The US actually did something right. Remove a nasty dictator.
The answer is yes. It is popular to condemn a nation that stands up to tyranny despite the reason unless you agree with it.
Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies
- Thread starter gLing
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
80Replies
-
2KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
every canadian soldier is trained to seal standard
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
So which answer are you going with or if both, I take it you don't see that causing global war is evil?:confused
I do not see removing nasty dictators as evil. I'm crazy like that.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
That doesn't justify invasion.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
I do not see removing nasty dictators as evil. I'm crazy like that.
That wasn't what I asked. I asked you if you think causing global war is evil seeing you believe that that is what you think is right will cause.
Nice spin lol. Here is what I said.
The US picks it fights and yes they are politically and resource driven.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
I see. So why do you keep bringing up the removal of Saddams government as a reason to justify the war?
Why do you think the removal of a monster is a bad thing? The US came of reasons to do it. I wish they could come up with reasons to go after N. Korea.
it might take a global war to sort this planet out mate.....lets face it,theres so many factions wanting the upper hand now its getting stupid
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
I don't, it's how it's done. Can't see why the USA didn't support the Iraq peoples uprising to overthrow Saddam but instead thought that overthrowing him themselves when he wasn't threatening them a few years later was a better and more justified way to go.
Now how about answering my question?
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Yeah that would be incredibly bad.
No to mention that it would only be a matter of time before people get tired of us pushing the world around and decide to send it our way.
lol and the overthrowing would happen when? 2203?
Yes I know the world is tired of the US pushing free elections. Such a-holes we are.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
No, that would have happened after the first gulf war and stopped even more deaths, especially of the insurgents who rose up after the USA offered to help them but lied.
For the second time, how about answering my question?
I answered your question lol.
And how do you know an overthrow would have happened and with less deaths? You have access to parallel universes?
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
Yeah, you're right, Iraq would have kicked Americas arse a few years ago!:smiley24:
And no, you really haven't answered my question or is it just because "That's politics" once again?
What?
Ok maybe I missed a question. Ask again and I will try to answer it.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
Do you seriously believe the USA would have less success in Iraq if it had done it after the first Gulf war?
This was the question I asked
The answer is no.
The US despite the lazy UN should have taken out Iraq in the first war.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Brush up on US history, our government has always been comprised of giant assholes.
Oh and again, the fact that they can vote now in "free elections", doesn't justify invasion.
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members