Quote:
Originally posted by geep
Germany did not attack Poland in a preemptive strike, but merely for pure conquest. Hitler wanted to rule all of Europe- to succeed where Napoleon had failed. The US did not attack Iraq to make it the 51st state. I still fail to see why the link between Saddam and terrorists is not being acknowledged. If Saddam was not a direct party to 9/11 so what? In our own criminal code we aknowledge that asstisting a criminal to commit a crime even passively is a crime in itself. Why is it so hard to make that same case against Saddam Hussein? Clearly he assisted terrorists and encouraged their plans for crimes against humanity. If 9/11 wasn't an attack-what was it? Terrorism is a crime against humanity and must be stopped. It has no geographical characteristics so we must fight it wherever we find it IN OUR OWN DEFENSE. The United States has never taken a country by force to increase its own size or to gain territory although it has had many opportunities to do so. The comparison of the two acts is like comparing apples and oranges.
|
As far as I see it Poland, weak as it was at the time, was a much more potent threat to Germany than Iraq was to the US.
Quote:
|
I suppose the same was said about Japan after WWII. BTW:When did we become you? The question I asked of The_Dude was what do WE do about these dictatorships.
|
You suppose?
Anyway, I think Pacifier is from Germany so from his point of viewyou is correct. The Internet exists outside of the US for your information.
Quote:
|
Apparently it cannot be answered by multiple nations, either.
|
It can be answerd, the answer was "No".
Quote:
|
Apparently not. Neither is anyone else for that matter. Yet, many people are passionate about the situations in the world when it comes to backing their political philosophy. The US is bad for supporting dictators. The US is bad for deposing dicatators. It's all just people stroking themselves politically. I'm not into political or philosophical mesmerization on the subject. What I would like to see is everyone finally own up to the fact that they do not have a viable solution either and then just shut the hell up until they can contribute to the solution. It's easy to criticize a figure in power for what he does when you can't have done the same thing yourself. George Bush is given a lot of attention for what happened in Iraq by people who cannot answer a simple question- What would you have done that could have been any better? I've been listening for sometime and I still don't have the answer. How could you have gotten better results? Further diplomacy-perhaps another 13 years of hardship to the Iraqi people? Ignoring the situation until an Islamic Fundamentalist detonates a nuclear device in downtown Tel Aviv? Forget the politcal prisoners dying and destined for mass graves in the middle of the desert? What's the deal- I haven't heard a good plan yet, especially one that involves NO FURTHER BLOODSHED.
|
If there where any WMD they are more likly to be in the hands of terrorists and used now since they haven't been found by the coalition. But I don't think you need to worry about this since there probably were none and you've been lied to.
You are saying that the people of Iraq is in a better situation today than they where before and I think you are right. But would the US public accept a war of this scale if there where no threat to themselves?