Come and PACIFY me....

Great Debates
#1

May I invite all the others who think the USA has (of course) the right to rule the world in order to let it serve its greedy heartless egocentric capitalism, and that especially “Arabs” (and please define what you mean by that) are to be attacked and “pacified”, to contribute their idea’s about how they would like to see this done?

May I also ask you to explain to me: How come there seems to be no limit to the arrogance of several citizens of the USA who try to keep up with the utterly arrogance of their government?

Thank you.
Salaam. A

#2

You gave a cite!!

I thought you didn’t give cites…

Progress?

#3

Wrong, very wrong…

That is not a cite, that is an OP in which I used the writings of someone else and thus gave the appropriate reference to it.

Normally such is done in a footnote. Yet on this board it is done the way I did it.

Where are the people complaining that I “don’t want to fit in”

Ha !
Salaam. A

#4

We’ll take it, dude. We’ll take it.

#5

What’s wrong with pacifying a country ?

It has been done before, and it will be done again in the future for sure.

There are many primitive, backwards societies that exist in the world, even though this is 2003. When some of those primitive societies breeds hate, exports terror and massmurder to other places, then nobody should be surprised when somebody has to come in and set the morons straight. As opposed to the past, terrorism is truly a global issue, and it makes sense that the nerve centers for terrorism will be dealt with. You know, bring the war to the bad guys, on their home turf. They started it, they will have to deal with the consequences. If countries were decent to begin with, there would be no need to pacify anybody. The way I see it, a whole lot of pacifying needs to be done in the future, in a whole lot of backwards, godforsaken places. Time to erradicate the evil.

#6

I’m thinking the current U.S administration needs some pacifying too. :smiley:

#7

I think it will be quite awhile before the USA is pacified. We are on a mission.

:smiley:

#8

Oh, that’s right, we ARE on a mission. A very honorable one too: Too illeagally invade as many sovereign nations as we can before the whole friggin’ world gets pissed at us.

I’m so proud. :dubious:

#9

what

#10

Sovereign, Schmovereign. . . .

Germany, with their nazi lunatics was a sovereign state too. That didn’t stop us and others from going their and kicking their ass.

Afghanistan, ruled by the women beating maniacs known as the Taliban was nothing but a bunch of thugs, controlling some mountainous regions.

Iraq, controlled by a mass murdering psychopath and his family has no rights either, as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t consider tolitarian countries to have any rights whatsoever, regardless of what the legal definitions are. So don’t expect me to feel sorry for these places, which can barely be considered countries. Dictators and their ilk need to go.

#11

going there *

#12

My money is on 15 posts max before this gets shuttled to the Pit.

Any other takers?

#13

There are limits to sovereignty, just as there are limits to what you can do in your own home.

Your home is inviolate. Until you use it to murder people or beat your wife.

Same goes for nations. Dictators do not have absolute right to do whatever they want within their borders.

#14

If a country is ruled through fear and force, then taking that country by force is certainly no LESS legitimate than the previous government. (Determining to what extent EITHER is defensible is another matter, and left as an exercise for the reader.)

#15

i think what the OP meant was that the tone of that post was incredibly patronizing. People are quick to lump arabs into a group of religious, uncivilized, zealots.

#16

By what authority did Mr Hussein wield power? Certainly not by the Iraqis’…

#17

I don’t think anyone would be willing to make the case that HUssien was a legitimate head of state. That would be beyond stupid.

#18

I must have missed the article of the UN charter where it says countries are allowed to invade other countries which are not democracies. In fact, I can only see the opposite: that force shall not be used to settle disputes. On the face of it I would say the USA breached its obligations to the UN.

#19

That’s a seperate argument. You can say that Hussein’s government is illegitimate without necessarily giving another country the right to depose him.

We say that China’s annexation of Tibet is illegitimate and illegal, but that doesn’t mean anyone’s favoring war with China to deal with it.

#20

OK, Aldebaran , here ya go!

LINK

You’re “pacified”. Right tool for the right job, I always say.

And HERE is another satisfied customer.

Well, I admit, he doesn’t look satisfied, but he’s just got the windy-poofs.