Betrayed by the United States of America

[exatreide]

Who frelling says the U.S should be in other peoples forighn afairs? We have no right to invade a soverighn nation without a declaration of war or with out U.N backing. What the U.S did to Iraq is no differnt than what Hittler did to poland. We didnt find any WMD in iraq did we? nope they kicked us out and Dictator Bush decided to change the reason from WMD to Saddam is opressing his people, whoopdie do who gives frell its not our nation those arnt are people its not are problem. We have other things to worry about.

I said it before and i will say it again.

Bush is useing WMD

Weapons of mass distraction

trying to distract the us from his failing to boost the econemy

his failing to find bin laden

his failing to destroy al qada.

We have other things to worry about frankly.

Are econemy is going the way of the japanease in the 80's well maybe not that bad....

North Korea is a powder keg ready to burst. And what dose Bush do? He invades a soverign nation with out a declaration of war! hell even hittler gave a declaration of war!

And guess who gets temperary control of the oil wells after Iraq falls..

America which means the U.S would be in a position to join Opec and distabeilze oil prices!

The us isnt liked Gila becouse are president is a moron invading a soverign nation when he shouldnt, changing the reasons of invasion not asking congress for a declarartion of war. Not reciving U.N or N.A.T.O suport. And ignoring the public reaction in most of the world.

We had no right in invade Iraq

We have no juristiction over the Iraqi people.

Iraq is not a provence of the U.S whatever the hell hapens to the Iraqi people is their own bussiness, if they dont want Saddam then they should all revolt and take him out.

If a president gassed Rhoad Island and killed Mormons in Utah dose that give China the right to invade america?

NO!

alah....

[Dude_Doc]

How about we don't have any world policemen? Let each country do it's own thing.

The world must have one. We already do. The UN. But they aren't much of a help. Sitting around and talking doesn't help anyone. Sure, every country can decide it's own thing, but when it comes down to killing its own people or testing deadly weapons against them, someone outside must give that nation's people a hand. What if Sweden turned into a facist nation tomorrow? Everyone must agree with the rule, else, you die. What could we as humans do anything about it? What would the UN do? They wouldn't do a thing, because we haven't got any WMD's, we're only killing our own people. Just like Saddam do now, and did all this time he was in power. Then what if the Third Reich didn't invade any countries? Say, they got back what they wanted (the world didn't want another was, so they gave Germany it's "needs" for lost pieces (which functioned as payment to countries affected by Germany in WW1)) and then just lived on? Hitler would gladly execute Jews, gays and other "non-German" people. What would the UN, if it existed in this case, do about it? They would say: "No, Germany doesn't have any WMDs, so there is no point of invading it. By the way, they are only killing its own people, so why should we care?".

I say no. The world needs a nation to whatch over it, to replace regimes with force it that regime is treating its citizens like trash.

[exatreide]

you do know that the Germans killed tens of thousands of eledery and metently impaired in germany before ww2 dont you?

did anyone mention it? nope. Why? becouse it was their own damn business if the people dont like it they can go to another nation or change the ruler.

World policeman=Toliterism. And thats bad. ;)

[Dude_Doc]

Yes, they killed people before 1939, I know that. Then what if your government decided that tomorrow, all those who are not part of the new "National Socialistic Party of Turkey" will be executed? Would you like the world to turn it's back on you? Would you like to see friends hanged and shot? No, I don't think so. Who would help you? Who helped the Jew when he begged for help during the Nazis rule? No one. Because that wasn't their business. We should've done more...

[Acriku]

Ex is as Turkish as my slab of turkey on my napkin.

[exatreide]

Should have done more? by whom do you mean. The US? How so the united states econemy was in the shitter in 37 they couldnt fight a war with europe.

I never Said it was right. But invading other countries for no damn reason is about as wrong as hittler killing 6 million jews.

Once again.

Say President Bush the third gassed the Mormons in Utah, and killed hundreds in new york. He also wipped out congress, the senat, the house and any more else aposing him.

is that enough for China to invade? Is that enough for china to invade with out a declaration of war, with out the rest of the worlds suport? Is it ok for China to bomb american cities and kill american soliders?

NO its not!

Invading Iraq is a direct Violation of the Monroe Docterine.

[Acriku]

The Monroe Doctrine says that we cannot make a new government without endangering our peace and happiness, and it is our policy to leave them to themselves. This was before we broke out of our isolationist policy, and went into the world war - the Monroe Doctrine does not hold to the current times.

[ordos45]

The Monroe Doctrine says that we cannot make a new government without endangering our peace and happiness, and it is our policy to leave them to themselves. This was before we broke out of our isolationist policy, and went into the world war - the Monroe Doctrine does not hold to the current times.

And neither does the Roosevelt Corrollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Which states if American interests or citizens are threatened, we will do as we see fit to protect them.

::) Oh yeah that really justifies invading some country. ::)

(It doesn't justify Acriku. Hince the sarcastic smilies.)

[Acriku]

Who said that justifies invading a country? It neither justifies nor violates. I noticed the smilies, and was referring to the notion that somebody said that since you were being sarcastic...I don't know.

[Gobalopper]

There are over 60 countries supporting the war, since when is no one supporting the US?

[Dude_Doc]

Once again.

Say President Bush the third gassed the Mormons in Utah, and killed hundreds in new york. He also wipped out congress, the senat, the house and any more else aposing him.

is that enough for China to invade? Is that enough for china to invade with out a declaration of war, with out the rest of the worlds suport? Is it ok for China to bomb american cities and kill american soliders?

NO its not!

Yes, it is. How do you think we will ever live in peace if there are dictators and evil governments all around the world that is killing their own citizens? If there is no coup d' etat, and people are oppressed by the new dictatorship, any country, as well as the UN, should have the rights to invade and remove the oppressor.

(Besides, America stands for freedom, so I don't think its own military would appreciate killing Americans for no reason. Oh, and American citizens have the right to own weapons.)

[Dante]

*Sigh* Must everyone be so rude?

You know little kids and old geezers may be people but if they can help if their deaths they should. And women? Women are just as tough as men. In many cases more so. They can hold a gun, they can fire it, why should they cower away? Civilians are resources, to be deployed as necessary. Generally only in emergencies as they're pretty rubbish at everything except running and screaming.

War isn't a nice thing, so why bother pretending you can make it better with shoddy rules? If you're going to do something so violent and bloody as war, why not go that little bit further and break the 'rules.' It won't make that much difference, they'll die anyway.

And people like me are realists. We see what the most sensible option is. Maybe not the nicest or the most popular, but sensible in that it will help a side to win. If the US really wanted to avoid hurting civilians they'd let Saddam die of old age. Then he'd do it for only a few years more before dying. And the US could take over in the chaos following. As it is, civilians are dying, is the army stopping?

Has anyone heard of 'the divine right of Kings'? It states that the absolute ruler of a country was chosen by god to rule and thus can do (within reason) whatever they like. Without the interferance of other nations or people. I personally doubt the 'chosen by god' bit. But a ruler is a ruler. If they want to govern their country the way they want, you don't have to like it. But leave them to it, it's their right as a ruler. What gives anyone the right to interfere? If everyone minded their own buisness...

[Miles]

[c]

And people like me are realists. We see what the most sensible option is. Maybe not the nicest or the most popular, but sensible in that it will help a side to win. If the US really wanted to avoid hurting civilians they'd let Saddam die of old age. Then he'd do it for only a few years more before dying. And the US could take over in the chaos following. As it is, civilians are dying, is the army stopping?

What, you really think Saddam does not have succession set up? You think one of his son's won't take over the reigns after his death? And what makes you think he will die in a few years? What if he lives to 80? How many civilian deaths will we be responsible for then if we do not act now? Your notion of realism sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

Has anyone heard of 'the divine right of Kings'? It states that the absolute ruler of a country was chosen by god to rule and thus can do (within reason) whatever they like. Without the interferance of other nations or people. I personally doubt the 'chosen by god' bit. But a ruler is a ruler. If they want to govern their country the way they want, you don't have to like it. But leave them to it, it's their right as a ruler. What gives anyone the right to interfere? If everyone minded their own buisness...

Then we would have chaos. Do you think that Hitler should have been left to rule his country the way he saw fit? Do you think it is moral to stand by and watch millions die horrific deaths by the hands of a madman ruler? I truly hope that your sense of morality doesn't represent the general morality of the world. That scares the hell out of me.

[Dante]

Hitler was voted into power. He hardly counts. And i he did then he could run the country the way he liked, provided he stayed the heck out of everyone else's countries. We would not have chaos. Chaos implies no rules. But if every country was allowed to do as it wished inside it's own borders, nobody would get angry, or at least, nobody should get angry, as it does not directly effect them.

And of course Saddam has a succession. He isn't stupid. But it takes time to bring someone to power, time for them to make their move. Even if it's a few days, it's time anough. And so what if he lives to 80? He can't live forever, that's the point.

Realism is seeing all the options, even the morally ... different ... ones. And acting on the one which gives the most chance of success. People die in war. Whether they be military or not is immaterial.

[Acriku]

Dust Scout, you need a reality check. Civilians are not resources to use at the very whim of the commanders. You sound like this is a big Command And Conquer game, and it isn't. This isn't quit before 3 minutes, fog of war, using cheats. This is war, where the militaries of the countries go at it, with certain rules applied. I am talking about a democratic world. War doesn't have to be chaos, and it isn't, atleast now it isn't. In the war today, things have changed. Specific missions, in and out, precision bombing, objectives so clear and cut, etc.

A ruler is a ruler for the people, not a ruler ruling the people. That is in the past, this is now. The thing is, rulers practicing isolationism seem to always break out of it, like U.S. did, like any other country that tried isolationism.

[Dude_Doc]

Hitler was voted into power. He hardly counts. And i he did then he could run the country the way he liked, provided he stayed the heck out of everyone else's countries.

So you believe it was right to exterminate the Jews? Who cares then? What if I decided to kill some people I didn't like? What if my neighbours, their friends, maybe the police or my friends decided to do the same thing? Well, as long as it doesn't affect you, what do you care? This is what would make chaos inevitable. I don't care if a nation is built on fascist, comunist, democracy or whatever, as long as the people wants to be ruled this way, fine, that doesn't mean that they're evil. People can love Saddam as much as they want to. But when he started killing people for no reason, that's where the turning point was. If he can run his country, if people likes him, and if he do not kill innocents in gas chambers, that's fine. Unfortunately, he just had to go the path Hitler went 60 years ago...

We would not have chaos. Chaos implies no rules. But if every country was allowed to do as it wished inside it's own borders, nobody would get angry, or at least, nobody should get angry, as it does not directly effect them.

Really? What if Africa or Europe was destroyed then? Where would all the products be made? That's simply not possible. What if every person could live in happiness on this world? They can't. That's why we must cooperate as humans, live as one race, no matter the religion or your nationality. We're still on the same planet, we're still one race.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

We will never be able to colonize the galaxy if we fight against eachother, just imagine a second America. But then it's outer space, different factions will colonize different planets and when they are done colonizing they will attack the planets of other factions.

And the most important point, it's very likely that humans will be destroyed by Aliens by our aggressive nature. If a alien race that is just as aggressive, maybe even more aggressive than the humans sees our planet. We will likely be exterminated in a wink by them.

They'll either destroy us by exploiting our warlike nature or sees us as a threat.

Anyways, back to topic. HUMANS are not resources, this is real life, you are talking about the souls of innocent people. In Command and Conquer, the soldiers are just programmed bits of code. But in real life, humans and every lifeform has a soul, happiness, a mind, emotions.

If you think that Life is just a little game of war, then you should join the army and experience how it is like to be in a war. You'll still say the same? "Humans" are just tools of the goverment.

Well, I don't care what you say. "I" am not a tool, and if the goverment no matter what they say, tries to pull me into a war. I will gladly rip their balls clean off from their crotch and shove it down in their mouth.