Spider Al put it far more eloquently than I could, and since he doesn't frequent these parts I'll just quote him.

QFE...

Spider and ET are too blue collar for the likes of AHTO eh ;)

mtfbwya

"So why Saddam in particular?"
Why not?

List of Saddam's Exploits:
1. Took over a country from within. Not through an election. (By Force)
2. After taking over Iraq, he killed the former government.
3. Used innocent Iraqi people as sheilds during war.
4. Threw babies and children into a pit of angry dogs, and then watched while they were torn apart.
5. Tested various poisonous gasses on his people.
6. Partaken on several ocassion in ethnic cleansing.
7. Went to an Iraqi town meeting. Asked the people who gathered there if they knew particular traitors. Forced Iraqis to turn in innocent people who were in the audience, and proceeded to have each one of them killed.
8. Went to another town meeting, and asked a group of Iraqis who was in charge. He ended up killing several people until he heard the words, "You are."
9. Went into another country, and tried to perform ethnic cleansing.
10. Encouraged his children and half-brothers to kill innocent people.
11. As a result of his own nuturing, Saddam's sons killed children on a soccer team, for they kept loosiing. They also killed kids for fun.
12. Held his own people hostage.
13. Was a fan of Joeseph Startline, and built his government upon Starline's beliefs.
14. Tested Scud Missles on the Iraqi people.
15. Attempted to have several leaders assasinated.
16. ....Fill in the blanks...

Is that enough for you? I can go on if you like. I can also be very discriptive in what I know.
Uh, I'd like to see some sources cited for those. They have a touch of sensationalism about them. Saddam wasn't the nicest of people, but even he didn't deserve to be lied about. Hate him for what he did, not what some people say he did.

And like others have said, Saddam was just one of many dictators the world still possesses. That list is all well and good, but others have even longer and more atrocious ones. What's being done about them?

So, there's still work to do for the USA then, isn't it MacCorp?
There are many dictators out there. Why not invade those countries too?
That reminds me of "world police".

Mac, that's nothing compared to what some leaders did and still are doing today. Just look at Kim Jong-Ill in North Korea. Only country left that still has concentration camps. So why didn't we invade North Korea? Oh yeah, I forgot, they can actually defend themselves - unlike Saddam could.

Aww, poor defenseless ickle Saddam.

Just because Saddam was unprepared for war doesn't mean that he was any less evil. Sure, you could take on North Korea. You'd lose, though. Why? China.

@Valaestrez: I'd rather that the US was distracted doing that than overriding the sovereignty of legitimate, democratic nations. At least *some* good has come out of the Iraq thing.

Originally Posted by TK-8252
Mac, that's nothing compared to what some leaders did and still are doing today. Just look at Kim Jong-Ill in North Korea. Only country left that still has concentration camps. So why didn't we invade North Korea? Oh yeah, I forgot, they can actually defend themselves - unlike Saddam could.
I made a spelling error with Stalin's name. Lol... I should have looked it up.

You have to start somewhere man. Saddam was only the beginning. If you have plans on removing dictators from the world, you start with what you have and then you move up. One down and several to go.

When you have plans on attacking someone like Saddam, you proceed without emotion or remorse.

My source: 'PBS NOW - Episode Aired in 2003'.

People really don't know what type of psycho Saddam was. I don't know what is worse: the public's ability to be nieve, or the fact they would defend such chaos. Out of all the things we have done with Iraq, I am glad we encouraged his people to hang him.

Calling Saddam a 'person' is too kind. He was an animal.

You know, I live in the UK, so there's no real need for me to back the States...I would rather that the USA did some world policing than have all these maniacs going around killing people with nerve gas and/or making nuclear bombs...

It's like with the Greek and Roman Empires, they conquered other countries, and made them their own, but was that really such a bad thing in the end? The Romans have left a huge legacy that still lives today and is the cornerstone of pretty much the entire Western world...They had such civilised society, even compared to some countries today, they had a democracy at some point even, fine, they weren't perfect, but who is? The Greek left a huge impact as well, they influenced the Romans first, and so influenced everything that came after...

I feel the same about the USA, I say let them take over the world, especially those backwater countries, really, how much worse off could they all be when your own leader is murdering you by the thousands? At least the USA has the decency to stay and try to leave the place in a better state than it was...That deserves respect, especially all those soldiers there dying for a country that isn't even their own, Vietnam anyone?

Now I would have given off a boatload of hoopla here, but right now all I'll say is...

Saddam did not deserve his execution. The number of innocents he killed is far lesser than the civilian casualties in Iraq and the modern Iraq is an uncertain, violent and unpredictable land. Saddam may have been an evil dictator, but he was a good administrator, and Iraq under Saddam was much better off than many other Islamic nations. I believe that a quiet life sentence for him would have been enough. Execution will only lead to more violence.

Now I would have given off a boatload of hoopla here, but right now all I'll say is...

Saddam did not deserve his execution. The number of innocents he killed is far lesser than the civilian casualties in Iraq and the modern Iraq is an uncertain, violent and unpredictable land. Saddam may have been an evil dictator, but he was a good administrator, and Iraq under Saddam was much better off than many other Islamic nations. I believe that a quiet life sentence for him would have been enough. Execution will only lead to more violence.
Are you saying that Iraq under Saddam wasn't an uncertain, violent and unpredictable land? Again, he murdered his own people at random or whenever he felt like it, after the First Gulf War he murdered anyone who had the guts to stand up to him...He should have been finished then, but no, we did the right thing and pulled back, and look where that got the Kurds left in that country...And a lot of other people too...The number of innocents he killed is an insane amount, especially if you say that was a stable government...He got what he deserved, a death much less painful than most of the ones he caused...

I feel the same about the USA, I say let them take over the world
You wouldn't be saying that if it was your country they were invading. I say let's not let them take over the world. I say the world should put them in their place, not with violence and wars, but with politics and diplomacy.

At least the USA has the decency to stay and try to leave the place in a better state than it was...
:rofl: You, my friend, are really deluding yourself if you truly believe that. ''Leave the place in a better state...'' Yeah right! I'll just say two words: 1. Bosnia; 2. Kosovo.

Vietnam anyone?
Vietnam. Yeah, let's see, a country that has never done anything to the US was invaded, its civilians were slaughtered by the invading US troops, much like they did in Iraq... need I say more?

You wouldn't be saying that if it was your country they were invading. I say let's not let them take over the world. I say the world should put them in their place, not with violence and wars, but with politics and diplomacy.

:rofl: You, my friend, are really deluding yourself if you truly believe that. ''Leave the place in a better state...'' Yeah right! I'll just say two words: 1. Bosnia; 2. Kosovo.

Vietnam. Yeah, let's see, a country that has never done anything to the US was invaded, its civilians were slaughtered by the invading US troops, much like they did in Iraq... need I say more?

Relax, Igy, you've nothing to worry about. The US doesn't have the resources to try and take over the whole world. Nor does it have the interest in doing so. And frankly, the US public would lose patience too quickly to do something like that anyway.

Two other problems with your anaylsis. One, Vietnam wasn't invaded. It was already split in the '50s between north and south. Thank the french for troubles in indochina post WW2. The US ultimately backed a series of regimes that lost public support in the south. Not an invasion. Let's not forget that Vietnam didn't exist in some academic vacuum. There were many other nations involved at different levels. The USSR and PRC were providing weapons and supplies to the north. The Brits were even selling RR Merlin jet engines to the NV. Basically, you'd have to argue that given the level of international involvement in the conflict, it wasn't merely the US that was the cause of such "slaughter", but rather many parties. But as long as you ARE going to blame the US, perhaps you should lay the deaths of a great many civilians in WW2 at our feet as well. Afterall, Hitler's armies never did actually invade the US. I suppose we should have used politics to convince him of his error before he actually compounded it by attacking US soil. Turning on the Japanese shouldn't have been a problem for him b/c he'd already betrayed Stalin.

The Balkans in the 90's are a different scenario. It was the EU that wanted to put boots on the ground in that region, or at least European nations. The US was initially content to assume the role of air support. Your former country of Yugoslavia disintegrated with Tito's death. Had the western countries not inserted themselves into your bloody civil war, how do you think it would've ended? I'd guess somewhere along the lines of Lebanaon. Face it, the EU didn't want your violence (or refugees more likely) spilling over into their borders. The US did supply a ground presence, but nothing on the order of what was supplied by EU countries. Perhaps you should ask yourself why the member states of the immensely richer EU to your north haven't gotten off their arses to rebuild your region. Probably for the same reason that they do nothing about situations in Darfur and elsewhere. It's soooo much easier to pontificate about US failure than to do anything constructive yourself. FTR, though, I think Clinton should have left the euros to fend for themselves militarily. I don't think we needed to bomb Serbia.

Are you saying that Iraq under Saddam wasn't an uncertain, violent and unpredictable land? Again, he murdered his own people at random or whenever he felt like it, after the First Gulf War he murdered anyone who had the guts to stand up to him...He should have been finished then, but no, we did the right thing and pulled back, and look where that got the Kurds left in that country...And a lot of other people too...The number of innocents he killed is an insane amount, especially if you say that was a stable government...He got what he deserved, a death much less painful than most of the ones he caused...

Saddam was not killing the estimated 100 people a day that are being killed now. Iraq, while a ****ty and repressive place to live under Saddam, was CLEARLY better off with him in power than the current government. There were not car bombs going off every day in markets. There were not killers in the streets kidnapping hundreds of people for simple ethnic differences. There was not genocide. There was not even ethnic cleansing. Saddam was not trying to kill off everyone who was Kurdish. He was trying to put down their rebellions. Yes, there was torture for sure. There were horrible atrocities. But what's going on right now, and will probably get even worse after we pull out, is much worse than what people had to go through with Saddam in power.

What DOES happen after we pull out anyway? Many experts are saying that while it cannot be said for sure what the outcome will be, it's a good guess that some other kind of tyrant will come to power. But this time, he will not be a secular Muslim like Saddam, who at one point was cooperative with the United States. He will be a radical Shi'a Muslim, with close ties to Iran, who will be just as brutal if not more than Saddam. There will be Islamic law, and no secular or democratic institutions. Everything we worked to accomplish in Iraq will be done away with. Just like after we pulled out of Vietnam.

What is very ineteresting is that there are two personalities to the world. When the United States takes action, the world complains about us policing their issues. When the United States doesn't take action, the world complains about us not doing anything.

Make up your minds.

Well, even though the video was removed from the forum here, I've seen it myself. It got me thinking... You hear of all the terrible things he's done, and the people he's killed... and yet, when he's standing there, he seems like just an ordinary man. You don't see a cold blooded killer, or a terrible monster. You just see a man.

I wonder if he was afraid.

There could been have a trampoline underneath the trapdoor.

There could been have a trampoline underneath the trapdoor.
So they can relive the moment over and over again without seeing a recording. Eventually, I think his body would detatch from his head. Talk about gross.

Sometimes I wish the US would take on the policies of the Prime Directive (from Star Trek). Just let other worlds (in this case, countries) handle themselves and progress on their own. We have no right to decide the fate of another country that has never acted aggressively toward us.

*MacCorp, That's a nice long list that I'd say only about half of is true. As others have said, there are plenty of other dictators in the world that have done much worse things. Should we play world police and go remove and execute all of them?

When the United States doesn't take action, the world complains about us not doing anything.

This is the first I've heard of this version. Can you name at least one case, when the world complained about America not attacking a country?

You know, I live in the UK,

No you don't, you're Scottish. I thought it was all vive l'independance with you...No?

so there's no real need for me to back the States

...Other than if we don't, the US screw us up economically for not playing nice poodle.
...OTOH, if we do, Russia and the EU screw us up. Rock, hard place...Which way to go...

...I would rather that the USA did some world policing than have all these maniacs going around killing people with nerve gas and/or making nuclear bombs...

And what if they deem that the SNP is dangerous? What if they invade Scotland? It might seem unlikely, but America is paranoid and xenophobic, and anti-British. Given that one in five Americans can't point to their own country on a map, and, IIRC, one in eight don't have a passport, do you think they will notice the difference between Scotland and England?
[/QUOTE=GodSlayer]
It's like with the Greek and Roman Empires,
[/QUOTE]
The two are rather different. The Greeks weren't a unified group and their empires were unstable and fine if you counted as a male Greek citizen who was approved of by the government. Otherwise it could get pretty unpleasant. Ask Themistocles, or Socrates about that last part in particular. As for the Romans, they were uncouth, arrogant xenophobes, convinced of their own right and brilliance, and determined that anything done by an outsider was inferior.

They also buggered anything that moved and viewed women as effectively slaves to stay at home and make babies, while at the same time having a bizarre Hyacinth Bucket-ish obsession with their own strange brand of what was proper. Oh, and their writers were by and large the dullest load of duffers you could ever hope to snore trying to read. About the only ones worth the effort are Seneca and Plautus. And lets not start on the Games.

they conquered other countries, and made them their own, but was that really such a bad thing in the end?
You mean that they destroyed entire civilisations and made them all homogenised into one, riddled with violence, cruelty and bad poetry?

The Romans have left a huge legacy that still lives today and is the cornerstone of pretty much the entire Western world...

Yes. Our civilisation is based on the Games, slaves, an imposed social structure founded on how much moolah you had lying about, mysoginy and creating an illusion of democracy while getting on with good old despotism. Yes, wonderful chaps, the Romans...

They had such civilised society, even compared to some countries today,

O RLY?

they had a democracy at some point even, fine,

Oh, yes. But since legislation was almost entirely ruled by the elite, it was more of an aristocracy.

they weren't perfect, but who is?

Saddam's not perfect either! Sure, he murders a few Kurds here and there, but I'm sure basically he's a good chap!

The Greek left a huge impact as well, they influenced the Romans first, and so influenced everything that came after...

Quite. It is interesting to note that even 'great' philosophers like Aristotle believed in slavery.

I feel the same about the USA, I say let them take over the world, especially those backwater countries,
Well what about their hypocrisy? They weren't so keen on our Empire. In any case, what do you define as a backwater country? You wouldn't like it if the US came in and overrode your nation's sovereignty based on a lie about you harbouring WMD's with hostile intent...

really, how much worse off could they all be when your own leader is murdering you by the thousands?

As opposed to having insurgents blow you up by the hundreds every week? Institutionalised crime vs. Anarchy...It's a tough choice, but at least without the US, the country does have the option of overthrowing their leader.

At least the USA has the decency to stay and try to leave the place in a better state than it was...

The USA has the decency to look after the USA's interests. Nothing more, nothing less.

That deserves respect, especially all those soldiers there dying for a country that isn't even their own, Vietnam anyone?
Vietnam is an extremely sticky situation, and one that was badly handled and botched by the Americans as usual not paying attention to the successes and failures of others.
Relax, Igy, you've nothing to worry about. The US doesn't have the resources to try and take over the whole world.

No. Invading other nations' sovereignty is perfectly acceptable though, apparently. *cough*Natwest Three/Non-ratified extradition treaty*cough*

Nor does it have the interest in doing so.

No. It already *believes* it owns the world. It certainly acts like it.

And frankly, the US public would lose patience too quickly to do something like that anyway.
I suspect one thing US politicians will learn pretty quickly is that provided you can disgust the majority enough to become apathetic, and paint your opponents as being as bad as each other, it doesn't matter if you are disliked or even hated by the majority.

The Balkans in the 90's are a different scenario. It was the EU that wanted to put boots on the ground in that region, or at least European nations. The US was initially content to assume the role of air support. Your former country of Yugoslavia disintegrated with Tito's death. Had the western countries not inserted themselves into your bloody civil war, how do you think it would've ended? I'd guess somewhere along the lines of Lebanaon. Face it, the EU didn't want your violence (or refugees more likely) spilling over into their borders. The US did supply a ground presence, but nothing on the order of what was supplied by EU countries. Perhaps you should ask yourself why the member states of the immensely richer EU to your north haven't gotten off their arses to rebuild your region.

Not our problem? Enough problems at home? The nightmare an operation like that is? Why doesn't the US as World Police Force? Or is it plain old suspicion of the Old World?

It's soooo much easier to pontificate about US failure than to do anything constructive yourself.

Sometimes doing nothing is better than making a bad situation worse.

FTR, though, I think Clinton sould have left the euros to fend for themselves militarily. I don't think we needed to bomb Serbia.
Fine, get your sodding air bases et al. out of my bloody country and I'll be happy with that arrangement, myself.

What Bush said about to me made him look more like a TOOL, I'm thankful he's serving his last years as our president.

You wouldn't be saying that if it was your country they were invading. I say let's not let them take over the world. I say the world should put them in their place, not with violence and wars, but with politics and diplomacy.
Politics and diplomacy? When has that ever worked? What kind of fairy tale world do you live in? Look at the last few millennia, our entire civilization is built on war upon endless war...And why should the world put the USA in their place? Cause that's something you really want to to, form a front AGAINST the US and throw everyone into WW III (excuse the drama)
The US did come into my country though, back in '44 when another such dictator killed millions of innocents, am I glad the US were there? F*** yeah, they saved my granddad from being transported to one of the camps, did some civilians get killed? Yes, but they die in every war...Does that make it right? Of course not, but no one said life was fair huh


:rofl: You, my friend, are really deluding yourself if you truly believe that. ''Leave the place in a better state...'' Yeah right! I'll just say two words: 1. Bosnia; 2. Kosovo.
1) Normandy 1944; 2)Bosnia and Kosovo did not only have US troops in it, and after the US left, there were still NATO troops left there, I should know, my uncle was one of them! 3)Bosnia and Kosovo needed to be rid of a dictator as well, the problem there was that no one knew exactly wtf was going on or who the bad guys were, not even the people themselves....


Vietnam. Yeah, let's see, a country that has never done anything to the US was invaded, its civilians were slaughtered by the invading US troops, much like they did in Iraq... need I say more?
Jee, you think the VC never killed any innocent civilians? That all those US soldiers who died there to save other people were in fact just there for the f***ing sun??? And at least the US are aiming for terrorists and other scumbags who happen to use civilians as a shield, it's not like they're killing people just for the sake of it, unlike some...need I say more?

You wouldn't be saying that if it was your country they were invading. I say let's not let them take over the world. I say the world should put them in their place, not with violence and wars, but with politics and diplomacy.

That seems to be the general European attitude, at least when you're not begging for foreign aid or trying to drag us into one of your wars.

EDIT: And while we're at it, it seems that you are mixing up the American People with the American Government. Thats a stupid argument and always has been.

Politics and diplomacy? When has that ever worked?
So basically what you're saying is that because politics and diplomacy don't work very often, we should turn completely to wars and devastation. Forgive me for disagreeing, but I think an effort should be made to make politics and diplomacy work and lessen the need for killing.

And why should the world put the USA in their place? Cause that's something you really want to to, form a front AGAINST the US and throw everyone into WW III
You're contradicting yourself. First you prove that you've read everything I said and now you accuse me of wanting to start World War III, even though I specifically emphasized that I was referring to peaceful means of persuasion - politics and diplomacy. I could accuse you of the same thing and my accusation would even have some merit, according to your attitude towards diplomacy and politics.

Bosnia and Kosovo did not only have US troops in it, and after the US left, there were still NATO troops left there, I should know, my uncle was one of them!
I never said there were only US troops in Bosnia, but they were the majority for a long period of time and neither they nor NATO left Bosnia in a better state. I should know, I have grandparents there!

That seems to be the general European attitude, at least when you're not begging for foreign aid or trying to drag us into one of your wars.
You know, there's a reason world wars have that 'world' prefix - they're fought on a global scale. I know you're referring to WWII by that ''drag us into one of your wars'', because that's the general American attitude. Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have turned on America after he was done with Europe?

And while we're at it, it seems that you are mixing up the American People with the American Government.
No, I'm not. I don't have anything against the American people, some of their attitudes towards the rest of the world, yes, but the people themselves, no.

No you don't, you're Scottish. I thought it was all vive l'independance with you...No?
Actually, I'm Belgian, but I live in Scotland...

...Other than if we don't, the US screw us up economically for not playing nice poodle.
...OTOH, if we do, Russia and the EU screw us up. Rock, hard place...Which way to go...
I was talking about my opinion as an individual, not that of the country I live in ATM...

And what if they deem that the SNP is dangerous? What if they invade Scotland? It might seem unlikely, but America is paranoid and xenophobic, and anti-British. Given that one in five Americans can't point to their own country on a map, and, IIRC, one in eight don't have a passport, do you think they will notice the difference between Scotland and England?
You are mixing up the American people and their government though...and like I said, I'm not Scottish, just because I live here doesn't make me one, and like you said, it is very unlikely they will invade Scotland or England, even Bush knows better than that...Why do you think he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea yet? Even though he d*** well should...

The two are rather different. The Greeks weren't a unified group and their empires were unstable and fine if you counted as a male Greek citizen who was approved of by the government. Otherwise it could get pretty unpleasant. Ask Themistocles, or Socrates about that last part in particular. As for the Romans, they were uncouth, arrogant xenophobes, convinced of their own right and brilliance, and determined that anything done by an outsider was inferior.

They also buggered anything that moved and viewed women as effectively slaves to stay at home and make babies, while at the same time having a bizarre Hyacinth Bucket-ish obsession with their own strange brand of what was proper. Oh, and their writers were by and large the dullest load of duffers you could ever hope to snore trying to read. About the only ones worth the effort are Seneca and Plautus. And lets not start on the Games.

You mean that they destroyed entire civilisations and made them all homogenised into one, riddled with violence, cruelty and bad poetry?

Yes. Our civilisation is based on the Games, slaves, an imposed social structure founded on how much moolah you had lying about, mysoginy and creating an illusion of democracy while getting on with good old despotism. Yes, wonderful chaps, the Romans...

Oh, yes. But since legislation was almost entirely ruled by the elite, it was more of an aristocracy.
That is your opinion, which is easily formulated in hindsight, are you saying the world would have been better off without the Greek and Roman cultures? IMO their poetry and stories are some of the best ever told, far better than anything that came after Christianity showed up...Their architecture is still used in some of our "modern" buildings nowadays, and as for the aristocracy ruling the democracy, isn't that what happened in most European and even the USA until like the late 1800s in some cases? I would say that puts the Romans a bit ahead of their time...
And I was merely forming an analogy to state my point about the USA, I don't see the need in taking this any further since it is only a matter of opinion...

Well what about their hypocrisy? They weren't so keen on our Empire. In any case, what do you define as a backwater country? You wouldn't like it if the US came in and overrode your nation's sovereignty based on a lie about you harbouring WMD's with hostile intent...
I wouldn't like it either if my own country's ruler called my entire family traitors for no reason and had them thrown into a dungeon or something...Stalemate I'm afraid

As opposed to having insurgents blow you up by the hundreds every week? Institutionalised crime vs. Anarchy...It's a tough choice, but at least without the US, the country does have the option of overthrowing their leader.
Again, if that leader is already murdering his own people at his whim, being a total paranoid calling everyone a traitor until there's no one left TO betray him, what on earth has that country got to lose? The only reason why people get blown up by the hundreds there nowadays is because some radical f***s think it's fun blowing up civilians or patrols on guard, or their own country's policemen...And whenever the US tries to retaliate, they'll hide behind dozens of innocent women and children...



So basically what you're saying is that because politics and diplomacy don't work very often, we should turn completely to wars and devastation. Forgive me for disagreeing, but I think an effort should be made to make politics and diplomacy work and lessen the need for killing.
They do work sometimes, but how can you be diplomatic with radical wackos or dictators like Saddam? Would we rather wait and see what happens *cough*WW2*cough* Or do something about it before it's too late?
People are so anti-USA nowadays, acting as if the US was just as bad as the USSR or f***ing Hitler and his Third Reich...At least in the States you have the freedom to chose what you want to do, you can choose whether or not you want to be in the army, you can choose to back up the war or not, you can choose to call Bush an a**hole on national tv and not get a word said to you...How many people in Iraq could do that with Saddam? Or I could name a few dozen other countries like that...


You're contradicting yourself. First you prove that you've read everything I said and now you accuse me of wanting to start World War III, even though I specifically emphasized that I was referring to peaceful means of persuasion - politics and diplomacy. I could accuse you of the same thing and my accusation would even have some merit, according to your attitude towards diplomacy and politics.Good point, but I still don't think that that kind of diplomacy would lead to anywhere but big trouble...

I never said there were only US troops in Bosnia, but they were the majority for a long period of time and neither they nor NATO left Bosnia in a better state. I should know, I have grandparents there!
Again, who's really to blame for that? The US? The place was a time bomb even before they got there, at least they went in and tried to make a difference...

You know, there's a reason world wars have that 'world' prefix - they're fought on a global scale. I know you're referring to WWII by that ''drag us into one of your wars'', because that's the general American attitude. Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have turned on America after he was done with Europe?
lol, Hitler might have been evil and all, but I think even HE would have thought twice before challenging the US, especially after being at war with the whole of Europe for a few years...

You know, there's a reason world wars have that 'world' prefix - they're fought on a global scale. I know you're referring to WWII by that ''drag us into one of your wars'', because that's the general American attitude. Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have turned on America after he was done with Europe?
Hitler was more concerned with his "Fortress Europe" than North America at the time. Although he did try to get Mexico to turn on us, which was intercepted by the British. Hitlers whole rise to power was greatly influenced by actions taken by the British and French at the end of WWI.

No, I'm not. I don't have anything against the American people, some of their attitudes towards the rest of the world, yes, but the people themselves, no.
Treating the American people as a whole is silly, we're all different. With the great diversity that exists within most Countries you can't categorize the residents so callously.

Truth is, most people want the US to take the lead on solving all the world's problems rather than do something themselves. Africa is a prime example. Why doesn't the EU get off it's collective arse and do something in Darfur or Rwanda? B/c the US hasn't taken the lead. Why does the EU sit on the sidelines in the ME? Part internal muslim problem, part ambivalence toward Israel, part trade. Part may even be the realization that there will be no peace in the ME till the radicals are thrown from power or the state of Israel is dismantled. Europe, perhaps b/c it started 2 world wars in the 20th century, is skittish about doing anything. What have the europeans done to help revive Bosnia or Kosovo? Then there's nuke disarmament. America has to go first, b/c somehow the rest of the world will follow suit (can I interest you in, perhaps say, the Brooklyn Bridge). Why doesn't the rest of the world go forward with treaties like Kyoto and lead by example? Prove the critics in the US wrong by demonstrating that the treaty isn't designed to hobble the US economy. Fact of the matter is, the rest of the world wants to hit up Uncle Sam for money and resources, but don't want the US involved in the decision making.

@DI--Have you started drinking already to celebrate the new year? :drink3: I must wonder just how paranoid you are after reading that screed. Also, Scotland is still part of the UK last I checked. Perhaps I should ask if your problems with the US aren't derived from suspicions about "the new world". Fact is, no country ever acts with purely altruistic motives. Most people don't either, for that matter.

One must wonder how one goes about overthrowing an intrusive and violent government of your peers. The Germans couldn't do it, the Hungarians and Czechs either. How many oppressed Arabs are able to dethrone their despotic rulers? Africans? Asians? These things rarely happen without some form of outside help.

Let's keep a little perspective here. Fact, if the US had the power you seem to depict, Iraq wouldn't even be an issue, just an academic footnote. Simply put, the US doesn't have the means or internal support to INVADE the rest of the world. Nor would a US government be able to continue an invasion if casualties started numbering in the 10s of 1000s, b/c the political cost at home would be too high (unless of course it were repelling an invasion of US territory). Like any other country, the US tries to use it's political and economic ties to influence events to it's favor. The world endured 200+ years of European meddling at various levels, propelling us toward the mess we face today. Now, should we ignore problems and hope they go away b/c sometimes doing nothing is preferable to taking action now? Chamberlain thought so in the 30's (as well as many others, to be fair). Does it work? No. Take care of the wound now or let it fester? Hmm..... Also, it's sublimely arrogant to assume that the US has no problems either. Besides, as history recalls, your country invaded my country at least once (twice if one wants to count the revolution). If you don't want the airbases in your sodding country, I believe you just have to keep pushing the Labour Party to get rid of them once and for all. Good luck trying. Still, I guess it gives you at least one NY's resolution to pursue. ;)

@Igy-you seem to forget WW1. It was two wars, not one. So, the US has the right to be a bit skittish about Europe. A big part of the reason the wars were global was due to Europe's spending 3 or more centuries spreading it's tentacles around the globe. Also, how are you going to try to align the whole world up politically to bloodlessly take down the US or at least keep it in check (from your perspective)? At what cost? What devils will you make deals with to attempt to achieve this end? How long do you think such alliances would last? It's hard enough to get just two countries to agree on something, nevermind more than two.

Well said Totenkopf, couldn't agree more!

Actually, I'm Belgian, but I live in Scotland...
I slouch corrected.

I was talking about my opinion as an individual, not that of the country I live in ATM...

OK. How about the fact that you can be extradited without even prima faciae evidence being presented?

You are mixing up the American people and their government though

Mmmm...nope. Since the government is representative of the nation, it seems safe to assume that the national statistics have some implication upon the legislature.

...and like I said, I'm not Scottish, just because I live here doesn't make me one, and like you said, it is very unlikely they will invade Scotland or England, even Bush knows better than that...

Why? What's to stop him? What benefit is there in us as an independent nation/nations that wouldn't be greater as a 51st State, without most of the problems?

Why do you think he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea yet? Even though he d*** well should...

I fail to see the correlation. I somehow suspect he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea because even he can see that would bring everything tumbling down around him.

That is your opinion, which is easily formulated in hindsight, are you saying the world would have been better off without the Greek and Roman cultures?
I'm saying that there are cultures infinitely superior in the history of the world on which our current society could and perhaps should have been founded. There is also a certain degree of professional bias in this, I should point out, though.

IMO their poetry and stories are some of the best ever told,

There myths are little more than proto-Neighbours - it's all who slept with whom, and so-and-so getting revenge for the murder of their father...And if you had read them in the original, I'm not sure you'd agree. They are horrendously stale.

far better than anything that came after Christianity showed up...
They're simpler, contain unrealistic characters and situations...If you're reading a nice easy translation they're OK, but in the original they are deathly.

Their architecture is still used in some of our "modern" buildings nowadays,
And most of their buildings are almost totally ruined. It is reasonably aesthetically pleasing, but it can also be overbearing and dull, and for the most part, modern architecture is recovering from New Brutalism still, IMO...

and as for the aristocracy ruling the democracy, isn't that what happened in most European and even the USA until like the late 1800s in some cases? I would say that puts the Romans a bit ahead of their time...
My point was that they were not the positive force you were saying they were.

And I was merely forming an analogy to state my point about the USA, I don't see the need in taking this any further since it is only a matter of opinion...

Fine. Another thread perhaps?

I wouldn't like it either if my own country's ruler called my entire family traitors for no reason and had them thrown into a dungeon or something...Stalemate I'm afraid

You'd prefer to be killed by insurgents? I'm not claiming either is better, just pointing out that neither situation is particularly good.

Again, if that leader is already murdering his own people at his whim, being a total paranoid calling everyone a traitor until there's no one left TO betray him, what on earth has that country got to lose? The only reason why people get blown up by the hundreds there nowadays is because some radical f***s think it's fun blowing up civilians or patrols on guard, or their own country's policemen...And whenever the US tries to retaliate, they'll hide behind dozens of innocent women and children...
So in effect what has changed?

The country is more disorganised and there are no benefits living there any more - as far as I can see that is all that has changed...

There is also a certain degree of professional bias in this, I should point out, though...

Just curious, but how so? Are you an anthropologist? Archeologist? Historian?

Also, how are you going to try to align the whole world up politically to bloodlessly take down the US or at least keep it in check
If those fifty-something states united into the USA, then European states can probably do the same - and are doing it through the EU, but in a slow and peaceful manner.

@DI--Have you started drinking already to celebrate the new year? :drink3:
No. No need for personal comments, either.

I must wonder just how paranoid you are after reading that screed.

Slightly. But given that America has effectively treated this country as a vassal and invaded our sovereignty several times in recent memory (the Natwest Three extradition, the Iraq invasion, the 'Yo Blair' incident all spring to mind...), I hardly think I'm being so paranoid.

Also, Scotland is still part of the UK last I checked.

I was referring to opinions voiced by GodSlayer in previous posts.

Perhaps I should ask if your problems with the US aren't derived from suspicions about "the new world".

Nope. Got no problems with Canada. Wouldn't have any problems with South America if the nations therein were more stable.

Fact is, no country ever acts with purely altruistic motives. Most people don't either, for that matter.

No, but partly altruistic ones would be nice to see.

One must wonder how one goes about overthrowing an intrusive and violent government of your peers. The Germans couldn't do it, the Hungarians and Czechs either. How many oppressed Arabs are able to dethrone their despotic rulers? Africans? Asians? These things rarely happen without some form of outside help.

Perhaps. But eventually all despots are de-throned.

Let's keep a little perspective here. Fact, if the US had the power you seem to depict, Iraq wouldn't even be an issue, just an academic footnote. Simply put, the US doesn't have the means or internal support to INVADE the rest of the world. Nor would a US government be able to continue an invasion if casualties started numbering in the 10s of 1000s, b/c the political cost at home would be too high (unless of course it were repelling an invasion of US territory).

Invade? No. But wars can be fought by other means. I call attention to Gazprom.

Like any other country, the US tries to use it's political and economic ties to influence events to it's favor. The world endured 200+ years of European meddling at various levels, propelling us toward the mess we face today.
So you're repeating all our mistakes now! Wonderful!
Now, should we ignore problems and hope they go away b/c sometimes doing nothing is preferable to taking action now? Chamberlain thought so in the 30's (as well as many others, to be fair). Does it work? No.

Mhm. Godwin!
Seriously, WWII was an entirely different kettle of fish. There, the problem was not contained or indeed particularly low-level.

Take care of the wound now or let it fester? Hmm..... Also, it's sublimely arrogant to assume that the US has no problems either.

Never did. And sometimes leaving a wound to heal naturally is better than picking at it endlessly.

Besides, as history recalls, your country invaded my country at least once (twice if one wants to count the revolution). Well, for the revolution, the 'no taxation' claim was not entirely fair, since, IIRC we were still running at a loss paying for protection for you because you p----- off the natives. But that's a discussion for another thread.

I don't remember an invasion from my own historical studies, or in fact from a quick scan of the Wikipedia history of the US...unless you refer to the Southern Theatre and defeat culminating at Yorktown?
If you don't want the airbases in your sodding country, I believe you just have to keep pushing the Labour Party to get rid of them once and for all. Good luck trying. Still, I guess it gives you at least one NY's resolution to pursue. ;)
Exactly, because (a) The Labour Party doesn't listen, and (b) your government is using us as a vassal state in this case, and so we have no authority, or you'll call in the debts of accepting the Marshall Plan or somesuch.

then European states can probably do the same - and are doing it through the EU, but in a slow and peaceful manner.
Not mentioning the unnecessary regulations and criminal bureaucracy.

Mod note: Friendly reminder to everyone - attack the argument, not the person, even when the discussion gets a bit heated. More enjoyable for everyone that way, and it keeps the thread from derailing.

Not mentioning the unnecessary regulations and criminal bureaucracy.
Check and mate I believe...

This is the first I've heard of this version. Can you name at least one case, when the world complained about America not attacking a country?
i can name 2 WW1 and WW2

Yes, Igy, but....the EU is but one corner of the world. So, should it somehow become "one", you still have to get the "second" nation on board. Strength in numbers I suppose. The world is more likely to remain fractious than unite. Also, you forget that as long as the US is strong, the EU may decide it needs the US's help on things and.......damn it just gets complicated. I don't believe you can unite the entire world against America any more than you could against the EU or PRC. All nations have their own agendas. The only thing likely to change that is a global threat that is immediate in nature (alien invasion, asteroid impact, etc...), but even then, such unity would probably disolve w/in a generation. The only ones who seem to have a plan for world unity are the so called "illumanati" (if you believe in them). Even that calls for something like 90% of humanity to be killed off in a short period of time.

i can name 2 WW1 and WW2
I was thinking something along the line of in the last 15-20 years and something that's not completely different from the Iraq situation.

Not mentioning the unnecessary regulations and criminal bureaucracy.
Unnecessary regulations? Such as? As for criminal bureaucracy, I'm thinking they borrowed a page from USA's book.

OK. How about the fact that you can be extradited without even prima faciae evidence being presented?
Is that so? I'll keep it in mind...

Mmmm...nope. Since the government is representative of the nation, it seems safe to assume that the national statistics have some implication upon the legislature.
Fair enough, but I don't really think Bush is representative of the nation, since he cheated his way into office...

Why? What's to stop him? What benefit is there in us as an independent nation/nations that wouldn't be greater as a 51st State, without most of the problems?
1) There is no practical use for Scotland or the UK to the US, we have no oil or other resources of that genre... 2) The UK is no pushover and in an alliance with NATO and the EU, the US would have the whole world against them in the end...

I fail to see the correlation. I somehow suspect he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea because even he can see that would bring everything tumbling down around him.
Exactly, plus, he needs to finish in Iraq first...Starting wars on two fronts in the world? Even Bush isn't that stupid (I hope)

I'm saying that there are cultures infinitely superior in the history of the world on which our current society could and perhaps should have been founded. There is also a certain degree of professional bias in this, I should point out, though.
Which cultures, for example? And what is you professional bias exactly?

There myths are little more than proto-Neighbours - it's all who slept with whom, and so-and-so getting revenge for the murder of their father...And if you had read them in the original, I'm not sure you'd agree. They are horrendously stale.
Fair enough, but I still think they are quite interesting and are a good insight into their culture...

And most of their buildings are almost totally ruined. It is reasonably aesthetically pleasing, but it can also be overbearing and dull, and for the most part, modern architecture is recovering from New Brutalism still, IMO...
Good point

My point was that they were not the positive force you were saying they were.
Point taken

Fine. Another thread perhaps?
Sure

You'd prefer to be killed by insurgents? I'm not claiming either is better, just pointing out that neither situation is particularly good.
Not really, that's why I called it a Stalemate, both points are equally valid, and we are entitled to our own opinions...

So in effect what has changed?

The country is more disorganised and there are no benefits living there any more - as far as I can see that is all that has changed...
There were benefits to living there before? Like what?

There were benefits to living there before? Like what?I hear the winters there are lovely.

I was thinking something along the line of in the last 15-20 years and something that's not completely different from the Iraq situation.
you could have been more specific so im sorry for missunderstading

Fair enough, but I don't really think Bush is representative of the nation, since he cheated his way into office...
Finally! Something we can agree upon. :) Unfortunately, regardless of the way he got into office, he's a representative of the US government.

i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple

To be perfectly honest from my point of view, I'm glad Saddam is gone. That's all I need to say.

i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple

I agree with that. And it's retarded... he took out his revenge on someone who's actually his enemy's enemy.

i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple
For what? If I had to pick a single reason for Bush's invasion of Iraq, I'd say it'd be war's ability to distract the public. Here in the U.S, the only thing that can drag the media's attention away from Iraq for half a second is a rich, mildly attractive white girl getting murdered and/or kidnapped; Bush can effectively do whatever the hell he wants now. And he has. In the last few years, Bush has shifted the tax burden from the corporations and "upper crust" of the country to the middle class, given subsidies to massive corporations, and basically ****ed over the country so that he and his buddies can add to their already enormous fortunes.

sadam put a contract on his dads head

sadam put a contract on his dads head
And what a successful contract it was. H.W. squashed Saddam's army (which was armed with the weapons we gave them) in the first Gulf War, and what's more, Bush is a ****ing puppet. The war in Iraq may have benefited him, however he alone couldn't have orchestrated it or started it. Billions of dollars in corporate profit on the other hand, is one hell of a not-so-personal motivator.

And what a successful contract it was.
now now no need to be a smart a**

Is that so? I'll keep it in mind...
Yep. Hence the Natwest Three row...

Fair enough, but I don't really think Bush is representative of the nation, since he cheated his way into office...

Quite possibly, although the Senate and House of Representatives can't *all* be ch- what do you mean, 'it's based on the Westminster system'?
:xp:

1) There is no practical use for Scotland or the UK to the US, we have no oil or other resources of that genre... 2) The UK is no pushover and in an alliance with NATO and the EU, the US would have the whole world against them in the end...

We have a trillion dollar economy, and I doubt the whole world would rail against the US over the taking of a country which has been damned annoying in the past, and also at one point believed itself to be the world police...

Exactly, plus, he needs to finish in Iraq first...Starting wars on two fronts in the world? Even Bush isn't that stupid (I hope)
Touch wood...

Which cultures, for example? And what is you professional bias exactly?

Pharaonic Egypt. And my bias is because I'm an Egyptologist :)

Fair enough, but I still think they are quite interesting and are a good insight into their culture...

True enough. Just don't by the E.V. Rieu translations...they're pretty dry...

Not really, that's why I called it a Stalemate, both points are equally valid, and we are entitled to our own opinions...

Oh! I see. Yes.

There were benefits to living there before? Like what?
Well, assuming the average number of casualties has remained the same, the fact that there was electricity and running water, electricity was subsidised by the state, there was stability...Admittedly small trade-offs for an amoral and evil regime, but compared to what there is now, some would argue Iraq was better off before...

For what? If I had to pick a single reason for Bush's invasion of Iraq, I'd say it'd be war's ability to distract the public. Here in the U.S, the only thing that can drag the media's attention away from Iraq for half a second is a rich, mildly attractive white girl getting murdered and/or kidnapped; Bush can effectively do whatever the hell he wants now. And he has. In the last few years, Bush has shifted the tax burden from the corporations and "upper crust" of the country to the middle class, given subsidies to massive corporations, and basically ****ed over the country so that he and his buddies can add to their already enormous fortunes.

Really? To be honest, I don't buy all of that. Bush can't do anything, at least not anymore, without getting hounded by the media. And that's how it should have been all along. The true distraction was 9/11, not Iraq. The media did not ask the tough questions before the Iraq War because the public was behind Bush after 9/11. Now that the truth is out, the media is on Bush's case no matter what he does - turning ports over to an Arab company, completely failing in Katrina's aftermath, failing to change course in Iraq, etc. And this is how it should be - the media, I think, is a much better reflection of a country's populace than the country's elected government.

The war in Iraq may have benefited him

Has it really? I don't see how it has. It has cost him a Republican Congress, his popularity, and eventually his legacy.

Really? To be honest, I don't buy all of that. Bush can't do anything, at least not anymore, without getting hounded by the media. And that's how it should have been all along. The true distraction was 9/11, not Iraq. The media did not ask the tough questions before the Iraq War because the public was behind Bush after 9/11. Now that the truth is out, the media is on Bush's case no matter what he does - turning ports over to an Arab company, completely failing in Katrina's aftermath, failing to change course in Iraq, etc. And this is how it should be - the media, I think, is a much better reflection of a country's populace than the country's elected government.
Psh. No one asks him tough questions. Or rather, they do than accept his bull**** responses that merely confuse the issue or change the subject. And, if you think that this Congress is going to be any better, you're hopes will most likely be smashed to bits. No politician here in America that would actually reform the way things are will be elected in the near future. Also, if you think that this is the way journalism should be, you should take a history course that focuses around American journalism. For many years, journalists ignored petty niceties in order to find out the truth for the American public (and to make a name for themselves), they weren't worried about being invited to a Presidential dinner or getting their next interview with a political figure because they didn't accept what they were told as absolute fact. Many people hated journalists, and for good reason - they exposed truths they did not want to hear, and were a bit rude at times. Now, it's all about nice hair, white teeth, and advertising. A good journalist should be hated and feared by politicians or anyone worried about a public scandal.


Has it really? I don't see how it has. It has cost him a Republican Congress, his popularity, and eventually his legacy.
Heh. Legacy? Popularity? Who cares? He certainly doesn't. He's nearing the end of his 2nd term in office. He and his friends have made a ****load of cash and will have to pay an ever-so-slight portion of it in taxes. He's accomplished what he most likely ran for President to get - money.

Now, it's all about nice hair, white teeth, and advertising. A good journalist should be hated and feared by politicians or anyone worried about a public scandal.

Watch Keith Olbermann's show, Countdown. It's on MSNBC every week night at eight. I try to watch it every time it's on, and it's very good. Most shows on MSNBC are pretty good - Hardball, Scarborough Country, Tucker... so I don't see what's to complain about.