Which one?

[K e r b e r o s]

you tell me, the justifications change so often that I've lost track ...what is it this week?

Well Bill Maher said he would've been sold at Hello, if only Bush told us his first reason for going into Iraq was to spread the seed of democracy.

 

[Absinthe]

Well Bill Maher said he would've been sold at Hello, if only Bush told us his first reason for going into Iraq was to spread the seed of democracy.

It would certainly have been better than bullshitting your way into a conflict.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It would certainly have been better than bullshitting your way into a conflict.

Thanks, but it was'nt my war. Talk to the President! :rolling:

But hey, at least we know what would've worked -- will try it in the future.

 

[CptStern]

ahhahaha come on stern, they had elections bud. The Iraqi people voted people into a Congress like system. Those people will nominate a PM and other similar type posistions of power, not the US.

so in other words the US spent $156,929,176,890 (and growing as we speak) for no return at all ...out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

[seinfeldrules]

so in other words the US spent $156,929,176,890 (and growing as we speak) for no return at all

Maybe to you a free Iraq is no 'return', apparently we dont hold that same viewpoint. How did I know you would try to work your way around the elections? You are incredibly biased/paranoid.

 

[CptStern]

Maybe to you a free Iraq is no return, apparently we dont hold that same viewpoint.

what? are you kidding me? so in other words the US invaded iraq to save the people of iraq? (must remind you: iraq water treatment assessment ..500,000 children ) you're re-writing history seinfeldrules ...unless that is you can find me a source that that was their intention all along

 

[seinfeldrules]

what? are you kidding me? so in other words the US invaded iraq to save the people of iraq?

I never claimed we invaded for that. We invaded based on bad intelligence about WMD. We stayed in Iraq to help establish a new form of government, so one of Saddam's cronies wouldnt grab power. That is why we are spending that much money.

you're re-writing history seinfeldrules

So are you. Iraqis voted, nothing you can say will change that, no matter how badly you want them to fail.

 

[jondy]

So are you. Iraqis voted, nothing you can say will change that, no matter how badly you want them to fail.

Contrary to what you think, Stern doesn't want the Iraqi people to get a raw deal, and he doesn't hate America, either, before you ask

 

[seinfeldrules]

Contrary to what you think, Stern doesn't want the Iraqi people to get a raw deal, and he doesn't hate America, either, before you ask

Contrary to what you think, his track record really doesnt back that up. He cannot even admit the validity and positive effects of the elections.

 

[jondy]

Your cleverly petulant re-use of my phrase aside, don't try and argue something so blatantly based in personal opinion

 

[seinfeldrules]

don't try and argue something so blatantly based in personal opinion

Were you doing any different?

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

No country should ever have the right to tell another country what to do and how to do it, as long as that other country doesn't impede on the first countries rights.

A powerful country should be responsible for ensuring that peace and prosperity rule throughout the world without the fear of tyranny and torture.

Which statement do you all agree with then?

I don't agree with your preamble to the question...

It's not a powerful countries responsibility for ensuring peace and prosperity throughout the world..

If someone else in the world wants to live like barbaric savages, have fun dude... Just don't mess with the best.

 

[CptStern]

:upstare: delusions of granduer aside, this has little to do with freedom or justice but rather the oldest of deadly sins: greed


btw thx jondyfun and seinfeldrules you're way off as usual

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

If that statement was true Spain would have given her wealth away in the 1400's rather than commiting genocide as it did...

 

[CptStern]

what does something that happened 500 years ago have to do with today? I see what you're up to shellback but history is my forte not yours

 

[KoreBolteR]

i think its safe to say, that things are looking good for Iraq atm.

i havnt heared any bad media on it for a couple of days.

LOL.. i bet all the anti-war people are trying to dig up every little drop of 'bad coalition' news, while they leave all 'good' news out.

or if a terrorist does something that is in america favour.. nothing is broadcast on 90% of the media coveraging.

 

[bliink]

* Added a poll

EDIT: Reading through the thread I realise I must warn: get on topic!

 

[lePobz]

Heh, wondered what was going on then, I voted in the poll expecting to see masses of existing results, only to see 1 vote (my own)...

Anyway you can see which way I voted ... Countries should keep their business to themselves, and keep themselves out of other countries business. That's not to say that any country should just stand by whilst crimes against humanity are occuring under regimes in certain countries ... instead each country should be an active member in the united nations.

When a group of smart people tell you to do something, you're more inclined to believe that it's a good thing, rather than one big dumb f***er telling you to do something. I think you all know what I mean...

 

[KoreBolteR]

Heh, wondered what was going on then, I voted in the poll expecting to see masses of existing results, only to see 1 vote (my own)...

Anyway you can see which way I voted ... Countries should keep their business to themselves, and keep themselves out of other countries business. That's not to say that any country should just stand by whilst crimes against humanity are occuring under regimes in certain countries ... instead each country should be an active member in the united nations.

When a group of smart people tell you to do something, you're more inclined to believe that it's a good thing, rather than one big dumb f***er telling you to do something. I think you all know what I mean...

ive voted the second one.. but its a bit off from what i believe.

its closer than the 1st one anyway..

i believe the powerful country should help the country support themselves.

 

[el Chi]

No country should ever have the right to tell another country what to do and how to do it, as long as that other country doesnt invade the first country.


corrected for clarity

To play Devil's advocate: Are we allowed to reprimand nations with vicious records of torture and brutal penal systems? Even if it is just vocally or through the UN? If that's all we can do, then how do we ever expect them to change? Do we turn a blind eye and respect their sovereignty?

Like I said, I'm playing Devil's advocate a tad here; I despise the role the US has taken on as some neo-imperialist world police, because of course they know better than everyone else. That sort of arrogance is offensive and it's that attitude that has gotten them such a negative image the world over.
On the other hand, there really is only so much diplomatic pressure can acheive.
Not that I agree with forceful invasion, you understand.

 

[Razor]

* Added a poll

EDIT: Reading through the thread I realise I must warn: get on topic!

Gracias Senorita hermosa.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

It's not a powerful countries responsibility for ensuring peace and prosperity throughout the world.

How the hell isnt it? As soon as you have power you have responsibility. If you don't use your power responsibly then you're a tyrant. With great power comes great responsibility.