Are You Watching Any Of The Inauguration?

kickycan wrote:

Sovereign:

1: possessed of supreme power <a sovereign ruler>
2: enjoying autonomy <sovereign states>

Being ruled by thugs has nothing to do with sovereignty.

M-W wrote:

Main Entry: au·ton·o·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
3 : a self-governing state

Iraq hadn't met this qualification since they surrendered in the early 90's. Their autonomy hadn't been restored... so by your definition it was not a sovereign state. :wink:

0 Replies

Brandon:

I suggest looking up "sovereign" first before submitting such an ill-informed opinion.

Otherwise, I could say the exact same thing you did, except it would be in relation to THIS country.

But then again, we all know who the Bush supporters are:

http://www.buckfush.com/images/bush_Supporter.jpg

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Sovereign:

1: possessed of supreme power <a sovereign ruler>
2: enjoying autonomy <sovereign states>

Being ruled by thugs has nothing to do with sovereignty.

M-W wrote:
Main Entry: au·ton·o·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
3 : a self-governing state
Iraq hadn't met this qualification since they surrendered in the early 90's. Their autonomy hadn't been restored... so by your definition it was not a sovereign state. :wink:

Bullshit. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL:

So when we do business with Saudi Arabia, who torture and stone their women, cut off the hands of their men, and who supplied 17 of the 19 murderers on 9/11, it is with a "sovereign" nation?

Are they "autonomous" as well?

Did you forget that it was the thugs in Iraq who were the government? And did you also forget that Iraq was NOT a democracy by any means before we invaded? Where does it say that the individuals who run the government must NOT be thugs in order to maintain autonomy in a dictatorship?

Iraq was NEVER about WMD's or Saddam; it was all about oil, and Saddam was just in the way.

But we can count on those Bush supporters to keep the idiot in office for another four years.

Very sad indeed...

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Bullshit. :wink:

That is a very concise, better reasoned and infinitely more compelling argument than anything Dookie has offered. :wink:

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

get some new writers will ya honey?

0 Replies

Quote:

That is a very concise, better reasoned and infinitely more compelling argument than anything Dookie has offered.

Most likely because Kicky was mearly speaking your language.

0 Replies

Figure out what you are saying, Dook, then say it. Saudi customs are deplorable and yes they should be addressed. But in the early 90's when Iraq surrendered her autonomy, Saudi Arabia did not. Where did I lose you? Laughing

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Brandon:

I suggest looking up "sovereign" first before submitting such an ill-informed opinion.

Otherwise, I could say the exact same thing you did, except it would be in relation to THIS country.

You focus on the minor details and errors in a post and ignore the meaning and the intent. Congratulations on correcting my use of the word sovereign and ignoring every other aspect of the point I was making. My point is that to object to invading a country because it is "sovereign" without considering the fact that the people have no say at all in the government, did not choose it, and are brutally and even murderously repressed is merely stupid.

0 Replies

I love that Pic Bear! Don't you?

0 Replies

this argument is pointless...you will support bush if he starts putting democrats in internment camps and ovens.....enjoy what you get....

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

this argument is pointless...you will support bush if he starts putting democrats in internment camps and ovens.....enjoy what you get....

Every time you say something this idiotic you do a terrible disservice to the memory and the descendants of those who suffered this horrible fate. Get a grip.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

this argument is pointless...you will support bush if he starts putting democrats in internment camps and ovens.....enjoy what you get....

No it's not pointless. To say that the invasion was immoral in part because it was of a sovereign country, and not notice that the government was being imposed on the citizens by brutal force, with any attempt on their part to dissent being brutally squashed, is very revealing of the gross lack of thought the author put into his position.

0 Replies

Brandon, what is your definition of sovereign?

0 Replies

The invasion was immoral because we were not out of options.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Brandon, what is your definition of sovereign?

Irrelevant. To categorize the invasion as immoral because it was a violation of sovereignty, without noticing that it was a dictatorship of thugs, and that any citizen who dared to dissent was arrested and probably tortured and/or murdered is merely stupid.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
this argument is pointless...you will support bush if he starts putting democrats in internment camps and ovens.....enjoy what you get....
Every time you say something this idiotic you do a terrible disservice to the memory and the descendants of those who suffered this horrible fate. Get a grip.

I believe it and stand by it and of course would expect you to fire back that it's idiotic. I am not trying to insult you nor am I speaking of you in particular. I am speaking of bush supporters. Cult of Personality. I have seen no evidence to make me believe otherwise. So my friend, I have a grip on my beliefs, but thanks for the advice.

0 Replies

Quote:

My point is that to object to invading a country because it is "sovereign" without considering the fact that the people have no say at all in the government, did not choose it, and are brutally and even murderously repressed is merely stupid.

And my point is that we do business with the enemy on a daily basis. The only difference is that there's a ton of oil in Iraq.

Any country with such wealth will lose their sovereignty against the most powerful and heavily armed nation in the world. It's no wonder that the world does not trust the idiot in the Oval Office.

0 Replies

I want to know who appointed us the judges of the world, and what our standard is for deciding who to invade and overthrow and who not to. Can anyone answer that for me?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

The invasion was immoral because we were not out of options.

I am objecting specifically to one poster's claim that it was immoral because it was an invasion of sovereignty. You are raising a separate issue.

First of all, we had been negotiating Saddam's compliance with his surrender terms from Gulf War One for a dozen years, which is a long time. You are incorrect when you state that invasion is never warranted if there are any conceivable other options. In some scenarios which might have been occurring within Iraq, further delay could have given Saddam time to perfect his WMD, and he might have one day simply announced that he had them and that any further attempt to control him would be punished by the use of a WMD in a western or pro-western city. Even a moderate probability of a doomsday scenario is a very serious thing.

0 Replies

Are You Watching Any Of The Inauguration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know