the world had democracy forced upon it - Japan.

Many of today's democracies were established by foreign military force.

Your statement is like saying - "I do not believe in helping somebody escape a murderer. If they really want to escape a murderer, they will do it themselves."

<sarcasm>Yeah, that really worked for the Kurds. </sarcasm>

Living in Britain I am well aware of the democracies the British Empire left in its wake. Is America trying to repeat those errors?

I don't see America taking the same democratic humanitarian stance in the Sudan or Zimbabwe.

Will America plunge us into a third world war when it takes democracy into Iran, North Korea and China?

I say again, as a student of law and politics, you cannot force democracy on a nation. And may I add, especially one that does not want it.

You mention Japan, how long did the U.S. have to stay?

And Iraq, will they stay as long?

By all means help out the refugees fleeing tyranny as best you can, but forcing democracy on nations that are not prepared for, want, or even understand it. Unrealistic. And I'm being generous.

**John Scott** · 07-06-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Dunno if you realize this John, but it's one of the main chapters of the UN that every nation has the right to their own political system without interference from other nations.

LOL. Like I care. The UN could endorse partial birth abortion for all I care. Seriously, since when was the UN a moral authority?

No, Ferre, just because the UN allows political systems that disenfranchise entire races, genders and populations does not make it morally right. If the UN is your moral compass, you are morally bankrupt. ...not many people realize this I guess.

**John Scott** · 07-06-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

If that is not a reference to 9/11 in the context of this discussion, I apologise.

No reference to 9/11 at all. Reread the statement, and substitute "New York" for "Chicago" if that helps.

Quote:

Is America trying to repeat those errors?

Like Japan? Yeah, we need more "errors" like that.

Quote:

I say again, as a student of law and politics, you cannot force democracy on a nation.

History disagrees with you. We have forced democracy on many nations and it stuck.

Quote:

You mention Japan, how long did the U.S. have to stay?

Democracy was embraced rather quickly here in Japan. There are still a few people who demonstrate again it, but 99.9% of the population here regard Douglas MacArthur as a national hero.

Quote:

And Iraq, will they stay as long?

How would I know?

Ferre · 07-06-2007, 07:58 AM

The peace on this earth is fragile John, and one of the most important tools to keep that peace is trough agreements and treaties, since thousands of years nations agree with common regulations and even common laws which they SIGN an agreement for.

If you like it or not, but the UN is a legal body which has agreements that member states signed, just as so many other, as soon as states violate those agreements, THEY are the ones that are morally wrong John because we have a thing called diplomacy since thousands of years as well and there are certain routes to follow when one nation wants to change their terms in past agreements.

As soon as nations go berzerk and violate international agreements designed to keep the international peace in balance, only because they 'can' due to their military powers, our global peace is in severe danger because of the ripple-effect it has. The effects of that invasion on world peace are not at all positive, it has fueled more hatred in bigger parts of the world as well and the end is not in sight yet.

..but that's just my own opinion.

**John Scott** · 07-06-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

and one of the most important things to keep that peace is trough agreements and treaties

LOL.

Balance of power keeps peace, not paper.

cafraley · 07-06-2007, 08:23 AM

Prime minister Balkenende was very clear, from the start, about his opinion on the war. He wasn't enthusiastically applauding it, but when it seemed to become inevitable that the Anglo-American coalition was indeed going to pound Iraq with its military might, he left no uncertainties about what the Dutch position should be: political support, but no military support. In other words, a passive, but definitely pro-war attitude

Ferre · 07-06-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cafraley

Prime minister Balkenende was very clear, from the start, about his opinion on the war. He wasn't enthusiastically applauding it, but when it seemed to become inevitable that the Anglo-American coalition was indeed going to pound Iraq with its military might, he left no uncertainties about what the Dutch position should be: political support, but no military support. In other words, a passive, but definitely pro-war attitude

..and he used the 'weapons of mass destruction' and the treath these weapons posed to europe, and alledged nuclear plans and purchase of uranium, as he was told by his lying bastard collegues in the white house, as the sole and only justification for that support, while knowing very well that intelligence from Germany, France, Sweden and other countries contradicted the US claims of nuclear purchases in Africa, and it was already known that the alledged documents that the usa used as evidence was falcified. As for the WMD's, that too turned out to be a lie. And he DID send military aid to Iraq.

The lying hypocrite bastard.