sleepy jack

We shouldn't DEAL with anyone. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is giving interviews to TIME Magazine, he isn't about to launch a nuclear strike against the US. He is developing nuclear technology, just..like..every single US ally..is. The only difference is, he isn't a US ally. Only the US and people who will side with them are allowed to have big guns. Naturally, if we got into a war, we'd want the advantage of Nukes of the other country.

Yeah, Coalition forces are that fuel.

Iraq was a complete deviation from the War on Terror. I'm an advocate of eliminating terror cells, but we went into Iraq boasting claims of al-Queda links, which he didn't have. He wasn't harboring terrorists, he wasn't a good man, but he was not harboring terrorists. Had we stuck with the course of the 'War on Terror' we'd still have the world with us. We didn't though, we went into a war with Iraq for personal reasons that were only disguised as War on Terror.

Also, we've been nothing but threatened by terrorist attacks since 9/11. I dunno about you, but I though way less about being attacked by terrorists BEFORE this war on Terror to make us more secure. As long as you're scared, you'll do anything, which is how the government was able to get Americans to give up their civil liberties with the PATRIOT Act. Everyone was scared and the government did nothing but perpetuate that fear and then exploit it.

Really? You don't remember with the Gulf War, the elite Special Force the Iraqi's supposedly had, the reason we sent thousands of men into Desert Storm? That elite special force that..we never encountered. Had he somehow thrown together an elite warrior unit in the 12 years after Desert Storm? Well, no. Because when the US invaded Iraq we were not met by an army whatsoever. Makeshift militias were what the US encountered, Saddams elite army didn't show up, Saddams..army didn't show up..did Saddam even have an army?

We don't have any reason to invade North Korea. Also, you keep bringing up Nicaragua as a comparison to every country we've invaded. Nicaragua was a formative democracy we crushed. North Korea is not a democracy. If we invaded and claimed it was to spread democracy, I would compare it to Nicaragua. We don't care about developing democracies, so saying we went to North Korea to develop one would be a total lie. Also, we DIDN'T invade North Korea. There is a reason for that too. I mean, he actually has nuclear weapons. We just thought that Saddam maybe could have had a couple of like..weapons that were possibly Nuclear. But yet we chose to invade him, because Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the Middle East. North Korea has nothing.

It is irrational fear. A constant, persistant threat looming over your head, even if it isn't really there, affects your judgment tremendously. Like I said, you're justifying a silly, absurd War because of that threat. A threat which hasn't manifested itself.

Iraq was a poor country that posed no threat. You just weren't supposed to believe that.
And you complete contradict Reagan there. Reagan DID tell the people of the United States that Nicaragua was an imminent threat, just like Bush painted Iraq as an imminent threat.

Maybe it's just me. Do you not understand that Nicaragua and Iraq were not being directly compared by me until I made the above statement, which is a direct comparison? The reason Nicaragua was mentioned was to rebut the theory that we went into Iraq to spread democracy. If we cared about spreading democracy, we wouldn't overthrow them when they formed.

Do you understand that? I don't care whether or not you agree with it, but with that ordering or words do you understand the reason that I brought Nicaragua up. Could I somehow make the point anymore clear to you? Are you going to accuse me of making faulty comparisons because "NICARAGUA ISN"T LIKE IRAQ, ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY" Do you understand where the comparison lies? Do you understand that I am comparing our actions in NICARAGUA with our JUSTIFICATION of War in Iraq. Do you get it? Democracy is not something we care about because we haven't supported them in the past. That refutes our claim that we went into Iraq to spread democracy. Is this understandable to you? Do you get it? Should I make it more clear? Will you stop refuting points that I didn't make? Will you please? Do you understand? How many more times do I have to say this for you to get it? Do I have to talk like you are a 4 year old child for the rest of the post or can you comprehend the comparison? Just tell me, I can continue like this if you really need it.

Saddam should not have been in power, agreed. But we should not be the ones to take him out.

Didn't say that. Formative democracies in regions where we can easily dominate (AKA not Europe), are the ones whose strings we like to pull. If one attempts to form without US backing, we, at the very least, attempt to overthrow it.

We would be obliterated by every country in Europe collectively. We would also be hard pressed to come up with justification for it.

The UN does nothing but send money to Darfur. Sure, they could have paid attention a little sooner, but rich white people don't care about human rights violations in Africa. Nor the Middle East for that matter, which would also serve to refute our absolute desire to bring a better life for Iraqi people.

The US is not the World Police. That is that. Wether George Bush agrees with what the UN is doing or not, he has no authority to break international law and take matters into his own hands. He is not Rambo, George Bush is not John McClane, he is subject to the same laws that all the other countries in the UN are.

If anything the United States is a caucasian facade for Israel.

Well, those people are the highest officials in our White House.

__________________