Who do you want to win the war?

[bungrider]

Quote from alfonso:



There are many other regimes that 'terrorise' their own people. Is that justification for invading another sovereign nation? Perhaps in your book it is. I wonder how many of you would havet taken kindly to a Soviet invasion of America for her abuse of her own black population during the first half of the 20th century.

I'm sorry, but the "he's an asshole" argument just doesn't cut it with me. (I wonder how keen the administration would be to depose a despot whose major resource was flaxseed oil.)

And it's not so much a case of me being 'jealous' than it is of being disappointed. Disappointed that there is so much that is good and so much that is right about America and the American way, that it is spoilt by foisting these phony wars on her public and the world at large.

These are great points. Let me add another one: does the USA really want democracy in Iraq?? There was a guy on CNBC yesterday who was a foreign policy expert -- he had an excellent point, which was who are the Iraqis going to elect as their leader?? He also made this point -- if the Saudis had a democracy, they would elect none other than our favorite piker, OBL. I'm personally scared that the devil we know -- Saddam -- may very well be better than the devil we don't. This is why I believe that containing Saddam is a better idea (for now, at least until he does something to us or our allies) than attempting to remove him.

I mean, shit, OBL could theoretically be elected leader of Iraq. And, of course, Rumsfeld wouldn't allow OBL to appear in public; he'd order the execution of OBL. SO, what you would have (if the Iraqis were to elect someone that the US doesn't like) in that situation would essentially be the US deciding who the leader of Iraq should be -- and that, my friends, is not democracy.

And btw, this thread is excellent.

Quote from Madison:



anti-war does not imply anti-Americanism. they can coexist, but do not have to. this is obvious, and those that immediately shout 'unpatriotic' are either being argumentative or are trying to sell the policy.

that saddam is evil and heinous is accepted fact, but does not necessarily imply that a preemptive overthrow of his government in opposition to world opinion is the proper course of action. ie, there are multiple possible policies regarding saddam, and disagreeing with one does not imply disagreement with all. that it is the chosen policy does not imply that it is the best policy, unless you assume the administration is infallible.

one may disagree with both President Bush and Saddam, while simultaneously fully supporting both the US Constitution and the US military. to say otherwise is absurd.

contrary to what the more vocal fools on ET say, one may like and support President Bush, yet simultaneously disagree with his political position, or vice versa.

 

[MondoTrader]

"There was a guy on CNBC yesterday who was a foreign policy expert -- he had an excellent point, which was who are the Iraqis going to elect as their leader?? "

Who is the United States going to elect in the next election ? Nobody fucking knows, that is a stupid point. What matters is a REAL ELECTION, period. Democracy.

 

[alfonso]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



Well, first you are generalizing. The USA does have supporters. We are not alone in our war efforts, there is a coalition.

I can imagine if every nation acted as America does. We would have a much better world to live in.

Naturally, there are detractors, there always have been, haven't there?

So, bottom line, on principle, not guilt or innocence, you are wanting Iraq to win the war, even if they are in fact guilty?

"I can imagine if every nation acted as America does. We would have a much better world to live in."

Well, you are an American, so it's no surprise that you can't see beyond your own nose.

But do you really think countries like China and India galavanting half way across the world, attacking other nations based on flimsy (and arbitrary and hypocritical) accusations of wrong doing would be a "much better world to live in"?

I would like to see Iraq win to "shock and awe" the Americans into reconsidering their role in the world, and demoting themselves to "just another country" (albeit powerful one) status.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from alfonso:



"I can imagine if every nation acted as America does. We would have a much better world to live in."

Well, you are an American, so it's no surprise that you can't see beyond your own nose.

But do you really think countries like China and India galavanting half way across the world, attacking other nations based on flimsy (and arbitrary and hypocritical) accusations of wrong doing would be a "much better world to live in"?

I would like to see Iraq win to "shock and awe" the Americans into reconsidering their role in the world, and demoting themselves to "just another country" (albeit powerful one) status.

If you don't mind my asking, what country do you live in, and what is your nationality?

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from bungrider:



These are great points. Let me add another one: does the USA really want democracy in Iraq?? There was a guy on CNBC yesterday who was a foreign policy expert -- he had an excellent point, which was who are the Iraqis going to elect as their leader?? He also made this point -- if the Saudis had a democracy, they would elect none other than our favorite piker, OBL. I'm personally scared that the devil we know -- Saddam -- may very well be better than the devil we don't. This is why I believe that containing Saddam is a better idea (for now, at least until he does something to us or our allies) than attempting to remove him.

I mean, shit, OBL could theoretically be elected leader of Iraq. And, of course, Rumsfeld wouldn't allow OBL to appear in public; he'd order the execution of OBL. SO, what you would have (if the Iraqis were to elect someone that the US doesn't like) in that situation would essentially be the US deciding who the leader of Iraq should be -- and that, my friends, is not democracy.

And btw, this thread is excellent.

excellent point......

 

[msfe]

Quote from MondoTrader:

Never in modern history has there been war between democracies.

We don't attack democracies, even if they disagree with us and have a different culture.

An Act Declaring War Between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Dependencies Thereof and the United States of America and Their Territories.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof

APPROVED, June 18, 1812

 

[dgabriel]

GB in 1812 had a powerful Monarch, and the era of modern history is generally considered to begin circa 1860s. Mondo's statement is correct.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from dgabriel:

GB in 1812 had a powerful Monarch

Minor point for Wild. In his mind it makes him right. When did facts ever stand in the way of Wild's propaganda?

 

[alfonso]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



If you don't mind my asking, what country do you live in, and what is your nationality?

I'm afraid I do mind you asking where I live.

But I'll tell you that my nationality is Argentine.

 

[picknclick]

Quote from MondoTrader:

If every country in the world was a democracy, that would be the end of open warfare. Never in modern history has there been war between democracies. Trade wars maybe, but nobody dies. Our primary enemy is dictatorship in whatever form it takes.

Think about it, have we attacked France ? No. We don't attack democracies, even if they disagree with us and have a different culture.

I'll criticize you when you're wrong Mondo, but you've hit the nail on the head with this one. We just have to be sure that we're a lot more powerful than the country we're attacking... especially if they have WOMD. And we need to get a lot better at nation building if we're going to make this our business. You're absolutely right. Good post.