Yes, I understand sovereignity far better than you can.
Sovereignity is a right of the individual. Thug dictators that deny their citizens their due sovereignity do not themselves deserve to have any recognition of sovereignity themselves.
You have only proven you have zero idea what soveriegnty means. We aren't the sovereigns of Iraq, thus we have no rightful say. Now I know you're having problems reading, I'll go slow. Not having a rightful say does not mean you can't do anything. You seem to be confused here. When I say we have no rightful say in the Iraq government, just because we did something to set the Ba'athist party up originally doesn't mean we did so through just means. It was unjust intervention on our part.
No. One guy is all I'm wasting time on. You can make your own list if you want.
No, if you're going to get Americans killed I damned well expect actual information. One guy being in a place is coincidence, you have to establish that it's being used as a hideout for a larger number than 1 else you don't get to risk the lives of Americans.
Why? I don't recall saying Hussein was exporting terrorism, merely that he harbored them.
You used plural, you only proved singular.
You mean outside of the Baathist party?
Maybe that should be a lesson to us to quit messing in other people's business. We helped that party get in charge, Saddam came out of that. That's what happens when you monkey in things we have no business monkeying in.
Abu Nidal proves terrorists were in Iraq, disproves your contention.
No, it proves 1 terrorist was in Iraq at some point, that's it. Not that there is a national policy of hiding terrorists (plural). You don't know what you're talking about.
I'm under no obligation to chase your goal posts.
Apparently you're under no obligation to provide proof before getting American soldiers killed.
Bad data justifies actions. Hindsight is always better. That's why I let the ladies through the door first.
Bad data justifies restructuring and review of policy and chain of command. Actions taken on bad data are mistakes.
Aye, you did. You said that Saddam violated UN sanction and that was a justification, but then you claim the UN is useless and we have to enforce their mandates. One way or the other, waffling to get your way isn't the intellectually honest way to make a point.
The US should be different from all the other countries trying to tear us down?
We shouldn't be involved in other people's business if it doesn't concern us. We're no different than any other sovereign state.
IMO the UN should be moved to Dubhai, under that fake ski slope of theirs, and the US should get out of the UN. Since it's there, however, we should certainly use it only when it suits us.
The UN has no real power and no sovereignty, it's a pointless organization and isn't run in any manner which could be a functioning government.
What part of national sovereignity do you not understand?
Well more than you
Temporarily. It's the nature of what happens when a government is destroyed. The destroyers become the baby-sitters.
We had no rightful reason to destroy, and now we occupy for how long? How much longer? That government we created is not going to last in the image in which we crafted it for long.
You mean we gave the Iraqis the opportunity to elect their own government, which they've done.
Under our direction and "guidance", yes. Saddam also allowed the Iraqi people to vote...voting itself doesn't indicate rightful and free government.
Temporarily and on a continually decreasing basis, as everyone knows. That's because Bush succeeded in his goal of establishing a self-sufficient Iraq, much to you people's chagrin.
Oh? We've succeeded (past tense) in establishing a self sufficient Iraq? So you're saying we can pull out in total or that you have no idea what self-sufficient means.
Nope. Not imperialist. You really need to drop your robot ROM cartridge and buy a plain old-fashioned dictionary instead.
It's half assed imperialism. We're trying to make ourselves a little state that'll do our bidding without making it seem that's what we're doing. And we're piss poor at it. Which is fine, I don't want us to be good at imperialism.
Sure. We had no business being in Iraq. That's what I said at the time. Since I'm not an immature little socialist ass-wipe, as soon as the troops were committed to battle, I stopped that line of argument and argued for clear, decisive victory using any and all means necessary.
I think you disproved the immature part. You're not socialist for sure, I'll give you that. I would put you more up the fascist branch.
Because that's what the realities of the situation demanded the real Americans do.
People that kept whining about how we shouldn't be there....aren't real Americans, they're whiny brats.
Ohhhhhh....real Americans. If you're not with us, you're against us! You want to be a real American don't you! Please appeal to emotion more; it's funny.
That's a distinction without a difference.
That's semantics. You wanted to say that I said we put in Saddam, I didn't. And that somehow saying we put in Saddam negates that we didn't have rightful cause to set up the government or leaders...which is absurd. It's just a part of a long list of the West's monkeying in the Middle East and pissing people off.
Legitimate governments do.
Not "all governments".
There's a distinction, with a difference, there.
fair enough, but it's still not our problem.
Nope, they're not both true. The logical flow you derive from this error is flawed and not relevant.
Then again, it's plain silly, anyway.
So you have nothing to add and this is all you can say. K.
Yes. Clearly you have no clue what things are like when socialists get the totalitarian power they're always demanding.
It's the same as if your kind got in charge, socialism and fascism in practice end in the same place. It's still not my problem.
Yeah?
How?
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about here, do you?
By any means possible. But if they aren't willing to stand up and die for their freedom and liberty, I don't think any American should stand up and die for their freedom and liberty. The People have got to want it first and have got to fight for it themselves, things given are easily taken. I don't want to waste American life on things which are not for American interest and liberty. Iraq and its government was none of our business nor are we charged with making it our business. It doesn't matter how bad it is until it affects the sovereignty of the United States, until that point it's not our problem and not worth American life.
Sure we do. The government that existed in Iraq wasn't legit...and you claim we created it...therefore who else should be tasked with the problem of fixing our error?
The Iraqi people are tasked with fixing the our error. Sorry, we'll try not to f' with other governments in the future, but messing with governments got us into that mess initially so keeping it up probably ain't gonna lead to a good solution. It's their government, their country, their problem. They have to do something, not us. If they start something and ask for our help, that's different than what happened. I don't see why Americans should die for the freedom of others when those others were unwilling to lay down their lives for their freedom.
Wrong. You already stated that we helped set it up.
This is where reading comprehension comes in. We have no rightful say in it, we took unjust measures and injected ourselves into the middle of it. Just because we can physically make a say doesn't mean it's a just say. We're not the governed, we have no rightful say in the style and direction of the Iraqi government. It doesn't matter if you wish to call it illegitimate. Maybe it is, but it's not our call. If the Iraqi people don't care enough to fight back, then that's their problem. They'll work with that government and be governed by that government.
The same way anyone else ever did in the history of mankind, take arms against the government. It's happened many times before by well more repressed people. They must have the resolve to do it and the fortitude to see it through. Otherwise their government they set up won't last.
Sure it was. You said it was our responsibility that it was set up, didn't you?
We interfered via unjust involvement when it wasn't our say. You really need to learn to read better...damn, are our public schools really this bad?
Try showing my comment was wrong. You just said Saddam had the support of the people, didn't you?
No, burden of proof is upon you. You made the comment, prove it. I also didn't say Saddam had the people's support, the Iraqi government had the people's consent since they did nothing to change it or overturn it.
Oh. So you're saying it's OKAY to install a political party against the supposed consent of the Iraqis, but not okay to install a political party AND it's dictator against the consent of the people who, according to you, didn't dissent, and therefore provided consent to that dictator. Since you're so busy contradicting yourself, I hope you don't get upset because I'm merely pointing those contradictions out.
you're not pointing out contradictions, you've lied about what I said, misrepresented what I've written, and tried to spin it in that manner. But that's due to your inability to comprehend the English language and your seemingly infinite penchant for intellectual dishonesty. I'm not saying it was ok to install the Ba'athist party, I'm saying that's what we did. You keep misrepresenting and lying about what I said to spin things into something you can dismiss and make hyperbole about because you have no logical, debatable refute.
Someone might otherwise miss the full depths of humor your posts represent.
I'm sure.
