Does America HAVE to be a Force for Good (and Why)?

[TheOrangeCat]

Eye luv Amerika .. levi jeans, Katy Perry yah?

Also, anyone living next to 700 US bases would need 700 homes and a transportation device. And a basic grammar textbook.

 

[Shifty]

Shifty is better than you. :hatsoff:

Of course I am. That's why OC is the catcher! :yesyes:

 

[emceeemcee]

Allende had to go for the simple reason he allow would Chile to go into the Soviet camp. Was it right to overthrow a man who legitimately won a fair election? No but you're too young to remember how it was during the Cold War. It was us versus them mentality. The Soviets played the same game ensuring satellites remained on their side.


The U.S. is neither imperialist nor nationalist despite being popular monickers with naive coffeehouse Leftists. Your rhetoric is based on the same dull Marxist baloney used since the 70s to defend one side and attack the other.:kettle:

^^^^ Pathological imperialist and apologist for state terrorism.

 

[emceeemcee]

Bullshit. The people who live next door to the 700+ American bases around the world are making terrific money from the Americans who are stationed there. And don't even try contradicting that Vodkaz.....er...I mean emcee. I was stationed at a few of them. A military base in your town is money in your pocket. Swing and a miss.

The people who live next to those bases don't see it that way. South Korea and Okinawa are the most anti- American democracies in the world for that very reason. They want the bases gone. The last Prime Minister of Japan got rolled because he dragged his feet on the issue.They're tired of the sexual assaults, environmental destruction and in some cases murder that the bases bring to them. Some of the crimes didn't even carry any punishment for the perpertrators, they were just flown out before the local cops could get hold of them.

Absolute bullshit, and you need one of your famous links to back up that allegation. Glaspies remarks were intended to calm Hussein down. The consensus at the time was that Iraq was only concerned with debt forgiveness (over the money owed to Kuwait after the Iran-Iraq War) and lower oil production.

I gave you the direct quote. You can google it if you want. The comments from the state department I mentioned can be seen here at 2:26. They waved him in.

Also, the claim that Saudi Arabia was under threat of invasion from Saddam was also a lie. The alleged satellite photos which supposedly showed a buildup on the border were never shown to journalists. It was a lie to justify getting troops on the ground.

For all your accusations about America meddling in others affairs, now you're pissing and moaning that we didn't meddle enough in an issue that (at the time) was the sole province of Iraq and Kuwait. Why don't you lay down with a damp towel on your forehead and try to figure out what it is you're so pissed about.

I'm not advocating that they should have intervened. I'm simply saying the US claim to be all about 'liberating' Kuwait doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

I've already made my case, and you have done nothing to refute it. WWII, Korea, Somalia, Bosnia. Who else is going to intervene in Bosnia? You guys? Not a fucking chance. Somalia? Not a fucking chance.

I've already addressed WWII and Korea (what are they still doing there?) South Korean dictatorship was supported all the way by the US after the war btw

Somalia- probably killed more people than it saved, Bosnia- NATO didn't save anyone. Check out Ruder Finn
. Most Americans have been kept from the truth about that. Kosovo was just another excuse to establish a base.

Even if those examples you mentioned were all justified and holy, there still remains the examples I've talked about - all over Latin America, greece, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. None of those conflicts have involved saving anybody. The top contributors to peacekeeping operations are the poorest countries, not America or any other wealthy western countries.

I have no problem with the links in question.

does that mean you accept that they were imperial endeavours and acts of state terrorism?

 

[Mayhem]

The people who live next to those bases don't see it that way. South Korea and Okinawa are the most anti- American democracies in the world for that very reason. They want the bases gone.

This is where I'm very comfortable calling you a moron. Have you ever been outside your own country, let alone been to any of these places you mention? I would like an answer. Because I have. I spent 18 months in Korea (Taegu) and almost no one wants us gone. When you roll down the street, on any day, bystanders and pedestrians are constantly waving, thumbs-up, saying thank-you. The off-post businesses treat us better than the people on post.

Seriously, have you ever been outside your country? (I would like a direct answer)
Have you ever been to these countries that you claim to have sooooo much knowledge of how they think? (I would like a direct answer)

I'm not advocating that they should have intervened. I'm simply saying the US claim to be all about 'liberating' Kuwait doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Except for the fact that we actually did liberate Kuwait.

South Korean dictatorship was supported all the way by the US after the war btw

South Korea is a democracy. Again, I've been there. I've seen it. Have you?

Bosnia- NATO didn't save anyone

You're right. NATO didn't.

Even if those examples you mentioned were all justified and holy, there still remains the examples I've talked about - all over Latin America, greece, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. None of those conflicts have involved saving anybody.

And that's the point of this thread, son. Who the hell says that we have to save anyone? Who says we have have noble purpose every single time we deploy? And Afganistan? We are there for revenge, plain and simple. I don't want to save anyone in Afganistan. As the guy on "The Green Mile" said, it's a bucket of piss to drown rats in. Nothing else.

The top contributors to peacekeeping operations are the poorest countries, not America or any other wealthy western countries.

OK, the link you gave just refuted everything you have been saying on this thread. If America was all about the imperialism, wouldn't we be at the top of the list instead of 28th? See? This is what I'm saying. You are so bound and determined to be an hysterical little twit, you don't even know how to interpret your own information. Again, I suggest a screwdriver to the neck. If not, then at least calm the fuck down, get out of mommies basement, and go see the world that you claim to be an expert on.

 

[emceeemcee]

This is where I'm very comfortable calling you a moron. Have you ever been outside your own country, let alone been to any of these places you mention? I would like an answer. Because I have. I spent 18 months in Korea (Taegu) and almost no one wants us gone. When you roll down the street, on any day, bystanders and pedestrians are constantly waving, thumbs-up, saying thank-you. The off-post businesses treat us better than the people on post.

Seriously, have you ever been outside your country? (I would like a direct answer)
Have you ever been to these countries that you claim to have sooooo much knowledge of how they think? (I would like a direct answer)

So the polls showing showing widespread anti-american sentiment and opposition to the bases in;

South Korea-

In a December 2002 survey of national attitudes, conducted in forty-two countries by the Pew Research Center, a stunning 44 percent of South Koreans were found to hold unfavorable views of the United States.
http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp93.html

Okinawa-

In Okinawa, most polls show that 70 to 80 percent of the island’s people want the bases, or at least the Marines, to leave: they want base land back and they want an end to aviation crash risks, an end to prostitution, and drug trafficking, and sexual assault and other crimes by US soldiers
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14468

Iraq-

A stunning military poll conducted by the British Ministry of Defense shows that 82% of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the occupation, 45% support attacks against occupation forces, and "fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country." As the Sunday Telegraph reports, 67% feel less secure because of the occupation.
http://www.nightlight.typepad.com/nightlight/2005/10/most_iraqis_are.html

Philippines-

According to the latest national IBON Survey, conducted between November
and December, the majority of the Philippines' people are not in favour
of having US troops on Philippines soil to fight the Abu Sayyaf group.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/25959

is all made up?

Except for the fact that we actually did liberate Kuwait.

Countries aren't free when they are occupied by foreign forces. All America did was to reinstall the monarchy there.

South Korea is a democracy. Again, I've been there. I've seen it. Have you?

Err you might want to look up the history of South Korea dude.

And that's the point of this thread, son. Who the hell says that we have to save anyone? Who says we have have noble purpose every single time we deploy?

We're not talking about saving everyone. We're talking about whether or not USA's activities around the world are consistent with the rhetoric it uses to justify them. You have now conceded that it isn't, which is something at least.

If America was all about the imperialism, wouldn't we be at the top of the list instead of 28th?

No.

Imperialist powers only get involved in conflicts where something is in it for them, control of resources being the main objective. Humanitarian missions aren't of interest to the US unless they involve some strategic value.

 

[Mayhem]

Aaaaaannnnnndddd you didn't answer the questions I directly asked you.

 

[Mayhem]

In a December 2002 survey of national attitudes, conducted in forty-two countries by the Pew Research Center, a stunning 44 percent of South Koreans were found to hold unfavorable views of the United States.

That's a far cry from wanting our forces out of their country. Remember, Georgy the 2nd was in office when that poll was taken (2002.......this is 2011, son). I'm surprised that only 44% felt that way. But the question in the poll was not relevant to this discussion.

In Okinawa, most polls show that 70 to 80 percent of the island’s people want the bases, or at least the Marines, to leave:

And I would too, after those three punk-ass, piece of shit Marines raped that little girl. And, by your own data, the Marines are singled out. Having info and knowing how to interpret it is a skill you seem to lack.

Iraq? I'm with you. Bring the boys back home. i don't want them there any more than you do.

Philippines? Who the fuck cares? Again, whatever we have left over there, bring 'em home.

Countries aren't free when they are occupied by foreign forces. All America did was to reinstall the monarchy there.

Do the Kuwaitis want their monarchy or not? Ever view it in those terms? Show me that the majority of Kuwaitis hate their system of government, and I'll concede the point. Until you do, you are intellectually perpetrating the same thing you are accusing the US of.

Err you might want to look up the history of South Korea dude.

Err, you might want to try going there, dude.

We're not talking about saving everyone. We're talking about whether or not USA's activities around the world are consistent with the rhetoric it uses to justify them. You have now conceded that it isn't, which is something at least.

The point to this thread is that EVERY country has a right to act in its own best interest. And it's always the guy on top that everyone (meaning you) likes to complain about. If it was England, you'd complain about them. if it was any country but your own, you'd be here, complaining.

If America was all about the imperialism, wouldn't we be at the top of the list instead of 28th?

No.

Imperialist powers only get involved in conflicts where something is in it for them, control of resources being the main objective. Humanitarian missions aren't of interest to the US unless they involve some strategic value.

I can't even give you a "nice try" on this one. You are going to have to do better.

 

[emceeemcee]

That's a far cry from wanting our forces out of their country.

obviously you are not directing that towards the polls I posted of people in Okinawa, Iraq and the Philippines wanting US forces out of their country because that would be insane.

Do the Kuwaitis want their monarchy or not? Ever view it in those terms? Show me that the majority of Kuwaitis hate their system of government, and I'll concede the point. Until you do, you are intellectually perpetrating the same thing you are accusing the US of.

irrelevant- the US encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait and use them as pawns so talk of liberation is a red herring

Err, You Might want to try going there, dude.

ffs

So there was never a dictatorship there? This is just getting painful now.

The point to this thread is that EVERY country has a right to act in its own best interest.

You are arguing for jungle law.

Countries don't have any right to behave as they choose or whatever they deem to be their 'best interest'. They have obligations to each other and have agreed to abide by a set of laws eg not to carry out wars of aggression against each other.

And it's always the guy on top that everyone (meaning you) likes to complain about. If it was England, you'd complain about them. if it was any country but your own, you'd be here, complaining.

You aren't anywhere close to the top in any respect- wages, living standards, unemployment.....

http://politics.salon.com/2010/10/11/empire_5/

I can't even give you a "nice try" on this one. You are going to have to do better.

What's the point? It's lost on you anyway.


It's hard to fathom why you aren't the least bit suspicious of why Iraq and Libya were lucky enough to be chosen for 'liberation' while Zimbabwe, Bahrain and a host of other brutal dictatorships weren't.

 

[Trident1]

We didn't encourage Saddam to invade Kuwait. The US ambassador made a vague statement regarding Iraq's policy towards it's neighbor during that particular meeting she had with Saddam.
Had Saddam been smart he would've asked for clarity regarding her statement. But being a dumbshit he didn't and the result eventually led to his own downfall.

 

[Mayhem]

obviously you are not directing that towards the polls I posted of people in Okinawa, Iraq and the Philippines wanting US forces out of their country because that would be insane.

I don't know how I could have made myself clearer. Try reading what I wrote.

irrelevant- the US allowed Saddam to invade them so talk of liberation is a red herring

Again, you are being completely contradictory in your views. You need to take some time and elaborate on how the US "allows/disallows" anyone to to anything, in your own specific universe.

So there was never a dictatorship there? This is just getting painful now.

Who said anything about "never"? Care to educate me on the Shoguns of Japan while you're at it? Yes. it is getting painful. You may want to quit while you're behind.

Countries don't have any right to behave as they choose.

Yes they do. That's what make them countries.

They have obligations to each other and have agreed to abide by a set of laws eg not to carry out wars of aggression against each other.

Treaties are individual documents. But, as countries, their only "obligations" are to themselves.

What's the point? It's lost on you anyway.

As the king in "Amadeus" said, "You are passionate, but you do not persuade." You keep making the presumption that the US has to follow some guideline of strict morality and humanitarianism; that we are obligated to spend our lives and our billions; and not concern ourselves with our own national interest.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, I strapped on a flak vest and lined up for my issue of live ammunition. I, personally, was not motivated by fetuses or imperialism. I was motivated by the fact that Saddam Hussein had created a political/economic situation that could not be tolerated. His actions, if left unchecked, would cause my country financial hardship that would affect the lives of my countrymen in an extremely detrimental way. You seem to feel that this viewpoint is evil in some way. That's your perogative. But I will point out, if Desert Shield/Storm had never happened, your country would suffer too. National and International Interest.

You stuck with this debate. I respect that. But you have a lot of growing up to do. I suggest that you put the books down, for a time, and go out and see the world for what it is. If you do, I think you will find your black and white perceptions turning grey, at least around the edges.

It's hard to fathom why you aren't the lest bit suspicious of why Iraq and Libya was lucky enough to be chosen for 'liberation' while Zimbabwe, Bahrain and a host of brutal dictatorships weren't.

Because it was not in our national interest to do so. You keep trying to saddle me with a moral argument that is the antithesis of why I started this thread. I have stated previously my wish that we wouldn't involve ourselves in anyone elses troubles. But if their troubles are going to have a negative impact on the US economy, we are going to.

And that is how it has been, with every nation of power, since the dawn of time.

 

[emceeemcee]

Again, you are being completely contradictory in your views. You need to take some time and elaborate on how the US "allows/disallows" anyone to to anything, in your own specific universe.

Saddam would never have invaded if he faced the prospect of being confronted by a superpower military coalition that he was no match for. US assurances were crucial to his decision to invade.

It's not difficult to understand.

Who said anything about "never"? Care to educate me on the Shoguns of Japan while you're at it? Yes. it is getting painful. You may want to quit while you're behind.

Just more obfuscation.

Yes they do. That's what make them countries.

So international law doesn't exist? The UN charter doesn't exist?

Treaties are individual documents. But, as countries, their only "obligations" are to themselves

Clearly that's not the case otherwise we wouldn't prosecute war criminals, which we do.

Or perhaps you think we shouldn't? Hitler, Charles Taylor, Pol Pot....they all maintained they were just fulfulling the national interest as they saw it.

As the king in "Amadeus" said, "You are passionate, but you do not persuade." You keep making the presumption that the US has to follow some guideline of strict morality and humanitarianism; that we are obligated to spend our lives and our billions; and not concern ourselves with our own national interest.

I wonder where that presumption comes from? Humanitarian Law perhaps? the Laws of War? I thought they schooled soldiers on these types of things. Obviously not.

You are arguing that the US should have the right to act immorally (while maintaining that you are the greatest country on earth) Using that logic, who is to stop AQ from arguing that it has a 'right' to attack the United States? It will argue that it's in it's interests to do so, so why can't it?

Somewhere along the line somebody has to introduce morality and law, but I get the impression you just want the US to be exempt from the same standards you apply to everyone else.

I never said you are obligated to spend any money and lives. That's a strawman. You are still hung up on the delusional idea that the world wants you to come and fix it's ills. People just want you to stop creating them.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, I strapped on a flak vest and lined up for my issue of live ammunition. I, personally, was not motivated by fetuses or imperialism. I was motivated by the fact that Saddam Hussein had created a political/economic situation that could not be tolerated. His actions, if left unchecked, would cause my country financial hardship that would affect the lives of my countrymen in an extremely detrimental way. You seem to feel that this viewpoint is evil in some way. That's your perogative. But I will point out, if Desert Shield/Storm had never happened, your country would suffer too. National and International Interest.

You are just removing the role the US and others played in creating that situation.

If the grounds for invasion were so strong, then why the need to wheel some fraud and her concocted story out in front of congress?

But you have a lot of growing up to do. I suggest that you put the books down, for a time, and go out and see the world for what it is

.

The world as you see it?

In this case your 'real world experience' is nothing more than a collection of jingoistic beliefs which are at odds with the historical record and countless opinion polls taken in a variety of countries, which I posted and you ignored at your convenience. You are substituting facts for belief.

You say the world loves the US, I show you it doesn't then you call me immature. Is this your idea of how grown ups talk to each other?

But if their troubles are going to have a negative impact on the US economy, we are going to.

And that is how it has been, with every nation of power, since the dawn of time.

That's imperial doctrine described down to a tee- economic self interest taking precedent over every other consideration.

 

[emceeemcee]

We didn't encourage Saddam to invade Kuwait.

Did they tell him not to otherwise he would face consequences?

The US ambassador made a vague statement

There was nothing vague about the two statements I mentioned. They were explicit.

 

[Mayhem]

Well, we've come back to the point where you blithely put words in my mouth and try to pin beliefs on me that I don't have. You have also evaded a number of direct questions I have posed to you, because you have no answer for them.

Your assertion that Iraqs invasion of Kuwait is Americas fault has lost you what little credibility that You Might have had. And to claim that Saddam would have canceled the invasion because of a threat from us is sublimely ridiculous. Hussein had the 4th largest army at the time. You must have a large number of leaders to run said army. With no other enemy to face, Saddam knew that possible coup attempts were right around the corner. Show ignorance and contradict this. After all, Saddams former boss took power through a coup as did Saddam himself. He wanted a war with America so he could thin his own herd. He also needed a "common enemy" to show his people. This is the same tactic every despotic tyrant has used in history. "There is your enemy. You need me to protect you from them." Dictatorship 101. For all your feigned knowledge of history, You Might try looking this up. To say that the invasion of Kuwait was preventable shows a stunning naivete'.

So international law doesn't exist?

Ask any expert in international law. They'll tell you that it really does not.

The UN charter doesn't exist?

Charter for what? There are many UN Charters. Most, if not all are ignored at whim. The UN is a useless organization because it fails to enforce any of these charters (I could go on for hours about the UN Charter for Nature and how everyone who wants to ignore it, does.)

Humanitarian Law perhaps? the Laws of War?

In both cases, neither exists. There is no such thing as Humanitarian Law. Again, your empty glass of credibility just got emptier.

Clearly that's not the case otherwise we wouldn't prosecute war criminals, which we do.

Or perhaps you think we shouldn't? Hitler, Charles Taylor, Pol Pot....they all maintained they were just fulfulling the national interest as they saw it.

And the nations and/or groups that fought them did so for their own interest. And, out of the persons mentioned, only Taylor was brought to trial. How's the UN working out for you?

You are arguing that the US should have the right to act immorally

I'm quoting you. Why don't you quote where I say that, rather than just spitting out your own lack of coherence and rationality. When you stop listening to the multiple personalities in your head and start paying attention to what people are actually saying, you'll start filling that glass of credibility back up.......one drop at a time.

If the grounds for invasion were so strong, then why the need to wheel some fraud and her concocted story out in front of congress?

Again (I do find myself having to repeat things a lot with you, don't I), I was there, I saw it and I cringed. It was a stupid move and it never should have happened. It took Georgy II to make us forget what a moronic asshole his father was. And he was a moron....and an asshole.

The world as you see it?

No son. The world as it is. Draw your own conclusions. But you will never know what Koreans, Kuwaitis, Filipinos or anyone else is thinking until you go and ask them.

In this case your 'real world experience' is nothing more than a collection of jingoistic beliefs which are at odds with the historical record and countless opinion polls taken in a variety of countries, which I posted and you ignored at your convenience. You are substituting facts for belief.

No, I'm substituting your paper thin world view, which you derive from books, internet sites and opinion polls (which you don't seem to comprehend too well) with what I have seen with my own two eyes and I have heard with my own two ears. You talk about other people, I talk to them. Until you do, you are failing in an epic way to educate yourself on topics you claim to care about. Do you care about the topic more, or just your beliefs? For the moment, I think we both know the answer.

You say the world loves the US

No I don't. I say the world needs the US. And so do you.

I show you it doesn't then you call me immature. Is this your idea of how grown ups talk to each other?

You have not carried on an adult conversation, son. This has been pointed out to you time after time. An adult does his research and doesn't stop with just what he wants to believe in.

That's imperial doctrine described down to a tee- economic self interest taking precedent over every other consideration.

No, it really isn't. Every country acts in its own self interest, including yours. Only, you have the luxury to sit back and let others do your dirty work for you.

You're going to have to step up your game emcee. The only reason I have kept up this tiresome exercise with you is because I know you are just itching to declare some kind of victory in this. You haven't won anything. You insist on misinterpreting data, presenting one fact as another and thinking that sitting at your desk makes you an expert in geo-political affairs. I was willing to humor you for a while but, I grow weary. Now, it's just pissing into the wind. I'm not saying to stop believing what you do. But give it a rest for a while. If for no other reason, because you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

 

[abrogate]

Bullshit. The people who live next door to the 700+ American bases around the world are making terrific money from the Americans who are stationed there. And don't even try contradicting that Vodkaz.....er...I mean emcee. I was stationed at a few of them. A military base in your town is money in your pocket. Swing and a miss.



Absolute bullshit, and you need one of your famous links to back up that allegation. Glaspies remarks were intended to calm Hussein down. The consensus at the time was that Iraq was only concerned with debt forgiveness (over the money owed to Kuwait after the Iran-Iraq War) and lower oil production.

For all your accusations about America meddling in others affairs, now you're pissing and moaning that we didn't meddle enough in an issue that (at the time) was the sole province of Iraq and Kuwait. Why don't you lay down with a damp towel on your forehead and try to figure out what it is you're so pissed about.



That one, I'll give to you. I smelled bullshit at the time, and the smell never went away. What can I say, Georgey Bush the First was an idiot.....and it runs in the family.



I've already made my case, and you have done nothing to refute it. WWII, Korea, Somalia, Bosnia. Who else is going to intervene in Bosnia? You guys? Not a fucking chance. Somalia? Not a fucking chance.



Are you even reading what I wrote? I have clearly stated that I want American troops out of the rest of the world. Hussein is dead, bin Laden is dead........fuck both shithole countries, let them kill themselves off. Let Al Queda have Afganistan back and treat their women any way they want. How am I an imperialist? Let the fundamentalists have Iraq. What do we care?



I read every last one of them. I have no problem with the links in question. It's your one-sided editorial spin and your stunning ignorance of history that I respond too. That, and your gutless, self-serving petulance.

I was following along ok except for the "Georgy" part. Sounds like popular nonsense to me. Even the way it was phrased is to just go along with the crowd and take an easy cheap shot. The comment itself demonstrates a lack of understanding and is trite.

Judging from the rest of your post, you're capable of better.

 

[abrogate]

since when was I your pal?

It is ok to disagree with your pals.

 

[Mayhem]

I was following along ok except for the "Georgy" part. Sounds like popular nonsense to me. Even the way it was phrased is to just go along with the crowd and take an easy cheap shot. The comment itself demonstrates a lack of understanding and is trite.

Judging from the rest of your post, you're capable of better.

I'm not swinging at you, just pointing out that I don't need anyone else to fuel my hatred for the Bush family. Georgy I blew it with Operation Deser t Storm, and he screwed every serviceman in the Gulf by turning down $1000 a month each, offered by the Saudi royal family. This was shit leadership by a shitty leader. And, as far as I'm concerned, the US lost Operation Deser t Storm. All thanx to a crappy president.

As far as his son goes.......well, the list just goes on and on and on.

 

[Boobinator]

Evidently not...

 

[bobslittlefeet]

I'd say no because might makes right. Besides, we aren't doing a very good job of it anyway, so why pretend that we are

 

[emceeemcee]

Well, we've come back to the point where you blithely put words in my mouth and try to pin beliefs on me that I don't have. You have also evaded a number of direct questions I have posed to you, because you have no answer for them.

I'm not putting any words in your mouth, you are just being evasive because you don't want to answer the question. You are the one who said America's reasons for doing things don't have to be pure, you are the one who said it doesn't have to do good around the world, then you get all indignant when you're reminded of this?

pffttt

Your assertion that Iraqs invasion of Kuwait is Americas fault has lost you what little credibility that You Might have had. And to claim that Saddam would have canceled the invasion because of a threat from us is sublimely ridiculous. Hussein had the 4th largest army at the time. You must have a large number of leaders to run said army. With no other enemy to face, Saddam knew that possible coup attempts were right around the corner. Show ignorance and contradict this. After all, Saddams former boss took power through a coup as did Saddam himself. He wanted a war with America so he could thin his own herd. He also needed a "common enemy" to show his people. This is the same tactic every despotic tyrant has used in history. "There is your enemy. You need me to protect you from them." Dictatorship 101. For all your feigned knowledge of history, You Might try looking this up. To say that the invasion of Kuwait was preventable shows a stunning naivete'.

That's a nice theory but you've got absolutely no evidence there to support it. I did, however.

Ask any expert in international law. They'll tell you that it really does not.

Charter for what? There are many UN Charters. Most, if not all are ignored at whim. The UN is a useless organization because it fails to enforce any of these charters (I could go on for hours about the UN Charter for Nature and how everyone who wants to ignore it, does.)

In both cases, neither exists. There is no such thing as Humanitarian Law. Again, your empty glass of credibility just got emptier.

'If something doesn't suit you- just pretend it doesn't exist'.


You appear to be on the same pills as Trident.

I'm quoting you. Why don't you quote where I say that, rather than just spitting out your own lack of coherence and rationality. When you stop listening to the multiple personalities in your head and start paying attention to what people are actually saying, you'll start filling that glass of credibility back up.......one drop at a time.

I must have imagined that you started up a thread asking why America's reasons for doing things have to be good.

No I don't. I say the world needs the US. And so do you.

Nah i didn't actually, I've been saying the opposite since the get-go. You've just demonstrated that honesty is also something you are deficient in.

No, I'm substituting your paper thin world view, which you derive from books, internet sites and opinion polls (which you don't seem to comprehend too well) with what I have seen with my own two eyes and I have heard with my own two ears.

I comprehend them just fine.


I am not all surprised that you don't put any stock in the polling data considering the imperialist mindset is all about disregarding the attitudes of the people in whichever country is of interest to it anyway.

Your contempt for statistics, history books and the like to educate oneself about the world is retarded. The idea that a single person's first hand experience is enough to get an accurate picture of the views of billions of people in multiple countries is beyond delusional.