Saddam's Execution

[Astrotoy7]

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

[Rogue Nine]

"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?

[Vaelastraz]

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".

[Darth InSidious]

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.

[The Source]

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.

[Negative Sun]

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?

[Sabretooth]

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.

[Negative Sun]

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...

[igyman]

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...

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?

[Totenkopf]

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.

 

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.

[TK-8252]

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.

[The Source]

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.

[HerbieZ]

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.

[The Source]

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.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

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?

[igyman]

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?

[Darth InSidious]

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,

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.

[RaV™]

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.

[Negative Sun]

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

 

 

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?

[Samnmax221]

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.

[igyman]

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.

[Negative Sun]

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...

[Samnmax221]

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.

[Totenkopf]

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? 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.

[Negative Sun]

Well said Totenkopf, couldn't agree more!