Francos Spain
Our Blessed and Chosen Leader of the Pacific
Posts: 496
|
Post by Francos Spain on Dec 24, 2003 6:59:15 GMT -5
Yeah, it's just too bad North Korea doesn't have any oil fields.
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Dec 26, 2003 0:12:12 GMT -5
No, he was too busy using them on his own people!!!! Incidentally, even if it is proven that he doesn't, didn't and never had them, it doesn't excuse the fact that it took 10 years for somebody to remove the murdering b'stard from power. One petty dictatorship down, only another two dozen to go! Your statement implies that Saddam jumped into the Way-Back Machine, and traveled to the 1980's to help past Saddam gas Kurds. Typical Republican logic.
|
|
Blackfield
Liege
Nil mortifi, sine lucre
Posts: 10
|
Post by Blackfield on Dec 26, 2003 21:43:06 GMT -5
Your statement implies that Saddam jumped into the Way-Back Machine, and traveled to the 1980's to help past Saddam gas Kurds. Typical Republican logic. And yours is a typical liberal kneejerk reaction. I was referring to the post Gulf-War 1 where after the US decided to not continue into Iraq (for fear of pissing off the other Arab nations), and leaving the Kurds in the North and the others in the south who were ready to support an invasion out on a limb. Saddam royally fucked both those people up, crushing the rebellion. At the end of the day, Saddam was a murdering butcher who had no compunction against removing any opposition to his power by any means within his power.
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Dec 27, 2003 1:05:24 GMT -5
First of all, I was kidding. It obviously isn't typical Republican logic that Saddam went back in time (although it does confirm my theory that Republicans have no sense of humor). Second of all, please don't try and use that "Saddam was a genocidal bastard" argument. All of a sudden, all the Republicans are spouting off about how much they care about the poor Iraqis, and that the Democrats are just heartless jerks that would let them die. Remember back when Clinton was in office? Remember Bosnia? Remember Milosevic? The Republicans were against our actions over there every step of the way. They obviously didn't care about the poor Bosnians, and if it weren't for us bleeding-heart Liberals, Milosevic's genocidal rampage would have been successful. Furthermore, the Republicans' criticism of Clinton was APPARENLY completely un-American, since any criticism of the president is wholely unpatriotic. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Dec 27, 2003 2:20:15 GMT -5
Um...you forgot the stalling and administrative interference over action in Rwanda as well....
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Dec 27, 2003 2:28:23 GMT -5
I didn't forget it, I just failed to mention it.
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Dec 30, 2003 11:16:14 GMT -5
I prefer to rest my argument against the war in one simple truth:
True republic government rests in the people choosing their own leader.
If they wanted to get rid of Saddam, they have the right to do so.
We do NOT have the right to do it for them.
And don't even bother throwing the France intervened on our behalf during the revolution argument at me. I'll blow it out of the water. Don't waste your time!
|
|
Unlimited
Senator / Pacific Surveyor of Foreign Threat
Vanguard of the Pacific Revolution
Posts: 694
|
Post by Unlimited on Dec 30, 2003 14:35:09 GMT -5
And why should every government be a democracy? What makes you think you know what is best for every country and every person? Just because you think it is the best does not make it so. If you wish to spread your form of government over the world, it makes you no better than the nazi's, as this is exactly what they wanted to do.
|
|
|
Post by Mars Sara on Jan 2, 2004 7:41:07 GMT -5
The problem is that there examples of abuse in a dictatorial or monarchial system far outweigh the examples of one where citizens live "freely", as it were. There are so few kings and dictators in history who acted in their own best interests instead of the interests of their people. And besides, there is always a group of people who inevitably come to resent those in power, regardless of their contributions, solely because they are not in power. (Look at Caesar).
We had the American and French Revolutions, we had two World Wars, and we had the Cold War, and the end result of those and similar conflicts is a world where the major powers with the most "unopressed" citizens are Capitalist and Democratic. Imposing government systems on others is wrong and dangerous, but the world has no other models to go by.
|
|
Unlimited
Senator / Pacific Surveyor of Foreign Threat
Vanguard of the Pacific Revolution
Posts: 694
|
Post by Unlimited on Jan 2, 2004 7:49:44 GMT -5
The power has not gone to the more "free" and "unopressed", it has gone to the countries with the bigger weapons and the countries most likely to use them.
To say Iraq is about democracy could not be so wrong, since the record of democracies turned into dictatorships by "the west" far outwieghs the dictatorships turned democracies.
And I still say, just becqause we "think" it is the best form of government, doesn't make it so. Lok at Dubai, a beutifully functioning dictatorship, and Cuba has done well for itself considering the USA is trying to hold them political prisoners through sanctions.
I believe it was Winston Churchill who said " Democracy is a terrible form of government"
|
|
|
Post by Mars Sara on Jan 11, 2004 12:39:46 GMT -5
Yes, but Churchill was something of a monarchist, anyway.
|
|
Unlimited
Senator / Pacific Surveyor of Foreign Threat
Vanguard of the Pacific Revolution
Posts: 694
|
Post by Unlimited on Jan 11, 2004 12:51:31 GMT -5
Yes, but I think it says something if this drunkard, one of democracies greatest leaders, said this.
|
|
|
Post by Lactating Nuns on Jan 12, 2004 13:23:27 GMT -5
This is undoubtedly true, but take a step back and ask, How did those countries come to develop such military power? To become world-class powers, nations need to 1) be able to spend a lot of money on defense and 2) do it with the support of the populace. Few would argue the first point. In terms of the second point, stability is absolutely necessary, or a nation becomes vulnerable to military takeover. That kind of stability is only possible if the public largely buys in to the government and the necessity of spending lots of money on the military.
Chances are, to create that kind of stability, you're going to need a public that feels like it has some measure of freedom, financially and otherwise.
|
|
Unlimited
Senator / Pacific Surveyor of Foreign Threat
Vanguard of the Pacific Revolution
Posts: 694
|
Post by Unlimited on Jan 13, 2004 18:01:03 GMT -5
This is undoubtedly true, but take a step back and ask, How did those countries come to develop such military power? To become world-class powers, nations need to 1) be able to spend a lot of money on defense and 2) do it with the support of the populace. Few would argue the first point. In terms of the second point, stability is absolutely necessary, or a nation becomes vulnerable to military takeover. That kind of stability is only possible if the public largely buys in to the government and the necessity of spending lots of money on the military. Chances are, to create that kind of stability, you're going to need a public that feels like it has some measure of freedom, financially and otherwise. This is one explanation, obviously your first point is well taken, but "do it with the support of the populace"? I disagree, throughout history, it has been the most ruthless/feared nations who got money to spend on defence. The proof is scattered from thousands of years ago, all the way up to today. There is a lot of dissent in China, and at time the CPC can be as ruthless as anyone (remember Tianamen square anyone?)but in a conventional war with.....well, with anybody, They are the country I would be betting on to win. There are many ways to control people, you can control them with force, proven throughout history not to work in the long run, or you can control with "freedom" and "liberties". These are new things and it will be a while before we can judge them. But remember, it is only another, more hidden, form of control. Anyway, this is hardly the point, we were arguing about whether it is right to spread democracy around the world.
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Jan 13, 2004 20:37:53 GMT -5
I believe that democracy may be the best form of government for those with concerns of liberty and right, however, given the state of many nations around the world, democracy may not be right for them.
|
|