# A BIG THANK YOU, a You Welcome and A BIG SCREW YOU **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 10, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693 "2003-04-10T01:56:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/41 "2003-04-10T16:23:11Z")
Our stated justification for the invasion was to protect the US from WMD’s. If it ws just about “liberating” the Iraqi people we could have done that years ago. How many of you war-lovers were pushing for an Invasion of Iraq when Clinton was POTUS? None of you were, and if BC had proposed it you would have had an embolism, and GWB isn’t one tenth the president or the man that BC was. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/42 "2003-04-10T16:31:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **Our stated justification for the invasion was to protect the US from WMD’s.** Well not quite - it was actually, back in 1998, [this reason](http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm): > [@](#): > > It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. Note the use of the godwinesque word “oil”. The other motives that were added are called, I think, “mission creep”, or sometimes “bullshitting”. ---
**Author:** ![peepthis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9d8465/32.png) [@peepthis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peepthis)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/43 "2003-04-10T16:55:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tdn \* > \*\*Damn straight. If you’re not willing to bomb and kill people, you have no right wanting to help them. I say that the only people who deserve to have any compassion for the Iraqis are the ones with a true hard on for “nuking the ragheads.” \*\* Way to morph my post into a racist “nuke the raghead” post. Idiot. My point is that anti-war politicians should not expect to have a sizeable role in shaping post-war Iraq, when they’ve been finger-wagging the entire operation in the first place. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that someone would try to maintain a moral high ground before and during the war, but then applaud the result (Hussein’s ouster) of that same war. But of course the US is a democracy, and all legislators – pro- and anti-war – will have a say in rebubilding Iraq. This is necessary, and is in fact the backbone of American democracy, which results in hopefully a (relatively) tempered and balanced outcome. But I do think more credence should be given to those who took the political risk of supporting the war in the first place. Check out Chirac’s most recent comments on the war, in which he states he’s “delighted” at the outcome of the war. Yeah, he’s delighted at the result, but wanted no part in making it happen. ---
**Author:** ![Earthworm\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Earthworm\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthworm_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/44 "2003-04-10T17:36:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peepthis \* > \*\*But I do think more credence should be given to those who took the political risk of supporting the war in the first place. > \*\* Why? Their thoughts are somehow more valid because they didn’t oppose the war? I fail to grasp the logic here. It appears like nothing more than a Nelson Muntz-esque “A-ha”. ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/45 "2003-04-10T17:47:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duke of Rat \* > \*\*While we are on the subject of uneducated asshats, **Payton’s Servant** , GWB could not have done any more in '91 than he did lest he fly in the face of the UN. > > Now we just couldn’t have that, could we?? > > That _WAS_ a UN supported action, not GWBs personal war. > Now you are at least educated. \*\* And of course I meant GHWB in these 2 instances:smack: ---
**Author:** ![carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrot)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/46 "2003-04-10T17:50:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beelzebubba \* > \*\*Why? Their thoughts are somehow more valid because they didn’t oppose the war? I fail to grasp the logic here. It appears like nothing more than a Nelson Muntz-esque “A-ha”. \*\* (nitpick) Nelson says: “HA-ha”. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/47 "2003-04-10T18:10:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peepthis \* > \*\*But I do think more credence should be given to those who took the political risk of supporting the war in the first place. \*\* Not that I disagree with you (but odds are that I might), but what political risks, exactly, were associated with being in the 75% majority (public opinion-wise) of those who supported the war? ---
**Author:** ![carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrot)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/48 "2003-04-10T18:35:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Munch \* > \*\*what political risks, exactly, were associated with being in the 75% majority (public opinion-wise) of those who supported the war? \*\* The risk of looking like a sphincter-smooching yes-man? (Or, rather, yes-person.) ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/49 "2003-04-10T19:02:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nanoda \* > \*\*mayberrydan: Yeah, I figured that. 😉 > DrLizardo: I was betting on having to wait a while. 😉 > > MLS: Please read the OP a bit, specifically the part that sez:I don’t feel I’m out of line insulting the OPs polarized us or them, with or against boolean viewpoint. If you want to know my personal viewpoint… read Capt. Amazing’s post, as it’s similar to my own, with a greater vocabulary. For some reason, “not jumping up and down for war” is being equated with “hates everything in the US” by a whole ream of fuckwits. Fuck you if you think that; I hate the RIAA, Microsoft, and now you. Most everything and everyone else in the States is at either neutral or above. \*\* _Excuse me???_ I don’t see the relevance between this and what I said, which was simply questioning the use of the word “conqueror.” The point is that the U.S. has sent men and women to die in foreign countries and the only piece of real estate we asked for was a place to bury the dead. I didn’t insult or characterize anybody, or equate you with anything. I’m sorry if you hate me now. You should try to avoid hate; it will raise your blood pressure, and ultimately harms you more than those you hate. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/50 "2003-04-10T19:12:44Z")
MLS, Nanoda didn’t use the word “conqueror”, but the word “conquer”. His point was that the OP specifically made mention of his wish to “lets have them again and again till the whole world is free”. ---
**Author:** ![peepthis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9d8465/32.png) [@peepthis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peepthis)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/51 "2003-04-10T19:19:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Munch \* > \*\*Not that I disagree with you (but odds are that I might), but what political risks, exactly, were associated with being in the 75% majority (public opinion-wise) of those who supported the war? \*\* The risk of being wrong, of ending up in a quagmire of a war with no exit strategy, of not finding WMD’s, of having Israel enter the war, of creating (in the words of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak) “100 bin Ladens.” The pro-war folks shouldn’t be celebrating just yet, because they still haven’t been vindicated on the WMD’s issue yet; and the longer term implications are unknowable for the foreseeable future. So quite frankly, the pro-war crowd placed itself in a no-win situation in re: anti-war folks. Even if we win, and find WMD’s, people will still say “But look at what might possibly happen next!” There’s no real way for them to win in the eyes of many anti-war factions. This, I would say, was an enormous political risk to take, and it’s still a risk. The option of not going to war had, for its part, one risk: that of a major terrorist attack with WMD’s against the US or its allies. (I’m not going to pretend the war was fought to liberate the Iraqi people, even though that is a welcome result of it.) The Bush Administration and Congress felt this was an unacceptable risk, and instead took on the still-not-insignificant risk of engaging Iraq in a war. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/52 "2003-04-10T19:30:53Z")
Gotcha. All certainly very reasonable. However, I have to nitpick something that keeps coming up: > [@](#): > > The Bush Administration and Congress felt this was an unacceptable risk, and instead took on the still-not-insignificant risk of engaging Iraq in a war. The problem is that that is not the anti-this-war risk that is taken, simply because the anti-this-war doesn’t unilaterally equate to no-war-whatsoever. I just don’t understand how the jump is made from “these people are pissed at how Bush et al. went about waging this war” to “these people do not accept war under any circumstances”. It’s minor, and doesn’t take away from the legitimate stance of “you didn’t support this war, you don’t get to help clean up”, but it’s a consistent oversight I’ve seen lately. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/53 "2003-04-10T19:35:30Z")
That’s amazingly unclear. Lemme try again: > [@](#): > > The Bush Administration and Congress felt this was an unacceptable risk, and instead took on the still-not-insignificant risk of engaging Iraq in a war. While there is a very vocal and visible pacifist voice, another large percentage of anti-war folks are being unrepresented in these discussions - those who would support a war with Iraq had Bush et al. taken further measures to ensure the validity of that action. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/54 "2003-04-11T00:43:29Z")
OK there is a lot here, I will try to get to as many as I can. As for why you should have a say in the rebuilding, it would seem that the anti-war crowd is out of power at this time, for a representative republic the party in power calls the shots till the next election. You weren’t with us when we really need you, there is no reason you should be involved in the rebuilding unless the pro war group want you in or the voters vote enough of you in. > [@](#): > > My problem was that I did not feel up to the task of deciding whether or not the moral net benefit (for ourselves and/or the people of Iraq) would be better served by exactly what kind of action. Honest answer, I assume you stayed kind of neutral then. > [@](#): > > but for the most part (my impression of) the ‘anti-war’ sentiments here on the board were more along the lines of "OMG, is this right? Is This wasn’t aimed so much at the people on this board, more to get this issue off my chest (and boy did it feel good). > [@](#): > > The core of the sun is A BIT warm. > Bill Gates has A BIT of money. > The Mariana Trench is A BIT deep. China has a BIT of tea Dunes are made of a BIT of sand The north pole has a BIT of cold hey this is fun > [@](#): > > So, you would silence those who hold dissenting opinions? No, as stated above they are entitled to their views, but since they are currently out of power as elected by the American people they have no right to act. > [@](#): > > Put our military in ‘greater harm’…by protesting them being in a fight in the first place. Can you back up that, or is this logic’s day off? I went into this before, any media coverage of anti-war protests can be used to support the moral of the Iraqi forces and demoralize our forces. > [@](#): > > This is a US-centric view? Seems to me that installing a government in another country is rather US-centric. “We know what’s best for you, so just let us handle the governing,” yes? We are not there to take control of Iraq, we were there to get rid of a murderous gov’t. I have wrestled with the issue if we can know weather a political system about 200+ years old can be morally superior to a system that is several thousand years old. I have thought it to be a risky statement to say so, but add in torture and I think it is much safer to. > [@](#): > > Compassion is a wonderful thing. Were you spouting the same message when all the pro-war rhetoric was on the topic of chemical/biological weapons? No I was not, My message was take out this dictator before he gets bigger & badder bombs. I started thinking about the people of Iraq slightly before the invasion and at the same time started to form an idea what moral obligation was. > [@](#): > > As for ‘much loss to ourselves’, maybe you could talk to the families of some of the soldiers killed. Did you know anyone that went? Did YOU go? No and no (answering the last parts 1st). At least their families knew the purpose that they dies for, perhaps you would like to talk to the families of the slaughtered Iraqi under Sadam. Again to the people and now extended tot he families of the military, thank you. For the people who lost loved ones in battle the nation grieves with you. God Bless. > [@](#): > > Which has fuck-all to do with Iraq. Got any evidence that Hussein was involved? Great, thanks Blatantly taken out of context - It’s the economy stupid! (the context which it should be taken) > [@](#): > > Oh, but you don’t give a shit about any other nationalities, do you? Just the Americans. Then you haven’t been reading what I posted or you are living in a hole in the ground. Iraqi were being slaughtered under Sadam already. > [@](#): > > Any evidence of that at all? I looked, but could not find. Not something I would expect to be reported but did hear at least one comments on the news about 3 ambulances being stuck in protestor traffic. I don’t know what the status of them were. thank you **The Great Unwashed** > [@](#): > > It’s not about cheap oil (which contrary to your belief, benefits business far more than individuals Low energy prices in general help everyone except for ‘big’ energy. If companies are doing well they tend to hire and if it is cheaper to make an item they tend to lower their prices, both which helps the poor and middle class. They also tend to pay better dividends which helps the middle class and the rich. So all 3 benefit - I really don’t see a problem here. I still say that cheaper oil prices help out the poor and middle class much more then the rich. > [@](#): > > Care to imagine what happens when the world demand for oil no linger means a demand for dollars? Economic collapse. I do not know enough on this one to comment, Have any sources you can point me to so I can inform myself? (much more pleasent then ‘cite?’ IMHO. > [@](#): > > Really? Preposterous? Really! I have paid attention to those issues and evidently so have you (though I disagree with some of your interpretations). > [@](#): > > Uh, no, the decline in the stock market happened within ONE DAY of Bush being elected, I was talking about the economy, not just the stock market which softened as much as 2 years fromt he end of Clintons term in some areas. But even with your example the S.M. decline happened under Clinton’s economic policy, which stretched for several quarters into Bushes term. > [@](#): > > Yes, by Saudi citizens, under the control of another Saudi citizen, whom we have yet to bring to justice. Why the hell didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia? Why aren’t we still hunting Bin Laden? Again taken out of context, you would love me to link the 2 wouldn’t you. Bin Laden is either dead, incapable of attacking and/or we are hunting him. > [@](#): > > How many Iraqi civilians have been killed during this war, due only to US error? Hundreds. How many Iraqi civilians have dies in Sadam’s torture chambers, thousands? > [@](#): > > This righteous little war may well have killed several members of my family. Didn’t read this till now (I’m replying as I’m reading). This must be horrible for you, I’m sure many on this board are praying for you and your family. > [@](#): > > You sir are not worthy of living in a democratic system. Please take your un-american, anti-freedom attitude to some more appropriate country. How many times do I have to say this **the USA is NOT a democracy, never was!!!** \*\*Hamadryad \*\* > [@](#): > > We won the war? Not yet but we accomplished the major objective, Sadam is not in control of Iraq anymore. > [@](#): > > Can someone please help me understand? Please refer to my above ‘morally obligated’ statement in my above post. (again I’m still working on it) **tdn** > [@](#): > > If you’re not willing to bomb and kill people, you have no right wanting to help them. I say that the only people who deserve to have any compassion for the Iraqis are the ones with a true hard on for “nuking the ragheads.” I like to leave the decisions to the ones who planned and executed the war. After all that’s how it works doesn’t it? the ones who take the land get to decide? **Alice\_i\_w & spiff** I believe the protestors were putting our troops in additional harm (through moral issues as stated above)- this is what I have a problem with. **Misery L C &spiff** I do support the 2 points you made. (even though I would personally like to see some oil $ go to help pay this down a bit). And yes the process has to be completed (not half assed) **bnorton** 6 words (and a link for you) underground nuclear facility and biowarfare truck [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83845,00.html](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83845,00.html) > [@](#): > > How many of you war-lovers were pushing for an Invasion of Iraq when Clinton was POTUS? None of you were to be honest **diogenes T C** I don’t Clinton was capable of launching such an attack as I stated in a previous thread. **Munch** > [@](#): > > His point was that the OP specifically made mention of his wish to “lets have them again and again till the whole world is free”. It was a play on the term quagmire that has been bandied around be some of the anti-war crowd. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/55 "2003-04-11T02:47:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kanicbird \* > **bnorton** 6 words (and a link for you) > underground nuclear facility and biowarfare truck > [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83845,00.html](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83845,00.html) And 7 words back at you, “ **Possible** Evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction”. We’ve seen this already, and every time - so far - it’s been something else. Right now we can go pretty much anywhere we want to in the country and the best we can do is find what may possibly be a mobile bioweapons lab? They very well may turn up something eventually, but for now it’s interesting to see the main reason behind the war spin away from WMD’s and towards liberation of the Iraqi people. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/56 "2003-04-11T03:01:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kanicbird \* > \*\*Not something I would expect to be reported but did hear at least one comments on the news about 3 ambulances being stuck in protestor traffic. I don’t know what the status of them were. \*\* I disagree. I think that if the claim were true, pro-war, anti-protest columnists and reporters would be leaping all over the story with glee. ---
**Author:** ![imthjckaz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/imthjckaz/32/3223_2.png) [@imthjckaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/imthjckaz)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/57 "2003-04-11T03:25:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kanicbird \* > \*\*we were attacked and a city within a city was destroyed (WTC). \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by carrot \* > \*\*Which has fuck-all to do with Iraq. Got any evidence that Hussein was involved? Great, thanks. > \*\* Well you obviously didn’t see the [definitive connection explanation](http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/SackonIraq/sackgifs/sackjkhjk.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![Earthworm\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Earthworm\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthworm_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/58 "2003-04-11T11:53:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kanicbird \* > \*\*No, as stated above they are entitled to their views, but since they are currently out of power as elected by the American people they have no right to act. > \*\* Are you a liar, or just forgetful? Here’s what you said: > [@](#): > > Screw the French, Russians and Germans, NO YOU CAN’T HAVE ANY INPUT AS TO The Rebuilding…Screw the congressmen and house members who opposed the war and no want to be incharge of the rebuilding. Here’s the clarification offered by **peepthis** , which I questioned (and you responded to): > [@](#): > > The OP is referring to Congressmen and women who opposed fighting the war, but now want to shape post-war Iraq. In other words, they didn’t want anything to do with the means, but now want to have a piece of the ends. At what point do the French, Russians, or Germans get elected by ‘the American people’? Secondly, at what point do ‘the American people’ have any input into the memberships of the various congressional task forces? As a matter of fact, at what point throughout this war did ‘the American people’ vote for anything? The closest thing we could have had to a vote would have been an official declaration of war. But that’s been mysteriously missing throughout this entire process. I think the real answer can be found in **peep** s clarification of your OP: A piece of the ends. The war (in your minds, anyway) is now about money. Were it about freedom for the Iraqi people or any of that other righteous bullshit you’ve been spouting, you wouldn’t be so turd-burgling hung up on which countries or congressmen get involved in the rebuilding. Were it about building a stable nation for the Iraqi people you would welcome anyone who wanted to assist in turning post-war Iraq into a modern, peaceful, politically stable democracy. But its about a piece of the ends. It’s about who gets the contracts. It’s about who has the most political influence. It’s about who decides to distribute the spoils, and how and where they’re distributed. Don’t give me your bullshit about ‘elected by the American people’. The only reason you don’t want anyone else involved is because they had the unmitigated gall to disagree with you in the first place. But you can’t be an adult about it, can you? You have to see how hard you can slap the rest of the world in the face, how loud you can yell “Fuck you, we’re America and we do what we damn well please!” You and your ilk display the mentality of a petulant two-year-old, screaming and clawing to keep toy away from his siblings. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/59 "2003-04-11T13:00:11Z")
Sure feels good to get a load off your chest, doesn’t it **Beelzebubba**. Now take a deep breath, In…Hold…Out Repeat it a few times. Ready? The USA is not a democracy, never was and most liekly never will be. Democracys are forms of government where every citizen allowed to vote votes on every law in their jurastiction. I have also heard democracy referred to as mob rule - which I don’t totally agree with but it does make a point. Anyhoo the USA does not have this form of government. Votes in the USA elect certain people to take care of the law making issues for them. These elected officials serve out their terms making laws and other functions, as their terms near the end and they wish to serve further they must get re-elected (boy this is fun :)). So the people have a chance to review their record and decide if they want to vote this person in for another term or not. Ok, you may want to read that again a few times to make sure you got it. as for > [@](#): > > At what point do the French, Russians, or Germans get elected by ‘the American people’? You are combining 2 posts from various places in this thread and drawing a conclusion that doesn’t exist. If you really think that I think the the US citizens elect the French, German and Russan leaders do me a favor and just get the \_\_\_\_ out of my thread - I’m assuming your not stupid so I will continue. > [@](#): > > The war (in your minds, anyway) is now about money. I have said that I like cheap oil because it helps out the poor and middle class (which I fall into). I have said that cheap oil is a factor - this goes to my earlier statement of moral obligation, if it wasn’t on page one then I would repost it. Cheap oil would be a benefit to many americans, a free Iraq would be a benefit to Iraqis, Another ‘friendly’ nation in that area would be a benefit to both, taking the WMD away from Sadam would be a benefit to almost every nation on earth. > [@](#): > > The only reason you don’t want anyone else involved is because they had the unmitigated gall to disagree with you in the first place. Another lesson. This is how war works: Some country has something some other country wants. The second country goes in and takes it by killing the defending countries forces. Once the second country gets it they decide what is done with it. > [@](#): > > The only reason you don’t want anyone else involved is because they had the unmitigated gall to disagree with you in the first place. Get over it, this is how the world works, politics, business and two-year-olds. If you activally opposed a expansion of your place of work but it was done anyway would you really expect your input into the project to be considered? If they let you do anything it will be just to shut you up. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693/60 "2003-04-11T13:03:13Z")
Ok so I posted it 2x, I took a break between. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-big-thank-you-a-you-welcome-and-a-big-screw-you/167693.md?page=4)