My arguments make no sense? Or am I stupid because you disagree with them? Explain. Because if it’s just a case of disagreement, then you could be stupid too.
Really deep analogy:confused::wally
Read_Neck, I’m sorry for being so confusing. I’ll try to translate into Ignorant for you:
Saddam bad. “Coalition of the willing” nice idea. But not look good. Cause more bad than Saddam. Saddam bad.
Better?
jjimm, you’re probably right. I’ll be honest, I do not know which are more dangerous than Saddam. Do you? Myself, like most, IMO, only see what they see on the news and other sources. I don’t think we’re targeting just the Arabic region either, that’s just what’s popular right now. Don’t worry, NK will see their day too.
Dudes- I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but what invasion are you talking about? Has the war started yet, and I just missed CNN? THERE IS NO WAR.
Now yes, there are very real THREATS of a war. However, even Blix has said that credible threats of such are nesssesary for his inspections. So - the threats are a GOOD thing.
Now riddle me this- if GWB didn’t really want a war, but just wanted to scare the shit out of Saddam so that he’d comply- how would we be going about it differently?
yme: Let’s just say the US decides to become the Moral Enforcer of the World, and starts picking off dictators we don’t like. What do you think the rest of the world is going to be doing while we’re doing that? Answers on a postcard, please.
Oh, well if it’s just a little regime change, I don’t see what the problem is.
While “regime change” may sound like an innocuous discount store board game, it is really a big fucking deal. A regime change means VIOLENTLY INVADING a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY and OVERTHROWING their legal GOVERNEMENT. Toppling the government of a sovereign nation is not the same as putting up new fucking wallpaper. It is a huge HUGE huge deal. It isn’t fun’n’easy. It is the gravest action a nation can take against another. it is denying the right of a nation to choose its own destiny. It is aggression. It is something that is rarely even done to the recognized losers of a war. To do so unprovoked is almost unheard of.
If your gonna perpetrate that, you better have a damn good reason. And you better be able to articulate that damn good reason. And at least one other person on this planet ought to think it’s a good idea.
Imagine for a moment if the UN, or OPEC, or whatever decided they just wanted a little “regime change” in America. You know, just so they’d feel safer and a little more comfortable. So they send in a few thousands of troops that create bloodshed in order to assasinate the president and abolish the constitution. What? It’s just a regime change. Nothing to get worked up about…
Actually, that’d be one of the wrongest things I can think of. And it’s just as wrong when we do it to others.
War mongrel. Snort. Let loose the dogs of war, indeed.
Care to explain exactly what law gives legitimacy to the Iraqi regime? Their own? Thats easy isn’t it.
Do you honestly believe that the Iraqi people are choosing their own destiny? I want some of the drugs that distort your reality so badly
Of course it’s for peace and freedom. The public loves the idea of glory-filled martyrs almost as much as they like fast food and reality TV. People want to hear, “Your sons fought to the last man defending a medical caravan taking wounded Americans to safety.” not, “They were killed in grid block 183-D in a diversionary strike to let our munitions supply trucks get by.”
Effective translation: “As long as nobody I know or care about dies then it is worth the investment of human life.”
Well UnwrittenNocturne, it looks as if the United nations recognizes Iraq as a sovereign nation. As I understand it, this means that other powerful counties have recognized the regime of Iraq as legitimate.
Well,let’s really dumb it down. The US is not nor ever should be cops. That was the UNs purpose. The last 12 yrs and 17 resolutions,not Bush,rendered them irrelevant and ludicrous. Any nation that fails to act in it’s own self interest is doomed no matter how powerfull.
I realise it’s bad diplomacy but did it ever occur to you that Bush meant exactly what he has said all along and this UN mumbo jumbo is fulfilling his word to Congrees that he “exhaust all diplomatic options”.
Sorry he didn’t consult you personally but “that’s how it goes”.
Binarydrone yes they do, and their recognition as legitimate of brutal dictatorships makes me question the UN as well - and be disgusted by it. I guess that makes my own position plain…quit the UN anytime, it has outserved its purpose…please see: Rwanda and the Balkan region for more evidence.
:o
Effective translation: “I, a person who doesn’t even no you, am claiming you don’t know anyone in the service.”
Dude, I got a couple buddies in the service. I do not want to see them die. I’ve talk to them on many occasions. They new when they were getting into the service, that they were not just there for the “Montgomery GI Bill”. They fully understand what a potential war with Iraq means, and there’re ready, and I support them and their decisions.
Also, as Americans, we do a lot of starving, dying of exposure, living in poverty, living in the very real threat of violence and living in ignorance.
I’m all for a regime change, but I have some minor qualms about spending $70 billion dollars to do it. That’s money that should be spent to take care of our own.
IMO, this is not about Iraqi oil. This is about driving up the price of gas to $3.00 a gallon and having us not bitch so much about it. I’ve heard it will hit that mark by summer. It’s not that far off here on the west coast.
And of course, once we have paid that price for a while, we won’t bitch tooo much when they propose to open the California coast and the Alaskan reserves to new drilling. Some companies are going to make HUUUUGE bucks off of this.
It would not suprise me to learn that the Administration has close ties to some of those folks. 
…By the way, when are we getting a ‘bitch slap’ smiley?
Giraffe, your analogy does not hold water, and in fact you have reversed Clint’s orignal point in trying to make it.
A police officer has a duty to deal with ALL crimes, not just those that affect him personally. The US has no such obligation.
A more apt analogy would be:
The guy who owns the car dealership is not a cop, but is a really big and burly guy. His neighborhood is infested with crime, in fact, one of his mechanics was murdered in cold blood in the garage. The dealer hinmself has received numerous death threats. The dealer has called the cops over and over again, but they are taking kickbacks from the criminals and don’t want to be bothered with them anyway.
Should the dealer go beat up some of the criminals or do nothing and wait around to see if the criminals make good on their threats?
sure, racekarl, that’s a lot more ‘apt’, or it would be if you could establish that the UN was accepting kickbacks from Iraq.
Yes, but you are not advocating the deaths of all those crazies, you are advocating the death of the crazy who will benefit rich oil executives the most. And then trying to hide it under concern for people. Do you feed the poor? build houses for habitat for humanity? No? then shut your fucking lie-hole, you monkey raping, maggot juice guzzling, waste of testicle sweat! I don’t want our people to die on a fool’s errand like getting you cheaper gas, i say send in oil executive’s sons, and the Bush twins. that would make me support this war a whole lot more.
Even sven, your post is one of the most stupidly ludicrous and hysterical posts concerning potential war with Iraq.
Yes, it is a huge deal, and it isn’t fun’n’easy. Otherwise we would have done it already. It doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
Wait, so it’s denying all those Iraqis who have been imprisoned or executed the right to choose their own destiny? What??
Rather, it’s denying Saddam the opportunity to determine the destiny of Iraq.
It’s rarely done because it is costly, time consuming, and destructive. Like you said, not fun’n’easy. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
Define “unprovoked”, because in the case of Iraq, I would call 12 years of uncompliance “provoking”.
While the Bush administration is having difficulty articulating the reasons, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t remove Saddam. Are you saying murdering civilians isn’t a good reason? Are you saying genocide isn’t a good reason? Are you saying the uncompliance with UNSC resolutions isn’t a good reason? Tell me then, when is enough enough? When Iraq kills another million or so civilians? When he starts another war? When he obtains nukes?
What fucking planet do you live on? Where have you been for the last few years, France?
Last time I checked, the US isn’t ruled by a ruthless dictator who is personally responsible for raping and executing innocents and genocide. Comparing Iraq to the US as a counter-argument is foolish at best.