Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So we have the mandate to attack any country that uses force to stop rebellions?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying Saddam's government was a legitimate one that had the right to opporess its own people right? Kinda like King George III?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Russia, Kyrgistan, Columbia, China...I could go on, but I would have to do some research. Lots of governments repress their people in very harsh ways, often with our help. We assisted Turkey in the wholesale genocide of its Kurds, hundreds of villages were wiped off the map. Kurdish people in Turkey may not even use their own langauge.

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But arguing that Bush was correct to link Saddam to terrorism because he was an oppressive or even genocidal ruler is dumb. They're two different arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oppressive dictatorships and terrorism spring from the same well of violence and hatred. And any dictator who has used chems on his own people wouldn't think twice about using them on other countries or providing them to terrorists with whom he shared common enemies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam's #1 priority was self preservation. Why would he attack other countries? The governments of Saddam's neighbors did not even consider him a treat.

[nicky g]

"Oppressive dictatorships and terrorism spring from the same well of violence and hatred"

Lord save us... So they must be the same thing right?

"And any dictator who has used chems on his own people wouldn't think twice about using them on other countries or providing them to terrorists with whom he shared common enemies."

Is that so? What about the fact that other countries such as the US at the time didn't care about him using such weapons on his own people enough to even criticise him for it, but might have cared just slightly more if he'd used them on theirs or helped others do so? Ignoring the minor point that in 2003 he didn't actually have any. SHould we assume that because Uzbekistan is happy to torture its own people it may start kidnapping and torturing US citizens any day now? The logic is ridiculous.

[jt1]

BluffThis!, first off your arguments are coherent. You are making much more sense than your detractors in this thread. But you don't give me the credit that I deserve. I will try again.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nor do I believe that the War on Terror is in our best interest


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yea. Forget about 9/11. Let the terrorists have safe havens from which to launch more attacks. Makes sense.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom and Capitalism don't need us. They will win, in the end, on their own merit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yea, the exact reason we should have stayed out of the european side of WWII. Freedom would have won out by itself. And dictatorships left alone never threaten their neighbors or abuse their own populace.

Great analysis.


[/ QUOTE ]

9/11 was a barbaric and adolescent act against the worlds most powerful empire. (Don't let the word empire get your panties in a way -- it's just a word) The Islamists resent our interference so they bombed us. Our national pride was threatened so we responded in kind. And now the score is in our favor. Good for us.

9/11 as well as any potential war with China (over Taiwan), North Korea, and past wars against North Vietnam and North Korea and the near nuclear winter the world barely avoided are all the result of American intereference.

Israel doesn't need our help nor did they deserve it. There is nor was any reason, selfish or selfless, for us to side with Israel. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea can all fend for themselves especially if they sign their protection pacts with each other and perhaps the Phillipines and Indonesia and Australia. They don't need us and our involvement only puts you and I at risk. South Vietnam did not deserve our protection nor did it do them much good. The domino effect proved to be another paranoid nationalists delusion. And the Korean war did nothing but kill thousands of people.

You can argue that the Cold War saved Western Europe and in turn helped solidify Democracy. But that is only until about the very early 60's when France and England developed their own Nukes and were completely rebuilt. After that time the Cold War was senseless nationalists paranoia that almost destroyed civilization as we know it.

I'm now going to lump the first 15 years of the Cold War with World War II. The war against the NAZI's is one of the very few examples in world history of Freedom vs Tyranny. Usually it's Tyranny vs less tyranny, or Tyrany vs Tyrany. (See the history of the Pacific before Japanese Imperialism. -- See the various third world struggles during the Cold War --See all Roman wars in the West and all Chineese wars in the East)

My point is that WWII and the first 15 years of the Cold War is an abnormality. However, even if we had stayed neutruel, Russia would have forced the Nazi's to retreat on the Eastern front and Hitler, himself, had all but given up on conquering England. Had the 3'rd reich lost WWII but remained intact, there would have been no cold war and eventually (after several decades if not centuries) the 3'rd reich would have collapsed (probably). My point is even using the most righteous war and arguably the only righteous war in history, American univolvement would not have been disastorous.

Please do respond. Force me to do my resarch as this off the top of my head and i didn't add a few relevant but unessential points. I'm welcome to changing my point of view if your facts and conclusions are valid. I'll let you know if they aren't.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would he attack other countries? The governments of Saddam's neighbors did not even consider him a treat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee I don't know. Why don't you ask Kuwait.

[canis582]

I wasnt talking about '91, I was talking about '03. You know, after we murdered thousands of children with our disasterous sanctions.

[BluffTHIS!]

We have the right to determine who our friends are, including Israel. And it is reprehensible to justify 9/11 as a proper response by terrorists who now have started bombing moslems and who now have shown the Islamic world that terrorism is a danger to all.

And in WWII, although Germany might not have easily been able to defeat Russia even without fighting a second front, it's a sure thing Russia wouldn't have been able to invade Germany. Which means Germany would have developed nuclear weapons unhampered by us. Then they would have dealt with Russia and resumed their attack on Britain.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
And it is reprehensible to justify 9/11 as a proper response by terrorists who now have started bombing moslems and who now have shown the Islamic world that terrorism is a danger to all.


[/ QUOTE ]

I quote myself, "9/11 was a barbaric and adolescent act." In what way did I justify it?

[ QUOTE ]
Your claim about Germany and Russia and the bomb -- scroll up --


[/ QUOTE ]

The Manhattan project began after the letter from Einstein. Before Pearl Harbor, I don't think, we were even considering nuclear weapons. (i'm not sure about that) But if we were, certainly defeating Germany to prevent them from getting the bomb before us would have been the only smart thing to do. However, they had concluded that the bomb was impossible and (i think) we didn't start considering the possibility until after we had already declared war on Germany. My point is we could have pursued the bomb without fighting germany. Had the 3rd reich been left intact after loosing to Russia on the Eastern front, we would have had the bomb and could have protected England and ourselves with it. But I'm not debating our decision to enter the war against Germany. I'm simply saying that even if we distanced ourselves from the most righteous conflict in world history, the results would not have been disastorous for us -- let alone distancing ourselves from conflicts which aren't as righteous.

[ QUOTE ]
We have the right to determine who our friends are, including Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

We also have the right to stay away from nations who will only ensnare us into further troulbe

Your response was inadequate. Try again, please.

[BluffTHIS!]

That's all you get cause WWII is off topic. And despite your caveat, you then went on and spouted the terrorists' rationale.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
dude, obviously there are terrorists in Jordan, we should probably invade to get those bastards out.

[/ QUOTE ]

For that matter, there are terrorists somewhere in this country. We should start our invasion right here, I guess. Of course, I think we already have, since the Patriot Act is an invasion in and of itself.