That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we were also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
------------------------------ "Capitalism is currently working as intended."
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
Well, considering that Bush was appointed "president" by the supreme court, I don't really view his position just. He also definitely never did, and never will in the next month have my consesnt to be governed by him. There are millions in America who never "consented" to having Bush as president. That's deinitely a lot more than the amount of people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that America is not a legitimate republic?
------------------------------ "Capitalism is currently working as intended."
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
Well, considering that Bush was appointed "president" by the supreme court, I don't really view his position just. He also definitely never did, and never will in the next month have my consesnt to be governed by him. There are millions in America who never "consented" to having Bush as president. That's deinitely a lot more than the amount of people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that America is not a legitimate republic?
No, because Bush won according to our election laws and our constitution. Are YOU saying we are not a legitimate republic?
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
Not to be rude but HELLO! watch the tape. Why do you think they are,and the rest of the world, treating him this way. It's a disgrace he has brought upon us all with his horrible leadership.This is just terrible to see this happen to an American President. The really sad thing is, he was trying to do the right thing. He should have just stayed with the troops, they are the only ones that matter anyway.
The rest of the world has always treated us this way. They hated Reagan even more. How quickly people forget. People always hate their saviors. It is human nature.
They loved Clinton and respected the US before Bush. I don't think your going to get real far not admitting the truth of this. It just makes you look like someone who will say anything to argue and doesn't care about facts!
BINGO! Congrats! You hit the nail right on the head. And for that you get a cookie!
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
Well, considering that Bush was appointed "president" by the supreme court, I don't really view his position just. He also definitely never did, and never will in the next month have my consesnt to be governed by him. There are millions in America who never "consented" to having Bush as president. That's deinitely a lot more than the amount of people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that America is not a legitimate republic?
No, because Bush won according to our election laws and our constitution. Are YOU saying we are not a legitimate republic?
It is up for debate whether or not Bush use just means to obtain the office of the presidency. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussein probably didn't go against any of the laws of his nation to become a dictator.
------------------------------ "Capitalism is currently working as intended."
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
Well, considering that Bush was appointed "president" by the supreme court, I don't really view his position just. He also definitely never did, and never will in the next month have my consesnt to be governed by him. There are millions in America who never "consented" to having Bush as president. That's deinitely a lot more than the amount of people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that America is not a legitimate republic?
No, because Bush won according to our election laws and our constitution. Are YOU saying we are not a legitimate republic?
It is up for debate whether or not Bush use just means to obtain the office of the presidency. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussein probably didn't go against any of the laws of his nation to become a dictator.
He staged a violent coup and then murdered his opposition. He then instituted a reign of terror to keep any and all possible opposition down.
It is up for debate whether or not Bush use just means to obtain the office of the presidency. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussein probably didn't go against any of the laws of his nation to become a dictator.
So the declaration of independence used in the US suddenly applies to the whole world? We should throw our own constitutions away world. America has decided on our constitutional rights!!!!!!!
Oh and somehow the argument that the good US invaded Evil Iraq to save its citizens from tyranny reminds me the Catholic churches argument of saving the unbelievers from certain hell and torment so the priests got to torture, enslave etc to do what's right. Funny how double standarts work sometimes huh?
p.s. when thrwoing something to a politician it is always better to throw yogurts or eggs, they look better on camera
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Then the morals of USA is near rock bottom then? No other nations has supported dicatorships financially and with military needs, installed dictators aswells.
No other country has as many military bases around the world to secure their intrests by force or sanctions, not moral intrests but financial and political.
/rant on Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers. Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash. Why must america help everyone else but themselves? The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
In the end the USA is the world police, the USA wants all countries to be like them even if they want it or not. USA knows whats best for everyone and anyone who opposes is labeled a terrorist. Spread freedom through force while the freedoms and foundation inside the USA continue to crumble. Be like the USA in idea but not like the USA in reality.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
I can't wait for the day when the U.S. roars a resounding "NO!" when apporached for help by all the hypocritical countries complaining about our "atrocities" when those hypocritical countires are in dire need. Of course you will criticize us for not helping, but then again you would still criticize us even if we did help.
So the declaration of independence used in the US suddenly applies to the whole world? We should throw our own constitutions away world. America has decided on our constitutional rights!!!!!!!
Oh and somehow the argument that the good US invaded Evil Iraq to save its citizens from tyranny reminds me the Catholic churches argument of saving the unbelievers from certain hell and torment so the priests got to torture, enslave etc to do what's right. Funny how double standarts work sometimes huh?
p.s. when thrwoing something to a politician it is always better to throw yogurts or eggs, they look better on camera
No, I asked the person with whom I was discussing the issues if they believed in the principles contained within the declaration of independence -- that the purpose of government is to secure human rights, and that the just powers of a just government comew from the consent of the governed.
These are either universal ideas or they are not. If you don't believe they are, fine. I do.
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
Well, considering that Bush was appointed "president" by the supreme court, I don't really view his position just. He also definitely never did, and never will in the next month have my consesnt to be governed by him. There are millions in America who never "consented" to having Bush as president. That's deinitely a lot more than the amount of people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that America is not a legitimate republic?
No, because Bush won according to our election laws and our constitution. Are YOU saying we are not a legitimate republic?
It is up for debate whether or not Bush use just means to obtain the office of the presidency. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussein probably didn't go against any of the laws of his nation to become a dictator.
He staged a violent coup and then murdered his opposition. He then instituted a reign of terror to keep any and all possible opposition down.
Yes and the US supported Saddam all the way through this time. They and the the UN armed Saddam and supported his attack on irans OIL rich states. Saddam had many friends in the CIA . It was america who armed him and gave him the means to kill 1000s of Kurds in the first place.
Donald Rumsfeld was a close friend of saddams through the 80s. It`s a case of typical yank double standards just like they supported the pakistan leader and just like they support isreal.
Here is donald meeting suddam at the start of the special relationship. Look how quick they hanged saddam,it was because he knew to much.
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Then the morals of USA is near rock bottom then? No other nations has supported dicatorships financially and with military needs, installed dictators aswells.
No other country has as many military bases around the world to secure their intrests by force or sanctions, not moral intrests but financial and political.
So don't spout the white knight BS.
Actually many nations have supported dictators, and I am always against it. I have been for over twenty years. The US was wrong to do so, and is wrong where we are doing so. It's time we got on the right side of these issues every time, and became consistent advocates of liberty.
The majority of citizens believe gay marriage should be banned and it is democracy. The will of the people shall be done. The majority of people believe the war is pointless and should be ended.....well people are ignorant and it should be left to the government.
The guy is a tool. I'm going to do my best to just ignore him.
You must be talking about some other Fishermage, since I have been a consistent supporter of gay marriage -- in fact, I'll perform the ceremony. Right and/or wrong are not determined by majority. I make up my own mind and so should you.
/rant on Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers. Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash. Why must america help everyone else but themselves? The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
/rant on Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers. Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash. Why must america help everyone else but themselves? The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
If this guy would have throw this shoe during the Suddam days he would have been to into a meat grinder feet first.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
I just can't understand how people can even try and make the case that a guy like Saddam was a legitimate leader, or that getting rid of a thug like Saddam is morally wrong.
I can certainly understand feeling that it may not be PRUDENT to get involved in such things, but not the morality of it.
Comments
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Country: a political state or nation or its territory. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Country)
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we were also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
------------------------------
"Capitalism is currently working as intended."
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Country: a political state or nation or its territory. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Country)
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Country: a political state or nation or its territory. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Country)
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
Well, considering that Bush was appointed "president" by the supreme court, I don't really view his position just. He also definitely never did, and never will in the next month have my consesnt to be governed by him. There are millions in America who never "consented" to having Bush as president. That's deinitely a lot more than the amount of people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that America is not a legitimate republic?
------------------------------
"Capitalism is currently working as intended."
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Country: a political state or nation or its territory. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Country)
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
Well, considering that Bush was appointed "president" by the supreme court, I don't really view his position just. He also definitely never did, and never will in the next month have my consesnt to be governed by him. There are millions in America who never "consented" to having Bush as president. That's deinitely a lot more than the amount of people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that America is not a legitimate republic?
No, because Bush won according to our election laws and our constitution. Are YOU saying we are not a legitimate republic?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
Not to be rude but HELLO! watch the tape. Why do you think they are,and the rest of the world, treating him this way. It's a disgrace he has brought upon us all with his horrible leadership.This is just terrible to see this happen to an American President. The really sad thing is, he was trying to do the right thing. He should have just stayed with the troops, they are the only ones that matter anyway.
The rest of the world has always treated us this way. They hated Reagan even more. How quickly people forget. People always hate their saviors. It is human nature.
They loved Clinton and respected the US before Bush. I don't think your going to get real far not admitting the truth of this. It just makes you look like someone who will say anything to argue and doesn't care about facts!
BINGO! Congrats! You hit the nail right on the head. And for that you get a cookie!
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Country: a political state or nation or its territory. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Country)
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
Well, considering that Bush was appointed "president" by the supreme court, I don't really view his position just. He also definitely never did, and never will in the next month have my consesnt to be governed by him. There are millions in America who never "consented" to having Bush as president. That's deinitely a lot more than the amount of people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that America is not a legitimate republic?
No, because Bush won according to our election laws and our constitution. Are YOU saying we are not a legitimate republic?
It is up for debate whether or not Bush use just means to obtain the office of the presidency. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussein probably didn't go against any of the laws of his nation to become a dictator.
------------------------------
"Capitalism is currently working as intended."
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Country: a political state or nation or its territory. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Country)
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
Well, considering that Bush was appointed "president" by the supreme court, I don't really view his position just. He also definitely never did, and never will in the next month have my consesnt to be governed by him. There are millions in America who never "consented" to having Bush as president. That's deinitely a lot more than the amount of people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that America is not a legitimate republic?
No, because Bush won according to our election laws and our constitution. Are YOU saying we are not a legitimate republic?
It is up for debate whether or not Bush use just means to obtain the office of the presidency. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussein probably didn't go against any of the laws of his nation to become a dictator.
He staged a violent coup and then murdered his opposition. He then instituted a reign of terror to keep any and all possible opposition down.
fishermage.blogspot.com
It is up for debate whether or not Bush use just means to obtain the office of the presidency. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussein probably didn't go against any of the laws of his nation to become a dictator.
Lol
If that would have been Clinton he would have never ducked in time.Now i need to be reminded what Christmas is all about,off to the mall i go.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
So the declaration of independence used in the US suddenly applies to the whole world? We should throw our own constitutions away world. America has decided on our constitutional rights!!!!!!!
Oh and somehow the argument that the good US invaded Evil Iraq to save its citizens from tyranny reminds me the Catholic churches argument of saving the unbelievers from certain hell and torment so the priests got to torture, enslave etc to do what's right. Funny how double standarts work sometimes huh?
p.s. when thrwoing something to a politician it is always better to throw yogurts or eggs, they look better on camera
Wow, I didn't thhink Bush could dodge shoes like that.
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Then the morals of USA is near rock bottom then? No other nations has supported dicatorships financially and with military needs, installed dictators aswells.
No other country has as many military bases around the world to secure their intrests by force or sanctions, not moral intrests but financial and political.
So don't spout the white knight BS.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
Bush deserves the shoes, everyone knows that even himself and thats why he did joking about it
/rant on
Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers.
Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash.
Why must america help everyone else but themselves?
The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
PLaying: EvE, Ryzom
Waiting For: Earthrise, Perpetuum
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
Gotta love Fishermage and his hypocrisy.
The majority of citizens believe gay marriage should be banned and it is democracy. The will of the people shall be done.
The majority of people believe the war is pointless and should be ended.....well people are ignorant and it should be left to the government.
The guy is a tool. I'm going to do my best to just ignore him.
The Official God FAQ
In the end the USA is the world police, the USA wants all countries to be like them even if they want it or not. USA knows whats best for everyone and anyone who opposes is labeled a terrorist. Spread freedom through force while the freedoms and foundation inside the USA continue to crumble. Be like the USA in idea but not like the USA in reality.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
I can't wait for the day when the U.S. roars a resounding "NO!" when apporached for help by all the hypocritical countries complaining about our "atrocities" when those hypocritical countires are in dire need. Of course you will criticize us for not helping, but then again you would still criticize us even if we did help.
No, I asked the person with whom I was discussing the issues if they believed in the principles contained within the declaration of independence -- that the purpose of government is to secure human rights, and that the just powers of a just government comew from the consent of the governed.
These are either universal ideas or they are not. If you don't believe they are, fine. I do.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
So the USSR was not a legitimate country? Italy? Spain? China? Just because a nation has a dictatorship does not mean you can disrespect its sovereignty. America, after coming out the victor after two world wars and a cold war, some how got into the habit of deciding what nations are "evil" and what nations are "free and good". We typically find it easier to call nations with dictatorships "evil". Propaganda eventually becomes very formulaic, as we have seen with this latest "war".
Who is to say what is "free" and what is not?
We are in empire in the way that we invaded another country without even declaring war, as if we had the right to do so. And we aren't out yet.
The USSR was certainly NOT a legitimate country, neither is China. Dictatorships are not evil "nations" they are people enslaved by an evil government. They aren't nations at all.
You and I are to say what is "free" and what is not. I see you don't care, so I'll be happy to make that decision for you.
We did NOT invade a country without a declared war. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of surrender from the first gulf war, thus our "invasion" was merely enforcing the terms of surrender. Sorry, no matter how one looks at it, the invasion of Iraq was easily justified.
We aren't out of germany yet either. Are they also part of our empire?
Country: a political state or nation or its territory. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Country)
Countries with dictatorships are political states.
Therefore, a dictatorship is a legitimate country.
That says nothing about legitimacy. You don't agree with the declaration of independence?
The Declaration of Independence says nothing about the legitimacy of dictatorships or tyrannic rulers. It says that when the people who are being governed see that their rights are being infringed upon, when they no longer consent to this government, it is the right of those people to rebel against that said government and restore one that serves the people. It does not however, justify the use of military force by other nations to remove a person of power and occupy the territory of that nation. If America wants to fight dictatorships in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, then it should be done through the use of psychological warfare, and getting the people of that nation to fight against their oppressive government. Otherwise all we are doing is just committing military coups.
Actually the Declaration says very clearly what makes a nation legitimate and not legitimate. Their just powers are derived from the people. Are you saying that Saddam had such "just powers?"
So France was wrong to help us? We could not have won without them. We helped the Iraqi people overthrow their oppressive leader. We helped them establish a constitutional democracy for the first time in their history. Now that we have done so, we are leaving. That is perfectly in line with everything the declaration of independence calls for.
Are you claiming that saddam ruled by consent of the governed? What about the Shiites that rose up against him, all murdered by him? What about the Kurds? What about the exiled Iraqis who begged the world for help? None of them matter?
The French only allied with us because we are also fighting England. Did you forget that France was still under the rule of a king? The Declaration clearly states that it is the right and duty of the PEOPLE who are being GOVERNED to overthrow a government that does not have its powers through just means. It does not clearly state anywhere what types of governments are legitimate and which are not, and it does not clearly state anywhere that it is justifiable for nations to invade other nations. We used military force to remove a head of state from power- and that is unarguable.
The reasons the French aided us has nothing to do with the moral justification of it. Are you saying they were WRONG to help us?
Are you saying that saying what a JUST government is does not say what an UNJUST government is? What is the difference between the word "Unjust" and "illegitimate?" What is the difference between "just" powers and "legitimate" ones? Are you saying that "just" powers are derived from the people, but "legitimate" ones are derived from somewhere else?
How does the meaning of those words differ to you?
Before we get to invasions, please, I am trying to understand why you think the word "legitimate" and "unjust" are different? How do they differ?
Well, considering that Bush was appointed "president" by the supreme court, I don't really view his position just. He also definitely never did, and never will in the next month have my consesnt to be governed by him. There are millions in America who never "consented" to having Bush as president. That's deinitely a lot more than the amount of people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that America is not a legitimate republic?
No, because Bush won according to our election laws and our constitution. Are YOU saying we are not a legitimate republic?
It is up for debate whether or not Bush use just means to obtain the office of the presidency. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussein probably didn't go against any of the laws of his nation to become a dictator.
He staged a violent coup and then murdered his opposition. He then instituted a reign of terror to keep any and all possible opposition down.
Yes and the US supported Saddam all the way through this time. They and the the UN armed Saddam and supported his attack on irans OIL rich states. Saddam had many friends in the CIA . It was america who armed him and gave him the means to kill 1000s of Kurds in the first place.
Donald Rumsfeld was a close friend of saddams through the 80s. It`s a case of typical yank double standards just like they supported the pakistan leader and just like they support isreal.
Here is donald meeting suddam at the start of the special relationship. Look how quick they hanged saddam,it was because he knew to much.
uk.youtube.com/watch
SO we should continue the policy of aiding dictators?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
I don`t recall any iraqi asking to be saved, do you? You were not invited,you invaded,that`s not the same as asking to be saved. Are you really that deluded to think that the majority of people in that country don`t feel the same way as that reporter.
I know, you are going to write a big story on why it was right to go to war and what you have done for the country.. blah blah blah.
Actually, exiled Iraqis fleeing from Saddam begged the international community for decades for us to save their country. the people INSIDE the country were not so free to speak.
It goes without saying that it was the right thing to do -- no need for a big story.
Does it go without saying? sorry but millions disagree with you. You might think it was the right thing to do ,especially being the invading force but many millions don`t agree with you.
It is always the right thing to remove a dictator from power. Please show me any evidence that millions thing it was the WRONG thing to do, morally speaking. I have never seen a poll that says that.
First, to set the record straight: I am extremely pro-democracy. I believe in it more than anything else.
But I know morally speaking that it is not okay to invade other countires because they have a different political system than you. America has no right whatsoever to "spread democracy" or "remove dictators". Almost all of Europe and its population believe that America way overstepped its boundaries and that we are a disgusting, expansionist empire.
Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.
All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.
Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Then the morals of USA is near rock bottom then? No other nations has supported dicatorships financially and with military needs, installed dictators aswells.
No other country has as many military bases around the world to secure their intrests by force or sanctions, not moral intrests but financial and political.
So don't spout the white knight BS.
Actually many nations have supported dictators, and I am always against it. I have been for over twenty years. The US was wrong to do so, and is wrong where we are doing so. It's time we got on the right side of these issues every time, and became consistent advocates of liberty.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You must be talking about some other Fishermage, since I have been a consistent supporter of gay marriage -- in fact, I'll perform the ceremony. Right and/or wrong are not determined by majority. I make up my own mind and so should you.
fishermage.blogspot.com
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
fishermage.blogspot.com
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
If this guy would have throw this shoe during the Suddam days he would have been to into a meat grinder feet first.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
I just can't understand how people can even try and make the case that a guy like Saddam was a legitimate leader, or that getting rid of a thug like Saddam is morally wrong.
I can certainly understand feeling that it may not be PRUDENT to get involved in such things, but not the morality of it.
fishermage.blogspot.com