What gives Iran the right to exert their influence on Iraq, Syria and Lebanon? What gives Al Qaida the right to exert their influence on the world? What gives the Taliban the right to enslave Afghanistan to their firebrand religion? What gives North Korea the right to fire missles over Japan?
The reality is they have the right, becuase in each case the only thing stopping them is their own self-restraint. It is obvious that groups like these, and others around the world do not respect the liberal, civil societies abound the world. They do not give creedence to laws. They do not recogonize the balance that you and I respect.
We are in a perverbial race, that you are in denial about. I know it sucks, but if we do not participate, if we do not exert our influence - they others are going to continue on. They aren't going to quit just becuase we do!
There are diplomatic ways of dealing with many of the people you mentioned, not all, without having them bend over and grab their ankles for us. That is the problem you think that every last country on this planet has to be a democracy and that we should cram it down their throats wether they like it or not because we know what is best for everyone. That is just not the case. Not everyone out there wants to be like us, not everyone deserves to have a democracy. I hate to say it but there are some countries that need the firm hand of a dictator to keep the peace.
It is my belief that you are the one in denial and are refusing to see that the world is not American. What works here does not always work in every corner of the globe. If you take aq nice long look at history our attempts to Americanize some countries has failed miserably. I have nothing agaisnt promoting democracy but I am completely against brutally forcing it on a society and that seems to be the course of action we prefer to use and you support and will fail every time.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
What gives us the right to exert our influence onto the world. It's that attitude and action that has caused so much hatred for us in the Middle East. Instead maybe we should mind our own business.
I don't "expect it" but I believe it is possible becuase most people, most citizens of Iraq do not hate each other. That is what you would be made to believe by the media, but as we all know on this board - it is only a small fraction of the population that have taken up arms.
If you are an Iraqi living in Baghdad and you need food - you go to the market. If you need supplies, you go to the store. If you want to continue your education, you go to school. Yes, in certain areas this is just too risky. But in many, many areas it is the norm. Absolutely, there are enormous security problems in Iraq - but these are not the same conditions when one thinks about warfare.
If a suicide bomber kills 75 people as today, it garners front page headlines in the same mannor that the invasion of Iwo Jima would have 62 years ago. People are made to believe that Iraq is a lost cuase.
The jihadist aren't fight to defeat us, they are only fighting to make us quit - to give up - to lose our will. They know that is all they have to do. If the world was united in securing Iraq, hell if just the US could muster what it took to stand behind the effort - this would be a very, VERY different conflict!
The jihadist aren't even the problem in Iraq. Sunni and Shias are both getting sick and tired of the foreign jihadist killing Iraqis. the problem is the hatred between Shia and Sunni. By simply placing at the feet of the jihadist is ignoring the larger issue. Our own assessment of Iraq, the Iraq Study group Report, mentions that Jihadist constitute a very small portion of the violence in Iraq and the majority is Sunni militia and/or Sunni/Baathist insurgents. You people need to stop trying to paint Iraq as part of the "War on Terrorism". Jihadist are not the problem there. the problem is a country where a good portion of the people don't want us there and a portion hate each other. Yes the majority may not feel this way but there are enough that due that peace and stability will not come untill one side wins.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
There are diplomatic ways of dealing with many of the people you mentioned, not all, without having them bend over and grab their ankles for us. That is the problem you think that every last country on this planet has to be a democracy and that we should cram it down their throats wether they like it or not because we know what is best for everyone. That is just not the case. Not everyone out there wants to be like us, not everyone deserves to have a democracy. I hate to say it but there are some countries that need the firm hand of a dictator to keep the peace.
It is my belief that you are the one in denial and are refusing to see that the world is not American. What works here does not always work in every corner of the globe. If you take aq nice long look at history our attempts to Americanize some countries has failed miserably. I have nothing agaisnt promoting democracy but I am completely against brutally forcing it on a society and that seems to be the course of action we prefer to use and you support and will fail every time.
I agree there are dimplomatic means, and we are exercising them with many countries all across the world. We are negotiating with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, China, Russia, Venezuala, Cuba, Pakistan, the list is long...
Yes, I do believe that eventually every country on earth should be a democracy, and I beleive that different countries are ready for it at different times. Just becuase we may have tried and failed in the past, does not mean it was wrong. Surely, you don't buy into that rationale.
And please if you would, list any country above that we are "cramming" democracy down their throat. I mean who are we "brutally" forcing democracy on? Yeah okay, we brutally kicked the shit out of Saddam Huesein and anybody in his army or his Bathist party that fought for him. But we are hardly "brutally" forcing democracy on the Iraqi people.
By your post above, you would have us all believe the US "brutally" rounded up innocent Iraqi's and bullied them to the polls three times!
FORCING democracy is hardly the course of action the US takes. It is in fact rare that we send troops to a foreign land to fight for democracy. And when we do it doesn't fail "every time". See what the reaction you would get telling that to Albanians, Kosovars, Georgians, Lebonese, Japanese, Italians, Germans, etc....
Perhaps the Middle East is not ripe for democratic change. I think we all shared that sentiment going into this war regardless if you supported it or not. But I also think we would all agree that 9/11 sped things up a bit. Maybe it forced us to act prematurely. But just becuase we are there now, does not mean what we are doing is wrong, bad, incorrect....
Ya know maybe Pearl Harbor sped things up with Japan... Yes Japan attacked us and not Iraq. But let's be realist here and admit that we were justified in declaring war the next day on Germany and Italy though they had not fired a shot at us... But had we failed against Japan, would we had been wrong to fight them?
Deomcracy is not an "American" beleif. It is not an isloated phenomenon of Western and now Eastern Europe. It is a universal, HUMAN endeavor. It is just as much a human right to live under a democratic government as it is to have the freedom of speech. And in most cases it is presicly a democratic government that is the provider and supoorter of basic human rights.
I think you buy too much into the argument of people around the would that say "we don't want democracy". Of COURSE they do.... ALL people want it at some point - but it is an evolution to get there.
The jihadist aren't even the problem in Iraq. Sunni and Shias are both getting sick and tired of the foreign jihadist killing Iraqis. the problem is the hatred between Shia and Sunni. By simply placing at the feet of the jihadist is ignoring the larger issue. Our own assessment of Iraq, the Iraq Study group Report, mentions that Jihadist constitute a very small portion of the violence in Iraq and the majority is Sunni militia and/or Sunni/Baathist insurgents. You people need to stop trying to paint Iraq as part of the "War on Terrorism". Jihadist are not the problem there. the problem is a country where a good portion of the people don't want us there and a portion hate each other. Yes the majority may not feel this way but there are enough that due that peace and stability will not come untill one side wins.
Look the Jihadist ARE a problem in Iraq and a BIG problem at that. They are such a big problem that as you mention above - other Muslim militias are fighting against them now.
I'm not trying to chalk all the bad problems in Iraq up to insurgents. Surely any reasonable person knows that the big issue in Iraq is the divide between the Sunnis and Shia. It is THE biggest problem in Iraq, and maybe it, especially now with other countries such as Iran arming these groups and hardly a drop of international support for the American initiative, is a fight we cannot win.
But I say given the proper stragety, resources and commitment - we can theoretically stablize Iraq enough over time to allow moderate politicians to take office that are interested in a compromise. This isn't the same as the Palestinian/Isreali conflict. I think there is a compromise to be made. It will just take the right environment to develop the leadership necessary to find it.
Ya know maybe Pearl Harbor sped things up with Japan... Yes Japan attacked us and not Iraq. But let's be realist here and admit that we were justified in declaring war the next day on Germany and Italy though they had not fired a shot at us... But had we failed against Japan, would we had been wrong to fight them?
Just to correct you Germany & Italy declared war on us first on December 12th. The following day in response to Germany and Italy's declaration we declare war on both of them. So the analogy doesn't really work there.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Just to correct you Germany & Italy declared war on us first on December 12th. The following day in response to Germany and Italy's declaration we declare war on both of them. So the analogy doesn't really work there.
Just to correct you Germany & Italy declared war on us first on December 12th. The following day in response to Germany and Italy's declaration we declare war on both of them. So the analogy doesn't really work there.
It works in as much that the Jihadist, the radical Muslims have declared - and quite formally I might add - war against the United States and other democratic nations across the globe. And becuase you dislike the nomenclature of "the war on terror" you deny that we are even at odds with these groups - or at least to the point of taking up arms against them or supporting the effort to eradicate them where ever they might hide.
If there ever was a political maneuver, it is John Edwards trying to call out the Bush administration for taking advantage of not only the American people, but persecuting others around the world under the banner of "the war on terror".
Just to correct you Germany & Italy declared war on us first on December 12th. The following day in response to Germany and Italy's declaration we declare war on both of them. So the analogy doesn't really work there.
You are arguing over semantics - as if we didn't prepare or know that declaring war on Japan would de facto bring us into the European theater we were already ankle depp in of what had by that point truly become a global war.
The friend or your enemey is your enemy at least on some level. And Saddam was clearly about as anti-American as you can get and had proven he was capable of mass murder. And reasonable person would assume he would support the same for America given the chance. And after all, wasn't this what the war was about - not giving him the chance?
Bottom line is that if this is true, that the Chinese government has knowledge of or a direct role in arms shipments to Iran and/or "insurgents" in Afghanistan/Iraq, then we must fucking do something! If this is the case, economic sanctions should be the very least we should do. The thought that we're losing two to three soldiers a day to these arms, let alone what losses the Iraqis themselves have sustained, are truly unbelievable. If so, China should be at the very top of the "Axis of Evil", whatever that is. Fuck Iran, China is a bigger threat. They're not too big to be spanked, either.
This isn't the first time a country has profited off a war that didn't involve them. When there's a buck to be made, it's going to be made. We need to think long and hard before deciding what to do about this.
yeah, look at us support for hitler...hell, GE even sold hitler weapons AFTER we got involved in the war!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I just dont see it this way. if we attacked "terrorism" on ALL fronts it would be world war 3 across the globe. its just too wide spread. what we can do is attack and surpress the terrorists who attacked our country on 9/11. besides them, we have no choice but to look the other way. the world is a fucked up place.
then why go into iraq, instead?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
You are arguing over semantics - as if we didn't prepare or know that declaring war on Japan would de facto bring us into the European theater we were already ankle depp in of what had by that point truly become a global war.
The friend or your enemey is your enemy at least on some level. And Saddam was clearly about as anti-American as you can get and had proven he was capable of mass murder. And reasonable person would assume he would support the same for America given the chance. And after all, wasn't this what the war was about - not giving him the chance?
You used our participation in WW II to illustrated our efforts in the War against terrorism. You likened our declarion of war with germany to our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. this is a mistake since we never pre-emptrively declared war on any of the Axis nations. I for one am extremelt frustrated when someone compares, even slightly, our efforts in Iraq with our efforts during WW II. They are not similiar in any way shape or form. The axis powers declared war on us and we relatiated. If anything we are more like the Axis powers this time around. You may call it semantics I call it sticking to the facts and not distorting them to justify some ridiculous war.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
This thread brings up something to mind... China is going to be the world's superpower in the next few decades. They have the people, they have the economy, they are building the army - and they have an agenda just like anybody else in the world.
To me, this only underscores the importance of "being the world's police" as many on this board would say. It is imperative that we use the few remaining decades we have left to exert our influence on the word.
That means going into Darfur with troops, seeing Iraq through, seeing Afghanistan through. Putting pressure on countries like Iran and Syria. Checking groups like Hamas and Hezbollah at every turn until they denounce the use of terrorism.
Becuause folks, if history is any indicator, the Chinese aren't going to give one fuck about these rouge countries or groups unless they threaten their business interest. Look at the human rights record of China....
America believes in helping people fight for a democratic process in their land, and we should continue to show that by becoming involved as much as we can sustain - until one day we cannot. Then these people will truly be left to fend for themselves.
...
I see where you are coming from NCFan... but, seriously... regarding China.... that train has left the station. It is only a matter of time, now. All we can HOPE for is that the Chinese use the current technology to protect the environment from the pollution caused by industrialization... insetad of going the cost cutting pollute and don't give a damn path.
And your arguement would hold water if our past actions did not conflict with your, 'We come in peace' message. Like, going to help the people of the Middle East and meddling in their political affairs to serve the best interest of America are two different things. We use the former as a guise and the latter as our policy.
We had our chance and we blew it. We SHOULD have become the benevolent Super Power and spread our wealth, not our politics/economics to the people of the world. Made frieds who would side with us, instead of business partners who hedge their bets with our opponents. Our past actions have come home to roost... and it's not a pretty picture.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Bottom line is that if this is true, that the Chinese government has knowledge of or a direct role in arms shipments to Iran and/or "insurgents" in Afghanistan/Iraq, then we must fucking do something! If this is the case, economic sanctions should be the very least we should do. The thought that we're losing two to three soldiers a day to these arms, let alone what losses the Iraqis themselves have sustained, are truly unbelievable. If so, China should be at the very top of the "Axis of Evil", whatever that is. Fuck Iran, China is a bigger threat. They're not too big to be spanked, either.
this sounds reasonable. we shouldn't turn a blind eye to this. I would like to see proof of exactly what they are doing.
You used our participation in WW II to illustrated our efforts in the War against terrorism. You likened our declarion of war with germany to our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. this is a mistake since we never pre-emptrively declared war on any of the Axis nations. I for one am extremelt frustrated when someone compares, even slightly, our efforts in Iraq with our efforts during WW II. They are not similiar in any way shape or form. The axis powers declared war on us and we relatiated. If anything we are more like the Axis powers this time around. You may call it semantics I call it sticking to the facts and not distorting them to justify some ridiculous war.[/quote
Talk about distortion. Don't take my comparison out of context. I made the argument that 9/11 sped up and gave us an impetus to nation build in the Middle East, whereas we could have otherwise continued our 12 year trend of dealing with Saddam with mostly soft power - much like Pearl Harbor sped up an inevitable showdown, which ultimately led to decades of nation-building across the globe, with an increasingly beligerent and expansionist Japan.
This really has nothing to do with who invaded who first. The point is that in both cases catastrophic attacks grabed the attention of our nation and propelled us into action in a way we would not have considered otherwise. That is the only comparion i was trying to make if you go back and read my post. The point I was trying to make beyond that is that maybe Iraq was not "ready" for democracy and that we all probably recognized that. But 9/11 forced our hand to if nothing else change our foreign policy to deal with a threat we had never faced before.
How telling it is that you strain out the gnat of a miniscule WWII/Iraq comparison while swallowing 8 other paragrapshs of response to a post in which you flat-out demonize the United States for attempting to nation-build in the past, even going so far as to say that some people NEED to live in oppresive dictatorships while others simply don't deserve democracy. Those are pretty harsh judgements from somebody who "moralizes" that we have no business tending to the affairs of others.
the number of foreign fighters in Iraq is extremely low. contrary to popular belief
Much like the numbers of Sunni and Shia extremist who have taken up arms against each other and the government. One suicide bomb that kills 50 people has the same affect as if 1,000 militiamen stormed and sacked a city in Iraq.
You used our participation in WW II to illustrated our efforts in the War against terrorism. You likened our declarion of war with germany to our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. this is a mistake since we never pre-emptrively declared war on any of the Axis nations. I for one am extremelt frustrated when someone compares, even slightly, our efforts in Iraq with our efforts during WW II. They are not similiar in any way shape or form. The axis powers declared war on us and we relatiated. If anything we are more like the Axis powers this time around. You may call it semantics I call it sticking to the facts and not distorting them to justify some ridiculous war.[/quote
Talk about distortion. Don't take my comparison out of context. I made the argument that 9/11 sped up and gave us an impetus to nation build in the Middle East, whereas we could have otherwise continued our 12 year trend of dealing with Saddam with mostly soft power - much like Pearl Harbor sped up an inevitable showdown, which ultimately led to decades of nation-building across the globe, with an increasingly beligerent and expansionist Japan.
This really has nothing to do with who invaded who first. The point is that in both cases catastrophic attacks grabed the attention of our nation and propelled us into action in a way we would not have considered otherwise. That is the only comparion i was trying to make if you go back and read my post. The point I was trying to make beyond that is that maybe Iraq was not "ready" for democracy and that we all probably recognized that. But 9/11 forced our hand to if nothing else change our foreign policy to deal with a threat we had never faced before.
How telling it is that you strain out the gnat of a miniscule WWII/Iraq comparison while swallowing 8 other paragrapshs of response to a post in which you flat-out demonize the United States for attempting to nation-build in the past, even going so far as to say that some people NEED to live in oppresive dictatorships while others simply don't deserve democracy. Those are pretty harsh judgements from somebody who "moralizes" that we have no business tending to the affairs of others.
How does being attacked on 9/11 give us the right to go invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the events and give us the right to think that we can barge into the Middle East and start nation building. It is that attitude that gets us into these messes and then people sit there wondering why some fanatics fly planes into our buildings.
I also stand by what I said. Some people don't deserve democracy. If people are going to use that priviledge to elect a government based on hatred who's primary purpose is the annihilation of another country than no those people have not earned the right to democracy. If people from a certain country can not put aside their difference to come together to form a productive society than no those people do not deserve a democracy. That is not to say that some where down the road they will be capable of functioning within a democracy but at present time we shouldn't be experimenting with any country.
The entire Middle East is a fucking powder keg waiting to blow and the more we keep sticking our noses in there the better the chance that we get our face blown the fuck off. And please don't try to sell me that we care so much about these people and our intentions are purely altruistic. We don't give a shit about democracy over there. We care about keeping them in line so the oil keeps flowing freely and cheap. Once the oil runs out our government wouldn't give a rats ass if they all butchered themselves.
Stop trying to export democracy all over the place and start worring about the one our government has been trampling on over here.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
the number of foreign fighters in Iraq is extremely low. contrary to popular belief
Really? Where did you get this information from? Because many of the soldiers I have talked to that have been over there say there are a lot of foreign fighters in Iraq.
Really? Where did you get this information from? Because many of the soldiers I have talked to that have been over there say there are a lot of foreign fighters in Iraq.
But maybe you have a better source.
The Iraq Study Group report states that foreign jihadist make-up a small percentage of the violence over in Iraqi. The majority of the attacks against Iraqis and Coalition forces is carried out by Shi'ite militias and/or Sunni/Baathist insurgents.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
There are diplomatic ways of dealing with many of the people you mentioned, not all, without having them bend over and grab their ankles for us. That is the problem you think that every last country on this planet has to be a democracy and that we should cram it down their throats wether they like it or not because we know what is best for everyone. That is just not the case. Not everyone out there wants to be like us, not everyone deserves to have a democracy. I hate to say it but there are some countries that need the firm hand of a dictator to keep the peace.
It is my belief that you are the one in denial and are refusing to see that the world is not American. What works here does not always work in every corner of the globe. If you take aq nice long look at history our attempts to Americanize some countries has failed miserably. I have nothing agaisnt promoting democracy but I am completely against brutally forcing it on a society and that seems to be the course of action we prefer to use and you support and will fail every time.
We're trying one out here in the United States, arent we?
The jihadist aren't even the problem in Iraq. Sunni and Shias are both getting sick and tired of the foreign jihadist killing Iraqis. the problem is the hatred between Shia and Sunni. By simply placing at the feet of the jihadist is ignoring the larger issue. Our own assessment of Iraq, the Iraq Study group Report, mentions that Jihadist constitute a very small portion of the violence in Iraq and the majority is Sunni militia and/or Sunni/Baathist insurgents. You people need to stop trying to paint Iraq as part of the "War on Terrorism". Jihadist are not the problem there. the problem is a country where a good portion of the people don't want us there and a portion hate each other. Yes the majority may not feel this way but there are enough that due that peace and stability will not come untill one side wins.
I agree there are dimplomatic means, and we are exercising them with many countries all across the world. We are negotiating with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, China, Russia, Venezuala, Cuba, Pakistan, the list is long...
Yes, I do believe that eventually every country on earth should be a democracy, and I beleive that different countries are ready for it at different times. Just becuase we may have tried and failed in the past, does not mean it was wrong. Surely, you don't buy into that rationale.
And please if you would, list any country above that we are "cramming" democracy down their throat. I mean who are we "brutally" forcing democracy on? Yeah okay, we brutally kicked the shit out of Saddam Huesein and anybody in his army or his Bathist party that fought for him. But we are hardly "brutally" forcing democracy on the Iraqi people.
By your post above, you would have us all believe the US "brutally" rounded up innocent Iraqi's and bullied them to the polls three times!
FORCING democracy is hardly the course of action the US takes. It is in fact rare that we send troops to a foreign land to fight for democracy. And when we do it doesn't fail "every time". See what the reaction you would get telling that to Albanians, Kosovars, Georgians, Lebonese, Japanese, Italians, Germans, etc....
Perhaps the Middle East is not ripe for democratic change. I think we all shared that sentiment going into this war regardless if you supported it or not. But I also think we would all agree that 9/11 sped things up a bit. Maybe it forced us to act prematurely. But just becuase we are there now, does not mean what we are doing is wrong, bad, incorrect....
Ya know maybe Pearl Harbor sped things up with Japan... Yes Japan attacked us and not Iraq. But let's be realist here and admit that we were justified in declaring war the next day on Germany and Italy though they had not fired a shot at us... But had we failed against Japan, would we had been wrong to fight them?
Deomcracy is not an "American" beleif. It is not an isloated phenomenon of Western and now Eastern Europe. It is a universal, HUMAN endeavor. It is just as much a human right to live under a democratic government as it is to have the freedom of speech. And in most cases it is presicly a democratic government that is the provider and supoorter of basic human rights.
I think you buy too much into the argument of people around the would that say "we don't want democracy". Of COURSE they do.... ALL people want it at some point - but it is an evolution to get there.
Look the Jihadist ARE a problem in Iraq and a BIG problem at that. They are such a big problem that as you mention above - other Muslim militias are fighting against them now.
I'm not trying to chalk all the bad problems in Iraq up to insurgents. Surely any reasonable person knows that the big issue in Iraq is the divide between the Sunnis and Shia. It is THE biggest problem in Iraq, and maybe it, especially now with other countries such as Iran arming these groups and hardly a drop of international support for the American initiative, is a fight we cannot win.
But I say given the proper stragety, resources and commitment - we can theoretically stablize Iraq enough over time to allow moderate politicians to take office that are interested in a compromise. This isn't the same as the Palestinian/Isreali conflict. I think there is a compromise to be made. It will just take the right environment to develop the leadership necessary to find it.
Just to correct you Germany & Italy declared war on us first on December 12th. The following day in response to Germany and Italy's declaration we declare war on both of them. So the analogy doesn't really work there.
Thanks for the correction.
It works in as much that the Jihadist, the radical Muslims have declared - and quite formally I might add - war against the United States and other democratic nations across the globe. And becuase you dislike the nomenclature of "the war on terror" you deny that we are even at odds with these groups - or at least to the point of taking up arms against them or supporting the effort to eradicate them where ever they might hide.
If there ever was a political maneuver, it is John Edwards trying to call out the Bush administration for taking advantage of not only the American people, but persecuting others around the world under the banner of "the war on terror".
You are arguing over semantics - as if we didn't prepare or know that declaring war on Japan would de facto bring us into the European theater we were already ankle depp in of what had by that point truly become a global war.
The friend or your enemey is your enemy at least on some level. And Saddam was clearly about as anti-American as you can get and had proven he was capable of mass murder. And reasonable person would assume he would support the same for America given the chance. And after all, wasn't this what the war was about - not giving him the chance?
yeah, look at us support for hitler...hell, GE even sold hitler weapons AFTER we got involved in the war!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
then why go into iraq, instead?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
You used our participation in WW II to illustrated our efforts in the War against terrorism. You likened our declarion of war with germany to our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. this is a mistake since we never pre-emptrively declared war on any of the Axis nations. I for one am extremelt frustrated when someone compares, even slightly, our efforts in Iraq with our efforts during WW II. They are not similiar in any way shape or form. The axis powers declared war on us and we relatiated. If anything we are more like the Axis powers this time around. You may call it semantics I call it sticking to the facts and not distorting them to justify some ridiculous war.
I see where you are coming from NCFan... but, seriously... regarding China.... that train has left the station. It is only a matter of time, now. All we can HOPE for is that the Chinese use the current technology to protect the environment from the pollution caused by industrialization... insetad of going the cost cutting pollute and don't give a damn path.
And your arguement would hold water if our past actions did not conflict with your, 'We come in peace' message. Like, going to help the people of the Middle East and meddling in their political affairs to serve the best interest of America are two different things. We use the former as a guise and the latter as our policy.
We had our chance and we blew it. We SHOULD have become the benevolent Super Power and spread our wealth, not our politics/economics to the people of the world. Made frieds who would side with us, instead of business partners who hedge their bets with our opponents. Our past actions have come home to roost... and it's not a pretty picture.
Hail, Hail!!!
the number of foreign fighters in Iraq is extremely low. contrary to popular belief
Much like the numbers of Sunni and Shia extremist who have taken up arms against each other and the government. One suicide bomb that kills 50 people has the same affect as if 1,000 militiamen stormed and sacked a city in Iraq.
How does being attacked on 9/11 give us the right to go invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the events and give us the right to think that we can barge into the Middle East and start nation building. It is that attitude that gets us into these messes and then people sit there wondering why some fanatics fly planes into our buildings.
I also stand by what I said. Some people don't deserve democracy. If people are going to use that priviledge to elect a government based on hatred who's primary purpose is the annihilation of another country than no those people have not earned the right to democracy. If people from a certain country can not put aside their difference to come together to form a productive society than no those people do not deserve a democracy. That is not to say that some where down the road they will be capable of functioning within a democracy but at present time we shouldn't be experimenting with any country.
The entire Middle East is a fucking powder keg waiting to blow and the more we keep sticking our noses in there the better the chance that we get our face blown the fuck off. And please don't try to sell me that we care so much about these people and our intentions are purely altruistic. We don't give a shit about democracy over there. We care about keeping them in line so the oil keeps flowing freely and cheap. Once the oil runs out our government wouldn't give a rats ass if they all butchered themselves.
Stop trying to export democracy all over the place and start worring about the one our government has been trampling on over here.
Really? Where did you get this information from? Because many of the soldiers I have talked to that have been over there say there are a lot of foreign fighters in Iraq.
But maybe you have a better source.
The Iraq Study Group report states that foreign jihadist make-up a small percentage of the violence over in Iraqi. The majority of the attacks against Iraqis and Coalition forces is carried out by Shi'ite militias and/or Sunni/Baathist insurgents.