So do the Germans. You would have thought that they more than anybody would understand the need to deal with genocidal dictators such as Hussein, before they get out of hand.
Yeah well to hell with them Weve still got Liechtenstein on our side dammit. And last I heard Andorra handnt been ruled out either. So to hell with them.
Sealandia has held off both dutch and briitish invasions. Its better that there with us than against us. Also I dont think the Knights of Malta have been ruled out, I heard they have at least commited to bringing cookies.
Oh come of it Deepuz, you don't seriously expect people to learn from history and discard all their precious ideals do you?
I think the international community as a whole learned something from WWII. Thats why there not supporting bush.
Adam, ...until after ol' Saddam has given a nuclear weapon to al Qaida in Indonesia, who then use it to threaten Australia to change its immigration policies. Deepuz, Hell, the Germans are right in there with others blithely arming Saddam.
Ignorance and stupidity are apparently rife: "Consider this: An inarticulate, politically inexperienced man with family links to a previous national regime comes to provincial leadership. Subsequently he gains the highest national office without winning the popular vote. The election in which he was declared the victor is considered compromised by his brother's province. He appoints a chief law enforcement officer who has repeatedly called for constitutional revisions. Regulatory agencies are filled with those previously regulated. Soldiers patrol transportation centers. International treaties are abrogated. International legal organizations are shunned. Roles of police and military are blurred. Law enforcement agencies are centralized. Individual civil rights are reduced. A "shadow" government is created. Domestic surveillance is increased. People are encouraged to spy on each other. Military budgets are increased. The military establishes a disinformation program. Media access to government is limited. Consultations with the legislative branch decline. Connections to corrupt corporate sponsors are disavowed. Efforts to further plunder natural resources for profit are initiated. Access to past administrations' documents is limited. A war mentality is established with imprecise enemies. Nebulous fear- inducing alerts are periodically released. National level profiling is introduced. People are imprisoned without public charges and unknown others are "disappeared." Does the word "coup" come to mind? " Thats a quote from bushwatch.com. I am enough of a student of history to see the parellels between germany in the 1930's and the us in the 00's.
And yet your predjudices completely blind you to seeing the same thing in other countries which, given more time, will become far more dangerous?
I dont live in other countries. Is Iraq really a current danger, enough to justify attacking now? Most of the international community dont think so. Prominent members of both parties, who have more political and foreign policy experience than bush, have voiced doubts about attacking iraq. War is a grave decision. Should this decision be left solely to the executive branch of our government? Who wins if in our zeal to overcome an enemy, we become everything we profess to despise?
"most of the international community", Morlock, consists of a couple of billion ostriches who wouldnt be able to distinguish a threat from a friendly wave. You consider yourself a student of history? you're not. The biggest mistake made prior to WW2 was the appeasement policy, which you to conveniently forget (including its result) in your search for a reason to justify your own opinion. Or maybe you never heard about anything that went on prior to the start of the war.... oh and this... "I don't live in other countries." Well ain't that pinnacle of stupid remarks. Because it's not happening to you directly, it doesn't exist. Well thought out.
Ms Rice's Comments on Saddam! Saddam an evil man who will wreak havoc if left to own devices: Rice Associated Press London, August 15 Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is an evil man who will wreak havoc on the world if the West does nothing to stop him, US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said in an interview broadcast Thursday. Rice said the US belief in the "moral case" for removing Saddam from power was undiminished. "This is an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbours and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us, is a very powerful moral case for regime change," she told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing." Speculation has been rife the United States soon will launch a military campaign to oust Saddam. Echoing US President George W. Bush, Rice said that Saddam's pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in defiance of its disarmament pledge after the 1991 Gulf War was a powerful case for a regime change. "He has used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbours, he has invaded his neighbours, he has killed thousands of his own people," Rice said. "He shoots at our planes, our airplanes, in the no-fly zones where we are trying to enforce UN security resolutions." Rice said breaking down the Al-Qaida network was the priority following the September 11 attacks "because we did not know how many more World Trade Centers were already planned and ready to go" but Saddam was now a focus. "Clearly if Saddam Hussein is left in power doing the things that he is doing now this is a threat that will emerge, and emerge in a very big way," she said. "History is littered with cases of inaction that led to have grave consequences for the world. We just have to look back and ask how many dictators who ended up being a tremendous global threat and killing thousands and, indeed, millions of people, should we have stopped in their tracks," she added.
>>>most of the international community", Morlock, consists of a couple of billion ostriches who wouldnt be able to distinguish a threat from a friendly wave. What are your credientials? You'll forgive me if i favor the opinions of the legitmate governments of several nations over yours? >>>>>You consider yourself a student of history? you're not. The biggest mistake made prior to WW2 was the appeasement policy, which you to conveniently forget (including its result) in your search for a reason to justify your own opinion. Or maybe you never heard about anything that went on prior to the start of the war.... Thats not really a good parellel. If I remember correctly the appeasment policy towards germany was still being practiced even after germany had taken poland and austria. If saddam were invading other countries we'd be right to put him in his place or take him out, but he isnt. >>oh and this... "I don't live in other countries." >>>Well ain't that pinnacle of stupid remarks. Because it's not happening to you directly, it doesn't exist. Well thought out. I wasnt recommending isolationism, only trying to point out that we have some serious domestic problems that need to be addressed, the most alarming of which is the whittling away of our constitutional freedoms. Iraq may be a threat, but not an imminent one. A war with iraq at this point is primarily a war of political expediency. Is that a good reason to lead any nation to war?
Of course I forgive you... I find my self forgiving the human race for its failings every day, no reason to make an exception for you. You'ver just finished saying your own government doesn't know what it's doing, but you're perfectly willing to abide by the judgment of all the others... as long as they're agreeing with you. It's a fine parallel. Just to set you straight, it was Czechoslovakia, not Poland.. Poland was where the allies entered the war after they'd had enough. Germany was already imprisoning and oppressing Jews by this time, and some evidence that this was going on was already emerging. Nobody wanted to know about it though, because it wasn't happening to them. Sound familiar? So you're saying that atrocities committed by Saddam's regime don't count, until he leaves his own borders? And that Sep 11 wasn't an international act of aggression (or not enough of one for you)? Well, that's not what you first said. But anyway.... no, political expediency is not a good reason to go to war. However, you're assuming it IS political expediency.. I'm not. I think a genuine threat is there.
Thanks for the correction vis a vis poland/checkoslovika. No the appeasement policy in WW2 wasnt a good parellel on your part Hitlers army had crossed germanys borders to occupy other countries and nothing like that is happening with iraq. Iraqs army isnt occupying any other countries. Your analogy is faulty. As far as saddams atrocities, how could anyone support them? (The us does however have a long history of supporting repressive regimes) Im not any lover of iraq or saddam hussein, replacing him would be a great idea if there were some international support (given what some of our "allies" in the middle east are saying it looks like they fear us oil imperialism more than they fear iraq) if anyone had a clear plan as to what happens next, (as things stand there is good reason to believe that invading iraq or attempting to replace saddam would further destabalize an already volatile situation) or if there were clear evidence that al queda were operating within its borders. We arent attacking iraq in response to an act of agression. Where is the evidence that the iraqi government had anything to do with 9/11?
Morlock, arguing with you is getting pointless... you have a blind hatred and can't see your hand in front of your face. Because YOU'RE not party to any evidence the US has of Iraqi involvement, they must not have any. Therefore attacking Iraq is wrong, as you see it. Too bad about the poor Iraqis, they can continue being oppressed because you dont have any paperwork. And Saddam is obviously such a GOOD little boy after Kuwait, he's learned his lesson hasn't he? And regarding Germany, the analogy is still there... not accepting it because of minor details is ridiculous. The fact that you REFUSE to accept it doesnt make it any less true. If you were in charge during WW2, and you'd managed to knock Hitler back out of France, you would have stopped the war because there was no "evidence" of Jewish oppression or anything like that. So I'll just continue to think of you as a blind idiot and give up arguing with you... there's plenty of people just like you existing in the world today, and plenty more thanking god you're not in charge of things.
Do you see the irony here? Your advocating war based on dubious evidence and accusing someone who opposes it of blind hatred. The anaology falls short. Comparing nazi germany and the appeasment policy to present day iraq makes no sense because iraqs army is not currently occupying the soil of any other countries. Wow. Most arguementative types on boards like this (yes im one too )are content with just trying to put words in my mouth. You want to whisk me back in time and give me new motives and actions too Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As far as the ethics of attacking iraq, take a look at this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/t10216/s/thread.html kmguru makes an excellent ethical point. You can think whatever you like, at least until you go through one of these things: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020817-704732.htm As for me Ill make an effort to think of you no differently than I always have Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
