What? Defend the indefensible? About time you got a clue.
You couldn’t do it from the beginning. You have not been able to explain why America should be allowed to start wars and kill people but the rest of the world should not do the same to America. You want the rest of the world to accept that America can do whatever it wants but not the others. And you have not been able to explain why this should be so.
It is not a matter of hating America as much as of being consistent and coherent.
Centurionis mirabilis potus osculare meos partes posteriores et succionare meo pito.
You made a joke. Very good for a conservative.
Well, first of all, I don’t believe that. America doesn’t have the right to do whatever it wants. You have to look case by case. If America, or any other country, is going around conquering countries and annexing them, then that’s wrong. But that’s not what’s going on. America doesn’t do that. When we went into Iraq, it was to overthrow Sadaam and help set the Iraqis free, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Now we obviously did a rotten job, and there’s plenty of blame to go around there, but our impulses were good. And if any other country went into Iraq to do the same thing, I’d defend that too.
The reason “the rest of the world should not do the same to America” is the same reason they shouldn’t do it to France, or Spain, or Britain, or so on…because we’re not a violent repressive dictatorship. We’re one of the good guys, most simply put.
What planet do you live on? That wasn’t the reason we went into Iraq. Go try to find a quote from an Administration or military official from before the war that states anything like that.
That is an after the fact rationalization because we failed to find any WMD’s that were an imminent threat to the United States.
America went into Iraq because it claimed Saddam had WMDs and was a terrorist linked to 9/11.
(The oil helped too.)
If Saddam had let the UN weapons inspectors back in just before the invasion, the war would never have happened.
If the US is so interested in ‘freeing countries’ why doesn’t it rescue the Burmese from a military dictatorship?
Why doesn’t it stop Mugabe destroying democracy, starving the population of Zimababwe and unleashing a chiolera epidemic?
Out of curiosity who said that only American should ‘be allowed’ to start wars or kill people? Allowed by who? Also, who said that the rest of the world has to accept whatever America wants? Did I miss that part (seriously…if CA said it, can you give the post number)?
The reality of course is that it’s the SECURITY COUNSEL who gets to decide what they want to do and shoves it down the rest of the worlds throat…of which America is simply one member of 5. America get’s to do what it wants for pretty much the same reasons that the Brits, France (and by extension most of Western Europe), Russia and China get to do whatever they want within the same parameters…whereas nations like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc etc don’t. They step out of line at their own peril. It’s not right, it’s not fair…but it’s reality and has been so since the formation of the United Nations. Powerful nations act with impunity…weak nations do not, unless they happen to have a friend who is among the big 5.
C’est la vie…
-XT
America invaded Iraq on the pretense that Iraq was a threat due to it’s supposed possession of WMD and it’s links to terrorists…not because of supposed links to who was responsible for 9/11. The 9/11 angle was subtly played by the previous administration (who never, afaik, came right out and claimed Saddam et al were directly linked), but this was never even one of the smoke screen primary reasons for the invasion.
The oil of course was the sole and primary reason for the invasion (I figure you said this tongue in cheek but just in case). The US wanted to secure what was and is a primary strategic material from what was felt to be an unstable regime, and to impose a new regime that would (in theory :eek:) be more amiable to the US in the future.
Because the US does things overseas that are ultimately in the best interests of our country. Why doesn’t Britain and the EU do something about it? You guys have a military and supposedly better motives…also, many of the worst hell holes out there came from your playful colonial period. So…why don’t YOU do something about them since us cynical American’s only do stuff in our best interests?
Good question. Again, why doesn’t the EU do something about it? You have a military, right? It’s fairly close to your shores. Africa is a mess mainly because of European colonialism. So…why don’t you fix the problem?
-XT
He did.
Or were you being ironic?
And by that point it made no difference…Bush’s mind was made up and his plans were set in concrete. Assuming it ever WOULD have made a difference once he started getting traction on Iraq in the first place…which I doubt. I think once Bush got any kind of traction at all Iraq’s fate was sealed…the only thing that MIGHT have changed events were if Saddam had tucked tail and fled to some other country.
-XT
I’m a conservative because I think you’re a dumbass? If that’s the criteria we’re using, this board is probably a lot more conservative than anybody thought.
Did… did you just cite Machiavelli as a moral authority?
It seems to me that Lord Ashtar’s response to gonzomax has disproved the OP’s premise of a SDMB “liberal bias”. 
Machiavelli was a major influence on western political thought, and is often considered the first modern political theorist. He was one of the first to seperate political morality from personal morality, introduced the idea of “reason of state”, was one of the first advocates for modern republicanism, etc.
We are now, thank goodness. So why is the right so upset?
Then you’re not paying much attention. A fine example of “selective perception” if ever I’ve seen one.
It’s that famous right-wing cognitive dissonance. Such as, to hell with all the goodwill President Obama is obviously spreading around the world. HE SHOOK HUGO CHEVEZ’S HAND!! AND ACCEPTED A BOOK!! THAT HE’S ACTUALLY GOING TO READ!!! Holy fuckin’ fuckin’ fuckin’ hell! And an OH MY GOD TOO! IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!! BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! GIBBER! GIBBER! GIBBER! FROTH! FROTH! FROTH!
Btw, while we’re on the topic, I absolutely loved President Obama’s response to the GOP Senator John Ensign’s brain-damaged criticism:
Score! It’s so nice to have a grownup in the highest office again.
No it wasn’t. It was because the fucking moron expresident lied about Saddam posing a danger.
The fact he hasn’t been shipped of for a war crimes tribunal for his torture is the biggest insult against American dignity. Americans don’t believe in justice, apparently.
Ha! Nobody believes that and, even it it were true, which it is not, it is still in contravention of the UN charter and of international law and order.
There is plenty wrong with that. There is plenty wrong with countries invading other countries to impose friendly regimes. The USA does not have that right any more than the Islamists have the right to try to impose an Islamist regime on America.
That’s an understatement.
Bullshit. And tell that to the innocent dead, maimed, displaced. And if the impulses were so good why has America done such a rotten job of providing humanitarian help for the victims of the crisis it has caused? Why is it not helping the injured, displaced, those who lost their homes? Why are otehr countries taking the brunt of that? Why is it that other countries are taking the load of providing humanitarian relief for the victims of the disaster America has caused? This fact alone proves how little America cares about Iraqi life or well-being and that any declarations to the contrary are pure bullshit lies.
The intentions were not good and only a fool would believe that. The facts prove that America does not give a rat’s ass about the Iraqi people. But even if the intention had been good, America did not have the right to invade and the results are a good reason why. It has caused more damage than it said it was trying to fix. Countries invading other countries is not a good way to solve problems. That is why the UN charter prohibits such actions and the wisdom of that policy has been proven by the fact that America has caused a huge humanitarian crisis by violating it.
Where exactly can I find the list of “good guys” and “bad guys” in the UN charter? Because I cannot find it. Where did Iraq agree that the USA were the good guys and that gave them the right to intervene in Iraq? Or is it in the Bible where I can find that?
Gawd 'elp us against the “good guys” because they are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they will do anything, including killing, torture and destruction to spread their faith. I do not care if it is in the name of democracy, Christianity or Islam, in the end they are all the same.