Once again MSFE proves that not only is he fucked in the head, he is also Stupid and desperate and knows nothing of History !
Who do you want to win the war?
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Quote from ElCubano:
There is a problem with this, in that many dictators terrorize their citizens ( obviously the ones against their Regime)..Il jong, Castro has been doing it for many many moons. This in itself is not a reason to go to War ( it sounds great when you are trying to pitch a War package, but not a reason for war ). If that were the case we would be in War with many countries and have many of our soldiers die (Here is where I have a problem)...Of course i would not object to the liberation of Cuba...
I would beg to differ with you. And sometime, the price of freedom is death. This country was started with an act of defiance. An oppression that was no longer accepted became the motivation and the battle was on. Many lost their lives in the founding of this country. Now this is where I have a problem with the detractors. Where was Russia, Germany and the Arab countries at the time? They were in existance and very capable of waging a vote. Why did they not explain to the Queen and her masses that her posture was wrong? It continues...
As an African American, I look to this country and I find much to be happy and thankful for. But I also ask where was France, Russia, Germany and the Arab countries as slavery grew and took hold? None of my history books speak to the many letters and troops that joined in the battle of the north and south to help either side. They decided to let the country work this out for itself you say? Well what about all the dead and beaten down slaves? Oh, collateral damage, I see. I guess in some strange equasion somewhere, they don't count.
And I will be the first to admit, there were slaves who frowned on the war. They openly said that leaving the comforts of the master was not a pleasing thought or a desired option. So what do I think? I am happy that so many White folks thought enough to give their lives to make things different. A slave uprising would have not done a damn thing other than cause a lot of slaves to be dead. And since they had no rights and were chattel, it would have been legal to kill them. Intervention by any other country WOULD have been illegal. To hell with human rights huh? You don't want to piss off a trading partner you know?
And even today, many things are not as right as they COULD be on the local and international human rights scene. Yet I do not hear Russia, Germany, or the Arab countries making a case for any positive changes. Moreover I hear the sorry testament of, "These things, changes for the better, they take time." Meanwhile the distressed, suffering and disadvantaged wait for phantom "delivery from terror" assistance.
It also DOES mean that the world community needs to be more proactive against the oppressors. And while it must be within reason, war should not be left off the table of solutions. And in some instances, it needs to be a "High on the List" selection. While I do not welcome war, it sometimes is the necessary catalyst in the progress of A WORLD!
Don't know why you are fearful. I am an American living in America, you must be afraid of, or ashamed of where you live.
Native Argetinian, by generations of Argentinians, or by way of German <i>immigrants</i> after WWII?
Due process. Hmm.
By whose standards of due process? By Saddam's standards of due process, or by France's standards, or by the Bush's administration's standards of due process.
We just need to watch out for countries like Iran '79 that are extra motivated mixed with the WOMD that are floating around these days. If countries with foreign policy like that start forming throughout the Middle East through popular votes it'll look like the moon in a few decades. Oh yeah, and "real elections" seem to be few and far between in the US, much less in the middle east.
It's definitely not stupid to think that immature democracies can be dangerous.
The united states has never gone to war with a democracy, proven fact.
not quite
George III (1760-1820 AD)
George III was born in 1738, first son of Frederick, Prince of Wales and Augusta. He married Charlotte of Mecklinburg-Strelitz in 1761, to whom he was devoted. The couple produced a prolific fifteen children: nine sons and six daughters. George was afflicted with porphyria, a maddening disease which disrupted his reign as early as 1765. Several attacks strained his grip on reality and debilitated him in the last years of his reign. Personal rule was given to his son George, the Prince Regent, in 1811. George III died blind, deaf and mad at Windsor Castle on January 29, 1820.
George IV (1820-30 AD)
George IV, eldest son of George III and Charlotte, was born August 12, 1762. He secretly married his first wife, the Catholic widow Maria Fitzherbert, in 1785 without his father's permission. The marriage was declared illegal at his father's behest; had the marriage been allowed to continue, George would have been ineligible to reign with a Catholic wife. In 1795, he married again, this time to his cousin Caroline of Brunswick, who bore him one daughter, Charlotte. He died on June 26, 1830 after a series of strokes brought on a hemorrhage in his stomach.
George IV was the antithesis of his father: conservative in his infrequent political involvement and licentious in affairs of the heart. Although he was scandalous with his mistresses and extravagant in his spending, he was a patron of the arts who left many wonderful artifacts for posterity. He had his father's immense book collection donated as the foundation of the British Museum Library and his penchant for building projects inspired the "Regency" style of architecture. His extravagances, however, came at a time of social distress and general misery following the Napoleonic Wars and the tremendous changes brought forth by the industrial revolution.
George's amorous nature was highly controversial. As Prince Regent, he had many mistresses until he secretly married Maria. After her dismissal from court, George again turned to mistresses until he submitted to his father's wishes by marrying Caroline. The couple detested each other and their marriagewas barely intact when their daughter was born in 1796. Caroline took the child and moved to Italy, returning to England when George succeeded his father, and then only to claim the rights of queen. George managed to have her barred from his coronation, denying her queenship.
George was an enigma: bright, witty and able on the one hand, indolent, spoiled, and lazy on the other. The Duke of Wellington described him as such: "He was the most extraordinary compound of talent, wit, buffoonery, obstinacy, and good feelings, in short, a medley of the most opposite qualities, with a great preponderance of good - that I ever saw in any character in my life."
Quote from canyonman00:
I would beg to differ with you. And sometime, the price of freedom is death. This country was started with an act of defiance. An oppression that was no longer accepted became the motivation and the battle was on. Many lost their lives in the founding of this country. Now this is where I have a problem with the detractors. Where was Russia, Germany and the Arab countries at the time? They were in existence and very capable of waging a vote. Why did they not explain to the Queen and her masses that her posture was wrong? It continues...
As an African American, I look to this country and I find much to be happy and thankful for. But I also ask where was France, Russia, Germany and the Arab countries as slavery grew and took hold? None of my history books speak to the many letters and troops that joined in the battle of the north and south to help either side. They decided to let the country work this out for itself you say? Well what about all the dead and beaten down slaves? Oh, collateral damage, I see. I guess in some strange equation somewhere, they don't count.
And I will be the first to admit, there were slaves who frowned on the war. They openly said that leaving the comforts of the master was not a pleasing thought or a desired option. So what do I think? I am happy that so many White folks thought enough to give their lives to make things different. A slave uprising would have not done a damn thing other than cause a lot of slaves to be dead. And since they had no rights and were chattel, it would have been legal to kill them. Intervention by any other country WOULD have been illegal. To hell with human rights huh? You don't want to piss off a trading partner you know?
And even today, many things are not as right as they COULD be on the local and international human rights scene. Yet I do not hear Russia, Germany, or the Arab countries making a case for any positive changes. Moreover I hear the sorry testament of, "These things, changes for the better, they take time." Meanwhile the distressed, suffering and disadvantaged wait for phantom "delivery from terror" assistance.
It also DOES mean that the world community needs to be more proactive against the oppressors. And while it must be within reason, war should not be left off the table of solutions. And in some instances, it needs to be a "High on the List" selection. While I do not welcome war, it sometimes is the necessary catalyst in the progress of A WORLD!
Great post....So you think we should invade countries that terrorize their citizens?? I can assure you that Iraq is not alone when it comes to atrocities. How many of our soldiers should die?? to fight the cause that others should be waging.. Surely Cuba being 90 miles away from American soil should have been first on our list... Im just not convinced this is the real reason we are there.....peace... But i do support any desicion this Country takes ( I owe her plenty )