We must strike against N. Korea

[MaggieMae]

You fucking bet.

Holy Shite, you guys must have REALLY hated the way we did Iraq. Notice I obliterated one word...

Let me guess ... anyone to the right of you is a Republican evangelist warmonger?

FTR, and you can feel free to fire up that little search engine and go back and find where my story has been consistent from the beginning ....

I did not agree with invading Iraq. However, something DID need to be done about Saddam. And no, the sanctions were NOT working on anyone but the Iraqi people.

I do not agree with invading nor attacking N Korea. However, something need to done about Kim Jung Il. Test or no, if he's aiming a missile at one of the United States, or any nation we have mutual defense agreements with, we have the right to shoot it down.

As long as this little piece of human garbage is getting away with this crap, he's going to continue, and he's going to keep pushing more and more each time until someone DOES do something.

Satire is always wasted on you. That said, I agree with everything else you said. Surprise surprise...

 

[MaggieMae]

You mean like all the Democrats and Leftists who voted for the war and then used it against Bush?

"Used" it?? They were simply saying after the fact SHOW US. No wmd, no welcome signs, no flower strewn streets paved with gold, no oil revenues to pay for it.

Well, for all your listed reasons, only one is but one of the reasons we invaded Iraq. At the time of the invasion, there was "show us." You might want to go take another look at votes.

Anyone who thought for a second Arabs would have out welcome signs and flowers for a people they have been brainwashed to hate from birth, not to mention foreigners on Arab land, should keep his/her trap shut as that person is too ignorant to participate in such a discussion.

What oil revenues to pay for it? By the time the left got finished accusing us of being there to steal the oil, Bush didn't dare touch a drop of it.

That's not what I meant. Wolfowitz promised at the outset that Iraq would pay back the U.S. for our investment in kicking out Saddam and do it by increased oil revenues, which prior thereto had been going into Saddam's pocket.

As for the Dem lawmakers who voted for the invasion, and my use of the words "show us," seems once the war started going badly, it was the Dems ONLY who stood up and said it was a mistake. Some, not all, admitted they should not have rushed into signing the resolution.

 

[Meister]

"Used" it?? They were simply saying after the fact SHOW US. No wmd, no welcome signs, no flower strewn streets paved with gold, no oil revenues to pay for it.

Well, for all your listed reasons, only one is but one of the reasons we invaded Iraq. At the time of the invasion, there was "show us." You might want to go take another look at votes.

Anyone who thought for a second Arabs would have out welcome signs and flowers for a people they have been brainwashed to hate from birth, not to mention foreigners on Arab land, should keep his/her trap shut as that person is too ignorant to participate in such a discussion.

What oil revenues to pay for it? By the time the left got finished accusing us of being there to steal the oil, Bush didn't dare touch a drop of it.

That's not what I meant. Wolfowitz promised at the outset that Iraq would pay back the U.S. for our investment in kicking out Saddam and do it by increased oil revenues, which prior thereto had been going into Saddam's pocket.

As for the Dem lawmakers who voted for the invasion, and my use of the words "show us," seems once the war started going badly, it was the Dems ONLY who stood up and said it was a mistake. Some, not all, admitted they should not have rushed into signing the resolution.

They didn't have the balls to back up what they voted for. It wasn't a mistake until the polls showed that it wasn't a popular war. THEN it was damage control all the way. Look at Hillary....by the time the election process was taking hold, everyone had forgotten that she even voted for it. Kerry's laughable "I voted for it before, I voted against it." That was a deal breaker in his election bid.
This is what is wrong with politicians these days...The job isn't about serving the people, the job is about getting re elected. Their beliefs can change with every poll that comes out. Now that's what I call goverment for this era.

 

[Gurdari]

usually the choice to not go kick in someone's door because of your 'interests' is a great start.

The police kick in lots of peoples' doors if they're stocking up on guns to rob a bank, threatening to kill their neighbors, or setting off car bombs.

Whether we should have gone in is a non-issue, We're there now, All that matters is what we do from this point forward. We smart people can see that.

Sounds like you believe the causes are divorced from the effects, or that the context and reasons for events are irrelevant. Not sure what to say about this if you really think that way - all I can offer is that I would be surprised if you actually applied that logic consitantly. We 'dumb people' care about reasons and causes of things I suppose?

But if there should be rules of war, then follow them

and when your enemy doesn't, you kill him

The rules are simple:
-We do not harm non-combatants who do not willfully assist the enemy

-We kill the enemy

-Those who surrender are to be treated as prisoners of war; if they have agreed to or otherwise follow the conditions required for protected status under international law who have agreed to as well, those laws will be adhered to. If they do not, then it is due to our good nature that they are shown any mercy

sounds pretty straightforward to me

It only sounds straightforward because you hold the gun (metaphorically). Were you on the receiving end, I doubt that would stand up. Plus, non-combatants get 'harmed' all the time, so that part is BS. That position is also illegal, technically - you cannot through out the 'rules' as we say because someone decides to defend their homeland from an invading army... maybe you should look closer at the laws that govern conflict. The same laws that the US was punished for breaking (take Nicaragua for example) and then proceeeded to disregard these laws (they are apparantly only to be used against 'bad guys').

Wrong last names, wrong skin color and wrong weaponry.

You're a fucking moron. America has waged no race wars since the use of the army against the natives 200 years ago- and that was lessa war than a series of horrid abuses

Should it be another nation's troops stationed all over the globe?

Has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Perhaps I was over-zealous in my choice of words. I apologize, the US has never declared a race war - true. In almost all cases those on the receiving end of our 'intervention' tend NOT to be white people (the Balkans are an exception) but that could be coincidence. Once again, I apologize for implying that US aggression was clearly racially motivated, I believe it is motivated by power and money, and it is just politically easier to kill darker skinned people in far away places than white people (I am referring to the optics of aggression here). This last part is just my reaction to racially condescending statements made by successive administrations and the numbers of white vs non-white people who've died by the our hands. Again, could be coincidence (not being sarcastic here, it could be).

 

[JBeukema]

Sounds like you believe the causes are divorced from the effects, or that the context and reasons for events are irrelevant. Not sure what to say about this if you really think that way - all I can offer is that I would be surprised if you actually applied that logic consitantly. We 'dumb people' care about reasons and causes of things I suppose?

The reality is that we are there. Arguing over whether we should have gone achieves nothing at these point. One cannot change the past, only the future. Cite where I said the cause or past doesn't matter or retract your assertions.