CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- What's next for the U.S. in Pakista

[Harrison]

Yup, my care for people on the other side of the planet over that of my own, is about nil.

I have better things to worry about than the deaths of people thousands of miles away by no actions of my own.

My empathy extends to the people that I care about, no further. They don't care about me, and I doubt they expect mine in return. Live and let live; it affects me not.

[Harrison]

And here I thought we invaded a country to steal their natural resources

Well I never once said that, sorry chief.

the idea of stealing resources was my assertion, not zanchief's~



ps, we're both right

I wasn't directing it at zanchief in particular but to the general hippie assembly we have on this board.

[Evermore]

I accept all government penis.

Also, I think we might be getting to the root of my unhealthy homosexual love of the government. It is from a deeply rooted homosexual desire to move to the US and take George Bush's cock in my mouth. and I pray that he would let me give him a reach around

FIXT and QFT


btw Chief let me ask you this: why would i trust a person or an organization that has repeatedly proven they are incompetient and cannot be trusted over and over again for 60+ years?

I have an adversion to putting body parts in sulfuric acid also, but i guess thats unhealthy too right?

[Martrae]

Where have I or anyone else on this board ever advocated forcing democracy on anyone? Obviously, that won't work. The people there have to want it.

That's what it's all been about. You invaded a country to force them to become a democracy. The complete lunacy of this has never dawned on any of you because you've been so wrapped up in your false notion of patriotism.

Lyion already answered this I think.

[Zanchief]

Lyion already answered this I think.

How about you speak for yourself.

What Lyion describe is exactly what I said in different words. You invaded a country because you didn't care for the current government. You had no cause to do it, but you went anyway because you assumed you would find justification once you got there. You did not Then you TOLD them they could vote. You said, democracy is great, you'll love it. Be sure to vote for our guy though, or we may just too this whole song and dance all over again.

[Harrison]

Attempted genocide and an assassination attempt on a previous president of ours by their intelligence branch is enough reason for me.

[Zanchief]

Attempted genocide and an assassination attempt on a previous president of ours by their intelligence branch is enough reason for me.

You better get your war boots ready then, because that's a pretty long list of countries that need your brand of democracy.

[Harrison]

I personally don't believe the general populace deserve a democracy unless it's put in place peacefully to begin with.

Blood doesn't just stop running because someone said "hey, we're a <insert political system here>"

[Martrae]

Lyion already answered this I think.

How about you speak for yourself.

What Lyion describe is exactly what I said in different words. You invaded a country because you didn't care for the current government. You had no cause to do it, but you went anyway because you assumed you would find justification once you got there. You did not Then you TOLD them they could vote. You said, democracy is great, you'll love it. Be sure to vote for our guy though, or we may just too this whole song and dance all over again.

Yes, we told them they COULD vote....not that they had to. They asked how to set it up...we showed them various ways. They voted in who they wanted in the interim and then voted again for permanent people. Lots of those have been killed because they believed in a better way of doing things. You think every single member of their parliament (or whatever they've named it) doesn't know they have a target on their back for merely running for office? You think they would have done that if they didn't believe that a different form of government was worth that risk? You honestly think anything we could have threatened them with would have been worse than what would be done to them by their own people?

[Tikker]

Attempted genocide and an assassination attempt on a previous president of ours by their intelligence branch is enough reason for me.

yeah, cause the USA has never done any of those things either~

[Lyion]

Lyion already answered this I think.

What Lyion describe is exactly what I said in different words. You invaded a country because you didn't care for the current government. You had no cause to do it, but you went anyway because you assumed you would find justification once you got there. You did not Then you TOLD them they could vote. You said, democracy is great, you'll love it. Be sure to vote for our guy though, or we may just too this whole song and dance all over again.

We're on completely different wavelengths. All of what you are saying is somewhat inaccurate.

We invaded Iraq because we felt they and their WMD programs were an imminent threat.
It has nothing to do with disliking their government. The first world countries with open media and intelligence services believed he was developing Chemical, Biological, and attempting to acquire nuclear capability. Saddam had bypassed the UN which is a corrupt and useless entity and had plenty of cash and trade.

What *possibly* is the truth of what happened is he lied regarding his capabilities in order to keep Iran at arms length. Once we deposed Hussein who was believed to be a threat, as Martrae indicated and you bizarrely insinuated was similar to what you said, then....

We didn't 'force' democracy on Iraq. We removed Hussein, since he was deemed a threat, and allowed a UN party to work with the leaders in Iraq who created and voted on their own government. It wasn't written or pushed by us. In fact, the Iraqi government is autonomous and can ask us to leave anytime.

I'd also argue Japan, Germany, South Korea, parts of Europe, and other places have worked out nicely. I'm personally for fighting tyranny within means and feel it's wise to try and support freedom in the world. If you had been alive 60 years ago, would you have opposed the Marshall plan as being expensive and counter productive, since it was?

It would've been far easier for us if we had setup Chalabi or another strongman dictator in Iraq with Pro US ties a la Musharraf, tucked tail and ran, and that would've fixed a bad situation simply and cheaply. That indeed might still happen. However, if the Iraq transformation completes itself into a democracy and the other seeds of freedom planted in the Middle East grow it has the potential to change a volatile region into a somewhat stable one.

The good news is Iraq is stabilizing and improving, although I'd wager the CBC won't tell you the surge Petraeus implemented has done remarkable things. Hopefully by the end of this year Iraq will be self sustaining itself from a security point of view and we'll be able to remove the vast majority of our troops. Afghanistan is in far worse state, since the bulk of NATO who offered to help has done little to support us, outside of the UK and Canada.

[Ganzo]

And here I thought we invaded a country to steal their natural resources

Well I never once said that, sorry chief.

But if you truly think that resources are worth the lives of millions of foreign soldiers and thousands of American ones, I think you might just be sticking pretty closely to that new years resolution.

Well it is a nice way to get what you want, while solving overpopulation or poor people at the same time.

[Zanchief]

We're on completely different wavelengths. All of what you are saying is somewhat inaccurate.

We invaded Iraq because we felt they and their WMD programs were an imminent threat.
It has nothing to do with disliking their government. The first world countries with open media and intelligence services believed he was developing Chemical, Biological, and attempting to acquire nuclear capability. Saddam had bypassed the UN which is a corrupt and useless entity and had plenty of cash and trade.

What *possibly* is the truth of what happened is he lied regarding his capabilities in order to keep Iran at arms length. Once we deposed Hussein who was believed to be a threat, as Martrae indicated and you bizarrely insinuated was similar to what you said, then....

We didn't 'force' democracy on Iraq. We removed Hussein, since he was deemed a threat, and allowed a UN party to work with the leaders in Iraq who created and voted on their own government. It wasn't written or pushed by us. In fact, the Iraqi government is autonomous and can ask us to leave anytime.

I'd also argue Japan, Germany, South Korea, parts of Europe, and other places have worked out nicely. I'm personally for fighting tyranny within means and feel it's wise to try and support freedom in the world. If you had been alive 60 years ago, would you have opposed the Marshall plan as being expensive and counter productive, since it was?

It would've been far easier for us if we had setup Chalabi or another strongman dictator in Iraq with Pro US ties a la Musharraf, tucked tail and ran, and that would've fixed a bad situation simply and cheaply. That indeed might still happen. However, if the Iraq transformation completes itself into a democracy and the other seeds of freedom planted in the Middle East grow it has the potential to change a volatile region into a somewhat stable one.

The good news is Iraq is stabilizing and improving, although I'd wager the CBC won't tell you the surge Petraeus implemented has done remarkable things. Hopefully by the end of this year Iraq will be self sustaining itself from a security point of view and we'll be able to remove the vast majority of our troops. Afghanistan is in far worse state, since the bulk of NATO who offered to help has done little to support us, outside of the UK and Canada.

It's shocking how you can't even grasp what is clear to anyone who follows the news. You didn't give them the choice of democracy. They didn't chose it for themselves. You invaded, then told them to vote. That ain't democracy where I come from.

Plus how is it you can condemn the UN for being a corrupt organization in one sentence then praise them for setting up the government in Iraq in the next? How can you use the UN resolution as a justification to invade a country, then ignore the very same international body when they tell you not attack?

You're just a pile of contradiction, Lyion. I'd wager it comes from years of double talk and backpedaling. Had you just been on my side all along you wouldn't have to do any. I've never had to change my position one iota. Can you say the same?

[Lyion]

Yes, we did change Iraq to a non dictatorship. As I said before, it would've been cheaper and easier to just institute a pro America Saddam 2.0, leave the country as is, and depart, allowing for the next wholesale slaughter of Kurds and another non free country. We chose not to.

I'm glad they are no longer under a dictatorship, and happy they allowed their people to vote on their own government, which they did en masse. Most of America didn't originally choose a democracy, but I'm certainly glad we have one.

In regards to the UN, they are a corrupt institution, mainly due to the setup and the de facto power held by the Security Council. Each nation in the security council is after it's own interests, us included. However, when a broad spectrum of non-NATO countries help Iraq form and create it's government with it's own people, it should be difficult even for you to complain about how it's us forcing it on them.

I haven't changed my positions at all, and it's pretty easy to see where they are. I agree you haven't changed yours, but I fail to see some of your points, but perhaps I'm misreading them.

We disagreed before. We still do. Regardless, Iraq right now is much closer to a free, stable regime today than it was before, and I hope next year it's security will mostly be in it's own hands.