2 edits
Originally posted by lordhighgusAre you saying we should never have invaded Iraq? Or are you saying we should have invaded, nicked Saddam, and then buggered off?
...and goose is a goose.
Yes yes, we know.
Our freedoms include the right to debate points like this, go, do and say what we like.
You do make valid points like not examining the reasons behind some of these actions which should have been done. Some of the answers they would not have liked very much. But some answers were just pure hatred for American ifty years.
I wish mankind luck, we are going to need it.
Do you go to Bali on holidays?
An irrational hatred of Americans certainly accounts for some of the antagonism towards the U.S., but not as much as is often portrayed. As you say, many people would loath to hear the legitimate grievousness of some of the individuals pitted against their country at the present time. It's nicer and easier to believe they are all radicalised religious fruitcakes.
The world hasn't changed that much. Don't let fear get to you.
I would go to Bali on a holiday, if that kind of place appealed to me. I feel sorry for all the locals who relied on the tourist trade.
Originally posted by 7ate9Settle down.
the world has changed,
people all around the world think it's alright to bash people to the ground, like bush has done, but for things that aren't that bad. people are becoming god, because they think they are so high and mighty.
who the hell does he think he is? as if he ain't gona get his beans!
Originally posted by dylOr are you saying we should have invaded, nicked Saddam, and then buggered off?
Are you saying we should never have invaded Iraq? Or are you saying we should have invaded, nicked Saddam, and then buggered off?
An irrational hatred of Americans certainly accounts for some of the antagonism towards the U.S., but not as much as is often portrayed. As you say, many people would loath to hear the legitimate grievousness of some of the individ ...[text shortened]... ind of place appealed to me. I feel sorry for all the locals who relied on the tourist trade.
That's what I believed when I believed GWB knew that he was talking about and being honest about WMDs. Now, either that or we shouldn't have gone in at all.
Originally posted by chancremechanicWould you mind posting in my thread about the US economy?
What are you talking about? The American economy is humming along quite nicely, unlike the stick-in-the-mud economy of France and the rest of Europe
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=44321&page=1
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI find it difficult to imagine a reasonable argument for simply running in, grabbing Saddam, and running out. But to be fair, I find it difficult to imagine a reasonable argument for running in at all.
[b] Or are you saying we should have invaded, nicked Saddam, and then buggered off?
That's what I believed when I believed GWB knew that he was talking about and being honest about WMDs. Now, either that or we shouldn't have gone in at all.[/b]
At what point did you realise the U.S. president was the type of leader who would try to swallow pretzels whole?
Originally posted by dylThe US was concerned with Saddam. He was supposedly the threat. Once removed, the US has no more business in the region unless invited. Now, if a democratic group in the country asked for our support, I think we should have given it; it would then have been that group's project which we were assisting with. Remember this is assuming we should have gone in because Saddam was a threat to the US.
I find it difficult to imagine a reasonable argument for simply running in, grabbing Saddam, and running out. But to be fair, I find it difficult to imagine a reasonable argument for running in at all.
At what point did you realise the U.S. president was the type of leader who would try to swallow pretzels whole?
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's an enormous assumption.
The US was concerned with Saddam. He was supposedly the threat. Once removed, the US has no more business in the region unless invited. Now, if a democratic group in the country asked for our support, I think we should have given it; it would then have been that group's project which we were assisting with. Remember this is assuming we should have gone in because Saddam was a threat to the US.
If the U.S. had taken that approach, it seems pretty certain the void would have been filled by someone not dissimilar - in fact, probably worse. There would have been no democratic groups being formed or asking for support. So the U.S. would have grabbed a vicious dictator of a crippled country at a huge cost of Iraqi lives, and for what? To eliminate a possible threat? Does the U.S. have that right?
And if Saddam did have the capacity to hit your country, would he have used it? It would have meant his own demise; he wasn't crazy; his new strike powers would have been used to improve his bargaining position, a bluff that the U.S. could obviously not call. So what we're speaking about here is a power struggle, rather than one of life or death.
I'd have much preferred to see Saddam completely passive - that goes without saying. But if it came down to a choice between western powers having to sit down and negotiate with him or having a full scale war progress, the former gets my vote.
And that is assuming the evidence for WMD was the slightest bit compelling from the start.