Iraqi Freedom

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dotslashfuture, Apr 4, 2003.

  1. people are saying we don't have the right to interfere in iraq, we should leave them alone to sort things out themselves. Those people don't understand the true nature of dicatatorship. Dictators get to their place in life because they know how to thwart the free will of their citizens. UNDER SADAM THEY DON'T HAVE FREE WILL.

    After the invasion is over, they will be occupied for a while and still not have total free will, but they will breath a sigh of relief and will have reason for hope.

    If you look at other countries the United States has invaded and then rebuilt, you will see that eventually they developed genuine democracy and have chosen their own path, not a pathetic puppet government like the left would like to see so they can criticize it. GERMANY WAS OCCUPIED AND REBUILT BY THE U.S. AND THEY HAVE SO MUCH FREEDOM THEY VOTED AGAINST US IN THE U.N. That is all the proof a rational person should need.

    The only legitamate argument against this war is that people would die. To that I say, some people are willing to die in order to be free, and some people live in France.
  2. Nice post, Brother DSF...
  3. msfe


    when was Germany occupied and how was it rebuilt by the U.S. ?

    when have "they" voted against you in the U.N. ?
  4. is it legitimate to ask whether it is sound policy for the US to attack and overthrow another country on ideological grounds? does China have the same moral authority to overthrow the US in an attempt to 'free' the American people from the chains of capitalism by converting it to communism? if not, why?

    that there has been no proof of danger to the US from Iraq? nor of the claimed 'wmd'? nor of the claimed link to 'terrorism'?

    legitimate to ask whether diplomacy should be deliberately ignored, large populations termed 'irrelevant', whether decades of goodwill should be squandered by a small group of chickenhawks moonlighting for defense contractors? and for what reason, other than to insure that the US foots the entire bill for the operation?

    "some people die for freedom" - and some die for their OWN freedom. to claim that Americans somehow have a moral obligation to crusade around the world sacrificing their children to free those their politicians name as 'oppressed' is asinine.
  5. If you haven't seen proof of this link, then you are either unpersuadable or haven't been paying attention.
  6. Why not unpersuadable(sp?) and not paying attention both?
  7. China has a legitimate right to try, don't they?
  8. a negative for both.

    by 'terrorism' are you referring to al qaeda, or to something broader?
  9. ElCubano


    Where exactly is the proof of this link....not hear-say, proof. I have heard he pays $25k to the family of anyone who straps a bomb on ( I have heard, I have not seen any bank transactions and probably never will ).... There has been more of a link to terrorism in Saudi Arabia...I dont see this as a reason for going in. Freeing the IRAQI's perhaps , for WMD perhaps, for OIL perhaps....but a link to terrorism..Timothy Mcveigh was a terrorist..who do we go after in that case..terrorism cannot be fought outside of our borders ( big waste of time and money )...terrorism needs to be stopped from within and they havent beefed up border patrol as of yet according to Bill O'reilly.......I dont think u have much of an argument that IRAQ was invaded because of terrorist activities......According to Fidel many Americans ( including the mafia ) have performed terrorist activities on Cuban soil.......peace
  10. well they can try, but would it be legitimate? at least, it's something that would have probably been illegitimate in the past. now that such a policy has been adopted by the administration, it's not as clear.
    #10     Apr 4, 2003