Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sweet irony

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Sweet irony

    What happens if the people in Iraq don't want a democracy
    Then they can vote against it! ;-) Brian P.S. Chris and all, thanks for this interesting discussion!

    Comment


    • #32
      Sweet irony

      I think the people in Iraq aren't sure what they want. They know they don't want Saddam calling the shots nor do they want some American calling the shots. Our form of democracy works for us (okay I know that is debatable) but who is to say it will work for everyone. I think we need to be willing to accept that Iraq may not want to form a government similar to ours. We need to let them decide what is best for them no one likes to be told what to do and how to do it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Sweet irony

        Mosquitos are something I know alot about. Fire ants too. Try to not swing your stick at em. They will over run you and you will become submissive. Dictators are blood sucking power hungry just like mosquitoes, let them have free run of the place and you become submissive, like it or not, feel good or bad about it, hope it goes away or not they will overrun you. Unless you have that stick, AND are willing to use it. I'm asking a question again. Do you have something against democracy? Does it look to you that the average Iraqi was okay with the regime that was removed? I think we focus on Democracy because of that line of people waiting (at least some wait) and some literally dieing (Cubans right off the top), to get into this country and not the other way around (it is mostly simple). I lived in Europe for a year back in the mid seventies. I always thought before that, that they would be similar to the USA. Not a chance, all some form of socialism, and I had people from every country I visited express their desire to leave their homeland and go to America to live, and not because the UN is over here.

        Comment


        • #34
          Sweet irony

          Chris said: "As much as I like living in a democracy and will fight to preserve our way of life...I can't say categorically that democracy is for everyone. To presume that it is, is....presumptious." My sentiments exactly. A democracy isn't for every country. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

          Comment


          • #35
            Sweet irony

            "Every day, it was WMD WMD WMD. Many in congress who would have been opposed to the war, were convinced that there was a WMD threat, and voted for military action, based solely upon a threat to the nation from WMDs." Those Congressmen were weenies. Me, and most of the people I know, supported deposing Hussein for gassing his own people, for lying to weapons inspectors, for supporting terrorism, and for a number of other reasons, all of which amounted to him basicaly being a genocidal tyrant in control of the fifth largest army in the world. That ought to be enough for anybody, but hey what can you do. Perhaps a certain number of the more appeasement oriented congressmen needed to hear WMD, but these are the same idiots who say we need to bring in foreign IT workers. In the neighborhoods around me, we'er all pretty comfortable that Hussein was deposed. And another issue: Iraq had WMD. This is a fact (he used them on Iran and on his own people). And Hussein historically has been willing to both bury his weapons and give them to neighboring countries when he was worried about losing them. The really scary thing is that we don't know where his WMD program went. What we're trying to determine is not whether they had WMD, but where they went. Anyway, I'm pretty comfortable with the concept. If someone can give me one good reason to NOT depose Hussein, I'm all ears. And finally, you can complain all you want about the Great Government Conspiracy, but until you can point to one administration in the last 30 or 40 years that HASN'T lied to the people, I'm pretty much going to tune you out. Joe

            Comment


            • #36
              Sweet irony

              "I feel confident stating that I believe we would be in far far worse shape without [the UN]." An opposing view, from Iraq, who I think is probably the country most suited to have an opinion right now: With the recent capture of Hussein, Iraq's foreign minister recently addressed the UN security council. Hoshyar Zebari's comments about the UN and those countries on the security council that supported Hussein were interesting. Full quote: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...l_031216185735 Excerpts: --------- One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable. ... The UN as an organisation failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny of 35 years. The UN must not fail the Iraqi people again. ... Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people. Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the UN is chartered to uphold. --------- Zebari also took Kofi Annan to task for pulling the UN out of Iraq. Annan, who publicly opposed the US decision to launch the war after failing to win the support of the Security Council, said it was "no time to pin blame and point fingers" over the past. "I think the UN has done as much as it can for Iraq," Annan told reporters. "So quite honestly I don't think today is the time to hurl accusations." Remember that the UN doesn't even have a presence in Iraq right now; they pulled all their personnel. How can we seriously expect the UN to take a significant role when they are too afraid to step foot in the country? The UN has made an embarrassment of itself throughout this affair. Joe

              Comment


              • #37
                Sweet irony

                During and just after WWII, direct military intervention by the United States resulted in democracies in Italy, Germany, Japan and South Korea. All of these are doing just fine, thank you. Since then, the continuing example of democratic prosperity has brought the number of democratic governments worldwide to 120, with half of them forming in the last 10 years or so. Nearly 2/3 of the world's countries are now democratic, and nearly 60% of the population (75% of the population that doesn't reside in China). This is a staggering figure. Three out of four people who do not live in China live in a democracy. And the number continues to rise. Suffice it to say that it's awfully rare that a people, when given the choice, do NOT select self-governance. Normally the only folks who want a non-pluralistic government are the ones who would be in charge. Joe

                Comment


                • #38
                  Sweet irony

                  Those Congressmen were weenies. This one is beneath you, Joe. Congress is composed of VFWs (Veterans of foreign wars) on both sides of the aisle. Many of the weenies you talk about about have defended our nation with honor, and know what harm's way is all about. Me, and most of the people I know, supported deposing Hussein for gassing his own people, for lying to weapons inspectors, for supporting terrorism, and for a number of other reasons, all of which amounted to him basicaly being a genocidal tyrant in control of the fifth largest army in the world. That ought to be enough for anybody, but hey what can you do. Evidently the President does not agree with you. In his interview last night, he reiterated that the reason for going into Iraq, was because Iraq was a threat to U.S. Perhaps a certain number of the more appeasement oriented congressmen needed to hear WMD, but these are the same idiots who say we need to bring in foreign IT workers. In the neighborhoods around me, we'er all pretty comfortable that Hussein was deposed. Get your facts straight Joe. An example here is Orin Hatch (R-Ut). Hatch was the largest supporter of sending troops to Iraq in the first place. Right now Hatch is leading the fight to increase H1-B quotas. Hatch is a leader with many followers who reflect his views. OTOH, I can tell you personally that many who opposed sending troops, or who would only send troops under evidence of threat also support our position on visas. You don't have to believe me, check it out for yourself. BTW, as one who meets with politicos of various persuasions (to try to persuade them) I have developed a respect for our elected officials, even those who do not reflect my own viewpoint. I strongly object to the term idiot. And another issue: Iraq had WMD. This is a fact (he used them on Iran and on his own people). And Hussein historically has been willing to both bury his weapons and give them to neighboring countries when he was worried about losing them. The really scary thing is that we don't know where his WMD program went. What we're trying to determine is not whether they had WMD, but where they went. You are confusing WMDs with conventional weapons. The U.S. knows that these were conventional weapons because we know where he got them from. we sold them to him! After Iran took Americans hostage in the late 70s, we buddied up with Saddam based on the notion that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Saddam was in power ten years at that point, and there was never any objection as to how he handled his power by the U.S. In 1982, the French started to build a nuclear reactor in Iraq. The Israelis put a stop to that very quickly. you can complain all you want about the Great Government Conspiracy, but until you can point to one administration in the last 30 or 40 years that HASN'T lied to the people, I'm pretty much going to tune you out. The term conspiracy is yours not mine. I lost a great many friends in Vietnam. We justified our existance in that country due to bad information, and spin. Military leaders who were truly aware of the strength of the Vietcong and North Vietnamese withheld that information, and gave the impression that we could win the war if only we had more troops. Well we kept sending in more and more and more. The impact of the Tet offensive in 1968 was withheld even from the president. Today, I have neighbors, relatives, and friends who serve as officers in the National Guard and the Reserves. These are proven patriots. I do not want to lose any more friends for lies. Anyway, I'm pretty comfortable with the concept.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Sweet irony

                    Let me correct something I said about countries in Europe in the seventies. Some of them may have been democracies, but with socialist leanings. I believe the human condition is the quest for freedom and self determination. And every group of people should have the chance to decide for themselves.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Sweet irony

                      David, I would hope you'd recognize the term "weenies" as one of sarcasm. You may hold Congress in some great regard, but I simply think they are guys with jobs who don't look out for my interests unless their jobs are at stake. When I said "same idiots" I was referring to Congress in toto. Please, let's not start a discussion about the moral stature of our Congress. And Iraq was a threat to the US! If Husseins's genocidal tendencies and support of terrorism and the fact that he had the world's fifth largest army doesn't convince you, then I certainly can't convince you. I am not confusing WMD with conventional weapons. Hussein used chemical WMD against his own people and against Iran. Feel free to read about this: http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepReso...middleEast.asp. We did not sell WMD to Hussein, we sold precursors which were at the time widely available to anybody in the world. You want to argue against the war? That's fine. You're welcome to your own opinion. But I think you're wrong. Joe

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Sweet irony

                        I agree with you Joe but you forgot one very important reason, which in my humble opinion tops them all. Hussein voilated the peace treaty he signed after the Gulf War. A violation of the peace treaty is considered an act of war. The peace treaty was with us, not the United Nations. We are the only country that could act upon the breach of the peace treaty. He didn't violate it once but multiple time. Basically, we have finished what was started when Hussein overtook Kuwait. He started this whole thing and we have finally finished it. His own arogance brought this "war" upon him and the people of Iraq. As for the other reasons, we, the United States, in conjuction with the United Nations have stepped in to other countries when genocide was be done. What Hussein was doing to his own countryman was equal to genocide, if left unchecked he would have killed most of the Iraq people.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Sweet irony

                          Brian Singleton wrote: Saddam continued to thumb his nose at the UN and international law and played brinksmanship and lost. Someone had to step up to the plate on the enforcement side. Then it should have been the responsibility of the international body to pursue action. The UN mandate was not there when we entered Iraq. In point of fact, the UN rejected Colin Powell's presentation, and proceded to vote to give inspectors more of a chance. We justified our action by stating that there was a threat of WMDs from Iraq. IMO, it would have been far nobler for Bush to state that whereas Saddam was a no-good evil sumbich, that therefore he was going to kick his assets. Instead the American public was a forced audience to sermon after sermon concerning the WMDs. BTW, you are correct about Saddam's intentions concerning Saudi Arabia. Participants in Desert Storm who were stationed in Saudi Arabia have told me that the first question asked of them was "When are you going home?" Never a word of thanks for putting their lives on the line to save their country. Dave

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Sweet irony

                            Joe Pluta wrote: You want to argue against the war? That's fine. You're welcome to your own opinion. But I think you're wrong. Read my posts carefully. My arguements were not against the war itself. I am not confusing WMD with conventional weapons. Hussein used chemical WMD against his own people and against Iran. Believe it or not, the delivery system for the chemical weapons of which you speak categorizes the weapon as conventional according to military sources. Dave

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Sweet irony

                              Then it should have been the responsibility of the international body to pursue action. Which they abdicated, leaving it up to us. If your position is that the Iraqi people should have waited until the UN moved, then you would be implicitly condemning hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to torture, rape and murder. I suggest you re-read the comments the Iraqi foreign minister had to say about the UN: "The UN as an organisation failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny of 35 years". Joe

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Sweet irony

                                "Believe it or not, the delivery system for the chemical weapons of which you speak categorizes the weapon as conventional according to military sources." Please re-read the article. It says, "Second, Saddam has a history of aggressive behavior and has shown a willingness to use his WMD against internal and external adversaries." How much clearer do you need than that, David? Please show me a source that says Hussein never had WMD. You may choose to argue the delivery system issue, but that's unconscionable nitpicking in my opinion. The gases themselves are the weapons we've agreed as civilized nations not to use. How they are delivered is a detail. As to reading your posts carefully, I have. You consistently contend that WMD was the administration's only reason for deposing Hussein and then you complain because we haven't found the WMD. Those of us who support the war realize that WMD was just one of many reasons, and always was. You say that "Many in congress (...) voted for military action, based solely upon a threat to the nation from WMDs." I say FOR SHAME on those Congressmen. The WMD was but the tip of the brutal, sadistic regime that Hussein headed. And if only the threat of WMD was able to move Congress to act their conscience, then I'm glad it did. I'm sorry the intelligence was wrong and the evidence overhyped. But I'm disgusted that it was even required. Joe

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X