hitandrun wrote:OnlyAmbrose wrote:I for one disagree with the US funding of the IRA, and just because we did in no way obligates me to believe that we shouldn't take out a dictator who is funding a terrorist organization. I honestly can't see your point there.
The USA wanted to "take out" someone who was funding a terrorist organisation. The USA funded/funds terrorist organisations, should they be taken out? My point.
Like I said, we're talking about my opinion is, and my firm opinion is that no nation should be funding terrorist organizations, including America AND including Mr. Saddam. Should America be attacked for funding the IRA? Well, to be perfectly honest I don't have a clue, I've never researched the subject. If you'd give me a few articles I'd be happy to read them. Personally, I definately would have a problem with our tax dollars going to the IRA. A big problem.
Now would it be SMART for someone to attack America for funding the IRA? Definately not. Not trying to be arrogant here, just stating the facts. Any change in THAT policy is going to come from within, and after I get a few articles on the subject I may indeed send my senator an email on the topic.
But this isn't the issue. I'm speaking for myself, not America, and certainly not for whoever is behind American tax dollars being put into a terrorist organization.
hitandrun wrote:OnlyAmbrose wrote:--> Saddam committed genocide. You can't debate the moral issue about that; all you can debate is whether or not it's our business whether or not thousands of people in Iraq are killed just because they are Kurdish.
He did, and so he had to be dealt with. However, my problem is with the way in which it has been done and the USA's arrogance in regards to world deplomacy.
If you have any alternative solutions, it would be great to hear them. It's too late at this point, but quite frankly the only practical way I can think of to remove Saddam from power was to capture him and try him for his crimes. And he wasn't about to turn himself over because we asked him to. If I remember correctly, he was quite determined not to walk right into the arms of the American Army.
Arrogance in regards to world diplomacy... well that is something we've developed over the ages and something which has pissed off Europeans since day one. But just like the precotious Monroe Doctrine back in the early 1820s/30s, there really isn't much anyone can do about it. Really, not much has changed, except that in the 1820s/30s the reason no one could do anything was because we had the British navy behind us. Now we're a bit more self-reliant when it comes to military matters to say the least. Anyways, American "arrogance" has been around since about 1770, and I don't think it's going away. Sorry.
hitandrun wrote:OnlyAmbrose wrote:--> Saddam was a threat to our country. I'm not going to go into the WMD debate, because it makes me want to tear my hair out and bash in my television screen so I never have to see the media again, so forget about that. Even without WMD, any dictator of a primarily Islamic country who harbors blatantly anti-American sentiments (and in this case has a history of open defiance toward the US, hence the Kuwait incident) is a threat to us because they can a- provide terrorist organizations with arms, intel, funding, and many other things such organizations need, and b- because he may just get powerful enough to BECOME an overt threat to us, through treaties, acquiring WMD, etc.
If Saddam was a threat to the USA because of his funding terrorists, then most of the world is a threat. The USA is a threat to Britain. Where does it end? Being Anti-American (or anti-septic) is no threat and no justification for attack. He would not have become powerful and even if he did he would not have dared facing off.
I do not regret that Saddam is now being tried for his crimes. I do regret that the USA thinks that it is in some way superior. I hope that in the future your country will mature and see it has to be part of the world system as an equal.
Honestly I find it difficult to believe that Britain would at the present be America's closest allies if we were supplying the IRA to the degree you seem to be implying. I'm seriously interested in this, lol.
In any event, I daresay Saddam was far more of a threat to America than America is at the present to Britain. I can't say for certain, but I for one feel a tad safer now that Saddam is in custody.
We've never been mature in that way, lol. Let's face it, we're about 300 years old and you guys have been around for several times that. History has, in the past, smiled on America and given us an ego. Fact of life. Maybe as the "adult nations" you guys should smile a bit to yourselves that this upstart teenager thinks he's so good.
) I do NOT connect the war in Iraq to 9/11.
do you mean anti-semetic, or im i too american to know what that means cuz here in the US, im not sure about GB, septic is the plumbing system
thought that's what i heard
