should we rush about "building nations" or should we straighten ourselves out first?

Redworm
Many people have done many bad things over the years and it's going to keep happening for as long as human beings inhabit this planet. I believe it's a little more important to focus on our own mistakes than on the mistakes of others.
Also Redworm "Can you be less vague? State examples, cite sources. Arguments should be about specifics, not emotional outbursts."

Practice what you preach...
What if in ten years the Iraqis choose to elect another Saddam-like guy into office.
I sincerely hope, when you are in very serious trouble, nobody comes to help you.
And I hope their reason for not coming to your aid is...
"What if he makes a bad choice and gets in trouble again in ten years... or so?"

The trouble with that is... there are more of us than there are of you and WE would come and save your sorry butt anyway...

That's the way we are and that's the way you aren't.
What if in ten years the Iraqis choose to elect another Saddam-like guy into office?
What If a frog had wings...?

He wouldn't bump his butt so much... :p
 
carbiner
Why don't you open your mind and see how great this country is and stop spitting on it.

Because he's already made up his mind...
and he is unteachable...
Even if he KNOWS you to be totally correct...
He will not let you win the debate... he must have the upper hand and he will sell his soul to keep from conceding to you.
 
Because he's already made up his mind...
and he is unteachable...
Even if he KNOWS you to be totally correct...
He will not let you win the debate... he must have the upper hand and he will sell his soul to keep from conceding to you.

I disagree. None of us change our established positions easily, we all defend our position.

I have read Redworm's posts on this and other threads. They remind me of me at 22.

He lashes out if attacked, discusses his position maturely if spoken to with respect. (So do I:o )

Redworm may not change his position ever. I don't know where Redworm lives, what his family and friends believe, or who he associates with. I do know he has only been on TFL for 6 months (I have been here less time). I would think he was wishy washy if he changed his mind too quickly or easily. Long held beliefs change slowly.;)
 
This attempt to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East has never been attempted before. You have to admit the US has had a pretty good record bringing freedom and democracy to countries who have never had it before.

I do, I just disagree that democracy inherently leads to freedom. Democracy is not a perfect form of government and it's subject to the exact same mistakes, inabilities, and influences as any other form. Basically I reject the idea that democracy is always a good idea, especially when a religious group does not want to live under it.
 
The trouble with that is... there are more of us than there are of you and WE would come and save your sorry butt anyway...

But what if I don't want your help? What if your help makes things worse for me?
 
I do, I just disagree that democracy inherently leads to freedom. Democracy is not a perfect form of government and it's subject to the exact same mistakes, inabilities, and influences as any other form. Basically I reject the idea that democracy is always a good idea, especially when a religious group does not want to live under it.

Would you prefer to live under a dictator, communism, socialism, monarchy, imperialism. Without the realization that no system is perfect and the American system is the best (at least according to the masses of people who desire to immigrate here) it will be hard for you to ever fully appreciate the freedom you have.

What system of government do you prefer? What country would you rather live in?
 
Redworm you may be happier in China, N korea, Cuba, or living under Hugo Chavez! You could escape all this freedom, democracy, and religious oppression.
 
Would you prefer to live under a dictator, communism, socialism, monarchy, imperialism.

I certainly wouldn't but that doesn't mean that others may not.

Redworm you may be happier in China, N korea, Cuba, or living under Hugo Chavez! You could escape all this freedom, democracy, and religious oppression.

It seems y'all have misunderstood my position. I would not be happier living under those forms of government but I don't believe that my ideals should be forced upon those that would be happier living there. There are many people living in China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela that are quite content with their situation yet are not themselves oppressing anyone. There are many people living in democratic nations that are being oppressed.

What system of government do you prefer? What country would you rather live in?

Personally I think the one I'm living in now offers the best bang for my buck, so to speak. The implementation of it is questionable at best - as many here may agree considering the number of gun control laws that spark so much anger amongst gun owners - but I do believe the idea of representative democracy is the best for our particular culture.

But I still don't think it should be decided for others.
 
Micheal Moore has a web site as well as Code Pink, Move on, PETA, Gun Guys, Alf, Air America. They "think the same" way. They all hate freedom, (unless it's well dictated), capitalism, religion, guns, hunting, eating meat, and Nation biuilding. You may find these sites more in line with your ideology.
 
Redworm
I don't believe that my ideals should be forced upon those that would be happier living there.

Forced??

In this world we are naturally forced to do many things by virtue of the facts of life.

If we want to live we must eat and we must breathe and we must not piss off the tyrants and bullies... and so on and so forth... :(

It is necessary to make choices that will keep us in the best situations we can manage...

Often, it is necessary to makes choices to sacrifice our own wills to the needs of the many (majority) in the society in which we live...

We do this in order to live peacefully within that society... In that manner ONLY are we forced...

The other societies you have said you don't PREFER will in fact FORCE you to live according to the wills of the few (minority)...

Often that minority is only one dictator and often it is a few at the top who think they know what's best for YOU!

The government of, by and for the people (majority) is the ONLY form of government which allows YOU to live according to your own dictates with the exception of walking on the freedoms of the MAJORITY...

Forced? Indeed... :mad:

I don't believe that my ideals should be FORCED upon those that would be happier living there.

...living under the enslavement of Saddam? Lenin? Stalin? Pol Pot? Khomeini? Bin Ladin? Darius? Nero? King George? and YES HITLER does prove the point!!!!!!
 
No, you're still not getting what I'm saying. There are people in this world that prefer to live under different forms of government. There are people who prefer a more socialist society. That you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

Is all that formatting really necessary?
 
Redworm we are not forcing our ideals on the Iraqis. That is unless you are speaking of freedom as one of those ideals. Keep in mind that "freedom" is not the intellectual property of the United States alone. It has been in the public domain for many centuries.

You speak of what other forms of government the people may prefer. In North Korea, Cuba, etc., the people are not free to choose or voice their preferences.

We did force a brutal dictator out of power that was known to finance terrorism at the very least

When a murderous thug governs a country like Iraq and the thug fills mass graves with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens suspected of being enemies of the dictator, the people will never have a chance to build an opposition to him.

We did provide freedom to the Iraqis and the Iraqis now have a chance. The idea that they can disagree on government policies and speak out publicly against those in power is new to them, but they have proved they are up to the challenge.

The Iraqis are forming their own government according to their own ideals and so far the only resemblance to our American ideals is they will now get to vote and they will have constructed their own constitution. We are not dictating to them. So far the Iraqis have put together their own government is less time than it took our forefathers after we won our independence from England.

Redworm, you wrote "There are many people living in China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela that are quite content with their situation yet are not themselves oppressing anyone."

They had better be content and never call any attention to themselves by discussing anything other than their government's official party line. Doing so would bring about their death and the dumping of their corpses in a mass graves. The very idea that they themselves are not oppressing anyone is naive. Their governments are the oppressors of their own citizens.

What gauge are you using to measure the citizens of North Korea's contentment?

If you don't have a calibrated gauge for measuring it, you may be able to find a slightly used "misery index" on Ebay


ez45
 
Redworm
Quote:
Would you prefer to live under a dictator, communism, socialism, monarchy, imperialism.

I certainly wouldn't but that doesn't mean that others may not.


We will have to agree to disagree on this topic. I completely disagree with your above stated position. I do not believe given the choice and ability to express their choice anyone would prefer any of these forms of government except the Dictator, Leader, or Monarch and those close to them.
 
Redworm
Is all that formatting really necessary?
Of course! You seldom acknowledge ANYTHING is right, and you sidestep and ignore the OBVIOUS truth. The emphasized formatting narrows the field of possibilities remaining for you to "Nit pick" over.

Pipoman
We will have to agree to disagree on this topic.
He will not agree on anything of importance... but
perhaps he will agree to disagree... That should come easy to him.
At first I thought he was young and just didn't get it...
But, he chooses not to Get It.
He says things like:
But what if I don't want your help? What if your help makes things worse for me?
This, of course, changes the subject... and he continues to be evasive...
Maybe when a sadistic Saddam-type has his knuckles in the jaws of the pliers... he won't think our help will make it worse... Perhaps, then, he will be glad we helped...

Ah, but wait! He thinks we would FORCE our help on him!!!
 
providing freedom

We did provide freedom to the Iraqis and the Iraqis now have a chance. The idea that they can disagree on government policies and speak out publicly against those in power is new to them, but they have proved they are up to the challenge.

The Iraqis are forming their own government according to their own ideals and so far the only resemblance to our American ideals is they will now get to vote and they will have constructed their own constitution. We are not dictating to them. So far the Iraqis have put together their own government is less time than it took our forefathers after we won our independence from England.

Regardless of who was in power at the time, our invasion and occupation of Iraq could hardly be described as 'providing freedom'. The reason Turkey is the only quasi-democratic nation anywhere near the middle east is because most Muslim nations reject the individual freedoms associated with them. They believe them to be 'immoral and decadent.' I agree with you on one point: the 'democracy' and 'freedom' that may evolve in Iraq will likely never resemble what we have here in the US. It's probable that those who gain power will rule as Muslim Clerics. I don't know if you have been following how these 'Clerics' dudes tend to rule - but their version of 'freedom' and 'democracy' would not be accepted here in the US.

More importantly, what gives us the right to decide how another nation is governed? One thing is for sure: a 'clear and present danger' they are not, and it appears, they never were.

So let's bring our fine fighting men and women home and use some of them to secure our borders (except of course Texas - that might cost too many 'pub votes).
 
More importantly, what gives us the right to decide how another nation is governed? One thing is for sure: a 'clear and present danger' they are not, and it appears, they never were.

Here we go....another "Saddam was just a good ol' boy, never meanin' no harm" veer.

The reason Turkey is the only quasi-democratic nation anywhere near the middle east is because most Muslim nations reject the individual freedoms associated with them. They believe them to be 'immoral and decadent.' I agree with you on one point: the 'democracy' and 'freedom' that may evolve in Iraq will likely never resemble what we have here in the US. It's probable that those who gain power will rule as Muslim Clerics.

Turkey is not a threat to the US, US interests, the rest of the world or their own people. Turks are educated, productive, active in their government. Do you think there is a connection between these traits and democratic (The US is quasi-democratic)government?

This is all that is expected of Iraq. Nobody cares what values are included in the Iraqi constitution as long as they are determined by the people and promote freedom.

I don't know if you have been following how these 'Clerics' dudes tend to rule - but their version of 'freedom' and 'democracy' would not be accepted here in the US.

Nor would very many other countries "version of 'freedom' and 'democracy'" be accepted here.
 
WMD or SUVs?

Pipoman: I think we are in agreement on most of this nation-building thing. For the record, I believe it is good that Saddam is out. But nonetheless, I don't believe we had just cause to take him out. He was no worse than dozens of other present and recent world leaders. And please don't give me the 'WMD' razamataz - because that dog won't hunt.

So why did we invade Iraq? The honest answer is: to stabilize a major oil-producing nation, and to put the others on notice - that we will spill blood if necessary to keep the oil pipeline open to the west and to preserve the world 'petrodollars' standard (prevent a switch to 'petroeuros.)' That is why the Germans and French were so angry with us.

In other words, the reason our guys are dying in Iraq may have more to do with SUVs than WMD. And the fact that we got rid of Saddam was an 'added benefit.'

If nation-building was our primary objective, Iraq should have been way down on the list - below Venezuela, Cuba, N. Korea, Sudan, Somalia, ......
 
The reason s we are in Iraq (IMO)

1. Remove a threat to the US...Prior to his attacks on the US OBL was a Mid Eastern leader making threats against the US. What was Saddam? A Mid Eastern leader making threats against the US.

2. Determine the status of WMD. The UN Security Council Nations were in unanimous agreement the Saddam had WMD. Nearly every intelligence agency in the world agreed Saddam had WMD. Saddam used WMD. Saddam did not allow complete UN inspection. Saddam violated every UN Resolution. Saddam violated the cease fire agreement of Gulf 1. The dog will not hunt if he is locked in a cage.

If a huge cache of WMD were found buried in the dessert tomorrow, or proved to have been shipped to one of their neighbors I am sure you will then agree it was important to go to Iraq, not.

3. To liberate the oppressed people of Iraq and assist in the formation of a peaceful country governed by democratic principles..

US oil interests are important. I would bet you are sitting in a lighted, heated, air conditioned home. I'll bet you have your share of plastic composed consumer goods. I bet you use motorized transportation. To act as though the US is immoral for protecting your ability to use these things is the definition of hypocrisy. Blame it on SUVs? Where have I heard that before.:rolleyes:

If we were there for the oil...where is it? Who profits from Kuwait's oil? (The US liberated them too)

That is why the Germans and French were so angry with us.

The Germans and the French were both profiting handsomely from the "oil for food" program. They were supplying arms to Iraq in violation of Security Council resolutions they voted for. The Germans and the French are more scared than angry.

I will agree Nation Building was not our chief reason for invading Iraq.
 
Yes, providing Freedom and also taking affirmative action against a dangerous enemy

Mark

Freedom to have a government of their own choosing in Iraq exists despite your inability to recognize it.

Let’s consider events that led up to where we are now.

First we had Gulf war 1. Hussein is driven out of Kuwait. Our mandate with the UN prohibits us from going to Baghdad and deposing Hussein. Hussein agrees to allow UN inspections.

Hussein plays a cat and mouse game with inspectors for about eight years or so and fails to account for the WMDs he said he had.

Clinton begins to take action against Hussein while continuing to import Iraqi oil for six out of the eight years he was in office. We imported over 700,000 barrels a day under the UN program. The French and Germans violate the sanctions.

Clinton takes action:

Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on Iraqi intelligence headquarters in 1993. Clinton also used missile strike to punish Hussein in 1996 because of Hussein’s attacks on the Kurds in Irbil.

In 1998, Clinton also ordered the bombing of 100 key military targets to punish Hussein for failing to cooperate with UN inspections.

Clinton continues to enforce the no fly zone. Hussein continues to be humiliated by the Americans and The Coalition.

Consider the above mentioned instances by Clinton and the humiliating defeat of Hussein’s military by the previous Bush administration. These circumstances alone are enough to create a formidable enemy out of Hussein.

One wouldn’t have to be an Einstein to expect Hussein might just possibly be the kind of guy that would seek revenge on the United States. Only a hapless rube would not expect Hussein to retaliate either directly or vicariously by financing terrorists or by supplying them with dangerous materials. It was reasonable to expect Hussein to take revenge against us at any time.

How could he do it?
Hussein was known to have produced WMDs and had used them before. He certainly had the money and scientists capable of setting up labs in Iraq or anywhere in the world to produce toxins and gasses. Think about how easy it is for an American criminal to set up a meth lab in the U.S.

Hussein remaining in power was indeed a clear and present danger despite anyone’s inability to recognize it.

Hussein was known to have ties to bin Laden

Remember that bin laden had basically declared war on all Americans because in his mind America had declared war on his god. He urged muslims to kill any and all Americans. Hussein offered sanctuary to bin laden. This made Hussein an enemy to all Americans. From the 9-11 report:
2.1 A DECLARATION OF WAR
In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician, Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a "World Islamic Front." A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What we do know is that there were talks between the government of Iraq and at times bin ladin himself with Iraq offering refuge to bin ladin.
Again from the 9-11 report:

Quote:
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t expect any hard line leftists, liberals or the blame America first for anything and everything crowd to change their minds about what has happened in Iraq. Maybe some that are on the fence about American interests and national security will at least consider the above.

We were justified in the actions we have taken in Iraq and this is all I have to say except Pipoman and everyone else that agrees with me gave excellent responses LOL.

Flame away ! !

Ez45
:D
 
Back
Top