These are great points. Let me add another one: does the USA really want democracy in Iraq?? There was a guy on CNBC yesterday who was a foreign policy expert -- he had an excellent point, which was who are the Iraqis going to elect as their leader?? He also made this point -- if the Saudis had a democracy, they would elect none other than our favorite piker, OBL. I'm personally scared that the devil we know -- Saddam -- may very well be better than the devil we don't. This is why I believe that containing Saddam is a better idea (for now, at least until he does something to us or our allies) than attempting to remove him. I mean, shit, OBL could theoretically be elected leader of Iraq. And, of course, Rumsfeld wouldn't allow OBL to appear in public; he'd order the execution of OBL. SO, what you would have (if the Iraqis were to elect someone that the US doesn't like) in that situation would essentially be the US deciding who the leader of Iraq should be -- and that, my friends, is not democracy. And btw, this thread is excellent.
"There was a guy on CNBC yesterday who was a foreign policy expert -- he had an excellent point, which was who are the Iraqis going to elect as their leader?? " Who is the United States going to elect in the next election ? Nobody fucking knows, that is a stupid point. What matters is a REAL ELECTION, period. Democracy.
"I can imagine if every nation acted as America does. We would have a much better world to live in." Well, you are an American, so it's no surprise that you can't see beyond your own nose. But do you really think countries like China and India galavanting half way across the world, attacking other nations based on flimsy (and arbitrary and hypocritical) accusations of wrong doing would be a "much better world to live in"? I would like to see Iraq win to "shock and awe" the Americans into reconsidering their role in the world, and demoting themselves to "just another country" (albeit powerful one) status.
An Act Declaring War Between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Dependencies Thereof and the United States of America and Their Territories. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof APPROVED, June 18, 1812
GB in 1812 had a powerful Monarch, and the era of modern history is generally considered to begin circa 1860s. Mondo's statement is correct.
Minor point for Wild. In his mind it makes him right. When did facts ever stand in the way of Wild's propaganda?
I'll criticize you when you're wrong Mondo, but you've hit the nail on the head with this one. We just have to be sure that we're a lot more powerful than the country we're attacking... especially if they have WOMD. And we need to get a lot better at nation building if we're going to make this our business. You're absolutely right. Good post.