1. Stop lying. We are not destroing every other nation. We are not after Britain, China, Spain, Argentina, we are not even after France. We are destroying a regime which started major wars before, illegaly develops WMD now and thus threatens the humanity. You may or may not agree with what we do, but "US destoying every nation" is total BS. It is exactly the sh&t the anti-war movement is so full of. 2. Every country does what it believes is right. We are not granting priveleges. And if a country is threatened it may and does resort to whatever measures it finds applicable regardless of what we think about it. And it is unlikely to ask UN's permission either. 3. Another lie, we do not control other nations. Not a single one of them. And no, we cannot use example of other 200 countries. They are not under attack. We are. 4. If you find out that someone wants to kill your kids - it is your right to wait until your kids are dead and then retaliate. We will prevent and make sure that our kids do not get killed. 5. Who cares about your opinion anyway. Mind your own business in your third world rathole. You are safe there until you get your next military junta. And if you are indeed from Argentina - hope you will learn some lessons from your Folklend Island disgrace.
I do not see how the U.S. can accomplish its stated objectives, and keep our casualties at an acceptable level. In that sense, we may have already lost the war. No wonder Rumsfield is backpedaling: --- <b>ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTONâU.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says American forces might lay siege to Baghdad, expressing hopes that Iraqis will rise up against Saddam Hussein before American troops have to invade the city of 5 million. </b> --- As they say in the M.E.: "An army of sheep led by a lion will defeat an army of lions lead by a sheep". We are fucked. Err on the short side.
Sorry, I didn't make my meaning clear. I said a "pacifist abhors all wars", and I said that I think it is perfectly okay to defend yourself from attack, ie to engage in a war of self defence. Therefore, my point was that I am not a pacifist.
1. You misunderstood me. I wasn't implying that it is America's goal to destroy every other nation. I was replying to your point that you America should have attacked Afghanistan in 2000 because it was a cause for concern. Half in jest, I suggested that perhaps America could simply destroy the rest of the world and thus have no further fear of attack from anyone. The point being that I detest the idea of attacking another country on the hunch that they've got a problem with you. 2. Yes, you're not physically standing there granting privileges, but what I am saying is that you act as those there are two sets of rules; one for America and one for the rest of the world. Eg, It's okay for America to attack Afghanistan for harboring terrorists, but it's not okay for Serbia to disband terrorist networks operating within it's own borders, ie Kosovo? Any country would be totally justified in attacking another on the pretext of suspecting terrorist activities. Is that the kind of world you want to see? No, hence the two sets of rules. 3. Seek to control. Seek to exert (strong) influence. America has never done this? I'm starting laugh. 3a. Wow! America is "under attack" huh? Geez, I could have sworn Iraq was the one being invaded, but you never know. FACT: Iraq has never attacked America. Links to the attacks that DID occur are, at this point in time, pure conjecture. And I suspect they are nothing more than fantasies invented by the current adminstration, playing off the public's emotional attachement to the events of 9.11 in an attempt to hoodwink them into inadvertently supporting the administrations geopolitical goals in the Middle East (via an invasion of Iraq.) 4. I'm still waiting for this evidence that shows Iraq had imminent plans to attack America or provide the means for other forces to do so. Still waiting. Interestingly, Iraq had these alleged WOMD for the past 12 years or so, right? I'm curious as to why a regime allegedly hell bent on attacking America failed to supply but one terrorist organization with those same stated goals even ONE TIME during this period. 5. Well, YOU cared enough to respond. Unfortunately, it seems you had very little to say apart from trying to insult my origins. I'm sorry, but I really fail to see how my coming from a "third world rathole" (2nd world would be a better description) has any bearing WHATSOEVER on the points I am making. And what lessons, from the Falklands, am I supposed to have learnt? Don't fuck with the British Empire?
Fair enough, but just remember that there is a difference between thinking someone might die in the future and actually killing because you BELIEVE they will kill you. We are killing innocent people in the process and containment could probably work if we put the same amount of money into that effort as we are the current military solution.
"containment could probably work if we put the same amount of money into that effort as we are the current military solution." This is coming from the same brilliant mind that said Hitler was democratically elected. Where have you been for the past 12 years ? Oh yeah, you were in elementary school during the first Gulf War and have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
Prediction: by the end of this conflict there will more dead Iraqis than 9.11 and then next 6 conjectured terrorist attacks combined. So much for "saving lives".
Let me ask YOU mondo, where You have been the past 12 years? How many Iraqi WMD assisted attacks on America did you witness during this time?
Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor is probably the most successful example of a preventive action. The whole world was against that bombing, it took 10 years for Israel to get vindicated and to prove it was a right thing to do. And if they did not, Israel would not exist by now, nor would Kuwait, nor would Saudi Arabia.