Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies

[gLing]

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.

Yes let us look at US history the past 100 years. How many nations we invade and keep for ourselves in that time?
Hint: none

The fact that Iraqis can now vote at all is a good thing.

 

[gLing]

Brush up on US history, our government has always been comprised of giant assholes.

This is true and?

Oh and again, the fact that they can vote now in "free elections", doesn't justify invasion.

So you are against the idea of freeing a nation despite the reasons?

 

[All Else Failed]

Yes let us look at US history the past 100 years. How many nations we invade and keep for ourselves in that time?
Hint: none

The fact that Iraqis can now vote at all is a good thing.

Sure its a wonderful thing, except we will ALWAYS have a say in what happens, so its not really democratic at all. Do you really think we will just let them do what they want, especially since we're there permanently now with a military base? Don't think so.

 

[All Else Failed]

This is true and?


So you are against the idea of freeing a nation despite the reasons?

You're missing the point. Sure its nice for people under a oppressive regime to see them be "set free", but that doesn't mean you should just go around invading people at a whim. But it doesn't even matter since that wasn't even our intentions in the first place, and it was only a byproduct of us invading.

 

[gLing]

Sure its a wonderful thing, except we will ALWAYS have a say in what happens, so its not really democratic at all. Do you really think we will just let them do what they want, especially since we're there permanently now with a military base? Don't think so.

We always have a say? Like in Japan?

 

[All Else Failed]

We always have a say? Like in Japan?

Japan didn't have any resources we need.

 

[gLing]

Japan didn't have any resources we need.

So if a nation has resources then it's wrong to help them out?

 

[All Else Failed]

So if a nation has resources then it's wrong to help them out?

No, but its wrong to invade that country for it's resources and strategic position as a military base in the middle east.

 

[gLing]

No, but its wrong to invade that country for it's resources and strategic position as a military base in the middle east.

Are you saying the average Iraqi is worse off simply because of the motivations?

 

[Cotton]

IRAQ THE MODEL

Is a good place to get a glipse at life in Iraq. Not what the liberal media tells you.

 

[All Else Failed]

Are you saying the average Iraqi is worse off simply because of the motivations?

The modern Iraqi is actually more at risk now than they were under Saddam. There's way more chaos.

 

[dt3]

The modern Iraqi is actually more at risk now than they were under Saddam. There's way more chaos.

I don't see how that can really be quantified. :dunno

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I was kind awondering if the Middle East has ever really been a stable place.

Car bombings.....Suicide bombings in coffee chops in Isreal....Yeah....Paradise you ask me.

 

[All Else Failed]

I don't see how that can really be quantified. :dunno

Saddam kept everything under control, all the factions and gangs. Sure, he was a bastard, but he did and things were relatively safe.


Now, theres more violence in that country than there EVER was. No one is there to secure the entire country. Most of it is left unsecured.

 

[dt3]

Saddam kept everything under control, all the factions and gangs. Sure, he was a bastard, but he did and things were relatively safe.


Now, theres more violence in that country than there EVER was. No one is there to secure the entire country. Most of it is left unsecured.

But who was keeping track of the violence before? State-run propaganda machines?

 

[All Else Failed]

But who was keeping track of the violence before? State-run propaganda machines?

NO, the fact that there's more unchecked violence in iraq than there ever was before.

 

[dt3]

NO, the fact that there's more unchecked violence in iraq than there ever was before.

So, as a strong advocate of human rights, you were alright with Saddam's well-documented brutal activities? Uday and Qusay were ok, since they kept the population in check?

I know you don't honestly believe that.

 

[All Else Failed]

But who was keeping track of the violence before? State-run propaganda machines?

All of the violence is documented here, and from credible sources.

Iraq Body Count

 

[All Else Failed]

So, as a strong advocate of human rights, you were alright with Saddam's well-documented brutal activities? Uday and Qusay were ok, since they kept the population in check?

I know you don't honestly believe that.

I'm not OK with them at all. He was a prick. But now the Average Iraqi citizen doesn't have to worry about being sent into prison for speaking against Saddam, he has to worry about even going outside to do his daily routine without getting blown up with dozens of others from a suicide bomber or in a crossfire, or "accidentally shot" by blackwater.

 

[Peter Parka]

I think alot of the problem is not understanding how much the Sunni and Sheite hate each other. Saddam was a nasty piece of work, no denying that. But even if it's unpopular, there are positives than can be seen. He brutalised them so much that they didn't dare fight each other. Not saying that was good by any means but sometimes you've got to look at what was least worst.