I did forget about that point but my point still remains. You just don't want to admit if you take down a country's government and get the hell out of dodge, it leaves a vaccum were the evil and the ruthless take over. It was convenient for you not to answer the other questions. BTW, The question was directed to someone else. :angry:
What is your deal, dude? Why do you insist that I don't want to admit anything? If I want to challenge any of your points, rest assured, I will. I hoped that would be obvious by now. But since it appears to hurt your feelings so badly, yes, you're right. If you leave suddenly after an invasion, it will wreak havoc on the population. HOWEVER, anytime you invade a foreign land, overthrow their government, and then try to force your system of government upon them, the same thing will happen regardless of when you leave. If we leave Iraq tomorrow, or in 20 years, that country is headed straight for civil war. See my post about this in the other thread. BTW, if you are directing a question to one person only, and want their feedback exclusively, I suggest sending a private message. This is, afterall, a public forum, where members are allowed and encouraged to field whatever questions they so desire. That's kind of the point.
My deal? Just saw it was convenient for you to correct me and answer one question and ignore the others. About your theory on foreign lands, we will have to agree to disagree in this situation. Yep, that happened just the way you described it because the Russians didn't help Afghanistan, they could care less whether people live or die. In respect to WWII, you were wrong, Germany, France and other European countries are democracies today for a reason, I'll even throw in Japan. They didn't go back to the way they were before the war! We and other countries have occupied countries before and it works both ways. The thing is if you better peoples lives and work with them change is possible. About directing a question, I guess you told me didn't you!
As I said, it's not about convenience, it's about caring to discuss. If I wish to refute a point you made, you know I will. Russians didn't help the Afghans? What on earth are you talking about? The Afghans drove the Russians out of their country. When did I mention WWII? Newsflash: WWII was a war of aggression, unlike 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. Additionally, it was a World war, not a war of alienation. Wasn't that you talking about apples and oranges in another thread? You want to make accurate comparisons? How about South Asia? Communism sure as hell did spread throughout the region after we got tired of getting our butts kicked. In fact, it still dominates the region today.
iraq attacked kuwait, then violated the terms of the cease fire that ended that war. it was a war of aggression. would you not have fought germany again if they didnt obey the terms of the end of the war? would have done nothing had japan signed a surrender then secretly disobeyed the terms they just agreed to? in bush's speech to the UN, he clearly speaks about the terms of the cease fire, and how it is being violated. throw out any mentions of wmd and you still have plenty of justification. you want to paint the war as about one thing, WMD, when it never was, and nobody who pays attention thought it was. read what bush said, not what the media said he said.
I know the Afghans drove them out of the country, I'm not stupid. I was trying to say that if the Russians would've been there to help the Afghans like the Americans are today and establish a government then the Taliban wouldn't have come in and took over. Quote "HOWEVER, anytime you invade a foreign land, overthrow their government, and then try to force your system of government upon them, the same thing will happen regardless of when you leave." You said anytime, I didn't, I brought up WWII to show you that "anytime" is not correct. Communism, yes, its also slowly dying a slow death, even parts of Russia today are becoming less comunist than many countries. Ok, you are going to be a smart ass and talk about apples and oranges and make news flashes? I was simply talking about your statement that anytime you leave a country you've occupied and then force a system on them the same thing will happen when you leave. In some instances you are correct and others you are wrong.
Dude, you need to get off the apples v. oranges thing. Maybe this will help. For many years the comparison of apples and oranges was thought to be impossible. Many authors use the analogy of the putative inability to compare apples and oranges as a means of scornfully reviewing the work of others. The titles of some recent publications suggest an actual comparison of apples and oranges, but the authors do not, in fact, compare these two fruits. Our laboratory has been interested in this problem for many years. We attempted numerous pilot studies (unpublished data) but had not accomplished a true comparison until now. At last, successful comparison of apples and oranges has been achieved and is the subject of this report. We investigated many different varieties of apples and oranges in pilot studies; for this study, however, red delicious apples were compared with navel oranges. The study reported herein represents a breakthrough in the comparison of apples and oranges. These two fruits appear to have many features in common, as we noted differences in only three of 15 areas. This article, certain to become the classic in the field, clearly demonstrates that apples and oranges are not only comparable; indeed they are quite similar. The admonition "Let's not compare apples with oranges" should be replaced immediately with a more appropriate expression such as "Let's not compare walnuts with elephants" or "Let's not compare tumour necrosis factor with linguini." http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1569
State of Union Address - In Bush's State of the Union address in 2003 prior to the invasion, for example, he stated "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda." Vice-President Cheney repeated this argument, and stated before the war that Saddam Hussein "has an established relationship with al-Qaeda, providing training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs." In January of this year, Cheney again said "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection and....there was an established relationship." All lies. . . As to WMD, Bush said Iraq was in violation of 16 UN resolutions during that speech. You are correct, only two dealt with WMD. However, only 3 of those 16 violations have been proven circa 2005. Iraq has never used its weapons of mass destruction except on Iran (again, with the tacit approval of the US—and arguably with its encouragement) and its own people (Kurds). It has never attacked the US nor fired upon a US citizen prior to being, itself, attacked. And those actions took place within Iraq. But the preemptive strike plan favored—championed—by the current administration (and in violation of international law as well as the UN Charter) is set so that all that is "necessary" to attack another sovereign state is the suspicion that it might at some time possibly commit attacks of military or terroristic nature. "Self-defense" stretched virtually forever. This is not what the UN was set up to do and it is this sort of unilateral action based on conjecture or simple fear that the UN and the Security Council are supposed to guard against.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: Bush sent the big bad old US army to get rid of the bad man. ( murderer, despot, hilter type ) how awful. :dis:
