Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
It can be argued that it is better Saddam stay in power temporarily than for all countries to suddenly be allowed to attack each other without proper evidence or consultation with the United Nations. We haven't had a world war in quite a few years, and the United Nations is a big part of the reason for that.
Using Bush's logic, in fact, Iraq was probably justified in attacking Kuwait in 1990 because they might have done it to protect their best interests. After all, why should Iraq have had to prove to anyone else that they actually were threatened by Kuwait? Isn't it enough that Saddam said it, just like it's supposed to be enough that Bush says it?
Most of the people arguing against Bush aren't arguing for Saddam, they are arguing that what Bush is doing could very well cause more problems that it will solve. This is, in many cases, an argument about process more than it is an argument about Iraq specifically.
Do you believe that all countries should attack anyone they want anytime they want, without any reason that can be justified to at least a few other countries? Do you believe in anarchy and chaos, or stability in the world? Terrorism can cause instability, but so can unjustified attacks on other countries at random with no clear reasoning.
Bush was smart for framing this as "you're either with us or against us" because there are a lot of people in America stupid enough to believe it's just that simple. You either agree with Bush 100% or you agree with the terrorists, right? Anyone who takes a moment to look at the issues before chanting Bush-Bush-Bush is helping the enemy. Anyone who demands facts is the enemy. Anyone who thinks Bush is an wrong is the enemy. Anyone who thinks at all is helping the enemy. Don't think, just believe and do what you are told, or you are the enemy too.
Don't dare question anything, or you are helping the enemy. Scary stuff.
|
You at least made an intelligent post, unlike some of the other posts, so I will take the time to answer your post but not with detailed depth. I am not feeling very well and I just do not feel like going into alot of detail. While I am in favor of the continued existence of the UN it is more of a debating society than it is anything else. It has never been very useful for solving the problems of the world and the proof is in the pudding. It certainly has not been very useful in preventing a third world war. For this you can thank America and the trillions of dollars it spent over the cold war years on the "arms race", providing a Nuclear umbrella over Europe and much of Asia, for its friends and members of NATO. The US, as well as the UN, has all of the proof that it needs to overthrow Sadam. It is a no brainer. He has violated every UN resolution made against him and continues to do so. He was defeated on the field of battle and made certain agreements with the conquering Army and he has violated every one of those agreements. Any other proof of anything would just be frosting on the cake, but in fact is not needed. What other proof do you feel is needed? Pesonally I think the US has shown extreme patience with the man. He attempted to assasinate an American President. Multiple times he has called for Americans to be killed where ever they are found. We have allowed him to exist for an additional 11 years when violating every agreement he made after being defeated in one war. His forces have repeatedly lit up (targeted) and fired upon our aircraft since the existence of the two "no fly zones". He should have been overthrown a long time ago.