Don't compare Hitler with Saddam now because the latter cannot attack the USA. And never attempted to.
There are other, closer parallels: ethnic cleansing, secret police, V2 descendants. Anyway, how often did Hitler manage to attack mainland USA?
Quote:
The inspectors would have already found WMD if they still existed.
How can you be so sure? (Of course, The Coalition may be holding back intelligence to provide some justification for the war. Their counter argument would probably be that any WMD intelligence should have been provided in the dossier delivered to the UN).
Quote:
Very cool indeed. Let's attack countries which can't defend themselves.
Accuse me of being an apologist for aggression, but that's the idea! The idea of attacking a country that can defend itself against a Coalition is MADness. The alternative is just leaving despostic regimes alone because "it's none of our business", causing a dangerous proliferation of WMD.
Quote:
Imagine some foreign military forces waging a victorous war in the USA, skillfully dropping 9-tons bombs on New York/Las Vegas/etc. Do you still support war?
Imagine living under a dictatorship, complete with secret police: the analogy of war in the USA with war in Iraq does not hold. However, dropping them with skill and accuracy is very important if they're going to be dropped.
What I find strangely ironic (yet again) is that the same people who are so happy that we are attempting to clearly assasinate and kill Saddam are also the same ones who were screaming their brains out about our justification for war. When it was stated that we couldn't fully reveal all of our information because we would give away our people on the inside who were giving it to us, they felt they could selfishly demand to see it anyway.
Now we see that ignoring their pleas for ever more proof will likely save the very lives they swear they were opposing the war for in the first place. Imagine if we had given in and given up the information and these people on the inside were found out. It is likely the same people that gave us the information about that meeting where the cruise missles were targeted. Then there may have been more resistance and hence more lives lost.
It is amazing that whatever the issue, they are the concerned, caring, compassionate ones and the ones who have the info and are doing to job are the uncaring jerks.
some of you are living in la-la land. i'm sure it would be a nice place to visit, if it existed, but i wouldn't buy any property there if i were you. the resale value will kill you. back to the real world for a moment... the use of military force and the threat of it's use is a viable and sometimes necessary option in resloving issues between nations. it may not always be the most desirable course of action, but when dealing with the likes of saddam, political and economic pressure alone server little to no deterance in modifying certain states bad behaviors.
Comments
Originally posted by costique
Very cool indeed. Let's attack countries which can't defend themselves.
It will indeed be interesting to see how the iranians are at defending themselves. If it comes to that.
Originally posted by costique
Very nazi-like.
This thread is done. Stick a fork in it.
[added smiley. One of the places this might be taken too seriously.]
Don't compare Hitler with Saddam now because the latter cannot attack the USA. And never attempted to.
There are other, closer parallels: ethnic cleansing, secret police, V2 descendants. Anyway, how often did Hitler manage to attack mainland USA?
The inspectors would have already found WMD if they still existed.
How can you be so sure? (Of course, The Coalition may be holding back intelligence to provide some justification for the war. Their counter argument would probably be that any WMD intelligence should have been provided in the dossier delivered to the UN).
Very cool indeed. Let's attack countries which can't defend themselves.
Accuse me of being an apologist for aggression, but that's the idea! The idea of attacking a country that can defend itself against a Coalition is MADness. The alternative is just leaving despostic regimes alone because "it's none of our business", causing a dangerous proliferation of WMD.
Imagine some foreign military forces waging a victorous war in the USA, skillfully dropping 9-tons bombs on New York/Las Vegas/etc. Do you still support war?
Imagine living under a dictatorship, complete with secret police: the analogy of war in the USA with war in Iraq does not hold. However, dropping them with skill and accuracy is very important if they're going to be dropped.
Originally posted by costique
It depends on which part of the world Bush wants to conquer. I bet he'd like to have it all, but it's too expensive even for the USA.
Nah, the first thing I expect GDub to do (after re-election, of course) is change the name of the Social Security Fund to Homeland Security Fund.
Yes, Groverat, I agree with many of the things you said in this thread. (Now it's your turn to admit that we share some ground here.)
We apparently share some common ground here. Good thing you had me admit that because I was on some off-topic drama queen rampages.
Now we see that ignoring their pleas for ever more proof will likely save the very lives they swear they were opposing the war for in the first place. Imagine if we had given in and given up the information and these people on the inside were found out. It is likely the same people that gave us the information about that meeting where the cruise missles were targeted. Then there may have been more resistance and hence more lives lost.
It is amazing that whatever the issue, they are the concerned, caring, compassionate ones and the ones who have the info and are doing to job are the uncaring jerks.
Nick