....but just how did Saddam attacking Kuwait give us an excuse to oust him? How did his invasion of Kuwait become an attack on the USA and Britain?? I would have thought that if anyone should have been attacked for 9/11 it should have been Saudi Arabia...I mean...that where the majority of them came from. If America and Britain want to attack Afghanistan because they are breeding terrorists then they should be honest enough to give that as the reason, not make up some crap story. Should we interfere in the politics of another country though? We'd be pretty pissed off if another country started telling us how to run our countries and electing our leaders for us. ...and who would we replace the tyrants with....American puppets??
Translation : HOW THERE YOU SUGGEST THE DEATH OF MY BELOVED MUJAHEDINDS . You will burn in hell you immoral ,unclean pig dog . Islam will rule the WORLD !!!! Alahu Kaboom .
You agree MOST of the populace doesn't want to live under tyranny and they can't help themselves without many being killed. Let's imagine the government knew that and are sitting back waiting for an opportunity to help. We (westerners) needed Kuwaiti oil. Saddam would have taken it. Saddam threatened Bush Snr. Bush jnr was in power when we invaded Afghanistan. I submit Bush would have to have harboured the threat against his father, and would have researched Iraq moreseo, if only to asses the threat against his dad (as you would), but whether selective blindness led him to think of Iraq again or he really believed Saddam was a danger I don't claim to know. Bush probably genuinely believed he could free the people. He probably also believed, with the power of the combined forces it would be easy and over much quicker. Personally I was against Iraq from the beginning and absolutely hate the way it was done and what's been left for them to sort out themselves, however I don't think the government knew that would be the result (even though many, many warnings were given). Once Bush gave his ultimatum on WMD then it was par for the course from there and things were set in motion. Agreed, though the Taliban threat in Afghanistan was widely reported. Well they did as far as westerners were concerned. We were openly told Bin Laden trained his men there and other militants were allowed free reign, and government assistance. That's breeding terrorists if it's anything. I presume that's why we're building a huge arsenal. This is the right way to live and most of us will fight to keep it that way. Most of them want to move here, not the other way around. Replace hidden and corrupt leaders with open and transparent leaders. I don't think we would care if the people vote for Muslims, Sharia, Brotherhood, etc. as long as it's the people making the decision by open vote, we're just as happy to live & let live, but we do care when they're forcing their population to live like dogs and taking away their power. If we're supposed to be dragging these people out of misery then isn't it only fair we must also ensure elections are free and fair, for the benefit of said populace we're saving?
I wouldn't disagree but I still don't think that invading a country and implementing our idea of democracy is the answer though....but how the hell do we help without interfering too much?? Sanctions against the regime only hurt the people so that's out. I suppose we have to look at what South Africa achieved ...and M.L. King in the States. Once there was a people's resistance in the country and they requested assistance to overthrow a tyrannous government, I suppose it would be easier to help. Call me a cynic but I see that as more the reason we invaded than any genuine concern for the people of Kuwait. Nah! I don't believe it for one minute.There are plenty of tyrannous governments around the world and America and Britain are not concerned with invading and 'freeing the people'. They have no interest in bringing 'democracy' and freedom to China, Korea or half a dozen other countries around the world. Kuwait and Iraq was about one thing and one thing only and we all now what that was. ...but would they??? Or would they replace them with American and British 'yes men' who are more concerned in doing what the West tell them to do than doing what is best for the people. Yep! My problem is that desire to help and bring democracy and freedom appears to be restricted to countries that have oil reserves. We seem unconcerned with the populations of China, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Swaziland living like dogs under oppressive regimes. Of course.
You would think so but look at Syria. Blowing up Assad 6 months ago would have been so much easier. There's that much BS flying around from ALL sides it's hard to know what to believe or what we should do. Looking at the mess in Iraq it's hard to support another invasion knowing we walk away leaving who's left to battle it out. Is this where we say well we got rid of the leader so fight it out between yourselves now or do we stick it out, get rid of most of the radicals for them and try to make peace between themselves every step of the way? Agreed, it appears oil would have been a major factor. Oil is a very important commodity, the world stops without it. Not one of us western countries can afford oil to stop, nor could we risk future supplies. We slightly cough and we get a GFC. Oil products are required by almost every business, if not all. Allies had a deal with Kuwait and was simply protecting their continued supply, as already contracted. With respect, I think USA was shocked by the attack and wanted the culprit behind numerous bombings caught at all costs. They asked for Bin Laden & Afghanistan wouldn't hand him over. There's a perfect reason to clear out any more threats from Afghanistan. Probably because the other countries you mention seem no real threat to us. Radical Islam has been a problem for the western world for a long, long time and will continue until they stop it altogether imho. It may take another 100 years but you need to start somewhere. Sad to say I've a feeling our worst 'yes' man would be better than their best 'yes' man, for the good of the populace. I see their majority populace as being children in a grown ups world and that most children sometimes need firm guidance whilst they're growing. Calling an immediate election is impossible if nobody knows how to vote. Even if they start afresh with a puppet, spend a couple of years teaching people how to vote, make voting compulsory (as it is here in Australia) so everyone gets a say. The way I see it the people themselves do not need (or probably want) a leader after what they've been through in the past but somebody has to run government affairs properly to help kick them ahead. I'm a believer in "once you own stuff you like you don't want to lose it so you tend to become a nicer (more well behaved) citizen to stay out of trouble". If our 'experienced puppet' was overseeing the best and brightest future turning the uneducated into educated whilst creating 'stuff' for the population to flourish then I would say go for that option. I'll have door number one thanks Howie! There's plenty of other resources there they can flog off to build new cities and rebuild the old, as long as they get proper directions. The problem of corruption is every where and that's why I fully support transparency in all governments (even ours). We might not stop corruption altogether but with a good accountant in place we'll have a good go at tracking it. I think as long as their leaders go to a uncorrupted election on a regular basis, 3 to 4 years at a time seems fine to me. It won't be that long, on a wider scale, before people know how to vote and they vote on who they want to lead them themselves. If the population protests to the point it needs a resistance, as in Syria, then the leader / government must be made to call an election immediately, or run the risk of us arming the populace imho. Whilst I can understand the sentiment it's the Middle East / Radical Islam who are against our way of life blowing up western embassies and flying planes into buildings on American soil that created the need to stop that. The other countries have not proven to be direct threats. We don't really go jumping country to country unless given good reasons, at least that's what everyone's supposed to believe.
Well...I think that if we have put our oar in the water, we have to go all the way, stick it out to the bitter end. My dilemma is....I think we should help if we are asked but I just don't want to see the USA and Britain becoming the 'policemen of the world'. we can't bloody afford it for one thing and second, I think that most of the terrorist attacks we suffer is because we are seen to be meddling in affairs that the terrorist consider to be none of our business.
Do you know that most of dictatorships in the world are controlled by the American embassy in that country? Who do you think pays for the military, supply them with weapons and trains their secret service to fight any democratic movements in those countries?
I didn't/don't know who controls things but at the moment they're not doing a good job of keeping the peace whoever it is. At some point even Bin Laden was on US payroll. What do you mean by we 'fight any democratic movements in those countries'? How does anyone fix stuff if they're all paranoid of a 'western invasion', like it was a bad thing for them? How are people stooged into believing FREEDOM is bad? We leave them to themselves and they go backwards even further as the crooked and corrupt reign free (to plot against the evil USA). Well their people do (go backwards). The leaders are all over here, jetsetting around the world, dining on the finest foods, staying at the finest hotels, enjoying quasi-western life to the utmost degree. Not that I think their leaders are silly, just corrupt as all-f*ck. Do you think the US is justified to at least try something to solve the problem of radical Islam?
You have no idea what you are talking about. The problem in South America, Afria and Asia since after the WWII has been the fact that their young people are more educated and involved in politics than their western counterpart. The problem is not that they hate democracy, the problem is that they want democracy and change and many of them are ready to die for it. Who are they fighting? Corrupt governments that are stealing from them and are controlled by U.S. Embassy in their country.
Nah that's bad ! We just need to tie em up on by one let them sweat under the sun and we'll chain you up and let you smell their armpit one by one.
Eeew! now that's cruel punishment. I pictured a spanish dancer in hs red flairy outfit, his right arm up in the air and the other on his hip standing high on tippy-toes, dancing from armpit to armpit, sniff, sniff, sniff and on to the next... you're into real torture aren't you popotalk? None of this waterboarding stuff when you got smelly Taliban armpits you can use to get to the truth. It just may work.
Actually we also have come up with an extraction of that armpit juice and successfully liquified it ready to drink formula. Specially made for extreme tortures