THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

I would have LOVED to see what would have happened if the internet had been around during WW2, all you wonderful dictator loving apollogists would have been complaining about how 'Mr. so called President Roosevelt' was pulling us into a war we shouldn't get involved in.

I can hear you now:

Oh, I mean it's JUST the Sudetanland, it has nothing to do with us.

Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia ? Well they must have wanted him to do that.

Hitler invaded Poland, well I think thats really 'Europe's business don't you ?

Japan killed hundreds of thousands in the 'Rape of Nanking' ..... well, no one really wants America sticking their noses into other countries business.

Hitler is exterminating the Jews, gypsies, communists etc. ? Well thats really Germany's business isn't it , we don't have the right to push an aggressive dictator out of power do we?

What?? Japan attacked Pearl Harbor ? Well they must have had a good reason. Maybe we shouldn't attack them. The other countries might think we are attempting to enforce our beliefs on other countries if we defend ourselves.

This kind of crap makes me sick.

Get a clue folks.

Ah, a well-reaonsed, non-partisan, objective position. That should prove to be ample grist for a mill with a history such as "The US, UN and Iraq" . . .

President Bush may or may not have given cocaine to minors in the frat house.

Bookmark
Where do we find the 'bow legged wimmins'
uck uck uck uck uck

Fedral,

Precendence is not an excuse for posteriority. The global realities have changed.

BM

BM? bowell movement? Was that editorial comment, Walter?

This is the kind of psychological claptrap that has caused inaction in so many parts of the World. 'global realities' have NOT changed. The concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' have not changed. It's the lack of moral fibre that has near paralysed the World into ignoring their ability to do the 'RIGHT THING'.

Do I think we should get involved in other countries business?

Yes, if our national interests are at stake.

And when we do get involved, we need to do it with all the power and force our country can bring to bear on the problem.

We learned too late in WW2 the terrible price of not getting involved in World affairs sooner and 30+ million human beings payed the price.

Now that we are trying to prevent another situation like that from arising, the World moans and wrings their hands.

In 1941 it was: "Why aren't the Americans here?"

In 2003 it is: "Why are the Americans here?

The answer is , we learned our lesson the first time.

fedral

You might start by checking a dictionary for the definition of 'psychological'.

I'll assume this rule or truth ought to apply to all national bodies. And what then when China determines it's interests are at stake in, say, Burma or South Korea? Nothing for it but for them to act?

Yes, and when we feel it is in our national interests to stop them. We will.

Welcome back to the Middle Ages.

Dieu et mon droit, my friend . . .

And boy, you'll whup em good when the time comes.

It is a pity the internet wasn't around back in the thirties. Made in America porn would have been available to your daddy.

Ahh yes, when unpleasant facts slap you in the face and you have nothing constructive or intelligent to say, resort to personal attacks.
Yes Blatham, that will show everyone how well spoken and thoughtful you are.

Please try to come up with a real response next time. Not just a kneejerk reply to pump up your post count.

blatham, you really should apologize to this brainiac!

fedral

If you go back and go through the previous threads, you'll find thousands of posts on the questions related to this conflict which are thoughtful and educated, not simplistic, nor trite.

Your first post here is neither. It is of a type, and it's a type which these threads also display. You are loud and and not likely to engage in debate that rises to any level of sophistication. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. We'll see how you do.

I am always ready to discuss any topic as long as it doesn't fall into the idiotic stereotypical. Republicans bad, Democrats good or into the 'Bush is the spawn of Satan' type of argument.

I have read a lot of posts in the previous US,UN Iraq threads and after sifting through a number of well thought out (but in my opinion misinformed.) threads, as well as a TON of off topic comments I am still trying to understand the reluctance to throw a known dictator and genocidal maniac out of power.

I am also trying to understand the vehemence against a nation acting in it's own national interests?

To refer to your previous post, Fedral, Japan was acting in its own self-interest in invading Indo-China in 1941 (specifically, Ambassador Nomura told the Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, that they had to have the rice and the natural resoureces), and the American response of embargo lead to the eventual attack on Pearl Harbor. The question is not whether or not nations can and should act in their own self-interest; rather, it is who is to determine what the self-interest of a nation is, and what remedies are appropriate. The Japanese Prime Mininster, Konoye, received his marching orders from the Navy and Army ministers. At the time of the "Indo-China incident," Konoye was trying to arrange a meeting with Roosevelt. The Army Minister specifically wrote to him that in the event that such a meeting failed to arrive at an acceptable arrangement, and i quote from a reliable English translation of the text: " . . . you are not to resign . . . " and he then stated that war would result in such an eventuality. It should be obvious that the Army and Navy ministers were those who decided what Japan's national interests were, and what the remedies ought to be. That situation does not and should not obtain in this country. Your remarks about national interests in a thread about the US, the UN and Iraq can be inferentially taken as a statement that the invasion of Iraq was a proximate national interest of the United States, in that we were threatened by "a known dictator and genocidal maniac." Put up or shut up. What's your proof that Saddam was a threat which made it in our national interest to invade Iraq? What is your proof that invasion was the only reasonable remedy?

I think it may be in our best interest to act in self defense on this thread. If this principle always mandated elimination of the aggressor, you would be gone, Fedral. I guess you're pretty lucky to be among those who would rather try other actions before brutal force.

My point? If everyone followed your logic, we'd all be a pile of smoldering ash.