Bush family values...

[Nemoxs]

If everyone hated bush, we'd all just throw down our guns and not work unless he's taken out of the white house.

Apparently someone likes him.

[jonmartensen]

A good friend will bail you out of jail. Your best friend will be sitting right beside you saying, "That was fuking awesome!"

[SSJVegita0609]

Hmmm, are you saying we should sit on our asses just like the French or the Polish did in 1939 and hope for the "best"?

*Sigh* Yet another person foolishly compares Saddam to Hitler. Housein promised no threat of world domination. What made Hitler so dangerous was the fact that everybody LIKED him at first. That's how he managed to accumulate so much international power in Europe so quickly (Hell, he took Poland without lifting a military finger). Just about every German loved him, and many foreign leaders saw him as the nation's savior before he went genocidal. Saddam was widely hated by many Iraquis, and constantly involved in a Civil War (ever research the Kurds in Northern Iraq? If not do so). Plus all Western powers hated his guts, he wasn't going anywhere, unlike Hitler.

In this world it's kill or be killed, the US is the only super power, we are justified in protecting our interests.

Uhhhh... What world do you live in? It's all financial nowadays, the only way for a nation to survive is through a mix of military strength AND a strong, solid economy. In placing troops in Iraq, Bush is royalling fucking the US in BOTH catagories (loss of troop morale/resources AND massive supply expenses). If you support America remaining one of the world's superpowers, then you'd be pissed at Bush right now. China's new free market policy while maintaining a Communist government mixed with the one child policy is causing it some substansial growth. The US may be pretty much on top currently, but there's competition, plus the EU is gaining in economic momentum every day. Don't be so ignorant to believe that we're invincible, all great powers can fall.

We fought for our independance, we've helped out in blood in 2 world wars, now when we protect our interests were the bad guys?

Yes we did fight for our independance, yes we did help out in the two World Wars (not to mention Korea and many UN peacekeeping operations). But we've also done some pretty dumb and assholish things in the past (to the American Indians, Bolivians, Africans, etc). We can't use our hard earned respectability as an excuse to go out and start a stupid war that we can't handle on our own. You need to look at the facts of what's happening in Iraq right now and ask yourself something: Are Americans really safer because of what Bush has done? The source of terrorism is hatred, and what has this war done? Create more hatred against the US. I would not be surprised if Saddam was able to escape to a terrorist organization and do nothing but fund them with the massive amounts of gold he took from his palaces when he fled. Now he's got nothing to lose, no country to worry about. Now all he has is the desire to fuck us up in any way he can. How's that for national security? Instead of trying to cut the problem off at the source, we're attacking its products, and its not working.

I don't think so, it's time to take out the trash. Bush is kicking ass.

Who's ass, America's?

[dethmajor]

Vegita0609, I must say your responses are the only ones worth answering. I love these kinds of discussions because of people like you. You have many good points, but no solutions to the problem... There is a book out, called The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I highly suggest you read it. You seem to be passionate about this subject and there fore should have all the facts about history. Why history? If we don't learn from it we are destined to repeat it.

Lets get started on this: Everybody did not like Hitler at first, when he tried to seize controll in The Beer Hall Putsch he failed and was thrown in jail. It is here where he wrote Mein Campf. (Spelled wrong, the book blows btw). After he got out he managed to wrestle enough seats on the Reichstag (Similar to the senate) to have some power. SOme. This was done through intimidation with the Brown Shirts (Hitler fanatics, the muscle.) Saddam came to power in a similar fashion, through scare tactics and murder, thats the first comparison. After Hitler set fire to the Reichstag, he seized control by tricking the last chancellor of Germany, Hindenburg. After that Hitler was both president and chancellor of Germany. In short he had total power, not because people "liked" him, but through trickery, hatred and force. Sounds just like Saddam to me.

You then say: (Hell, he took Poland without lifting a military finger)

That wasn't Poland, your thinking of the Anschluss of Austria. Poland was invaded in 1939, starting the damnned war. The country was then split in two between the Germans and the Russians...

You also said: Saddam was widely hated by many Iraquis, and constantly involved in a Civil War (ever research the Kurds in Northern Iraq? If not do so). Plus all Western powers hated his guts, he wasn't going anywhere, unlike Hitler.

Hitler was hated by his people, his country was destroyed and reduced to a level below Iraq after World War I. All the "western powers" thought the same for Hitler's Germany. (He can't invade a country, Germany is weak...)Look what happened. Your complacancy scares me....

Your second paragraph amuses me. You say a strong economy and military are key to a nation's survival. I agree with you. But, how strong is a nation's military if never used? Remember what happend to the "World's most powerful army" the French, during World War II? They had the best equipment and no battle experience minus WWI. The German blitz crushed thier maginot line in days. Our show of force in Iraq put a lot of countries in line. China for one. Please don't blame the economy on Bush, my god do you really think our mighty economy is in termoil? Do you think the reactions of the president are instantanious to the economy. Well they aren't, it often takes a year plus, for the economy to react to a presidential descision. This is proven fact. Blame Clinton for the economy as well as Greenspan.

I'll skip the rest of the dribble and go to your last paragraph: The war in Iraq is over, the country is liberated and now our army is in "Police Action" More soldiers died in Veit Nam per day then in Iraq, currently.

I just asked my self if American's are really safer. Yes, when was the last terrorist attack on American soil? Two years ago? Embassies are not as safe, that is fact, but what foreign embassy is?

The Source of terrorism is not hatred, that is a byproduct. Jealousy and compacancy are the source of terrorism. Jealousy for our progress and way of life. Complacancy is our fault, people like you will wait untill the bully pushes you against the wall and punches you in the gut before you do somehting about it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...

Your welcome for the free history lesson, I look forward to your "response".

[azulmagia]

...Our show of force in Iraq put a lot of countries in line. China for one. ...Blame Clinton for the economy as well as Greenspan....

The Source of terrorism is not hatred, that is a byproduct. Jealousy and compacancy are the source of terrorism. Jealousy for our progress and way of life. Complacancy is our fault, people like you will wait untill the bully pushes you against the wall and punches you in the gut before you do somehting about it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...

Your welcome for the free history lesson, I look forward to your "response".

Who's the bully on this planet? "Jealousy for our progress and way of life"
shyeah right. They don't hate "freedom", they're just theocrats who don't believe it could possibly work. (Probably applicable to both sets of theocrats.) It's hard to take the idea of America as a superpower seriously when you watch the trailer for "Scary Movie 3" and realise what country that came out of.

As for Greenspan, he's an alter kocker who's had the same job for far too long. Only the Vatican is in more dire need of new blood. Or perhaps the White House.

[dethmajor]

...Our show of force in Iraq put a lot of countries in line. China for one. ...Blame Clinton for the economy as well as Greenspan....

The Source of terrorism is not hatred, that is a byproduct. Jealousy and compacancy are the source of terrorism. Jealousy for our progress and way of life. Complacancy is our fault, people like you will wait untill the bully pushes you against the wall and punches you in the gut before you do somehting about it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...

Your welcome for the free history lesson, I look forward to your "response".

Who's the bully on this planet? "Jealousy for our progress and way of life"
shyeah right. They don't hate "freedom", they're just theocrats who don't believe it could possibly work. (Probably applicable to both sets of theocrats.) It's hard to take the idea of America as a superpower seriously when you watch the trailer for "Scary Movie 3" and realise what country that came out of.

As for Greenspan, he's an alter kocker who's had the same job for far too long. Only the Vatican is in more dire need of new blood. Or perhaps the White House.

ROFL!

[kthulhu]

Ugh, I heard that "jealousy over our way of life" crap at work once.

Most of the Middle East LIKES the materialistic aspects of Western society.

The political and social aspects, however, don't jive with them. They feel antagonistic towards us, because of past political wrongdoing (i.e. British colonialism, US political meddling) and because many don't know any other way - the religion/government tagteam work hard to make sure of that.

For the average citizen of the Middle East, I'd imagine the West doesn't really linger heavily in their thoughts. We think "That's where the terrorists are", they think "That's where the Great Satan" quickly - both go about their business of the day.

[Farlo]

and when did it become wrong to evict a maniacal dictator

Been illegal for quite some time. A funny thing called 'sovereignty'.

legality has nothing to do with something being wrong or right.

[TaranT]

...For the average citizen of the Middle East, I'd imagine the West doesn't really linger heavily in their thoughts. We think "That's where the terrorists are", they think "That's where the Great Satan" quickly - both go about their business of the day.

I read something like this earlier today:

BAGHDAD, Oct. 28—"This is not the time for the Americans to get out of the country. This is not the time …. Life is better here. Better! A hundred times, life is better." ...

"This is not about the Americans," Mr. Al-Shikhly continued. "This is bad people who make this …. They are not looking for America to get in or out. They only want to destroy everything."

As it happened, Mr. Al-Shikhly fit right into the piece that I was typing away at when the bomb went off. ... My piece was about the total disconnect between what matters to most of the people in Iraq and what seems to matter to most of the people elsewhere who are upset about Iraq. Or, as a young Iraqi friend said to me right after I arrived at the end of August: "Everybody in the world is so obsessed with weapons of mass destruction. Nobody in Iraq gives a shit."

Most of the people outside Iraq seem to be obsessed with giving the Bush administration what they think it deserves. Most of the people inside Iraq—i.e., the Iraqis—are fixated on getting what they think they deserve. For all too many champions as well as critics of U.S. policy, this is all about American vindication versus American mortification, and Iraq is a car to be stripped down for its rhetorical parts. ...

For the Iraqis, who tend to view this as a place and themselves as people, both sets of analysts are transparent opportunists. Nonetheless, from here, it is disturbing to note the momentum that seems to be gathering behind those who are back home chanting for the U.S. to get out now. It is scarcely less disturbing to contemplate the belief of some leading American politicians that they can go halfsies: keep funding Iraqi reconstruction, for instance, but put the funding in the form of a loan. (Whoever thought of that probably had a cash bar at his wedding.) This is not because the occupation is some sort of triumph. But if this is about the Iraqis, it simply doesn’t matter whether it is in the context of American glory, American gloom or something in between that these people finally get a decent shot at a decent life. It only matters that they do get it, and the only question is how. ...

Of course, I cannot speak for the Iraqis. But after spending four of the past six months talking to Iraqis, I do feel that it is relatively safe to make the following five points:

One, most Iraqis do not want America to leave now or very soon.

Two, while it is true that a huge proportion of Iraqis have at least some very negative opinions about the war and life here since, it is also true that a huge proportion of those opinions boil down to anger at the Americans for not being enough of a presence here, not anger at the Americans for being too much of a presence.

Three, there is very little to support the notion that Iraqis would be, or feel, notably better off under United Nations occupation than under a United States–led occupation.

Four, although the Bush administration should be hung out to dry for whatever it has lied about, it is widely accepted here that various of their pet assertions happen to coincide with the truth. Iraqis do not need Mr. Bush to tell them that most of the troublemakers here are not resistance fighters, but highly paid, often imported thugs; Iraqis have been saying that from the start.

Fifth, a steady stream of terrible events has generated a steady stream of legitimately negative news stories about Iraq, the sum effect of which seems to have been to leave the rest of the world with the impression that Iraq now appears in the dictionary next to "unqualified disaster"; that hardly anything is improving here, and that hardly anyone is or feels any better off than he or she did before the war. This impression is false...

There's more at the original link:
http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/frontpage4.asp

[Simpi]

legality has nothing to do with something being wrong or right.

This always the one excuse that causes me to laugh my ass off, since it's so easy to counter it. See my earlier comment with Us being in bed with piss pot dictators if it suits them:

Fact: There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, etc. One man was actually boiled to death!

Fact: Us Governent considers the president of Uzbekistan, Islam Kamarov a valuable ally in war against terror. US troops are in Uzbekistan and it's airfields were used in war against Taleban

Fact: US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year, he received $500m, of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture.

Fact: US state department has announced that Uzbekistan had made "substantial and continuing progress" in improving its human rights record. The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of 'unlawful organisations' is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years".

From these facts, we can only conclude that United States supports a dangerous dictator and should face sanctions until it ceases to do so or until current US regime steps down/is removed from power. If nothing helps, a multinational coalition should remove them by force.

Or would you like to justify US actions somehow?