OK, now what do you think of a nation that would stand idly by while a much weaker nation was being terrorized by a horrible leader (such as Saddam) or another country against the tyranny of a large country (such as when Iraq invaded Kuwait)
2007-03-28 04:59:07 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Excellent question. But be warned; when you make sense the liberals can be very insulting. Thanks!!!!
2007-03-28 05:08:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't know. There are a lot of problems out there, a lot more wars to save the oppressed than I think we would want to fight. Saddam was a threat. He had a history of exporting his violence, and was in power in a vital area of the world. If the war is to be justified, I feel it should be along those lines.
He already built one atomic reactor (with the help of the French). He invaded his neighbors more than once. He made and used WMDs on his own people and other countries. He also engaged in act of terrorism, including an attempt on one of our own ex presidents lives. On top of all that, he had failed to meet the terms of surrender for the end of our last war with him, to the point of actually shooting at our aircraft as they enforced a UN mandate. I believe that there was a strong case against him, beyond his humanitarian excesses, when we attacked.
2007-03-28 12:16:36 · answer #2 · answered by Herodotus 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The same as with Sharisse Iverson a few years ago, in Primm, Nevada...charge them as accessories to a crime!
There is no comparison to that crime and thow in Darfur, rowanda and Somalia where Islamic Wahabist are killing a and raping on a daily basis Christians, women, men and babies...Just the other day Somolians were thrown overboard, their money taken if they reached land, were beaten..barely a word in the news! People don't understand that most of the UN is run by those same dictators!
2007-03-28 12:04:36 · answer #3 · answered by ShadowCat 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You neocons all seem to be trying to outdo one another in the "mind-numbingly stupid analogies" category. Yes, Saddam had a horrible human rights record. Why then did we only take notice of that and condemn it when he invaded oil-rich Kuwait? And if we're so interested in nobly protecting people from tyranny, what's the rationale for the callous indifference we've shown the people of Darfur?
http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg
2007-03-28 12:11:53 · answer #4 · answered by David 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Now, now Billie...why do you want to piss of the Americans? And I don't agree with the war one bit! We should never have gone there. But, come on Dude, I have kids serving. Get back to the funny stuff...Godloveya.
2007-03-28 17:29:54 · answer #5 · answered by Sassy OLD Broad 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a valid comparison.
One man cannot oppress millions of people unless they allow it. You can't tell me that the people of Iraq didn't have the power to stand together against Saddam. They chose not to because they are weak. That's why establishing a democracy there is not a good solution - they aren't strong enough to handle it. They'll end up with another dictator in a matter of decades, mark my words.
But since you want to make the abused woman comparison - what is the percentage of abused women who, even after someone steps in, go back to their abusive husbands/boyfriends and claim "He's not that bad"?
2007-03-28 12:04:33 · answer #6 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
You're right , we should not stand idly by while our country is being terrorized by a horrible leader ( like Bush). As for the other analogy, we let Hitler run rampant in WWII, and only got involved after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
2007-03-28 12:05:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
good point! being a black belt, i would kick the crap out of any man who puts his hands on a woman! as for the other analogy, AMERICA should have acted sooner against saddam! politics, however, is complicated, and has far more dangerous implications than a man beating up a woman! the entire world canget involved!
2007-03-28 12:05:06 · answer #8 · answered by daniel d 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I would have to give a well deserved asswhipping to the man, just like the US gave to Iraq.
2007-03-28 12:03:42 · answer #9 · answered by Big John 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Most of the world just sits idly by, I don't think we should be the only ones enforcing the "will of the world". If the will of the world is to sit idly by, we should too.
2007-03-28 12:04:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I acutually wouldn't personally get involved yet contact an authority better able to deal with the situation.
2007-03-28 12:05:16 · answer #11 · answered by smedrik 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋