McCain frightens me!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

For one thing, the US might not have started the pointless war in Iraq, triggering a civil war from which there is no right way anymore to pull out, and saving themselves a couple of trillions of dollars.

---

Oh, they still would have. If it wasn't under Bush, it would've been with someone else. It wasn't pointless, though. America knows quite a bit about war and how they're usually pretty expensive. They wouldn't have footed the bill for this thing if there wasn't a pot of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. Or in this case, a pot of goo.

Numerous permanent bases are being constructed in Iraq right now in order to syphon off their incredibly rich oil supply for the next century or so. It's pretty sad how that was the real reason for going in there; but then again, I'll be pretty happy when gas prices recede. And that relief is what I'm meant to feel. The price of oil has been steadily climbing for some time now, and the media seems to have a legitimate explanation for every hike. If some tropical storm hits an isolated refinery somewhere and bends a few pipes, breaks a window or two and knocks over a few barrels, they're all over that story for a week so everybody knows about it, and suddenly gas prices across North America jump up ten or fifteen cents. I don't buy it. But when the oil starts flowing in the West's direction once again, the cost of the war will seem like pocket change; a few thousand casualties a regretable but manageable loss.

"Weapons of mass destruction." What a laugh.

"We've got to overthrow that tyrannical dictator, the big meanie! He's gassing his own people! *Collective Gasp* So...any thoughts on strategy? Hmm. How about we bomb Baghdad...a lot!"

"We've got to ensure that those poor people enjoy democracy...and Big Macs!"

"Sadam was linked to 9/11...okay, we're not sure, but that sounds plausible, right? Time to invade them!" It's pretty incredible that stuff worked. Like...all of that stuff.

Civil War. That ol' oxymoron. Just another buzz word, in my opinion. If you destroy a country, there's bound to be fighting within. "Insurgent" was another word that was used a lot on the news. The word was demonized in a "What are they doing?" kind of way. "We're liberating you!"

"Sarge! 'Guy running on that rooftop!
"Liberate him, soldier!"
"Yessir."

The word literally means to get up...to rise. It's funny, if you look at the heroes of the movie Red Dawn, you realize they're insurgents. Naturally. If someone invaded my country in a similar situation, you can bet I'd be defending it in that manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

If someone invaded my country in a similar situation, you can bet I'd be defending it in that manner.

---

The more your country becomes like Auschiwtz, the more you want it invaded.

And why didn't you mention one of the other given reasons for war with Iraq: ten years of failed negotiations, sanctions, slaps on the wrist, etc I originally thought the point of the invasion was simply to get rid of Saddam. Heh, remember the U.N.? What's the point of the U.N. - I still don't get what it actually does. They chastise Saddam and Iraq for decades, promising to possibly maybe someday use force if he continues to violate their rules, and then when several nations decide to use force without the U.N., the U.N. yearns to condemn it.

I guess my point is that if my nation went to crap over a murderous unpredictable warbent dictator who took power thirty years previously and never allowed free elections, I would not fight against someone who comes to remove him.

Pfft, there are better ways to remove a dictator than through a war.

Assasins anyone? 1 seriously well aimed surgical strike?

Sending out an entire army to take out 1 dictator is a bit much I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Sending out an entire army to take out 1 dictator is a bit much I think.

---

I agree, but I still wouldn't take up arms against the enemy of my enemy in a case like this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Pfft, there are better ways to remove a dictator than through a war.

Assasins anyone? 1 seriously well aimed surgical strike?

Sending out an entire army to take out 1 dictator is a bit much I think.

---

Actually, we tried both of those techniques...:w

Jordan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

I am going to make a rather cynical proposition here:
Could it be that Senator McCain has been positioning himself politically to obtain as much power as possible to do as much damage as possible to this country for his time spent in Vietnam as a POW? Maybe, whether he is aware of it or not, he blames America and has never gotten over it?

What do you think?

---

McCain is a hero and a patriot. I don't agree with some of his major positions, but I still think of him as a great man (who's prime is past, BTW). He certainly means no ill on any level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

The more your country becomes like Auschiwtz, the more you want it invaded.

And why didn't you mention one of the other given reasons for war with Iraq: ten years of failed negotiations, sanctions, slaps on the wrist, etc I originally thought the point of the invasion was simply to get rid of Saddam. Heh, remember the U.N.? What's the point of the U.N. - I still don't get what it actually does. They chastise Saddam and Iraq for decades, promising to possibly maybe someday use force if he continues to violate their rules, and then when several nations decide to use force without the U.N., the U.N. yearns to condemn it.

I guess my point is that if my nation went to crap over a murderous unpredictable warbent dictator who took power thirty years previously and never allowed free elections, I would not fight against someone who comes to remove him.

---

Since countries don't really resemble concentration camps, there really isn't an "Auschwitz check list" you can objectively fill out to determine whether you "want your country invaded" or not. What an absurd notion, though. Compare it to Texas Hold 'Em: it's like going all-in with 7/3 (off suited). Things sucked to begin with and you're risking everything when there's a good chance you'll end up in a worse situation. No one really wants to believe that their country is so far gone that it deserves to be occupied by another, either.

You question the validity of the UN - well, it's true, they're more bark than bite. But by playing the role of the global watchdog, they let everyone know that there's a certain global standard to be upheld and will decry those who aren't playing ball. For instance, they didn't approve of Bush's hard-on for an invasion of Iraq. They knew his justification for heading in was nonsense and said so. If there really are WMD's, let's see the proof. None was provided, but Bush went ahead and ignored them anyway, defying this global conscience. It wasn't a selfless act, as he tried to spin it, but a selfish one. It's not rumor that the US is at this moment tapping Iraqi oil -- they're set to extract trillions and trillions of dollars worth over the next many decades. Plus, given wha tBush has done, there are plenty who view him as a war criminal. After the conclusion of WWII there were Nazis who were hung or imprisoned for less. The problem with your "please invade my country" idea is that it never really works that way. The choice doesn't belong to the occupants, but the would-be-occupiers. If the US wasn't such an enforcer and resembled a more passive country, it would probably be invanded, though.

LX also makes a good point - if the purpose of going to Iraq was simply to remove Sadam, why not do like in Hot Shots Part Deux and send a specialized team to his middle-eastern palace and take him out while he's making a midnight snack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

The problem with your "please invade my country" idea is that it never really works that way. The choice doesn't belong to the occupants, but the would-be-occupiers. If the US wasn't such an enforcer and resembled a more passive country, it would probably be invanded, though.

LX also makes a good point - if the purpose of going to Iraq was simply to remove Sadam, why not do like in Hot Shots Part Deux and send a specialized team to his middle-eastern palace and take him out while he's making a midnight snack?

---

I'd never want my country invaded, but I wouldn't forcibly or violently oppose the toppling of my murderous, unpredictable, war-bent dictator. In other words, I wouldn't be hiding behind windows trying to blow the invaders up. If I was raised with a vastly different mindset though, I'm sure I would do things differently.

And I may be wrong, but I could swear that Saddam survived several assassination attempts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

And I may be wrong, but I could swear that Saddam survived several assassination attempts

---

I'm not sure. I know Castro did. The US has been trying to kill him for decades. There's another example for you. They don't happen to like Fidel, the country or what they stand for, so they outlaw trade with them, teach in their history books how Cuba is evil, make numerous attempts on their leader's life, etc. Heh.

Well, we can't all put our heads in the sand...


Jordan