Bin Laden Tape Warns Iraqis To Resist Unity

RecklessTim said:
Not one on your list was a first strike by us. They were all conflicts or wars that we got involved with in our own best interest. As a super power we need to help keep global stability...

But I would really like to see 1 example in recent history where the US was the aggressors... you won't find one, because it is against international law. It is a crime.
Click to expand...
Well, technically the Civil War had to be a first strike by us... :dunno :D

Seriously though, it could be argued (effectively imo) that an efficient, pro-US democracy in the Middle East is in our best interests.

As you know, I do understand the other side that says we have no business being over there. But I can also see how, in the long run, looking at it unemotionally, it could be very beneficial to us.
 
dt3 said:
Well, technically the Civil War had to be a first strike by us... :dunno :D

Seriously though, it could be argued (effectively imo) that an efficient, pro-US democracy in the Middle East is in our best interests.

As you know, I do understand the other side that says we have no business being over there. But I can also see how, in the long run, looking at it unemotionally, it could be very beneficial to us.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%.... but you don't go about getting one by blowing the hell out of that country...


Oh... and the civil war was not a first strike by the US... it was the South that did that and we really can't call them part of the US :D
 
RecklessTim said:
Saddam and hitler are not even in the same category of evil.
Hitler had at his disposal one of the worlds greatest armies. Saddam was not even close to having the same military might after we had decimated the Republican National guard. He had no air force to speak of, he had no navy to speak of... basically he was a threat to his neighbors (if that) and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Hitler: And how was Hitler able to amass the amount of might that he had to become a threat? Please explain that to the Jews.

Saddam: Saddam had a chemical/nuclear/WMD program....and was deceiving for as long as he could have. I suppose, give him another 10 years right?
 
dt3 said:
Here's the list off the top of my head, in rough chronological order:

The Indian Wars
Spanish-American War
Civil War
WWI
Any of the Banana Wars in the early 20th century
The European Theater of WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Gulf War


I'm not saying any one of these wars were "wrong", but none of these countries posed a direct threat to us.
Click to expand...

i very much like this list.
the US finally got involved in wwii because the japanese bombed pearl harbour,and so were right to retaliate under those circumstances,however that second nuke used against the japanese was unneccessary and not a great thing to look back upon nor to be particularly proud of.

in vietnam you discovered that you could not win against an enemy you could not see and so it was a disaster,again you have an enemy you cannot see.

the japanese of world war two, like the people in the middle east are culturally so different from us that we will never understand them fully, that means this disaster will run on and probably escalate.

the kamikaze and the suicide bombers are so much alike and we cannot grasp their mentality.if you all talk about nuclear capabilities all the time ,then you will have to stop developing nations from having nuclear power or at sometime a suicide bomber will have a dirty little bomb.who are we in the west to say that the developing nations cannot have what we have or that they are like little children and cannot be trusted?
 
COOL_BREEZE2 said:
Hitler: And how was Hitler able to amass the amount of might that he had to become a threat? Please explain that to the Jews.

Saddam: Saddam had a chemical/nuclear/WMD program....and was deceiving for as long as he could have. I suppose, give him another 10 years right?
Click to expand...

You're right, we had to do it before we found a smoking gun, that came in the form of a mushroom cloud. :smiley24:



You really need to stop listening to the talking points and read about the facts... That's all I ask, get the facts, all the facts... oh and learn your history a little better. The German war machine was absolutely massive on a scale that exceeds anything that we see today. There is no military on the face of the earth that has a larger military than Germany did before they went on the move...
 
RecklessTim said:
You're right, we had to do it before we found a smoking gun, that came in the form of a mushroom cloud. :smiley24:



You really need to stop listening to the talking points and read about the facts... That's all I ask, get the facts, all the facts... oh and learn your history a little better. The German war machine was absolutely massive on a scale that exceeds anything that we see today. There is no military on the face of the earth that has a larger military than Germany did before they went on the move...
Click to expand...

Just calling it as I see it Tim.

And about Hitler/Germany and its amassed military might at the time, had their grand quest continued to go unchecked who knows the more devastation that would have occurred. Perhaps, just perhaps if action was taken earlier it would have resulted in the saving of the vast amount of life and destruction that occurred. It's ironic that it finally took hard decisions and action to stop the logically minded Hitler. It little to late for the Jews and countless others also. Pity it didn't come a bit earlier.
 
dt3 said:
Well, technically the Civil War had to be a first strike by us... :dunno :D

Seriously though, it could be argued (effectively imo) that an efficient, pro-US democracy in the Middle East is in our best interests.

As you know, I do understand the other side that says we have no business being over there. But I can also see how, in the long run, looking at it unemotionally, it could be very beneficial to us.
Click to expand...
stressed for key word. It may be within our interests, but what about the Iraqis that may not be ready for such a government?
 
if you use saddam as an excuse then why are you not bombing mugabe?

or is that zimbabwe hasnt discovered any oil and mugabe didnt piss off the presidents dad a decade before?

oh and as for the chemical weapons,it was my country which happily sold them to iraq...we liked his money and we liked his oil
 
dt3 said:
I don't know that you can say a country isn't "ready" for a certain type of government, especially with their voter turnout being so high (in the high 60's percentage, if I remember right).
Click to expand...
I'm just saying that we are simply imposing our brand of democracy on them, instead of letting them decide for themselves. Yes, when they vote they decide, but its still in a process set up by us, that may not be the best for that kind of culture.
 
Back
Top