Before you start handing out more sympath for the "poor" Iraqis...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ferret, Mar 29, 2003.

  1. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    Ferret: That's the damn happiest smilie in the world... :)

    Not that I disagree with you, Zhaneel...
    No, they don't declare war when their trigger fingers get itchy. (a potshot, I know).

    It seems like we still think it's a Cold War world, just without Russia. The Cold War is over, and not because the threat of massive apocalyptic retaliation is lessened. It's over because communism is not the force it once was, and because we don't have to go around spiting our enemies by propping up regimes with ideologies that are good for PR and the right color on our risk board. (yeah, potshot ;) they're fun...)

    I think I respect most career soldiers (though I wouldn't encourage anyone to join the army). It's important not to make them feel like hell when they come back, true. That's why I try to disagree more respectfully than most people seem to. A lot of liberals have anger problems. A lot of conservatives do too... and among these angry people there are some mixed nuts.

    Spiderman: Hi. I am a person. And I think I'm against the war too. :) (And maybe Mazzak).
    About that support thing... There is more support for this war than for the revolutionary one had at the time... that is there is more support in THIS COUNTRY for the war. In the country that's being liberated (which is what I meant by saying the colonies) I imagine the opinions are a bit different.
    (I'm going to stop propping up that faulty analogy now though. :))
  2. Apollo Bird Boy

    France could have just stayed out of it if that's all they wanted. Instead, they tried to prevent a UN resolution and restrain the U.S. I think they were definitely in opposition.

    No other country is doing much about it because, as others have said, we're the most powerful country in the world and we'll make them regret it (we'll rename their fried foods! :p)

    I was, as you said, in grade school at the time, but I favored the war in '91 because Saddam was invading another country and we were defending them and that's pretty much all I knew. At this point, I still am regrettably ignorant about that war, so I still hold that same opinion.

    As for this war being justified based on what happened 12 years ago, it's as if 12 years after WWII we had gone back over and invaded Germany (a bad analogy, I know, but you get the point). It's a completely different situation.
  3. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Let's try this out for size then: Let's look at post-World War I Germany. Imagine if a coalition of countries decided to disarm Hitler before he got started on his little reign of terror. We could have prevented World War II entrirely! It's all relative when you look at it...


    "...the French would have probably opposed that as well..."
  4. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Most were our "allies" and when their efforts to stop "us" (or coalition forces, whatever) failed through legal channels, that's about all they could do. They're not going to declare war with us 'cause it's more like a family spat sort of thing.

    The countries that aren't so much as allies probably realize that declaring war on the US would turn world opinion for the US (or against them) and the US allies would defend us (NATO is still in force).

    True, but you could almost say that a "what if" about any war.
  5. EricBess Active Member

    Good call, Ferret. There are plenty of people out there who consider WWII to have been an extension of WWI instead of a separate war.
  6. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Duke, do us all a favour: Grab a garden hose, stick it down your throat and turn on the water full blast. It would be the most useful thing your mouth has done ever.

    It's one thing to argue intelligently w/ people, but you insist on calling everyone stupid, childish, unintelligent, and of course wrong. you try to come across as some Godlike voice of rational thought, but when I read your words I see nothing more than the ramblings of a scared child that's afraid that one day he might have to admit he's wrong. So, when you're losing a battle you retort w/ immature insults laced w/ polysylablic words to make yourself feel smarter than everyone else.

    You do have some good arguments, but have you ever thought, just once in your life, to send them across in a rational matter that doesn't make everyone want to play field hockey w/ your brain?

    ...and yet, you keep posting to me...


    "...even Kafka knew when to shut up..."
  7. Astranbrulth New Member

    Thanks Spiderman, point taken. What I mean is, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are ideologically identical, for all practical purposes. What will happen in Iraq is that democracy takes its course, people with similar ideas will come to power, because they are the majority .

    Then what you will have are more religious loonies in power that cannot be controlled. And they will hate you. Saddam was (is?) a scumbag, but he was a scumbag that could (a) be held accountable for the deeds of his country and (b) kept the lid on the immense social pressures within Iraqi society. (Feel free to correct me on this DUke, if you disagree)

    Train, stuff will get blown up in due course, but probabaly your stuff and my stuff. Then it will be back to hunting down whichever new terrorist groups have sprung up in the power vacuum of Saddam's removal (or Iraq's new theocracy, take your pick).
  8. Dune Echo CPA Founder, Idea Man

Share This Page