Look to the Past or Future (election, terrorism etc)

[Mantra-Slider]

yes thanks I do feel better.

"What do you mean democratic enough, if the people can vote in thier politicans then thats democracy for me. If you want to ellaborate on democracy then go for it explain to me how it is more than that?" - the enforcer

I was simply replying to that.

[THE ENFORCER]

yes thanks I do feel better.

"What do you mean democratic enough, if the people can vote in thier politicans then thats democracy for me. If you want to ellaborate on democracy then go for it explain to me how it is more than that?" - the enforcer

I was simply replying to that.

I suppose i was a bit vague what i meant was if the people can freely elect politicians that is the main thing with democracy, the rest is just "dressing". So in one years time iraqi's can elect thier president then i would say that Iraq is a democratic state because it got over that hurdle, the rest can come later on. But i still never said anything about that its easy to change to a democracy!

[Mattey]

I suppose i was a bit vague what i meant was if the people can freely elect politicians that is the main thing with democracy,

Actually, that's not democracy at all, that's a Republic. There is a difference between the two.


As for your other ramblings, post 23 did not answer my question at all, so either answer it or don't, but don't point me to something with no relavence.

[bloodzombie]

Iraq had an election before, saddam got 100% of the votes, they're already a democracy.

[Displaced]

I havent read each and every post here in detail but it seems to me like some people have no idea. And are going by what some lunatic has said or told them.

There is a lot of poverty and oppression in ME which breeds terrorists, Saudi should be next, they built and funded schools that teach things like 'The zionists have invaded our lands and only those who commit jihad are true muslims'. They are all easy targets militarily but a lot of money/resources/people are needed for reconstruction of societies like that. .

Saudis should be next? Thats like saying go bomb Canada, some people in Canada dont like Americans, kill them all.

If Saudis hate America so much, why oh why do they let Americans have bases on their land? Why do a great number of "better" off Saudis leave their country to study in America? Why do more than 50% of Saudis drive Cadillacs?

If they were so damned anti-american theyd all be going to Jihad School and be driving around in Jihad Mobiles. Just because a small percent of extremists reside in Saudi, it doesnt mean they are all fanatics.

Furthermore, "easy" targets militarily? you have no clue.
If the USA were to invade Saudi, each and every Arab state would aid their brethren.

Iraq would be nothing compared to the kind of resistance the USA would face if they invaded Saudi.

if the us were to go after another "country" it should definately be North-Korea, possibly Pakistan.

i could go on but im tired.

[bloodzombie]

That'd be awesome, we should invade north korea and pakistan, and THEN saudi because there's terrorists all over there, and george bush is tough on terrorism, so he's our man. he hates terrorists.

[THE ENFORCER]

I havent read each and every post here in detail but it seems to me like some people have no idea. And are going by what some lunatic has said or told them.



Saudis should be next? Thats like saying go bomb Canada, some people in Canada dont like Americans, kill them all.

If Saudis hate America so much, why oh why do they let Americans have bases on their land? Why do a great number of "better" off Saudis leave their country to study in America? Why do more than 50% of Saudis drive Cadillacs?

If they were so damned anti-american theyd all be going to Jihad School and be driving around in Jihad Mobiles. Just because a small percent of extremists reside in Saudi, it doesnt mean they are all fanatics.

Furthermore, "easy" targets militarily? you have no clue.
If the USA were to invade Saudi, each and every Arab state would aid their brethren.

Iraq would be nothing compared to the kind of resistance the USA would face if they invaded Saudi.

if the us were to go after another "country" it should definately be North-Korea, possibly Pakistan.

i could go on but im tired.

I dont think the US would invade Pakistan since Pakistan is Allied with the US on this war on terror? Havent you been reading the papers about Osma's No.2 man? But NK could be next if US can grab support which would be hard but what should be and most possibly be next is the middle east!

And no-one said we should attack Saudi-Arabia

[THE ENFORCER]

Actually, that's not democracy at all, that's a Republic. There is a difference between the two.


As for your other ramblings, post 23 did not answer my question at all, so either answer it or don't, but don't point me to something with no relavence.

If you read my previous posts you will find your answer there i dont feel like repeating myself if you still dont get it, then tell me.

As for your statement regarding that Iraq posed absolutely no threat to USA or the world is crzy Iraq posed constant threat in the past to world peace and would continue to do so. Saddam was very dangerous with a decent military force to say they posed no threat is crazy (sorry misread a post this is bloodzombies stupid comment)!

[THE ENFORCER]

The fact is that iraq was no threat to the US, not even close, who are we to decide what their government should be? if the people were asking for our help, that would be different, but they don't want us there.

Bloodzombie this quote obviously shows how little you know about Iraq and dictatorship how can the Iraqi people ask for US help when they have a gun pointed to their head?, thats the whole point about Iraq anyone who contradicted Sadaam will be shot! And also the majority of people did welcome US forces and still do!

[THE ENFORCER]

Iraq had an election before, saddam got 100% of the votes, they're already a democracy.

lol your an idiot, that wasnt a free election!

[Azhran]

THE ENFORCER,

Your continued spamming of these forums will not be tolerated! All of your posts could have been combined into one post. If you continue to violate this Forum's policies you will be banned from here.

THE PUSHER

uhoh!

[TelC@t]

Omg I Am Right Again!!!

I just figured it out, I'm so fucking stupid.

OMG you are soo right

There you go, bz, your squad mate is always behind you on this matter

BTW, thru porlonged drug abuse my IQ is almost below 125. May I join Pallies now? I know you are a special squad that does not recruit anyone above average intelligence (Mayo excepted). But please, I meet all you other criterion ... like I am a newb, who is lame, and if I cant win a game with my beloved squaddies I would talking trash, etc, etc.


BTW, someone teach THE ENFORCER how to quote two or more messages in one post? I think that might solve the problem

[Adman]

That'd be awesome, we should invade north korea and pakistan, and THEN saudi because there's terrorists all over there, and george bush is tough on terrorism, so he's our man. he hates terrorists.

don't forget Canada!

[Mattey]

As for your statement regarding that Iraq posed absolutely no threat to USA or the world is crzy Iraq posed constant threat in the past to world peace and would continue to do so. Saddam was very dangerous with a decent military force to say they posed no threat is crazy (sorry misread a post this is bloodzombies stupid comment)!

I said Iraq posed no threat to America. Iraq didn't have intercontinental missles (that Powell said they have), they didn't have weapons of mass destruction that could possibly hit Chicago (Like Cheney said), they weren't testing drones (as Bush said), the threat was fabricated. America was misled and nothing is going to happen because American media sucks. The only reason you're seeing any questioning of the Bush regime now is because of Howard Dean. Before he brought anything up, all media was content to just let everything slide. Fucking journalists.


Argue against the points that I make, not the straw men that you construct.

[Force of Nature]

Ok let me address this post since most of the confusion later on seems to come from the fact that you seem that you have answered it well. Don't get me wrong. For this reply only, you have atleast made a decent attempt to answer my post (There are many instances in the latter post rebuttals that you haven't and so lose a little bit of credability everytime). So, atleast I don't have to trash you for being vague. However, you didn't win the argument. I dont think you would realise that unless people quoted directly underneath what you said.

i do conceed that it is hard for defining reasoning for invasion for future purposes,

Ok, so you agree. That doesn't make it right to invade without a good reason given to the world which it approves. It might seem to you that invading Iraq under false pretences was a non-issue because of other issues or consequences. But I assure you it is not. Do you realise what kind of precedence it sets? It basically says, if you are not the most powerful nation in the world, nothing but a strong millitary presence can deter them from attacking you. Dont give me this shit about how they are going to be just or whatever. Because they dont have to. As it has already been shown. A powerful nature really doesn't have to answer to anyone because they are not going to be challenged. This doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. And I for one think this is un-just. It is not the fact that I don't support the USA. It the principle of what they did. Don't support them because you think the end justifies the means because it doesnt. In this case, the end seems to be something you can understand and justify therefore you are supporting it. Let me give you and example of something you would strongly oppose. This will open your eyes to show you why you are not thinking about everyone else's interest except yourself. And therefore you are inturn losing a lot of credibility. Ok say I hate jews for whatever reason (NOTE that I dont, this is an argumentative hypothesis to show you that the end doesn't justify the means. I know this is controversal but it will hopefully show you how seriously stupid the argument the end justifies the means is.), I would support Hitler because he let the holocaust happen. I mean in the end, the world is less of a lot of jews. Therefore, the end justifies the means right? No matter how it happened. -- See no doubt you will be mad. You are first going to claim this has no resemblence to Iraq whatsoever and no one can agree with killing a lot of jews. Well you are just plain wrong. It does have resemblence to Iraq. There are a lot of Iraqies and outside Arabs + others who see the USA "liberation" as a quest to gain cheap oil. So, FOR THEM does invading Iraq to gain cheap oil justify the means that Iraq was taken by force without a valid reason presented to the world? NO! Therefore, it still DOES NOT justify the USA to be at war under FALSE PRETENCES no matter what you think the benifits are. This is a point I feel strongly about and obvioulsy you are tossing it asside cheaply saying it doesn't matter since the end justifies the means.

thats i guess was the whole reasoning for the WMD (if had WMD pose immediate threat) i mean if Bush could place the argument we could invade Iraq simply because of the atrocities i think he would and i would find that more plausable too however UN wouldnt buy that and they havent!

And for good reason. A country just cannot wage war on another country because it doesn't agree with what the leader is doing. Think about what you are saying in a wider prespective. Not just what is advantages or benificial to you since you live in Australia. Let me illustrate. A lot of people think that Iraq is opressing the palestines. Note I said others, yes other can have a different opinion than you. I know you don't and will point of reasons why they dont but accept my point of view for argument sake. Because it is justified. You have to admit the fact (whether they are ignorant or whatever) that there are people, even countries of other nations that believe Israel is opressing the palestines. Does that give them the right to these leaders to wage war on Israel because it has commited atrocities in their view? Again the answer is NO. And this should be consistant to all countries. Don't counter with well you cant compare between what Saddam did and what Israel is doing. Because I can. It is not your view REMEMBER THAT. It isn't my view. It is another person view and they have a legidimate right to have their own. And it is in their best interests to have Israel stop attacking Palestine. But it doesn't make it OK for them to wage war on Israel on those grounds.

But if we look at it by itself and not as a definition for future invasions is pretty clear for a humanity sake to invade Iraq politically i agree its hard! Im sure if we did a thorough look into Iraq and saw all the facts we probably could find a criteria/reason for invading a country i mean if USA interevened in Germany before 1938 because it just knew they would pose a threat to world peace in the future like they did to Iraq think of how different the world would be. Fact is politics is very grey just some things you cant over analyse if politicians didnt hesistate like they did in Iraq for Germany then the world would be in a better shape. Some things are done just because they are the right thing to do even though its hard to fit a criteria to it for future references.

Yes politics is a grey area. But it doesn't give the right to one nation to take matters into its own hands. You are no different than a dictator if you do. You are saying its ok if it is the right thing to do? It is not. The right thing in your mind isn't the right thing is someone else's. So is their opinoin less valid? NO. That is why you need the majority to agree to do an action. There is no excuse to take things into your own hands. You aren't following any of the principles of democracy that you "so trying" to bring somewhere else. Don't compare Saddam to Hitler. Saddam isn't even a good leader (Yes Hitler was a good leader, he had fucking twisted ideals but he did lead a majority of his population to one cause). He oppressed most of his people. There is no way he would be able to rally enough support in his country or the pasion to be anywhere close to what Hitler was. To say Saddam is Hitler is assuming he is guilty until he has been proven innocent. When did this become the norm?

Note: thats why i dont care about the WMD because it was simply a means to an end to grab support i dont believe for a second that Bush went into Iraq to grab these weapons from Sadam.Yes it would of been better if there was a more definitive reason for invasion but im glad sadam isnt in control and i think thats the main point as long as this doesnt go out of control enabling USA to inavde other countries without proper reasoning which i dont think will happen!

Again it is not all about what you think. It happened before, it can very well happen again. In fact there is more a reason to happen now because a precedence has already been set.

I want Australina Troops in Iraq because i dont want the terrorist world to see what they are doing is having an impact and seem like they are winning!

In my opinion and in a lot of others there is no reason they should be in there in the first place. So, it isn't sending anything to the terrorists. They are getting removed when they shouldn't be involved. See Canada's view for more support. They aren't sending more troops in because the terrorists will think they are winning? I mean this isn't rock solid. You can argue that we are already there but I think since you dismiss everyone else's views as not important. I think I can make myself you in this situation and claim my view is better. But really, it is what I think. There are arguments to both sides and I respect that but deeply I think we should do whatever is in Australia's best interest.