Not necessarily. Like I told my friend the other day: If GW shows proof and gets UN approval then let’s go. Until then sit down and shut up.
If he goes to war without providing proof or getting UN support and it turns out (I have no idea how you plan on proving this) that Saddam was going to use WMDs then that doesn’t necessarily justify his actions.
I guess I’ll be glad he did it but I won’t be embarassed for saying he shouldn’t have.
How exactly would we know that? Suppose the ATF went to your place, shot and killed you, then discovered firearms on the premises, and said that you were planning to murder all of you neighbours. Where is the proof of your intent or capability?
The information from the UN and other sources is that Iraq is known to have had tons of chemical weapons and 30,000 to 40,000 warheads and an active nuclear development program. An arsenal of that magnitude will make it clear that the situation is nothing like the ATF sneaking in a couple of pistols.
December wrote:
That’s what I’ve heard as well. Plus, their president heads a tyrannical administration that spies on its own people and cares about nothing but political gain. Oh wait. You said Iraq. Sorry.
I’m sorry december, I didn’t mean to imply that the ATF would sneak pistols into your place, nor that the US would sneak tons of chemical weapons into Iraq. Let’s suppose that you really do have guns at your place. Iraq really does have chemical weapons. And the U.S. has what exactly? And how is that fundamentally different?
Desmostylus, is it your position that it’s OK for Iraq to have WMDs because the US has WMDs?
You could have averted this whole mess by saying, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
What mess? On my Earth the OP got ignored about 15 posts ago, and was only passively entertained prior to that.
(2k 
)
The US has WMDs. The UK has WMDs. France has WMDs. India has WMDs. Pakistan has WMDs. Various bits of the former USSR have WMDs. North Korea may have WMDs. A couple of other countries may already have WMDs, or may have the capability to produce them at short order.
My (ridiculous) position is that Iraq shouldn’t have WMDs, but neither should any of the other countries I’ve listed.
But that position wouldn’t be agreeable US citizens on a “right to bear arms” basis, would it.
Now, now, I don’t pick on the mentally challenged, although we should tell Karp2381 that calling names is a No-No. His mommy should put him down for a nap–he sounds awfully cranky.
[quote]
I loathe people that constantly bring up the American involvement in World War II as if we saved the fucking world by ourselves. Yeah, France got knocked out early in the game but if it weren’t for Britain sustaining a major ass kicking and Russia getting it even worse, all of Europe and a good portion of Asia and Africa would probably be celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Third Reich by now.
[quote]
We DID save the “fucking world” by ourselves. The US contributed the lion’s share of men and materiel to the war effort, although Great Britain did take a pounding for two years before we entered the war, and, most importantly, they defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, thus forestalling a Nazi invasion of the UK.
Although Russia was useful in bogging down the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front, let us not forget that Russia entered the war only because Hitler had turned on Stalin, thus breaking the nonaggression pact they had signed.
Oh, and don’t forget… France helped us out two hundred twenty years ago in a little altercation we like to call the War for Independence.
Yeah, and they gave us that big trophy in New York Harbor.
Uh, that quote is from Aesiron, not me. Credit where credit is due.
Oops, my bad.
Not to sure about CHile but the main reason that we never did it to Cuba or East Germany was that we knew the Soviets would intervene, and in the days of MAD that would have been known as a bad thing.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Xploder *
the main reason that we never did it to Cuba or East Germany was that we knew the Soviets would intervene, and in the days of MAD that would have been known as a bad thing. /QUOTE] It is sad to think the enemies of the USA, who claimed the US were bullies who had to be contained with force, might have been right all along. I really hope the US can be seen again as acting for basic moral principles and the greater good of all humanity and not just as the bully who uses force to get its way.
For the US government to say France and Germany represent the old Europe and the new Europe is Eastern Europe is just so laughable and makes them look so bad that it is just a shame. Like it or not, France and Germany are the core of Europe and the two players with the greatest weight. Saying things like that makes the US government look like ignorant idiots. And it is not a great way of making friends either.
You may be right the those other countries ought not to have WMDs, but that’s not the subject under debate. The question is whether we ought to overthrow Saddam because he refuses to disarm his WMDs.
RE: US saving everyone’s asses in WWII.
I heard a quote a long time ago (can’t remember who to attribute it to) which basically said that there were 3 critical elements in winning WWII: the English provided the time necessary for both the US and USSR to get prepared, the USSR provided the blood in absorbing and blunting the German blizkrieg without collapsing (and essentially chewing up the Wehrmacht–lets not forget that the lions share of the German casualties occured on the Eastern Front), and the US provided the equipment and money to outfit her allies. Each one was critical in defeating Germany–they couldn’t have won on their own. I think similar lessons could be learned today.
In Chile’s case, we supported them. That’s why.
So it’s accepted that France & Germany are gay homosexuals and like licking balls? (not that there’s anything wrong with that)
Yes, do we have resolution on Franco-Germanic ball licking?
Wabbit, we beat up Japan in the Pacific.